Friday, 7 July 2017


Isn't it time the Vatican admitted people are going to keep having sex - whatever they say?
·         KATE SMURTHWAITE THE TELEGRAPH

Image result for gay orgy at vatican

Police, we learnt this week, were reportedly called to break up a gay orgy. Which doesn’t make sense as a headline if you hit pause on the moral outrage button and remember that the gender and number of other people having sex is neither a legal matter nor any of your God damn business.
Although, there will be many who see this particular orgy as, quite literally, a God damn business - seeing as it allegedly took place at the home of one of Pope Francis’s key advisors in the Vatican.
The apartment raided is reportedly the residence of the secretary to cardinal Francesco Coccopa­l­merio - a key aide to the 80-year-old Pope. It apparently belongs to  the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is in charge of tackling clerical sexual abuse. According to Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano, the police found drugs and a group of men engaged in sexual activity.


Image result for vatican sex
It is also that time of year when newspapers are full of recommendations for holiday reading. So here’s one from me: Nigel Cawthorne’s memorable work The Sex Lives of the Popes. An utter page turner in our house; more salacious than Jilly Cooper or Fifty Shades; and guaranteed to get you the armrest on your budget flight.
The one thing you’ll soon realise when reading it, us that gay orgies are not new to the Vatican. Over the last couple of millennia, they’ve mainly served as a refreshing change from all the straight ones. Historians now widely accept that Pope Leo X (1513-1521) was homosexual - the Romans having been perplexed as to why he didn’t bring a mistress with him when took office.
Martin Luther, who travelled to Rome, said that Pope Leo had vetoed a proposed restriction on the number of boys cardinals could keep for their pleasure: "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy."
Which all makes you wonder why the Vatican persists in having opinions on who should and shouldn't be having sex. For his part, Pope Francis has called for transsexuals and homosexuals to be accepted and embraced by the Catholic Church. “When a person [who is gay] arrives before Jesus, Jesus certainly will not say, 'Go away because you are homosexual,'" Francis said in October last year. Yet the Vatican itself maintains that, while homosexual orientation is not sinful, homosexual acts are.
Yet now, it seems, that those working and living on its very premises are doing everything it stands against. It's almost as though at the moment of scampering upstairs with our collective underwear halfway round our ankles we're just not wondering what the Vatican’s opinion is.
I’m filled with visions of a married heterosexual whacking each other with a copy of the The Sex Lives of the Popes while shouting “technically His Holiness approves of this!”. But that is the Catholic Church’s official position, as far as anyone can tell.
The fact is that people have sex and it’s about time His Holiness got used to the idea. Evolution favours the horny.
You might think given my reputation as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist (I’m actually an escaped Baptist) all this is none of my business whatsoever. But bans on safe legal abortion everywhere from Ireland to South America regularly end the lives of atheist women, too.
If your religion is forced on people against their will then it’s not religion; it’s oppression. Blessed be the fruit, as they would say in The Handmaid’s Tale.
Last year Pope Francis warned Catholics everywhere not to run away from “the needy”.

Perhaps it’s time he faced up to the fact that many of the world’s most pressing needs are for effective contraception, safe legal abortion and the acceptance of different sexual preferences - including under his own roof.

PAT SAYS:

Good article highlighting the hypocrisy of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.

They preach against gay sex and they themselves are "AT IT" morning, noon and night!

Its like a prostitute condemning prostitution.

Its much worse even than people think.

A young gay English diocesan priest told me that he was invited to a Black Mass in The Vatican on one occasion organised by the Gay Cabal there where there were FOUR CHALICES containing - wine, blood, urine and semen!


Image result for vatican black mass

And then these people condemn two gay people who marry, have one loving partner and spend a lifetime together in faithfulness and love!

There is only one word for it all - EVIL!





107 comments:

  1. About 20 years ago a spiritualist friend of mine told me they hold black mass at the Vatican. I didn't believe her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously it is a very small number of people involved

      Delete
  2. Pat you are beginning more outrageous every day. You can censor all the awkward questions and hide the reality of who you from the people who post here. But Pat you cannot hide from yourself. You will die soon and then all the pretense will be stripped away and you will stand naked before your God. There's still time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Pat knows he is a sinner in need of a saviour. He will do the same as the rest of us, throw himself on the mercy of God.

      Delete
    2. I certainly do - and I certainly will.

      Delete
  3. Disgusting article... particularly with the usual "feminist" BS at the end about "safe" abortions - deliberately ending the life of another human being can hardly be described as safe. Not to mention the young Irish woman a few years ago who bled to death in the back of a London taxi after a "safe, legal abortion".

