Friday, 27 April 2018

MAYNOOTH ABUSE 2



From: President - SPCM <president@spcm.ie>
Date: 25/04/2018 20:20 (GMT+00:00)
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Your Email of 19/4/2018

St Patrick’s College
Maynooth

Co Kildare, Ireland
Telephone: +353-1-708 3958
Fax: +353-1-708 3959
E-Mail: PRESIDENT@SPCM.IE

PRESIDENT’S OFFICE

Dear Xxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 19/4/2018. It is my understanding that you have already disclosed to the College any information in your possession about any event that occurred during your time in the College which you consider to have been abusive. Nothing that was disclosed by you was considered to constitute wrongful behaviour towards you. The designated liaison person appointed within the College would have no role in relation to any matter pertaining to the time you spent here as a seminarian. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose for me to supply to you the contact details of the designated liaison person.

As has also been stated to you previously, it is the policy of the College to report any complaint of criminal wrongdoing to An Garda Siochana. If you believe that you were the victim of a crime whilst you were a seminarian in the College I encourage you to make a complaint to the Gardai so that it may be investigated in accordance with due process of law.

I am genuinely saddened that you continue to hold painful memories of the time that you spent in this College.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Mullaney  

Coláiste Phádraig, Má Nuad, Co. Chill Dara

---------------------------------------------- 
xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Thu 26/04/2018, 06:18

Dear +Pat, 

Thank you for this morning's blog. Please see below correspondence between Mullaney and myself last night. 

Just to note, I also wrote to the bishops of each seminary counsellor responsible for covering this up. The standard response is that what a priest does while on loan to Maynooth is outside the remit of the Diocesian bishop. It has also been stated that when loaned to Maynooth they enter into a private employment contract that prevents the bishop from recalling them. (So much for a promise of obedience on the ordination day!!). 

Many thanks, 
Xxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 25/04/2018 22:11 (GMT+00:00)
To: President - SPCM <president@spcm.ie>
Subject: Re: Your Email of 19/4/2018

Dear Michael, 

Your email is misinformed. I did meet a [former] safeguarding officer from your instutution however there were a number of shortcomings;
1. I was not allowed speak freely;
2. I was asked leading questions unrelated to my complaint
3. I was not allowed to present a psychological report confirming that Xxxxx Xxxxxx had subjected me to systematic dysfunctional formation amounting to psychological abuse
4. One safeguarding representative was unable to follow the conversation, as displayed by his belief that xxxxx xxxx was a person [rather than a place]. 
5. Not one witness named by me was contacted. 

What happened and all evidence presented was simply ignored, it was not even looked at. 

In his closing days in Maynooth Hugh Connolly wrote to me regarding xxxx's death. In conversation afterwards he apologised to me, admitted that I had been wrongly treated during my time in Maynooth. I asked for that in writing but he said the Trustees would not allow that. 

I have been the victim of psychological abuse in Maynooth. This has been systematically covered up by senior management and Trustees. 

You might be saddened that I have to live with the consequences of your vile institution while you offer no actions to redress your Institution's failure and cover-up. 

As for going to the gardai - that is not the college's policy. In 2007 I suggested to Hugh that I would do just that. He told me he would ensure that he would make sure "that it would be more embarrassing for me than the college". 

I would have thought that as priests ye would have a better sense of Christian duty, especially to young forthright men coming to a seminary. 

Sincerely
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx


 PAT SAYS:

Here we have a former seminarian of Maynooth who clearly insists that he was psychologically damaged by a certain priest when he was a seminarian in Maynooth.

I know the name of this priest and I have heard from many seminarians that he had a foul tongue and that he treated seminarians to daily verbal and psychological abuse.

This young man needs closure and healing. But instead of offering him that the Church authorities are compounding his suffering by giving him the runaround and by firing legalisms and nonsense in his direction.

Michael Mullaney was ordained to bring the compassion and healing of Christ to those he met and ministered to.

Instead, he is writing as a cynical lawyer might to this wounded man.

And Mullaney says he regrets that Xxxxx has unhappy memories of Maynooth!

Is he kidding?

