Saturday, 6 January 2018

Waterford bishop warns local schools of Paedophile priest's 'recent activities'




In a letter sent out before Christmas, the Bishop said that convicted paedophile Oliver O’Grady was “seeking victims in our midst”.
THE BISHOP OF Waterford and Lismore has sent a letter to local primary schools and teachers warning them about a convicted paedophile ex-priest who is living in the Waterford city area.
The letter concerned Oliver O’Grady, who admitted to sexually abusing children while serving as a parish priest in California from 1973 onwards.



In 1993 he was convicted for molesting two brothers over a 10-year period while in the US, and served a seven-year sentence before being deported back to Ireland.
On 21 December last year, Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan sent a letter out in which he advised priests and teachers in the area, “especially those working in any way with children”, to be on the lookout for O’Grady, whom he describes as an ”extremely dangerous paedophile”.
The letter, seen by TheJournal.ie, said that O’Grady was “actively seeking victims in our midst”.
The Bishop said that he had been updated that day on the “recent activities” of O’Grady and that it was important “to be aware that this man continues to be an evil menace to innocent children”.
Please advise your safeguarding representatives and all your parish groups, especially those working in any way with children, to be aware that this man continues to be an evil menace to innocent children.
“If this man is seen in your parish please notify [the] Bishop’s House as soon as possible.”
The letter also includes a photograph of O’Grady.A screenshot of the letter
The Bishop added in the letter that he has informed gardaí of O’Grady’s recent activities, but does not specify what those activities are.
When asked by TheJournal.ie why the Bishop advised priests to get in contact with the Waterford Bishop’s House rather than An Garda Síochána, TheJournal.ie was told that our inquiries should be directed to the Gardaí and Tusla.
The House would not comment any further on the letter. Representatives of both An Garda Síochána and Tusla also said they do not comment on individual cases.
In 2005, O’Grady was interviewed in the documentary Deliver Us from Evil. He openly discussed his feelings towards children, comparing them to his feelings for adults.
In one extract, filmed in a Dublin playground, O’Grady says:
“If they said to me ‘Do you feel aroused when you see women?’ I’d say no. ‘Do you feel aroused when you see men?’ I’d say no.
“‘Do you feel aroused when you see children?’ Well, maybe. ‘How about children who are in swimsuits?’ I’d say yes.”
In the documentary, he also admitted to molesting as many as 25 children while in the US.
After the documentary was aired in the Netherlands in 2010, the Sunday Tribune reported that O’Grady had volunteered at a shelter for women and children in Rotterdam since 2008. This was discovered after local parishioners recognised O’Grady in the documentary; they had previously been unaware of his past crimes.
After travelling to Ireland on an Aer Lingus flight later that year, O’Grady left behind his laptop, where a large amount of images were found of children as young as two years of age being abused. He was convicted of possessing those images, and sentenced to three years in prison in January 2011.
Years after his release, O’Grady told The Sun newspaper in 2016 that he wants his history of abusing children removed from the internet.
“I am trying to see if I can get a lot of that downplayed or taken off if I can because all you have to do is give people my name, they look at the internet and they react,” he said to the paper.




O’Grady is on the Sex Offenders Register, which means that he must inform gardaí of where he resides, or if he moves house. If a person on the sex offenders list fails to comply with these rules, they could face up to five years in prison or a fine of up to €10,000.


PAT SAYS:

I think that we have to give Phonsie the credit for informing the Garda, the Social Services and his schools that there was a dangerous paedophile living locally. 

All of us must be proactive when it comes to the protection of children and vulnerable adults.

O'Grady seems to be a nasty bit of stuff with little or no remorse for all those he has hurt.

The contradiction for Phonsie is that he has a paedophile Waterford priest living in the campus he himself lives on.

This man hurt a little girl in the bathroom of a house when he was visiting for a meal.

Waterford and Lismore diocese dealt with the victim's parents and to this day have never informed the police or social services.

The crime was "resolved" with Waterford diocesan funds.

Phonsie and his predecessors know about this issue.

I don't think that priest was even dismissed from the clerical state.