    As a Catholic- a sinner- my moral and spiritual life is guided by the teaching of the Church, not by my fellow sinners therein. As abhorrent and disgusting as the latest revelation from the Vatican is, I'm not about to exchange my moral standard - Christ - for the deplorable standards of the likes of Kate Smurthwaite. In fact, she clearly doesn't have moral standards because, by her logic, if a person, society or institution has a moral code that it fails to live up to, the moral code itself must be abandoned. So rather than humans taking responsibility for their failings we should just throw out the moral code. I'd love to see Kate taking her own logic to its full conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What moral code guides the Vatican?

      Delete
    2. Why do you ask? You seem set in your answer to that question already.

      Pity you didn't respond to my main point about Ms Smurthwaites's lack of moral standards. Yet you laud her position - perhaps it's not so much her logic (or lack of it) that matters to you, Pat, but the fact that you are united in your disdain for what the Catholic Church teaches.

      Delete
    3. I would disagree with her on abortion.

      Delete
    4. For me, he pro-abort stance would have been reason enough not to publish the article, much less praise it.

      And what about her logic that if people fail to live up to the moral code, the moral code itself should be discarded?

      Do you agree with that?

      Delete
    5. No I think that a true and authentic moral code should stand and we should bend ourselves to it.

      But I do not believe that the whole "moral code" of Rome is true and authentic.

      People are not bound to obey bad laws.

      Also the informed conscience is superior to objective codes.

      Delete
    6. Your views on abortion are your own personal views that comes across as quite Christian fundamentalist. Your right and everyone else is wrong. You lose your argument when you put it across in an aggressive manner, rather like that Bernie Smyth convicted of harassing that female Politician Purvis. It also reminds me of the death threat issued to the female Labour MP who campaigned to allow women in N Ireland to receive free treatment in England. People who behave in this manner do their anti abortion stance no good whatsoever,

      Delete
    7. Anon09:49 - yes I do believe that the pro-life position is right and that the pro-abort position is wrong. To have a position - or in this case to believe in an objective truth - is not fundamentalist. Presumably I'm also a fundamentalist for believing that it's always wrong for a husband to beat his wife?

      And yes, I agree with you - people who send death threats to others do no good whatsoever to their positions, whatever that position might be.

      Delete
    8. Bernie Smith was NOT convicted of "harassing" the UVF woman Purvis. It was a risible accusation and thrown out of court. Get your facts straight.

      Delete
    9. Leaving aside the hard cases, which merit compassionate discussion, the routine abortion terminates what might have been an ordinary human life spanning up to a hundred years. On the other hand, a child whose Mother would seriously have considered terminating it in the womb has got off to a bad start and might not have much to look forward to, even with sustained psychotherapy and psychiatric support.

      Delete
    10. To poster 00.32

      Well said! You are quite right in what you say.
      If we personally have no steady convictions and sound moral compass then of course we are open to any flawed ideas or the vagaries of this or that journalist when they try to use the media to sway us. It happens all the time.

      Delete
    11. @ 9.49
      "You're right.." is the correct form.

      Delete
    12. Nazi Grammar troll is back again. It would sicken you're happiness.

      Delete
  4. Bishop Pat, the story of a black (or satanic) mass at the Vatican organised by a 'gay cabal' will feed into the homophobia of many: that being gay is itself not only unnatural, but evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So are you saying that Pat should suppress the truth?

      Delete
    2. Was it really necessary to mention that those involved were a 'gay cabal'? What has being gay to do with satanic service? Nothing. But in homophobic minds this 'nothing' will become, at the very least, 'something'.

      I think gay people have been pilloried enough.

      Delete
    3. Well it was a gay cabal of satanists.

      Delete
    4. Well the gay priest who told Pat the story seemed to think that it was necessary to mention that it was a "gay cabal"!

      Delete
    5. How do you know, first, that they all are gay? And second, that they form a cabal? Because Bishop Pat told you so?

      Bishop Pat chose to emphasize these allegations (to sensationalise them) through use of initial capitals in the phrase, 'Gay Cabal'. There was no grammatical ground whatever for this, so his intention could only have been to draw attention to the phrase. Why? What has being gay, for instance, to do with satanism? His use of capitals here could suggest, especially to gullible and homophobic minds, that it has indeed some such connection. And he would not need to prove his point; gullibility, and prejudicial hatred will do that for him.

