Saturday, 30 December 2017

THE VATICAN AND SAINT'S "RELICS".

The Vatican is banning sales of relics - body parts and cremated remains - of saints as per a new set of guidelines published this weekend.


The Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints - the office that makes saints - issued new instructions on how relics of would-be saints are to be obtained, transferred and protected before they are canonized.

The instructions explicitly rule out selling the hair strands, hands, teeth and other body parts of saints - real or fake - that often fetch high prices in online auctions.

Sales ban: New instructions issued by the Vatican explicitly rule out selling the hair strands, hands, teeth and other body parts of saints - real or fake.




Pictured are relics of saints in the Patriarchal Cathedral of St. George in Istanbul, Turkey

Last year a wax-sealed bone of a saint was put up for auction on eBay for $3,600 (£2,687) and was later taken down after complaints.
They also prohibit the use of relics in sacrilegious rituals and warn that the church may have to obtain consent from surviving family members before unearthing the remains of candidates for sainthood.

Officials said the guidelines were necessary given some obstacles that had emerged since the rules were last revised in 2007, particularly when surviving relatives and church officials disagreed.

One current case before a U.S. appeals court concerns a battle over the remains of Fulton Sheen, an American archbishop known for his revolutionary radio and television preaching in the 1950s and 1960s.
Sheen’s niece went to court to force the archdiocese of New York to transfer Sheen’s body from under the altar of St. Patrick’s Cathedral to Peoria, Illinois, where Sheen was born, ordained a priest and where his sainthood cause has been launched by Peoria’s bishop.

The New York archdiocese refused and appealed a 2016 lower court ruling in favor of the niece. A decision from the appeals court is expected soon.

Monsignor Robert Sarno of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints said it’s impossible to know what difficulties could complicate a saint-making case or whether the new guidelines might have helped avoid the legal battle over Sheen.

Saintly: The Vatican's guidelines cover how relics of would-be saints are to be obtained and protected before they are are canonized. Pictured is St Peter's Square during a Canonization Mass by Pope Francis for Mother Teresa last year.

But Sarno said the Vatican believed the updates were needed anyway to provide bishops around the world with a detailed, go-to guide in multiple languages to replace the Latin instructions that provided only general rules to follow.

New to the protocols is a section that makes clear that bishops must have the “consent of the heirs” in regions where the bodies of the dead legally belong to surviving family members. The revised instructions lay out in detail how a body is to be unearthed, saying it must be covered with a “decorous” cloth while a relic is being taken and then re-buried in clothes of similar style.

The guidance also explicitly allows for cremated remains to be used as relics. For most of its 2,000-year history, the Catholic Church only permitted burial, arguing that it best expressed the Christian hope for resurrection. But in 1963, the Vatican explicitly allowed cremation as long as it didn’t suggest a denial of faith about the resurrection.

The new instruction also makes clear that bishops must agree in writing to any transfer of the remains, and calls for absolute secrecy when a body is unearthed and a relic taken for eventual veneration.

The document repeats church teaching that relics from candidates for sainthood can only be venerated publicly once they have been beatified, the first step to possible sainthood.



The Holy Foreskin




Of all the holy relics that circulated throughout medieval Europe, relics associated with Jesus Christ — anything he supposedly touched or used during his life — were the most prized. By this measure, no relic was more valuable than the Holy Foreskin since it was an actual body part of Christ. In fact, the foreskin is the only body part the Bible specifically mentions being removed from Christ during his life (eight days after his birth) and which presumably stayed behind on Earth after he ascended into Heaven.

The circumcision of Christ was a popular subject in religious art during the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods. Below are just a few examples, selected at random from the numerous depictions of the scene that were made.


But the Holy Foreskin didn't appear only in art. The actual physical artifact — or what people claimed was the real thing — was a popular object of veneration.

The Holy Foreskin first made an appearance in medieval Europe around 800 ad, when King Charlemagne presented it as a gift to Pope Leo III. Charlemagne said it had been given to him by an angel.

However, rival foreskins soon began to pop up all over Europe. All told, twenty-one different churches claimed to have the Holy Foreskin, often at the same time. Various miraculous powers were attributed to these foreskins. In particular, they were supposed to be able to protect women during childbirth.