Many former Maynooth seminarians were marked for life by the place!


The whole incident shows that Maynooth was a cesspit of all kinds of abuse and the sooner it is closed the better.

117 comments:

  1. Thank God I was sent to Rome at a time when things appeared to be quiet and I was not presented with any improper behaviour. As for the alleged victim I believe he should go to the authorities with support and let the law take its course

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to be quite clear that whatever abuse he is alleging is not of the sort that the Gárda Siochána would be interested in. Thousands of people complain of psychological abuse (especially against parents and spouses) and bringing in the cops, as people sometimes do in domestic quarrels, may bring a reprimand from them for wasting their time.

      Delete
  2. +Pat closing Maynooth is not the solution. You don’t close down an entire institution that is bigger than any man because of a few bad eggs.

    People who fall short need to be tken out so that the institution can continue.

    What happens if Maynooth does close and the people who fall short are moved to whatever replaces Maynooth?

    Closing down the place is not the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't be closed down. Don't listen to all the hype..

      Delete
    2. I am sure readers are hoping for a few more crying scandals before the disgraced institution, finally, closes its doors for good. It will be a sad day for the blog.

      Delete
    3. I personally cannot wait until it closes. The suffering, sin and abuse that went on within its walls will be the subject of many a documentary in the years to come.

      Delete
    4. Here are three examples, chosen at random from memory, of the bitchy, queeny atmosphere in Maynooth.

      1. Niall Ahern, Middle Dean, visits my room in New House. A classmate is visiting and we are drinking Ballygowan sparkling water. Niall: "how interesting that you are drinking sparkling water? Are you sparkling? Have you tried to sparkle? Pop down to my room when this little gathering has finished"

      2. Niall Ahern as junior lecturer in homiletics got second years to preach to one another. The ad lib topics were matched to a person's personal characteristics. E.G.

      "Tom, preach on fasting as a challenge for the obese". Tom was obese.

      To Denis (bald). "Give the class a homily on hair".

      To John, whom everybody was known to be on the way out: "Can you do a homily on "many are called but few are chosen".

      I hope these examples demonstrate that the Maynooth abuse wasn't the straightforward shouting matches you get in armies, or put-downs about competence you get in offices, but instead were surgical strikes at the heart of a person's personality.

      Ronan Drury mellowed in his later years but that classic closet case was also a vicious bitch in the 1980s.

      Delete
    5. I agree about Ronan Drury.

      Delete
    6. 19:44, my memories of Niall Ahern and Ronan Drury are nothing but positive.

      Delete
    7. Birds of a feather flock together, blue MC. So it wasn't Niall who threw you out?

      Delete
  3. What on earth did Mullaney mean by 'The designated liaison person appointed within the College would have no role in relation to any matter pertaining to the time you spent here as a seminarian.'Are we to infere from Mr Mullaneys words that seminarians litteraly have no one to got too, save the internal board run by Hughie and now Mullaney. For you information pat it is my view that Mullaney was ordained for Mullaney. He is, in my view, the worst sort of careerist. He will sell out friends if he thinks they will tarnish his so hardly cultivated image.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr Mullaney said exactly what I have been trying to get through to you guys for days now----The present - day Safeguarding person has no responsibility or authority to deal with historic abuse.. Go to the Gardai

      Delete
  4. I’m struck with an overtone of legalism and (pardon the language) arse covering from the responses.

    In light of the Fact that the Catholic Church was at the centre of possibly the largest pedophile ring of all time (it sadnens me to say this) one might have thought that a change of attitude would prevail. Draw a line in the sand and continue in a different way? Clearly not! Maybe back to the drawing board

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'In light of the Fact that the Catholic Church was at the centre of possibly the largest pedophile ring of all time'

      SOME members of the CC.

      Delete
  5. Bishop Pat,

    Given the current topic on the blog perhaps there is an opportunity to set up a support group for seminary abused victims. I previously gave a statement to the Gardai and I found that they were in a state of shock and disbelief as to what my experience was while at St Patrick's College, Thurles. Ironically when I initially went to Thurles the late Fr Gus O Donnell was very kind and supportive to me. Thereafter what prevailed was a complete culture of professional incompetence which resulted in psychological abuse and exploitation.