      Even if they are all gay, why single out this totally irrelevant feature? Why choose this rather than some other such trait, like the fact that they all were male. Perhaps biological sex, patriarchy and satanism are more causally linked. Or age. We're they all over, say, thirty? Perhaps people of a certain age take a sudden and unexpected interest in the occult. Or shopping habit. Perhaps they all are clients of that exclusive Roman oufitters, Gammelli's.

      No; Bishop Pat singled out one (alleged) human common denominator here (being gay) and, by association, linked it with the occult, without even a sliver of evidence. It was unnecessary, and it was wrong.

      Delete
    6. Correction Magna at 13.23, the Clerical outfitters in Rome is called Gammarelli and not Gammelli's.

      Delete
    7. This black mass, where is the evidence it took place? It sounds like something straight out of a lurid anti catholic fantasy. It does indeed have all the hallmarks of an anticatholic "urban legend".

      The "Vatican" - what is it in any case? As they say "all of human life is there" - the good, the bad, the ugly, the saint and the sinner, the devout and the worldly, the careerist, the true servant of God, the cynical, the humble, the proud, the genuine priest, the insincere, the gay, the straight .........

      Magna Carta, you are right about the negative connotations in the "shock horror" approach of this particular blog towards gay people. Decent gay people would have nothing to do with a black mass.

      You yourself though, were equally guilty of demonisation of Catholic priests in previous posts in the most scathing and vicious of terms - the worst you could find. Let's hope the "new" Magna Carta is more balanced.

      Your previous behaviour resulted in a controversy on this blog for which you were mainly responsible, as the most proactive server of the most gross and offensive insults. You then attempted to play the victim. Bishop Pat's possible faux pas in highlighting the "gay cabal" aspect of this alleged black mass pales into insignificance in comparison.

      The bitterness and hatred directed against the Church on this blog emanates from a complete inability by some (Pat first of all), to think objectively and rationally (understandably in some cases, including Pat's).

      However, the true picture cannot be obscured in the lives experience of millions of Catholics whose experiences of the Church and its clergy have been good and life-enhancing.

      I am on no way blind to the Church's faults rightly highlighted through this blog; but I am also aware of the vast good in the Church and its priests.

      Fair and balanced people will utterly reject the biased and prejudiced imagery of the Church propagated on here. It is every bit as much propaganda as its opposite type which portrays the Church as faultless.

      Jesus Himself warned us of the reality of sinfulness and scandal in His Church in the Gospels.

      No amount of vile invective and bigoted hatred on this blog will shake those who know the truth of human nature, alongside the triumphs of Divine Grace, in God's Church.

      Delete
    8. 16:07, yes, some of my comments about priests were too general to be fair. And I apologise for this. But my opinion of Roman Catholic theology of priesthood WAS fair. It is corrupt and corrupting. And it has tainted everyone trained under it, including me.

      As for my 'previous behaviour', you ignore the provocation I experienced from others (perhaps even from you). Don't be quick with unilateral criticism or condemnation.

      How do you know that 'millions of Catholics' have had such good experiences of the Church and clergy?

      Delete
    9. Your opinion of the theology of priesthood is an unfair and biased opinion.

      The theology of the priesthood, properly understood and lived, does not lead to abuse but to selfless love and humble service.

      The corruption in the priesthood is the consequence of "the mystery of iniquity". Divine grace is greater than its prevalence.

      Corrupt clergy are part of the weeds the Lord said were sown among His wheat. They will come to their proper end and will not prevail.

      Listening to your "theology", one would have to conclude that the Lord did not keep His promise to be with the Church until the end of the world - that He abandoned His Church to a completely corrupt priesthood.

      This is simply untrue - a gross exaggeration on your part for entirely subjective reasons. You may see yourself as "tainted" and that is a matter for you to come to terms with. I am confident that millions of Catholics like myself have had a good experience of priests, without being blind to the sins of some. It is a question of fairness and balance as you yourself have admitted.

      As regards the "provocation" you received on this blog. Some people (not I) reacted to your over the top insults, foul language, contemptuous dismissiveness - you have only yourself to blame. It is good to see you adopting a more balanced and less belligerent attitude and approach.

      Delete
    10. No, I haven't only myself to blame, but I don't waste time arguing with people too dogmatic (a more socially acceptable way of saying 'too stupid') to behold truth. Which is why I am not going to challenge your fatuous and vapid notion of priesthood. You are living in a fantasy land of your own making; you are welcome to it.

      All the best. (You'll certainly need it.)