Given the glut of Holy Foreskins, churches made efforts to have their foreskin authenticated by Church leaders as the sole genuine article. In the early 12th century, the monks of San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome asked Pope Innocent III to rule on the authenticity of their foreskin, but he declined to do so. Later, the monks of Charroux claimed their foreskin to be the only real one, pointing out that it apparently yielded drops of blood. This convinced Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) who declared theirs to be the authentic thing.

Some medieval theologians argued that all the Holy Foreskins necessarily had to be frauds since the actual Holy Foreskin had, they asserted, ascended into Heaven with Christ. The 17th-century theologian Leo Allatius speculated in his essay De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba that the holy foreskin had ascended into heaven at the same time as Jesus, and had become the rings of Saturn.


The Catholic Church eventually sought to extract itself from the Holy Foreskin controversy, deciding that it was rather unseemly for so much attention to be paid to Christ's private parts. It adopted the view that all the rival foreskins were frauds, and in 1900 made it a crime punishable by excommunication to write or speak about the Holy Foreskin. 


PAT SAYS:

The whole idea of relics is very complex and worrying.

Certainly, the selling of them on eBay for thousands of pounds or euros is not right. Its surely some kind of trading in holy thinks - simony?

We also have to ask ourselves where does rubbing bits of dead people on our sick parts connect with true and pure Christianity?

Is it not more about superstition than it is about an authentic failth and spirituality?

And sometimes the Catholic Church spends hundrreds of thousands of pounds on transporting the relics of a saint around the world to be worshipped by the masses. 

What do readers think of the whole relic industry?


107 comments:

  1. Does your altar not have a holy relic inside it Pat???

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is the body parts bit that is weird and very difficult for people outside the Church to understand. There should never ever be sales of relics under any circumstances as of course it would lead to abuses such as cheating and greed. Anything that reminds you of the life of the Saint and strongly motivates you to fervour and prayer can be good and useful. I am a practising traditional lay Catholic and I do feel that the bones of a Saint should be encased out of sight in a tomb bearing the Saint's name. There is no reason why visiting the tomb shouldn't be done if it is part of a pilgrimage which encourages reflection and prayer. The visit to St Peter's Cathedral in West Belfast of the group bearing St Anthony's Relics out of sight in a special case though was a wonderful occasion to which people from many parts of the Diocese flocked and it was moving and prayerful. I am aňything but superstitious but I have in my possession for many years a second-class relic of St Anthony and I have had several wonderful answers to prayer for my own and certain family members seriously illnesses but I use the relic to inspire days of intense prayer and never ever think of it as a talisman. I could never denounce relics completely because of my experiences. But I re-iterate what I said about body parts being decently buried and I regard relic sales an outrage. Very special Saints such as St Anthony and St Martin will listen to your prayers whether or not you have been entrusted with a relic. Pray with faith,not scepticism and persevere.. It's up to yourself. Some will, but most won't persevere. Some won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To poster 1.16
      A very good and sensible approach. I agree with you 100%
      Your comment was inspiring.

      Delete
  3. Well you don’t answer questions on previous blog ,so really I’ve not interest in your relics or your silly chat about foreskin.
    Who cares, relics are all bunckim and u know it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pat sure your a relic yourself, and you've been around a fair bit. if the anti blog pat is anything to go by on facebook you'e been around a fair bit ;). Although we don't judge you. Your a human being like all of us Pat. More power to ya

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".. you're a relic.."

      Delete
    2. ".. You're a human being.."

      Delete
    3. ‘Ewer two.’

      Delete
    4. @12:51
      'your a twat...'

      Delete
    5. But at least he is a literate one, which is more than we can say for some!

      Delete
    6. Note to self: refrain from punctuatiin when its needed n use grocers apostrophe's when their not when commenting in future
      Literate or not pointing out other's percieved educational failing's is pig ignorant rude#@(

      Delete
    7. You might need to translate that as your meaning is very unclear.
      Clearly, the 18.30 had a point.

      Delete
  5. It's a business with a limited supply, when you have this situation you'll have fakes. A great money spinner in times gone by. Personally don't see any harm in it if it gives people comfort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I dont know - the trade in body parts is always lively.

      Delete
  6. https://m.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2056088.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.H0.Xcatholic+relics.TRS0&_nkw=catholic+relics

    If the relic industry is seen as originating in an older woeld view all becomes clear as we enter a more magical world. Ancient kings would have servants to eat their nail clippings so that nobody could work magic on them via their nails. And imagine possessing a bit of a saint! - The holy power it would confer!
    The industry itself of course became a rip off with enough pieces of true cross to circle the globe. There are about three whole bodies of St Valentine and two spare heads...