    Priest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.

      My own experience of Clonliffe seminary in Dublin was that it was a very dysfunctional place.

      My second seminary, St. John's in Waterford, was a gem of maturity with no bullying of any kind.

      Delete
    2. Pat at 9.23: your view of Clonliffe as dysfunctional would not be shared by many. We got a well balanced education and formation in the late 70's, early 80's. Not perfect but certainly not a mad house as you suggest. In my years we received much formation in personal development, the psychology of sexuality, human relationships, boundaries. The pastoral placements in hospitals, prisons, schools, parishes, youth clubs etc, all gave us a realistic view of what lay ahead of us. The emphasis was on personal responsibility. Overall, it was good and I can honestly say I never witnessed any abuse or bullying of any serious nature that warranted investigation. I found our priest lecturers to be very fine men and the many visiting lecturers were a great influence in positive ways. Those who were asked to leave were asked for very legitimate reasons and life, thankfully worked out well for them.

      Delete
    3. Clonliffe certainly had it's good points.

      The accommodation and food was excellent.

      As you say there was good education involved.

      Some of the priests on the staff were good men.

      But Joe Carroll the bishop president was all puffed up about who he was.

      The dean, Seamus Conway used to prowl the grounds at night reading his breviary in the DARK :-)

      Some of the senior seminarians sexually preyed on the younger ones.

      Maybe for the time it was not the worst?

      Delete
    4. "sexually preyed" is hyper-ambiguous

      Delete
    5. It wasn't just bright sparks who went to Rome. Bishop Harty of Killaloe, who has a good record, thought that seven years in one place was too much. He routinely swapped his seminarians between Irish and Roman seminaries.

      Delete
  6. Is it usual for a student to leave one seminary and be admitted to another? Would that situation not say something is not right ? If your resident in a particular diocese why would you train for another one?

    It wouldn’t make sense that a man resident in Meath would seek admission as a candidate in the Limerick Diocese for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many seminarians study in two places ie: Maynooth and Rome.

      In my case I was expelled from Clonliffe for rule breaking - but expelled WITH a reference for a new seminary.

      Dublin, for instance, always had seminarians from all over.

      The situation is not rigid, but fluid.

      Delete
    2. Thanks +Pat.

      Do you have a process for training men who have a vocation or how does the Oratory incardinate new Priests ?

      Delete
    3. Because The Oratory is a small religious body - there are 7 priests in it, including myself, we obviously do not have a seminary.

      We require that a candidate has good theological and biblical knowledge, has an obvious spirituality, is mature and caring and passes a police check.

      Our current priests had all trained in dioceses or religious orders and many were ordained before joining us.

      We take each candidate as a unique person and explore with them their calling.

      We ordain men and women etc etc.

      The training is planned with the candidate.

      We are not dogmatic. God calls all kinds of people to minister for Him.

      Delete
    4. out of curiosity. When Fr Paul was ordained he had a lovely chasuble. did he buy this? or was it gifted?

      Delete
  7. Fr Buckley, how come you have a Dublin phone number?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What exactly does this man want?

    No crime has been committed. He has a grievance against a priest that he is attempting to pursue as a “hanging offence”.

    If former students with a grievance were to take this kind of umbrage there would be a queue from Maynooth gates to the Phoenix Park.

    There are just some people and there is no answer for them and no solution because they don’t want one.

    What on earth does he expect the College and MM to do exactly?

    He has a beef going on for a number of years. It has been investigated and no case found to answer. It’s not a case of sexual or physical assault and it would be his word against the priest.

    So he chooses to live in everlasting “victimhood” and not to get a life??

    It’s just an excuse for the malcontents on this blog to give vent to their vicious craziness. Like the nitwit saying the Church operated “the largest paedophile ring of all time”.

    That’s an example of the stupidity and irrationality of those who relish a story like this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Psychological abuse is every bit as bad as sexual or physical abuse.

      Some people recover from such abuse more quickly.

      As for Catholic abuse - there are 450,000 priests in the world.