Phonsie cannot be the one to decide who he reports and who he does not report.



76 comments:

  1. Pat, how certain are you of the information you publish? Verify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. look here you miserable old fart! I'm simply asking you to back up what your saying. sometimes your so difficult Pat. I'm off to REAL mass now

      Delete
    2. "... you're so difficult.."

      Delete
    3. Pat at 10.56: my question at 23.49 last night still requires an honest, verifiable answer from you since YOU are the one making the statement!! Do you know for certain? Simple question - simple answer. Tell us.

      Delete
    4. 13:16, hope you remembered to ask forgiveness for your rudeness.

      Oh! And Mass is Mass. There is, after all, only one: the Mass of the Last Supper. And it's already been offered/celebrated. What we engage in is merely a re-presentation of that Mass as a commemoration ('Do this in memory of me') through participation.

      Delete
    5. this all seems to have escalated fairly quickly. awkward lol

      Delete
    6. At 13.16,
      With your attitude it is more than mass you need.

      Delete
    7. That is correct Magna Carta at 14:59. I hope, when you go to Mass, that you remember to ask forgiveness for your own rudeness.

      Delete
    8. Oh, I do. And for more than that, for I do everything well...even sinning.😆

      Delete
    9. 13:16
      Yeah! Right! Off to real Mass now? At 13:16? Where? You’ve missed Mass and haven’t been going for a long time if you think you’ll get Mass at 13:16.

      Delete
  2. That O'Grady is a dangerous menace who feels no sense of guilt or remorse. That makes him quite ready to offend again, All he needs is an opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree we should be proactive in the protection of children.

    But the Bishop should have informed the Safeguarding officers, priests and school teachers in confidence. Moreover wide sweeping remarks about current activities are at best detraction and at worst defamation.

    And yes, he needs to clean up his own campus too, but like so many bishops they only protect children when there is a possibility of generating good publicity.

    Also, what was Dermot Farrell doing with the School boy and the hurl? Why use a child to publicise a new Bishop? He wouldn't even greet a seminarian when Maynooth President...

    Just a pair of PR stunts from both 'men', I reckon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The innocent child may grow up to regret their involvement.

      Delete
    2. Dermot Farrell blanked seminarians in the cloisters of Maynooth, as did 99% of the priests on the staff. How very pastoral and a great priestly model. Lay people are probably unaware of that behaviour in seminaries. Did it happen in yours, +Pat?

      Delete
    3. More PR nonsensical pseudo-commentary.

      Delete
    4. 15.02 if they decide to have a media stunt than they leave themselves open to it.

      I for one ask did this boy's parent consent to the diocese using this image of their boy for the Diocese's/Bishop's own ends?? If not than they are in breach of data protection and need to retract it immediately. If it were my boy and I had not been consulted before this was published I would have a solicitor involved already.

      Delete
    5. 15.28. I can understand your issues but I cannot help thinking that if it was a new school principal who was photographed with your son, you'd have no problem. Sadly, priests and bishops are no longer allowed innocent gestures. Their every movements are under suspucion all the time. You are pribably one of those parents who constantly takes photos of your children with others in the background. Do you seek their permission?

      Delete
    6. A child in a school photo is a record that a child went to a particular school. A child in a diocesian photo supporting a bishop is a child that cannot as of yet made a mature decision about his/her faith - but he will forever be the guy from the photo.

      Delete
    7. Also, I dont put photos of my child in the media. I made that decision with my wife, following mature discernment together. If the bishop landed in and did this with my child I would take serious issue.

      Delete
  4. Good morning to you all (or good afternoon to those of you who have had a well deserved lie-in)

    I've seen 'deliver us from evil' before. it is truly shocking and gave me the shivers! his incredible honesty makes it even more chilling

    Some sad news out of Australia today. One of Pell's accusers has died. May he rest in peace. Lets hope justice is served.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/damian-dignan-george-pell-accuser-dies-after-battle-with-illness-20180107-p4yyaf.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pell will be celebrating.

      Delete
    2. So will Satan as a Pell accuser falls into the fiery pit of Hell.