    ReplyDelete
  7. The whole relic industry has a question over it. Relics stored in churches are part of history and remind us good people tried to follow God's will. Going forward we don't need them. It borders on magic. As for Jesus foreskin/s Did people really appreciate the reality of who he is at his circumcision. I believe full understanding came later. This should not diminish faith.

    ReplyDelete
  8. St Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), to symbolise her marriage with Christ, "was reputed to wear the foreskin of Jesus as a ring on her finger". A generation or so earlier, the Austrian nun Agnes Blannbekin "led a life devoted to the foreskin of Jesus". The study says: "She was obsessed by the loss of blood and the pain which the redeemer had suffered during his circumcision. On one occasion, when she was moved to tears by the thought of this suffering, she suddenly felt the foreskin on her tongue."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "reputed" is the significant word re/that St. Catherine of Siena myth..I very much doubt it.

      Delete
  9. In one sense (religious), I have no truck with relics, because their possession is motivated largely (if not exclusively) by superstition: the irrational belief that relics are infused with power from their sources (e.g. holiness from the toenail clipping...or some such banality...of a saint.😅), and that this power can be drawn upon simply by possessing the relic and reverencing it (for Roman Catholics, this usually meant 'kissing it').

    Such belief isn't just a religious one: the secular world, possibly influenced by superstition surrounding religious relics, had its counterparts. One of the more famous historically was when the dying King Edward I of England ordered that his bones be carried at the head of the English army as it invaded Scotland. Edward had little faith in his namesake son to accomplish the task and believed that his denuded bone might empower the advancing English. Boy was he wrong! Poor Edward II was utterly defeated by the army of Robert the Bruce. He eventually would suffer a form of death that might have made Jesus ask more than three times that 'this cup' be taken away from him: he was murdered by the insertion in his anus of a red-hot metal spike, a grotesque parody of his homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You relayed that with such relish, Carta (the manner of Edward II’s death) that it shows you up for what you are; and to unnecessarily and sacrilegiously introduce Our Lord into it, is plain sick.

      Delete
    2. No, 14:40, I told this historical tale because I am sympathetic with poor Edward; he deserved such a death no more than Jesus deserved his.

      And if I referred to Jesus in relation to Edward's death, it was only to stress its utter, homophobic barbarity. But I doubt whether my explanation will satisfy you. Nor do I care.

      Delete
    3. There is no evidence to suggest Edward II died in this gruesome manner. It was a rumour put out at the time and most historians now reject it.

      Delete
    4. Of course there was no forensic evidence, 22:44! It was an attempt, by the standard of the time, to commit the perfect murder: killing Edward without leaving visible and damning clues.

      The rumours are entirely plausible, and for a very long time were universally accepted, especially given his wife Isabella's humiliation-driven anger over Edward's public displays of homosexual affection and her lover's ambition for regal power.

      No, most historians do not now reject the rumours, since no historian worth his salt, in the absence of strong counter-evidence, would risk his academic reputatuon by doing so.

      Delete
    5. What kind of evidence, 22:24, could you expect? Can you name one of the majority you speak about! Christopher Marlow believed it.

      Delete
  10. Relics increase the faith in some people. Sometime ago the relics of St Therese of Lisieux came to Lancashire. Thousands turned out. I think they just want to be near the saint who wanted to preach the mercy of God. It was very well run. They came in an ornate casket and were marched in by the army. Great exhibitions were arranged to explain her teachings. She was very much a saint of the working classes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that was a well organised respectful occasion re/relics in Lancashire.
      There are similar occasions organised well on behalf of the relics of the wonderful St Anthony of Padua. I was present at one of those in Ireland about a year ago. It was inspiring and prayerful.
      I agree with the excellent and thoughtful comment nearly at the top of today's posters, @ 1.16

      Delete
  11. As soon as St Teresa of Avila died, a friar hacked off one her arms and ran off with it. It was no doubt used as a relic. Other friars witnessing this, found it a bit distasteful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It shows that superstition and Catholicism have, for centuries, gone hand in hand. They still do.

      Delete
    2. Those were barbaric times when things were very different.

      Delete
  12. I've a relic living in the house the past 30 years. I'd gladly sell him on ebay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But then you might need a new dishwasher.. no?

      Delete
    2. 19:13, are you a f**k*n' pillock? The asshole she (yes, 'she') speaks of is a lazy fat-assed male.