      Delete
    11. Likewise, Magna Carta. And for you to call anyone "dogmatic" - well clearly the irony is lost on you - so to "challenge" you, indeed, is pointless. All the best.

      Delete
  5. Pat, could you tell us more about the black mass your acquaintance was invited to? The liturgy, procedure, context in which it occurred and the number of attendees? Was it clerics letting off steam and taking the piss (as such), or did your witness claim that it was actually part of a more organised cabal who actually believed what they were doing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My understanding was that it was been taken seriously and not as a joke.

      How could priests have a black mass as a joke anyway?

      Delete
    2. Parody and the world upside down is a long established tradition in Europe, from boy bishops to carnival. The Black Mass as we popularly imagine it is a late eighteenth/nineteenth century construct and doesn't occur in texts before that period. You have the witches' sabbat but that is a fantasy of the inquisitors. It would just be interesting to know some of the details rather than just wild rumours in order to actually verify if there is a satanic cabal as such at the heart of the Vatican or rather it is pure conjecture and imagination playing upon vulgar fears. If your witness was actually present and can say what took place, what texts were used and the order of the ceremony as well as the specific location, it might add some credibility to his story. Otherwise it's no more than a urban myth if it was a friend of his friend or he actually wasn't present but heard that this happened...

      Delete
    3. A few years ago a bunch of Deacons from Maynooth were out in the Roost celebrating their ordaination. The manager asked them to leave becaude he was offended by them saying the prayees of consrcration over pints and snacks.

      Mass is a joke to many clerics.

      Delete
    4. I am remembering what one of the most sincere posters said in this blog about a week ago..
      "God is not mocked" I think we do well to remember that.

      Delete
  6. When I was in school the carrying ons of the church in the middle ages was barely touched on and even then as something in the past that the world had grown out of. It seems there has always been a connection between extreme sexual experience and the phenomenon of religion. Im surprised nobody has done a comparative study of the issue in modern times. Maybe they have and I just dont know about it. I was also taught that the reformation was wrong but time has shown that it contained the seeds of much that is good-the english bible being a case in point. As I said before what we need is a modern reformation from the ground up. It has to start with committed individuals inside and outside of church groups and denominations. However many may prefer to remain anonymous shout plenty and do nothing while some others may prefer to wait and have the work done for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you believe anything people tell you without any verifiable proof, then I have some property to sell you...

    ReplyDelete
  8. We studied medieval history at school and the nuns were very good they didn't censor it. From what I have read, in deep prayer you can feel held and touched by God. Some ignorant people interpret it as carnal. As God is pure spirit it has nothing to do with sex. Hence you get the Song of Songs which should only be interpreted by mystics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 10.04 Women can now travel to Scotland, Wales and England for free abortions. That is their right and despite all your kicking and screaming it will eventually be introduced in N. Ireland along with same sex marriage. Happy Gay Pride to everyone today. ��️‍��

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Killing babies is really progressive. Twat.

      Delete
    2. ..... And presumably commiserations to all those unfortunate little babies who were never to breathe their first breath or see the light of day.
      I am sure you are thrilled with the outcome of your efforts.
      You certainly sound as if you are.

      Delete
    3. How the nasty comments and name calling emerge from the anti abortion lobby, how very Christian of you. Keep on leading us by example. I'll be getting death threats next which is the usual norm from this lot.

      Delete
    4. Be very careful in what you wish for, 11:40. Abortion today; euthanasia tomorrow?

      Just as some now see no value in unwanted human life in the womb, the same type of person may one day see no value in a human life that is very old, physically frail, and dementia-ridden. Perhaps your life.

      Delete
    5. Not one abusive remark or death threat has been made, but do not be surprised if good people defend the unborn who cannot defend themselves. To condemn murder is one of the most Christian things we can do.

      Delete
    6. Anti abortion? Sorry you sad tosser but killing babies is simply murder. Someone like you deserves only the darkness of the void and the comforts of hell. No baby should be sentenced to death because of the evil you support. Scum.

      Delete
    7. 13.38 Calling someone a twat, sad tosser, scum and wishing them a death in hell not abusive - really? Your true colours let you and your campaign down I'm afraid and I rest my case.

      Delete
    8. Rest your case? You wish death on babies, forgive me if I find that repulsive.

      Delete
    9. @12:57, you want to see nastiness you should have been at the Pro-Life March in dublin last Saturday and the behaviour of the Pro-abort demonstrators. It was fiendish and demonic.