      Delete
  5. The Bishop did right to warn the schools but slipped up in calling O Grady an evil menace. The purpose of the letter should be to report fact not add in immature and provocative statements. Some Bishops have allot to learn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, Sean.

      Let's stick to the facts and not engage in senseless but inflammatory hyperbole. Heaven knows the Church does enough of this by referring to LGBT as 'intrinsically disordered'!

      We shouldn't want to follow its example, now should we?

      Delete
    2. On the ball Sean. The bishop moved from fact and erred once again. CR

      Delete
    3. O'Grady is an evil menace. What else do you call someone who destroys innocent children for the rest of their lives?

      Delete
    4. 17:58, yes, O'Grady is a menace to children sure enough, but the word 'evil' here is dehumanising and could invite physical violence against the man. Do you want him attacked (or, as one poster today suggested, 'castrated')?

      What would Jesus do?

      Delete
    5. Jesus would tie a millstone around O'Grady's neck MC/Pat...

      Delete
  6. It is disgraceful that O'Grady is free... That sicko should be locked up for life...The law is an ass...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it is not disgraceful that he is free: the man served his time in prison. But he should be chaperoned for the rest of his life.

      Delete
    2. Magna, you're a fruitcake. Utterly contradictory and full of double standards. Just re-read your words. Are you going loopy?

      Delete
    3. @00.13 Christmas is not complete without the fruitcake. Magna has many supporters here who value the comments and challenges he brings to the blog.

      Delete
  7. It is only right that O' Grady's name be forever on the internet.

    That scumbag should be castrated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to temper your remarks.

      Delete
    2. 10.09 is only saying what a lot of us are thinking

      Delete
    3. Magna Carta at 12:26, temper your own remarks before you presume to advise others. Who on earth do you think you are? A nasty little troll who snipes at others and thinks he is some sort of “oracle”.

      Delete
    4. We can't help what we think 13:33, but we CAN disown such thoughts.

      I know what Oliver O'Grady is. But I don't want to know the kind of man I'D become were I to give my thoughts of him a free rein.

      I know of a man in England who abused his own daughters and was imprisoned for it. On his release, the mobile home/caravan he was living in was broken into one night by a number of men who then castrated him, allowing him to bleed to death in agony.

      Justified? Some of you may think so. But one of his daughters (who had nothing to do with her father's murder) managed to express compassion for the man who had abused her: 'I hope he didn't suffer too much.'

      We are Christians not by what we say (nor even principally by how we act), but by how we react to such vile things as this.

      Delete
    5. 13:51, have never thought of myself as an oracle (or even "oracle"), but you clearly have, albeit resentfully. Thank you.

      Yes, I have censured others...but never with the kind of inflammatory language above.😆

      Delete
    6. You idiot and liar MC. You have used far worse remarks about decent men.

      Delete
    7. you called pope Francis a spick and jp2 a fathead pole. you called Benedict nazi scum..it is OK to call the popes names because of your hatred for the church... And you take issue with calling a certified child molester a scumbag?!?

      Delete
    8. I did not, to my knowledge, call Benedict Nazi 'scum'. 'Nazi', yes; 'scum', no. This is a reference to Benedict's Nazi past, given his membership of Hitler Youth. But I did not invite violence against him, as that other poster did against O'Grady. (Calling for his castration)

      Nor did either of my remarks against popes Francis and JPII.

      Delete
    9. So MC you incoherent fool! You would incite violence and destruction on innocent little children by letting O'Grady run loose? Fair play to Bishop Cullinan. And how dare you call the popes such names. If you were a young German in Nazi Germany towards the end of the war you would have had to serve in the Hitler youth or be shot! You know nothing of history you calumniator and slanderer of holy men.

      Delete
    10. 21:22, you theatrical fool, you! 😆

      The NAZI pope was a moral coward. He could have resisted, but then, cowards like Benedict bend with the prevailing wind.

      What a contrast between this teenage yellowbelly and the even younger Maria Gorretti, who, rather than offend God, sacrificed her life to avoid engaging in morally illicit sex.