      Some 4% of priests are paedophiles.

      That means that the church has 18,000.

      18,000 paedophiles can create bedlam!

      Delete
    2. I don't understand why people are suggesting the victim go to the Gardai. What crime would they charge the priest with.

      The Maynooth deans, with one of two exceptions, have been first-class shits all down the years. If you want to avoid being abused my advice would be to have nothing whatsoever to do with that parody of a seminary.

      Why doesn't Pat just name the priest?

      Delete
    3. How is that a reply to 12.28's commonsense objection???

      Delete
    4. 25% of the priests who taught me in St Michael's College Enniskillen went to prison for the usual.

      Delete
    5. 12:28, is there a significant difference between operating a paedophile ring and facilitating one,? Because the institutional Roman Catholic Church certainly enabled and facilitated scores of paedophile clerics.

      Delete
    6. @12:28, certain priests (not the RCC) - 4% apparently - were paedophiles.

      Some bishops (not the RCC) failed miserably to stop them and bring them to justice.

      To say the “Roman Catholic Church” either “operated” or “facilitated” a “paedophile ring” is hysterical and bigoted nonsense.

      Was the BBC operating and facilitating a paedophile ring because some of its personalities were paedophiles?

      Was the Football Association operating same because some of its coaches were sexually abusing young boys and some officials were looking the other way, or otherwise in denial?

      Hatred gives birth to such absurdity and irrationality. Paedophilia among some clergy was an obscene abberation which some in leadership mishandled. It wasn’t Church teaching for crying out loud!

      Delete
    7. 15:20, there most certainly were paedophile rings reportedly operating within the institutional Roman Catholic Church, involving clerics of course, and politicians and businessmen, etc. . And the difficulty in enumerating them is down to their protection by an all-important, clericalist ethos, from the papacy down. (JP II himself protected notorious and serial paedophile, Maciel. Not a paedophile ring, granted, but the effect of this pope's actions and inactions were just the same.)

      Watch the documentary Keepers on Netflix. It should open your eyes, but I very much doubt it, given your obvious and deep denial of this vile evil within the institutional Church.

      Delete
    8. I think Pat's being generous saying 4% — I have seen other estimates of 7% or 8%. How I laughed when someone used a phrase like rotten apple above. Personally if I looked round my workplace and had the slightest suspicion there was a practicing child abuser being protected by the management I'd be on the phone to the police, but that's because I have a healthy sense of what adult responsibility looks like and am not a facilitator of abuse.
      If there are suggestions of abuse going through any institution which are ignored by leadership then that institution is facilitating the abuse.
      If the leadership is actively involved in that abuse (for example both the abbot and prior of Ealing Abbey in the 1990s have been convicted) then that institution is running the abuse.
      How can adults not get this?

      Delete
    9. @Pat 12:33, I think it’s odd that you highlight psychological abuse as, to me, this blog is often guilty of perpetrating psychological abuse. Name calling, for instance, is a form of psychological abuse. Outing people is a form of psychological abuse. Facilitating speculation about innocent persons (as you did with Fr Brendan Ward some weeks ago) is a form of psychological abuse. Allowing commentators to engage in speculation about individuals on your blog is a form of psychological abuse. I doubt very much that you give much or any consideration to the psychological well-being of the people you have written about here. Why don’t you try contacting people you’ve written numerous blog posts about and ask how it affected them psychologically?

      Delete
    10. I'm not sure that the FA moved coaches around after receiving abuse reports or gave them references to enable them to get a different job working with children, as Bishop Joe Duffy did.

      Delete
    11. @16:53, your being absurd and obtuse.

      Saying the Church operated and facilitated a paedophile ring implies that the Official Church has an agreed policy to encourage paedophilia. That is not the case. There is no Vatican dicastery for Paedophiles and their facilitation!

      Paedophilia is the very antithesis of the Church and the practice of it is the gravest of sins - an egregious crime as it has been described by the Church.

      Nevertheless, paedophiles insert themselves into every human group and organisation. Paedophile rings operate secretly within those organisations usually without the knowledge of the organisation. “Birds of a feather flock together”. Some will know about it. Most will be oblivious.