      Delete
    3. Magna at 20.09. Be careful with your language. Too much drink imbibed I suspect! Just be civil and courteous without foul words, if at all possible.

      Delete
    4. I thought you weren't married, Maggie.

      Delete
    5. Magna.. You disappoint me!
      For Heaven's sake.. Can't you see that poster 19.13 completely got that point and then he/she made a little answering joke of their own and.
      The "dishwasher" IS the husband or partner!
      So the answering poster is saying.. If you sell your man on ebay , you could leave yourself with nobody to do your dishes.. If you had been sober you would have "got it".

      Delete
  13. King Puck busy having his image deleted from d'Internet on the grounds that they are being used without his permission and damaging his reputation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck to him with that!

      If you google “Rev Seán Jones Kerry” all this blog stuff comes up.

      And if you go into google images, the infamous jockstrap picture comes up, as well “Gorgeous” in his sailor outfit.

      All that is tied to King Puck for ever on d’internet

      Delete
    2. Once you've seen the King Puck photo you can't unsee it, unfortunately.

      Delete
    3. Puck or his double was working on Ryanair 12.00 flight from Malaga yesterday

      Delete
  14. Relics are macabre. The head of St Oliver Plunket in a fancy glass case above in Drogheda should be given a Christian burial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, 14:32.

      There is a similarity in the preservation of the hacked-off head of one Simon of Sudbury, a former archbishop of Canterbury and lord chancellor of England.

      Subury was the driving force, in the fourteenth century, of the detested third poll tax, which precipitated the so-called 'Peasants'' Revolt. Sudbury was eventually captured and his head literally hacked from his body.

      The head is preserved at the church of St Gregory in Suffolk.

      These sorry relics should all be buried. It is macabre and disgraceful that they remain above ground for veneration.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Magna, I didn't know that. I think it's beneath the dignity owed to the human body, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, to have dismembered parts of dead people on display. When I've been to Drogheda there's been a touristy curiosity thing going on, but who nowadays would pray before that. It's like a horror movie. I admire much about pre-Vatican II theology, but perhaps relics should be laid to rest.

      Delete
  15. Agnes, the Austrian nun isn’t the first nun to feel a foreskin on her tongue. I know a nun in Dundalk who would often feel the foreskin of a Franciscan friar in her mouth. Apparently, according to the friar concerned, she went into a trance and although they were both often on their knees it seems few prayers were said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a puerile comment!

      Delete
    2. 14.38. A comment that should not have been printed. Disgraceful - take your brain out of your a**e. You moron.

      Delete
    3. Why not?

      I know many cases where it is true.

      Delete
    4. I don't like those weird claims. I fear that they are "experienced by people with mental health problems which can occasionally present themselves as strong religious delusions

      Delete
    5. Pat 17.40: You have lost your moral compass. I hope the Feast of the Holy Family may inspire integrity in you and a level of proper decency.

      Delete
    6. I laughed at the original comment and then laughed even more at the replies...
      She was sucking him off!
      Honestly..

      Delete
  16. Sure Patndont you have a relic of the Cure of Ars?

    We don’t worship relics and the veneration of relics goes back to the early Church. We are an incarnational religion after all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 15.25. Me think you protesteth too much ! Grow a sense of humour

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16.15. This is not a pornographic site - thus the comment at 14.38 is totally unacceptable. It should not have been printed by Pat.

      Delete
    2. I do not see it as a pornographic comment.

      For instance I know of one Irish religious order priest who currently engages in oral sex with 3 women one of whom is a nun.

      His superior knows about this and does nothing because he himself is sexually compromised!

      Delete
  18. A poll released last Friday shows that 77% of Irish people consider Pope Francis to be a favourable and popular world leader. The Research was carried out by Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup International in 55 countries. A total of 52,793 people were surveyed and 56% viewed him as the world's most popular leader. The Irish survey was done between 3/4th Dec with 77% viewing him positively and favourably. Some good and uplifting news for all our negative begrudgers and anti Catholic bias.....Hopefully we can look forward to a time of true, meaningful and necessary renewal as we await Pope Franci's visit in August to World Meeting of Families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are the Mass attendance, baptism, Catholic marriage, novice nun and monk and Maynooth entry figures looking in this Franciscan Golden Age. Or is that an impertinent question?