      As for the 'heroic' German, Ratzinger, what did he do to please God in face of that moral abomination, Nazism? Why the gutless prick joined the Hitler Youth.

      What a morally shining example of Christlike devotion this German was.😆

      Delete
    11. You truly are utterly vile and obnoxious, Magna Carta.

      Josef Ratzinger was a 14year old boy at that time.
      Very brave of you, eh, a middle-aged man living in safety and with the advantage of hindsight and history, to judge and condemn a teenage boy living in those times. Do you hate all Germans or just Pope Benedict?

      Furthermore, St Maria Goretti was in no danger of offending God or committing any sin.

      She was the victim of attempted sexual assault and rape by Alessandro Serrenelli. It was Allessandro’s soul she feared for - not her own. “You will go to Hell, Allessandro”, the child kept saying as he attacked her.

      She died praying for and forgiving him and he, as we know, later became a great penitent.

      Delete
    12. MC us just a cover for Pat to spew hatred and lies against the church. MC is Pat. Betcha won't publish this Pat?

      Delete
    13. 01:01, You keep missing the point. Maria Goretti was a 12-year-old girl at her time, TWO YEARS YOUNGER THAN BENEDICT AT HIS.

      This 12-year-old girl showed courage, and fidelity to God, rather than submit to the sexual advances of that boy. If she had shown willing, he would not have killed her. But she felt that God would be hurt by this, so she refused to submit. What did the 14-year-old Ratzinger show? Compromise with arguably the most evil ideology in human history, Nazism. And you think him holy?

      Grow up!

      Delete
    14. No, you grow up, you nasty piece of work.

      Even if she had lived by not resisting she would still have been a rape victim and not to blame. Her attacker, in the sight of God, would have been entirely guilty.

      Benedict XVI at 14 could not have had any idea of the reality of Nazism that we are aware of today.

      Do you blame all the teenage boys in Germany in the 1930’s or just a young lad who would grow up to be Pope?

      You are such a vicious weasel made irrational by your own hatred. Grow up yourself.

      Delete
    15. You are still missing the point, 13:48! Serenelli wanted CONSENSUAL sex, not rape. Someone who sets out to rape isn't seeking consensual sex. Besides, Serenelli failed to rape Maria. (You don't know much about this matter, do you?) Serenelli turned angry and violent only when Maria made it clear to him that she would not give herself in this way.

      If Maria had consented to sex in these circumstances, then (according to the teaching of her church) she would have sinned; Maria was not prepared to do this, even to the point of heroically laying down her life.

      Contrast this selfless courage with the self-serving example set by Josef Ratzinger. Faced with the choice of colluding with one of the most abhorrent regimes in human history or of making a stand against it (as other Germans, and Austrians, had done), Ratzinger chose the morally easier path of moral compromise: he joined the Hitler Youth.

      Maria, younger than Ratzinger by three years (not two, as I said), showed moral backbone and refused to compromise with evil; Ratzinger showed himself morally spineless by colluding with Nazism.

      I'm sorry to show you that one of your heroes very much has feet of clay, but you need to mature and face historical truth about this odious little man.

      Delete
    16. Odious little man yourself! St Maria resisted him and Serenelli lost it. 11year old children can’t give consent to sex.

      Josef Ratzinger at 14 in no way could have known what we know today about Hitler and Nazism. Get a grip of yourself.

      Do you hate all German teenagers who lived in the 1930s? Do you blame all of them for being “morally spineless”?

      “Colluding” with Nazism? COLLUDING you know! A 14 year old schoolboy. Good grief.

      Ask yourself how you would have fared, you odious little man.

      Delete
    17. You're braindead, aren't you 17:34? It shows in your amusing lack of logic. If Maria couldn't consent to sex (as you said), then, by the same token, she couldn't not consent to it either. And yet her resistance of Serenelli's advances made it plain that she could, in fact, withhold her consent. (Which is why he murdered her.) Which in turn, and logically speaking, means that she possessed the obverse capacity to consent.😲

      You with me? No? Well, I did say you were 'braindead'.😆

      Delete
    18. You’re a w****er aren’t you, Magna? :-D

      11 year old children don’t consent to sex. This child kept warning her attacker that what he was doing was a sin and that he would go to Hell. She had the wherewithal to resist him and, in furious rage, he stabbed her repeatedly.