      Nowadays, what to do is crystal clear when a paedophile is discovered. It was not so in the past.

      Organisations, including spiritual and religious ones, often don’t/didn’t “get it” about paedophilia - certainly in the past - not so much today in the case of the CC - where child protection is rigid.

      The worst place for the mishandling of paedophilia, cover up and denial about it, is in the family. Victims abused by parents and family members are expected to keep quiet about it and ostracised if they dare to break the silence.

      Delete
    12. 18:32, your head is buried in a sand of self-delusion.

      Of course nothing was expressly in writing about facilitating paedophiles (and paedophile rings) in the Church, you bloody fool! But this is what happened nonetheless.

      Documents like Crimen Solicitationis sought to hush up sexual abuse and to deal with it in house rather than involve civil authorities.

      Canonical courts historically have always dealt more leniently with offending clerics than civil courts. So yes, the institutional Roman Catholic Church DID facilitate and enable, through juridical laxity, paedophiles, and paedophike rings, in the Church.

      Delete
    13. Maggie! Leave that poster alone!
      You’re a bloody fool yourself and you have the manners of a pig. Go back to your cups!

      Delete
  9. I would imagine a fair hearing and apology that things went array might go a long way in healing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the end Hugh seemed to recognise this man needed that, but then snatched it back from him.

      It sounds like a cluster of mess ups driven by poor government and management; sadly if this had been dealt with better others might have been spared a similar fate (and Maynooth's problems may not have escaled so far out of hand).

      Delete
    2. No one should be left with hurt, pain and distress - especially by a priest or priests.

      Delete
    3. I don't see much more mileage in this, +Pat. I think he'd be better off visiting his GP for PTSD, which can be successfully treated many years at the traumatic event occurred. Afterward, he could write a book about his experiences at Gaynooth.

      Delete
    4. 'No one should be left with hurt, pain and distress - especially by a priest or priests'

      Pat, Did you really write this?

      Delete
  10. I am very disappointed in Fr Mullanney's response. He may well be right that a historic case of abuse is not a matter for the current safeguarding officer. It may well be the case that psychological abuse may not be something that the Gardai would take much interest in.

    However, the tone of his letter, legalistic and backside covering, and evidently crafted after protective legal advice, does not address what he really should be trying to do in this case, which is to engage in some compassionate and pastoral way with the man concerned, and to find a way of bringing some resolution to this matter. All he does is minimise and belittle it, as well as the person who is making the accusation. I believe that if you sensitively engage with people and listen to their story, and take them seriously, and talk with them openly and honestly, then matters like this can be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. But, there is no offer of that at all. That is shameful, coming as it does from someone who professes to be a pastoral person, and someone who is responsible for the formation of the next generation of priests. I take it that Maynooth is telling these future priests to stonewall, to become legalistic, to avoid, and to minimise problems that are uncomfortable for them when they are confronted with them ?

    On the wider front, if a priest is accused of some behaviour that has given offence or is taken by someone to be abusive, be it physical, sexual, emotion or psychological, then that should be appropriately investigated by the Church once the complaint is made, In any other profession, if something of this nature is reported, then a protocol will be followed to ensure that the matter is dealt with, and the truth is brought out. This will involve a whole range of people in such a way that they all have the opportunity to be heard. The Church just does not seem to understand the requirements of professionalism, it does not seem to have the necessary protocols and ways of dealing with disputes. They are so unprofessional, mickey mouse in the way they deal with things, relying on clerical authority to win the day, and resenting the fact that they are being called to account.

    Any of us who have worked in professional organisations know how these matters should be dealt with to the advantage of all, and with respect. Mullaney has not got a maggots about what the rest of us know and practice. He and his ilk are amateurs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed @14:29. I also take on board the comment at 12:28.

      Mullaney is a careerist with no pastoral experience and, obviously, zero skills.

      He’s been too busy ‘climbing the ladder’ to be pastorally engaged with people and it is a very clear sign of the absolute dearth of ability, in the Irish Church, that such a limited and mediocre man, of only average intelligence, has become president of Maynooth.