      Delete
    10. There are arguments on both sides of this debate, for or against. However, nobody from both sides of the debate should be subjected to verbal abuse, physical abuse or death threats. One has to listen to that odious Bernie Smyth to hear what a truly horrible person she is.

      Delete
    11. Murdering babies usually brings out the demonic in people.

      Delete
    12. People hate Bernie because she tells it like it is. God bless her.

      Delete
  10. After having spent a number of years in religous life, I now find religous faith impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @12.22

      If you can... continue to pray daily... Could you try that?
      Sincere wishes...

      Delete
    2. Hello. Thank you for your advice. Though I am finding belief hard I still read theology, actually I was just now watching a talk by Rowan Williams on St Augustine. However the experience of so called religious life has resulted, for me, in a collapse of faith. I will try praying more.

      Delete
    3. They do say that if you want to keep your faith stay away from the institutional church.

      Delete
    4. Well pray as you can not as you cant. And good wishes from me also.

      Blaise Pascal's (1623-1662) words are helpful at times like this:

      'Be of good cheer - you would not be seeking me if you had not already found me.'

      Delete
    5. 16.20 It's about finding a balance and some groups and individuals can be off the wall. I found reading some of the Wesleys stuff quite interesting. The system is useless of it does not promote a healthy personal and corporate relationship with God

      Delete
    6. Dear Friend, sit in peace and quiet in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Just sit for ten minutes. Increase the time by degrees to forty minutes. Just sit and be-surrender into time and space,- and wait in silence. All will be well!

      Delete
  11. Apparently, Pell is now on the way to Melbourne from Rome to appear in court on July 26.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pat can we go back to what is happening in the irish dioceses and Maynooth please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry. We will. But we can't do that EVERY day.

      Delete
    2. Don't worry. We will. But we can't do that EVERY day.

      Delete
    3. I should also prefer reports on Irish orgies and black masses.

      Delete
    4. The Church is worldwide in case you haven't noticed. It doesn't just exist of Irish Dioceses and Maynooth alone. We haven't heard much in the way of what's going on in England, Wales and Scotland Pat. Personally I like to hear what's going on in Ireland but outside of Ireland too.

      Delete
  13. Pat I thought you'd be at Philip Mulryne's ordination today in Dublin. The Dominicans usually ordain in batches, there's always a few. He seems to have got his own ordination and a Dominican bishop flown over from the Vatican.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O they will be mincing with pride

      Delete
    2. Is a Philip 'Phyllis' Mulryne recorded in the register of strange goings-on? I wonder.

      Delete
    3. Wasn't Philip originally a clerical student/seminarian for one of the northern dioceses (Down and Connor or Armagh or Derry) and in the Irish College in Rome, then he left and joined the Dominicans.

      Delete
    4. Pat have you forgotten Meath?

      Delete
    5. Will it have more impact than a bog standard orgy or black mass? I wonder.

      Delete
  14. Pat are you not down in Cork this weekend in Fota? Cardinal Burke who you like to display photographs off is down there. There will be a plethora of priests with him, for some reason they're usually the same bunch who act as chaplains for the Knights of Malta here in Ireland (or rather what passes for the Knights of Malta here in Ireland)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My little tomboy now wears satins and lace. However, I don't think any of that lot were ever tomboys. Probably more into wrapping their grannies lace curtains around themselves than kicking a football

      Delete
  15. Pat, admit it you'd be nothing without the RC church despite your distaste for it, indeed it (seems) to be the topic of your blog everyday... I found it by accident today... fairly negative nothing upbeat yet...have you any "good news" to share? prob won't be back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blog is called THINKING CATHOLICISM!

      Delete
  16. There is a video of the ordination today on Dominicans.ie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One can only hope he doesn't go on to cause great scandal. There's plenty silverdaddies there to choose from.

      Delete
    2. As the priests are touching his head there is a shot of DB, previously of maynooth.Behind him is LC previously a provincial who didn't know child abuse was wrong.

      Delete
    3. Isn't DB the one the who the kids in the cork boys school, christians, reported for asking them questions about jerking off in confession.

      Delete
    4. The very same. Now living in a school.

      Delete
    5. He was the RC chaplain in the
      UCC chaplaincy, which he almost wrecked, then resigned then went on to radio and news paper whingeing about 'anti-catholic' sentiment in UCC. Just because people weren't prepared to listen to his shit! During the lead up to the marriage referendum he preached against local FG TD Gerry Buttimer at daily mass in UCC.

      Delete
    6. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/catholic-fear-and-loathing-in-our-universities-30729163.html

      Delete
  17. Should he not have been ordained with the others? What was the delay? Or was there a delay? didn't he enter with a few others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The probably got the bum's rush... in more ways than one.