      Delete
    2. So is 56% of the world and 77% of the Irish people now attending Mass every Sunday? Lolz

      Delete
    3. It's not all about Frankie. How many is he pointing to Jesus? I wouldn't mind if the Vatican II and it's death rattle Francis was effective, but Mass attendance is plummeting, convents close daily round the world, vocations are scarce, Catholic south America is turning evangelical, the aged parishioners in clustered parishes die off, not to be replaced by their lapsed children and unbaptised grandchildren. If that's success what does failure look like.

      May I add that +Pat is generous in allowing all shades of opinion on his blog.

      Delete
    4. And in what way exactly are you, poster 12.27 helping the situation? Or are you the usual predictable hot air?

      Delete
    5. I'd say you're hitting 70.

      Delete
  19. I cannot see anything wrong with the remark made by 14-38. Think some of you people need to get into the real world and stop being holy catholic prudes. I agree with Pat Buckley on this one. I can assure you as a man with two brothers who were in the clergy the humorous scene described by 14-36 is mild compared with the shenanigans they told me about featuring priests and nuns they knew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That doesn't make it right and acceptable. Just because something is ubiquitous it doesn't mean it's OK with everyone. If you find something goes well beyond the bounds of decency, don't be afraid to be the one to speak up and say so. You are not a teenager worrying how you appear in the eyes of your mates!

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree with you @19.42 when you say ".. don't be afraid to be the one to speak up..".
      This is what we should have the backbone to do even if we are the victim of the usual cliché slights. You will recognise those bullying jibes when you hear them. Some of the most common ones are versions of these:-
      "You need to grow up!"
      "You should get out more.."
      "Why don't you join the real world!"
      "You're such a prude"

      So if you hear a comment along those lines, you're dealing with a bully attempting unsuccessfully to make you feel small. Ignore him/her.

      Delete
    3. I second that 20.09..
      I would like to add a couple to your list..

      "You have no sense of humour!"

      and the latest one--which is very insulting when you consider its origin...

      "...taliban Catholic"

      Delete
    4. I second that 20.09..
      I would like to add a couple to your list..

      "You have no sense of humour!"

      and the latest one--which is very insulting when you consider its origin...

      "...taliban Catholic"

      Delete
    5. 18.31. I'm quite certain that your brothers who are/were priests spoke from personal experiences? Disgraceful men!! But your comment is not credible as your brothers would not be so foolish as to share that news with you, I hope....It's easy to make up stories for this blog. .

      Delete
    6. I believe Holy Mother Church doesn't actually forbid oral sex, in which the genitals are aroused by the other person's lips and mouth, as long as any seminal emission is into the vagina. I imagine by the same token manual stimulation is allowed. I have a feeling anal intercourse would usually be frowned on. I stand to be corrected by any moral theologians.
      I also have a feeling that vaginal intercourse without manual or oral stimulation would be very unpleasurable (or even painful) for the woman, but I'm not dpeaking from experience lol ;o)
      Seriously, that comment could be described as bawdy perhaps but not pornographic
      The comnents are really funny today lol

      Delete
    7. Well, funny or not, you've put a stop to all that.
      Try something... anything.. Or see your doctor.

      Delete
  20. The comment at 14.38 was definitely objectionable to many of us, Pat. I hope standards have not fallen on the blog, to such a low base common denominator that any distasteful irreverent rubbish will be acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you found it objectionable.

      Others did not.

      It described a reality in our Church.

      And I don't think many children come on here.

      We are all adults surely?

      Delete
    2. Chronologically, at least.

      Delete
  21. I often wonder what must people from other faiths and none think about us as a church and the whole business of relics etc. Superstition and aincent manipulation of of a dull and ignorant people as our forefathers were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth is rather dismal. Now the Greeks in the USA are having their problems. Talk about relick worship. You Romanists have nothing on them. Don’t forget Fr. Ignatius in Wales along with his relicks and apparitions. Didn’t Anglican Caldey find some dubious relicks? Shakers have experienced all kinds of manifestations. S.Patrick is said to have visited them in the wilds of Harvard, Massachusetts back in the 1800s.

      Since what I once called the nightmare of Vatican II I’ve been all over the ecclesiastical upper and underworlds and have found devotion to relicks in one or form everywhere. Our forefathers and mothers may not have been so ignorant after all.

      Delete
    2. Goodness! @ 22.00..
      You OK? You sound as though you're still having a good Christmas, man! Keep her lit! - - There's New Year to be done yet..