      A pastorally gifted and skilled priest could have helped the person making the complaint to arrive at some healing and peace.

      That notwithstanding, as raised by 12:28, what do you do if someone is not really looking for answers to begin with? The most pastoral priest in the world won’t be able to resolve it.

      Delete
    2. Unbelievably, more than 25 years since his ordination Mullaney has never served in a parish.

      I am a contemporary of his in Maynooth and he was an extremely bland, unremarkable student. The same was the case with Paul Prior though he sticks in the memory because of his habit of inviting visitors to his room to view his huge, colourful underwear collection.

      In those days Maynooth was about 75% straight and this used to creep the guys out and they'd make a joke of it in the ref.

      Delete
    3. Wouldn't mind seeing Paul's underwear collection!

      Delete
    4. They were brightly coloured, mostly pastel, of the now unfashionable briefs kind. He would spread them out on his bed as a sort of rainbow. I can't remember how he steered the conversation round to the topic. I experienced it once and never again, by my choice.

      Delete
    5. Lol @ inviting people to see your underwear!
      But don't knock briefs, they're the most comfy :-D

      Delete
    6. I remember a friend (yes, a FRIEND, nothing more) coming into my room in Top Pat's and expressing disapproval of my freshly laundered underwear's being draped over those big, fat heating pipes to dry.

      'Do you have to put your smalls on show?'

      He, a 'third divine', didn't understand. He was one of the wealthier lot, who could afford to have their laundry cleaned by those dear nuns (and their lay slaves?) at the Presentation Convent. I was a mere 'pleb', who had to wash his own stuff in that tiny sink in my room.

      By the by, were those women lay workers at the convent Magdalene girls? I've often wondered. I remember bringing bed linen there to be washed (couldn't manage to clean THAT in my tiny sink) and being struck by the joyless atmosphere of the convent laundry: the lay female staff didn't look at all happy.

      It upset me. (And if the truth be known, it still does.)

      Delete
    7. I bet he "spread them on his bed"!!!
      Don't know him but there's something attractive looking about Paul P.

      Delete
    8. I remember sending clothes out to the Presentation Convent. You paid a fixed annual fee (80 punts in my time) which covered 15 items a week. Above 15 you paid per item, e.g. 10p per shirt. It took six days and each house in the seminary had a different collection and delivery day.

      The big fat pipes that supplied the heating to Top Pat's and Mary's are gone now and there's hot water in the rooms now, which had been unthinkable.

      Delete
    9. The laundry in the convent closed in either 1987 or 1988, so the fake Magna has revealed that he was in Gaynooth in the 1980s if not before.

      Delete
    10. Why couldn’t fake Magna take his sheets out to the laundrette in Greenfields like the rest of lads? I’d say they were in some state in any case - those sheets lol

      Delete
  11. I think Fr Chris Derwin has left Dublin Archdiocese as he no longer appears on its list of priests?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14:43 he should pay back the money I gave to the collections over the years especially on vocations Sunday when I am extra generous.

      I am sick of moochers.

      Delete
    2. Is this the priest who was allegedly robbed at knifepoint, before being frighteningly forced by the assailant to drive him and the stolen goods away from the scene? I remember some readers thought mugger could have been a former bit rough trade.

      Delete
    3. Pat, you have contacts. maybe you could confirm this?

      Delete
    4. I see that there's one of those gagging orders about Fr Derwin. How appropriate.

      https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15448254

      Delete
    5. @16:35 Obviously, you're a new reader to the blog. A lot to catch up with, dear.

      Delete
  12. 09:49 asks whether it is unusual for a seminarian to move diocese. Of course it happens......some seminarians decide that they're not happy in a certain diocese and seek to join another one. Nothing unusual in that.
    Then there's the Clogher seminarian in who turned his back on his diocese and off he legs it to Meath where he's accepted with open arms! Then.......yes, he fell out there so he's now grovelling for Clogher to re-admit him and yes.......they will take him back. No backbone in Clogher!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some follow their lovers from diocese to diocese.

      Delete
    2. 15:29 thanks for that. I don’t agree with people running around from diocese to diocese. The students must have some type of “issue” or “issues” if they can’t show stability in one diocese.