      Delete
    2. Answers on a postcard..!

      Delete
  18. The video would be worth a fortune for recruitment. Footballer becomes priest etc. I notice that the Irish Independent mentioned he was bankrupt but the Irish Times didn't mention it. He had a few bad investments apparently, sure it could happen a bishop!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As they are walking out of the church you can also see the one who 'aquired'a ceirtan illness in Rome (not that being ill in itself is either right or wrong). Did that CDF bishop know the company he was keeping!

      Delete
  19. Have you forgotten about Meath +Patrick? Or can you give some sort of 'instruction' as to what it was you referred to? Or could the poster who mentioned something that you said that you also heard enlighten us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Meath story is a "slow boiler". Be patient.

      Delete
    2. For God sake can you give the man a chance. All we've heard over several days from obviously the same questioner is Meath, Meath, Meath. Are you an interested party or maybe you want info because your implicated. Please give us a break on here about your questions about Meath, it's becoming very tedious. I assure you.

      Delete
    3. Shocking widespread scandals abound to the extent that they have lost their impact on faithful readers here because they are now par for the course. It will nothing new for us.

      Delete
    4. Yes, best to get it over and done with soon; he will be today's news, tomorrow's chip paper in no time.

      Delete
  20. ".. because you're implicated."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nazi Grammar troll at 21.53, we are using your instead of you're to make you out to be the fool, idiot and imbecile you are. We knew you would bite, lol. Your a disgrace and your a waste of space.

      Delete
    2. Oh, good, I'm glad you're back.

      I am confused about the correct use of 'would and
      should' and 'will and shall'. Examples, please.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your query!
      (For reasons of length of my response I will confine us to "will" and "shall" here but can return to "would" and "should" another time..)
      In Ireland and to some extent in America and some other English-speaking countries, "will" and "shall" are now largely interchangeable, with "will" being by far the most commonly used. So then generally speaking, when you use the word "will", to describe your future intentions, it will be regarded as correct. But what was the original strictly correct usage about which you enquire? Well, the rule was that "shall" was used for what is often described in English grammar as the "first person" --that is whenever you are referring to yourself or yourselves. In other words, the sentence would beginp with the word "I" or "We".
      Examples :-
      I shall do my best. I shall not travel that that way again.
      We shall be back on Tuesday. We shall not need our raincoats.
      But when you speak TO or about ABOUT another person or persons, you should use "will" as in these examples :-
      You will find your key in the door.
      You will never guess who came today!
      Will you all leave the building please? They will be the last to go. Will they be late?

      However, there is another interesting point to make on the now accepted correct uses of these two words. In sentences where you want to really stress your opinion, be forceful or lay down the law (and indeed in some of our legal documents), the situation is completely reversed! You use "will" for yourself and "shall" to or about the other folk. To make the point extra clear in the examples below I have used CAPITALS to draw extra attention to the intended emphasis.
      Examples of "shall" and "will" deliberately in the "wrong" places as a way of being forceful or extra formal :-
      I WILL have my share and nothing will stop me.
      We WILL be still there when you come back
      We WILL stand firm on this.
      You SHALL do exactly as you are told!
      You SHALL not walk on the grass.
      They SHALL not get the better of you!
      In respect of an accident, the employee shall immediately report to the supervisor. We will not tolerate any deviation from the agreed contractual obligations.

      I hope this has been of help to you.

      Delete
    4. Many thanks for your time and trouble. I shall copy and paste to my notes.

      Delete
    5. @To the enquirer--
      You're very welcome!

      Delete
  21. Has Magna Carter had a personality transplant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We love the new Magna! (Stick with it Magna---no going back - - not worth it)

      Delete
    2. Because of your encouragement, I'll persevere.

      Delete
  22. Sex will happen and so it is (almost) always OK? Do me a favour! We expect some people e.g. those attracted to children, animals or corpses, to control themselves but priests who have taken totally VOLUNTARY vows, can't be expected to show any control whatever and indulge in drug fuelled orgies?
    I would also be interested in seeing a source for your Martin Luther quote, I don't believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm very curious to know Bishop Pat's thoughts on the viewing of pornography. Would it be considered an extremsion of a masturbatory act? Or would it be an immoral thing?
    Is watching porn immoral? Should people be ashamed if they view it? We know your thoughts on masturbation.
    I'm curious about your thoughts on porn that's all 🙂

    ReplyDelete