      Another child might not have had the strength to resist Serenelli for any number of good reasons. He would still have been guilty of rape and/or sexual assault of a minor. The child would have committed no sin and would have no guilt before God.

      Anyhow, tell us, do you hold all the teenage boys who were in Hitler Youth to guilty of “colluding with the Nazis”?

      Or does your particularly twisted “logic” enable and permit you to reserve all of your odious spite for the Emeritus Pope?

      Delete
  8. Why is the Fonz wearing a mitre that's the same colour as his chasuble? I thought he was a trad. Mitchy/matchy chasuble/mitre combos are are an Anglican affectation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, but they're sooooooo kool!

      Delete
    2. he's down with the kids

      Delete
  9. Well said, MC. I have been a consistent critic of your comments here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well all of them mostly.

      Delete
    2. What? You liked most of my comments today, even though you've admitted to being a 'consistent critic' of me?

      If this is true, then your praise is neither pale nor florid, but measured. Thank you.

      Delete
  10. Pat, at 18.34 you have 38 comments 9 0f them by Magna!! Doesn't this tell us everything about the love fest between both of you? And most all Magna's comments are superfluous to real, meaningful discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's another one to add to your tally.😆

      Delete
    2. MC makes a lot of contributions.

      And everyone is welcome to multi comment too.

      Delete
    3. The reason that Carta features so much on here is that he is very careful to, reverently and often, kiss and lick Pat Buckley’s backside.

      Remember the “I can only approach you, Bishop Pat, on my knees” comment? LOL

      It’s a win win situation for both of them.

      Buckley’s colossal Ego gets stroked and Carta gets to troll and spew vitriol to his heart’s content.

      Delete
    4. Carta is a troll and he can say pretty much anything Buckley allows him to say. So don’t waste your time complaining.

      Delete
    5. @ 18:36 WHAT... on earth are you insinuating?

      Delete
    6. What do you think I may be insinuating????

      Delete
  11. O'Grady presents great difficulties for a society which considers itself civilised, to manage the behaviour of one of its most difficult subjects.
    To be frank I see him taking no responsibility for his behaviour and consider him very dangerous indeed.
    His frankness is perhaps the least likeable thing about him.
    That said, the way a frank interview was cut with Cardinal Mahony's bluster and prevarication, in Deliver us from Evil, made His Eminence come across as far more chilling than O'Grady.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 17 .31
    All school staff have been through a course and are deemed suitable to be near children
    I did object to those photos of bishops putting themselves near schoolchildren.
    I still do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19.35: What is your objection to children being photographed with any Bishop once in public view? All Bishops and priests are continually participating in Child Protection Programmes and have very robust Child Safeguarding Procedures in place, probably the best of all institutions in the state. All Bishops and priests are garda vetted and that vetting is done every 3/4 years. So, unless you have an agenda, which you're entitled to have, please do not suggest by innuendo that Bishop Cullinane or any Bishop is doing anything sinister. All photographs, if used - as outlined in our safeguarding policies - must have parental/guardian permission. I doubt if the Bishop transgressed his own guidelines or those of the state. Tell us what you "perceive" to be wrong from what actually "is" wrong with the photo. And tell us why you still object to photos of children being photographed - in public view - with a Bishop. I think you have an "agenda"!!

      Delete
  13. Well we have had plenty of proof today that quantity does not necessarily mean quality!

    ReplyDelete
  14. 18 .36
    You come across as a very jealous person.
    Magna posts...I post far more that he does and I’m a mere woman.
    Just address the post not the poster pleaseeeeeeee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A boorish bore describes Magna Carta.

      Delete
  15. A "mere" woman?!! Please tell me you are being ironic... No female should ever, ever describe herself as a "mere woman"

    ReplyDelete
  16. 20.48: What the hell would I be jealous of - Magna's dominance of this blog? I have a meaningful, fulfilled life. I don't require affirmation through this site! Are you another inane troller?

    ReplyDelete