      +Pat - the issue isn’t students from Maynooth going to Rome. Traditionally the bright sparks would move from Maynooth or Clonliffe to Rome. They aren’t changing Diocese but it is the diocese who send them to a different college.

      Moving Diocese is a different issue and I think a candidate should be refused if he is not resident in the diocese he presents himself for. What is he hiding from?

      Delete
    3. I always thought Catholic priests 'don't' move diocese and here in England that was always contrasted to the Anglicans who often do. It always seemed suspicious - to the extent that I enjoyed saying 'I told you so' to my mother when the police came for our parish priest. I'd been saying for years that he was suspicious because he was a priest of another diocese with no apparent reason for being in ours.
      Moving diocese also fails in another way because birds of a feather flock together - witness the nest of sexual abusers who settled into the Anglican diocese of Chichester.

      Delete
    4. The Anglicans advertise parish vacancies in the Church Times and their "clergy" fill in application forms lol.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, forgot the "Church of Ireland" (lol) Gazette.

      Delete
    6. You're just jealous because a) Anglican clergy get a say where they go or b) Anglican parishioners get a say in who is on the PCC and thus who is the vicar.

      Delete
    7. That contributes to the congregationalist tendency in Protestantism whereby congregations and clergy mirror each other and there's no challenge or indeed unity of belief in e.g. the hopelessly misnamed "Church of England".

      Delete
  13. During my medical training many of my SHO's and Con's were psychologically abusive. Two guys who were very bright took a mental breakdown due to the daily 'public ritual' of bedside humiliation. This was abusive, it was wrong. Many of us still talk about those days and we hold different views. View 1: They were unsuitable because they could not handle stress. View 2: They were destroyed by an abusive training system! Military people, medical people, legal people etc., we all have suffered training abuse of some kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such systems you mention seem to build people up by heaping stress on them, challenging them and stretching their ability.

      Maynooth formation however appears designed to break people down, pick them apart as persons and then ordain those who survive.

      With these systems perhaps the best test is how the system manages those who do not come out the other end as members of the profession being trained. In Maynooth's case the failure rate seems far too high to be healthy.

      Delete
    2. That's correct and bullying occurs in all sorts of workplaces. I suppose the difficulty is that Maynooth seminarians perhaps over-idealistically expected a seminary to be a kind, Christian place with sympathetic priests.

      How wrong they were. After my experiences in Maynooth I have zero interaction with priests.

      Delete
    3. I agree with 16:08 as a health professional (not a doctor) I've far too often seen junior medical staff bullied. The kind of resilience a doctor should be trained to have is not created like that and I would argue it is actually similar to the seminary formation tactics described here - calculated to create someone who won't cause trouble.

      Delete
    4. Did the SHOs and consultants have the power to kick students off the course with no warning or explanation? That's the Maynooth way of doing things.

      Delete
    5. Exactly right 9.07. In all other professions there is some security of tenure if you are good at it.

      And also, the pressures put on people in relation to other professions is normally related to task/performance ability. In maynooth the pressures normally relate directly to the person and consequently the 'formation' destroys people on a personal level rather than building up the professional capacity. There is a key distinction in this.

      Delete
  14. +Pat is there any news on Conor Gannon - is he still flying with wings ?

    We should all chip in and send +Pat to Rome to unearth all this sordid nonsense and expose all the hiddden rot in the Irish College.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was actually a blessing from the Lord Jesus that +Pat intervened and put a light on the antics of gorgeous etc. that ordination would have made the church a very unhealthy place.

      Delete
  15. Anybody know where Paul Prior is spending his year-long holiday (sorry, sabatical)? To think that at the age of 50 he's never served in a parish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the men's underwear section at Harrods.

      Delete
    2. I'll tell you something he doesn't look 50. I'd have put him late 30's early 40's

      Delete
    3. He does indeed look well for his age. This is the result of a combination of genes, parish-dodging, a Mediterranean diet, moisturiser, and a blameless life.