      Delete
    3. LOL! I did get a bit baroque. Perhaps it’s due to the botanicals in the Gunpowder Irish Gin my wife gave me for Christmas.

      Greek/Russian Christmas is right around the corner. I’m thinking of adding Armenian Christmas to my observances. In that case New Year is only the beginning.

      Delete
  22. If you have lower standards of what is acceptable then of course, you will fail to see "anything wrong" But it is distasteful and crude and should not have not have been permitted. There are plenty of other sites with pornograpny loosely disguised..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've missed the point, 18:57. The poster you're complaining about was parodying the very idea of religious relics with sexual ambiguity. A powerful medium, told to telling effect. And it seems to have worked...judging by the number (so far) of complaints.

      Delete
    2. I don't think that person missed the point. He objected to the crudeness of the parody and that was his call..

      Delete
    3. 'Crudeness', 20:06? The Roman Catholic Church is no stranger to crudeness. Ask her FILTHY priests.😆

      Delete
    4. That doesn't mean it has to be so offensive here, though.

      Delete
  23. God help you tonight Buckley. The Catholic taliban’s department of censorship and moral standard is out in full force!! Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good to see people speaking out though.. It's far easier to sit back and not challenge..

      Delete
    2. 19.15. A bit of a cliche now at this stage - Catholic Taliban.- I'm not of Catholic identity - but the pornographic description at 14.38 perfectly fits the category of unacceptable, regardless of what Buckley says. He too crosses boundaries in his use of words, immorally so at times.

      Delete
    3. "... out in full force!!"

      The Giant's Rings is very busy tonight.

      Delete
  24. 19.02: Pat, why do you always belittle those who express legitimate concern about allowing pornographic descriptions as at 14.38. You cannot justify the language of 14.38. We're nit children but we expect a certain standard. Please, for once, LISTEN TO and RESPECT others. As for 18.31....sounds makey up.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuns have no place here. This is a 'men only' discussion blog.

      Delete
    2. Read Pat's opinions on THAT kind of exclusion is my advice, my dear sir. You must be a very green newbie knob, yes

      Delete
  25. Your reference to @18.31
    Of course it's made up!
    (Probably plagiarised from something they saw on porn)
    But you weren't deceived..

    ReplyDelete
  26. +Pat, best nights craic on here for a long time. I can see all three points, the comedian/comedienne’s who posted about the nun in Dundalk. Funny, believable ,a tad rude but allowable given the subject matter. The objectors to the post on their strongly held opinions as to what is and isn’t acceptable, although nobody forced them to read the piece and finally you+Pat in your role as the moderator. On balance I think you were right to allow both the Dundalk story but also allowing those offended to express their views.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Another problem is the lies about miraculously incorrupt bodies. Bernadette of Lourdes' body has been coated in wax. She died in 1879.

    "So rigid was the body that it could be easily rolled over and back for washing. The lower parts of the body had turned slightly black. This seems to have been the result of the carbon of which quite large quantities were found in the coffin." 1909

    The 1919 report which followed another exhumation is more interesting.


    "When the coffin was opened the body appeared to be absolutely intact and odourless."


    Doctor Talon reported,: "There was no smell of putrefaction and none of those present experienced any discomfort. The body is practically mummified, covered with patches of mildew and quite a notable layer of salts, which appear to be calcium salts. The skeleton is complete, and it was possible to carry the body to a table without any trouble. The skin has disappeared in some places, but it is still present on most parts of the body. Some of the veins are still visible."

    The imperfections prove whatever is going on is not a miracle but a case of mummification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry... what is the problem with that?

      Delete
    2. There is nothing wrong with that - it's the natural decay/preservation continuum in organic matter.
      What *is* wrong is that certain strands of Christianity want to fight nature, whether in decay or reproduction.
      I'm surprised there have been no comments that this is anti- Catholic!

      Delete
  28. When I worked on Lough Derg as a seminarian organist I had to help out in the sacristry now and then. An amice worn by Mgr Bartlett during a concelebrated Mass when he was on pilgrimage touched my surplice for a second or two. Is my surplice a first or second class relic? Please rush me your answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely third class.
      Is 'seminarian organist' a euphemism?

      Delete
    2. Answer rushed as quickly as we can get our breath, certainly!
      Get treatment.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for such an entertaining question. It goes to the heart of the whole matter, and I congratulate you on your comment.
      While at first glance it's a superficial and seemingly innocuous query, within it lies much that goes to the heart of the whole farrago.
      I give you credit for it's due, .....but regret my own feeble inability to give you any.......sensible , logical, coherent or any logically persuasive answer. 'cos there isn't any!

      Delete
    4. I too thought this light comment encapsulated much of the issue.

      Delete
  29. At this point I am literally clutching my sides laughing.
    I have quite seriously heard much filthier conversations in monasteries and seminaries, including a priest one winking with a clear implication of meaning oral sex) after saying 'Don't ask for it on the tongue from Fr X'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be obtuse. That doesn't make it right. So you were mightily impressed by the filthy wink of the priest.. We are not so easily influenced.. Sorry.

      Delete
    2. No, can't see where I said it was right or that I was impeessed.
      I was actually making a swipe at the pious pearl clutchers on here who are the actual subject of my mirth.
      Older readers may remember a UK TV programme in the 90s in which a nun had sex. A Farnborough monk went on at length to me about how disgusting it was. At no point did he turn off the programme but was shocked to the end.
      Just like the hand-wringers commenting on here.

      Delete
    3. Not a nice person @ 10.20
      Easy to "make a swipe". Also, you use a sweeping denunciation of all the good people who defended decency and their beliefs.
      I would suggest to the kinder poster earlier today who listed the bullying comments which were frequently used to undermine other folk that there is another cliche for his /her list

      "pearl clutcher"

      It's inevitably a sign of disrespect.

      Delete
    4. Not a nice person @ 10.20
      Easy to "make a swipe". Also, you use a sweeping denunciation of all the good people who defended decency and their beliefs.
      I would suggest to the kinder poster earlier today who listed the bullying comments which were frequently used to undermine other folk that there is another cliche for his /her list

      "pearl clutcher"

      It's inevitably a sign of disrespect.

      Delete
    5. That was rather the intention.

      Delete
  30. Im afraid even EWTN feature's pornography these day's:
    http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=507442
    Come to think of it the way sex is talked about there is so divorced from reality that it can only result in the couple worrying they may be stimulating their spouse too much

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So 22,29 thinks this is a sort of Gaynooth blokes only blog?You're serious??
      You really don't know Pat at all. Not in the slightest

      Delete
  31. I'm all for people having there own standards. Say if you don't like horror you wouldnt watch a horror film.
    But I don't understand people reading a blog where theyre almost guaranteed to find something offensive. Literally every post someone comments its offensive and anti Catholic.
    These comments dont change what the Bishop posts and he kindly publishes them while continuing to post pictures of seminarian's bums.
    I just dont get why you keep reading if its so shocking to you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 16.31..Yes.... and no.... if you know what I mean. By all means, don't go down to the jazz club night and then complain constantly.... Why do they keep playing these jazzlike tunes? So yes, I do get what you are saying.
    Yet - - in the context of a blog like this, it is very healthy and non-stagnating for the moderating influence of many different voices and shades of opinion to come through. It stimulates debate. It makes people think and occasionally stops them on their roller-coaster of denouncing all and sundry! It is good to have occasionally our wrists slapped when we cross boundaries of common decency. It's down in the rough and tumble of the market place that sometimes we are called to challenge and can do more good than we ourselves ever realised. It can almost take a kind of bravery to be the one dissenting voice and maybe even more bravery to refuse to criticise your cherished beliefs when all around are lining up to pour scorn on your words before they barely hit the page! I have had all these experiences and more and if I am honest, fought my corner on occasion too. But I have enabled people to maybe be comforted or to feel appreciated if I feel the call to answer their hinted at problem or dilemma. This is part and parcel of what can arise on this blog and sometimes out of the blue. It is the blog's greatest strength by far that there is a huge variety of readership and opinion.
    Pat is to be very commended indeed for welcoming that variety. It is of course correct that he should not permit some rankly abusive posters whose main purpose is to attack others. There are normal standards of decency that we trust him to monitor and he mostly does or he becomes aware that people are uncomfortable with how far over the line we are. That is all good and as it should be. We pay a great compliment to Pat and to each other when we say that the blog has the potential to be much, much more than just an exchange of smut and back-biting. So let us come in and not be afraid to be ourselves. Not everyone will love or even tolerate us! But hey - isn't that life?
    Happy new year to Pat and all his posters! I hope 2018 is full of love and blessings for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thank you for sharing those thoughts, poster 21.05 especially at New Year.
    (A nugget of pure gold!)

    ReplyDelete