      Delete
    4. Yes 22:16, Paul Prior looks well for 50. I think he's hot

      Delete
  16. 'After my experiences in Maynooth I have zero interaction with priests'

    Expand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On "experiences in Maynooth" or "zero interaction with priests"?

      My Maynooth experiences consist of the sustained psychological bullying, like taking the wings off flys, indulged in by the deans. There was no overt gay stuff in my time but lots of overt hetero relationships. The deans ignored them.

      I left of my own accord in II Divine. It was like being permanently psychoanalysed by the untrained.

      There was little mention of prayer and visitors to Maynooth often mentioned the lack of religious iconography in the seminary buildings. It was and is a deeply unsuitable seminary.

      Delete
  17. 17.53: Pity you feel that way about priests because the majority of them who came through a difficult and tough regime have proved themselves to be very kind, caring, dedicated and effective pastors, many of them giving selflessly of their time and energy for their parishioners. I often wonder if some of the guys who left the seminary or who were asked to leave were not suitable in the first place and are now filled with a rage and vengance against the Church. When any of us has gone through a difficult experience of abuse of any kind we should seek professional therapy and counselling to find a way forward in our lives, however difficult. Expressing concerns anonymously to Pat on this blog is not productive for our well being and inner equilibrium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reminding me why I should avoid priests. I'm happy to say that I'm a father in a family and I'm grateful for that. Unfortunately I still avoid the clergy like the plague. The head games are over. Good luck as all you Maynooth-approved priests watch tv alone.

      Delete
    2. MournemanMichael27 April 2018 at 21:16

      Well may you wonder. I'm one who left, in 1967, and am certain I was unsuitable .....cannon fodder for the RC church as I now see and understand it to be.

      But I don't hate it at all. I respect that my six years there continued and added greatly to my social awareness and conscience. But I have moved on from a naive cradle catholic blind faith unquestioningly belief and look upon the RC church as a religion based on a very questionable foundations many of whose ministers themselves have little belief in its raison d'etre but display outward conformity to maintain a privileged lifestyle.
      Having said that I recognise many of its adherents, clerical and lay, lead commendable lives following sound ethical principles motivated by their devout religious beliefs.
      MMM

      Delete
    3. @19.43
      If they were unsuitable in the first place than the psychological assessments should have unearthed that fact.

      The assessments to enter the place are supposed to ensure they are suitable...ergo, either the seminary is unsuitable of the entrance assessments are unsuitable (or both are unsuitable). It's anybody's guess really.

      Delete
    4. The psychological assessments let through Puck, Gorgeous, Rory, Derwin, Horny Andy, Gannon, Marshall etc, etc.

      Delete
  18. Why is Pat too afraid to address the issue of the psychological abuse that is present in his own blog? Why will Pat not hold himself up to the same standards he demands of others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between abuse and the exposure of strange goings on.

      Delete
  19. Pat THE Rev. Xxx xxx Xxxxxx moved to Xxxxxx to be with his boyfriend who is a priest. Xxxxxx is now gone back to the original diocese he left. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Late, Late is about the 8th tonight. Please tell me that Darcy and Flannery are not on the panel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Darcy is on then the show will be all about Darcy

      Delete
    2. Jealousy 22.00 gets you nowhere...now when you can chat like him, you might be allowed on to the late late.
      God bless our Brian and Pat...on
      Y for the both of them my life wd be so sad.

      Delete
  21. Maynooth Seminaria27 April 2018 at 20:19

    +Pat Xxxx xxx Xxxxxcxx is still spreading his flamboyant homosexuality around this seminary. His new victim is Xxxxx Xxxxxx and he is ruining the vocation of a good seminarian. Please highlight this sick predatory behaviour to your readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not good!

      Can you name their two bishops for me.

      I will pursue it for you.

      Delete
  22. Pat, I hear there is another Armagh scandal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, no, is it Grindr or BlacksForDaddies?

      Delete
    2. Sexual, financial, or psychologically?

      Delete
  23. 20.19: Poirot Buckley in action. "I will pursue it for you". Imagine. What would we do without you? If you had a serious pastoral ministry with real, demanding responsibilities you'd have little time for this outrageous behaviour. You are not always in possession of all relevant facts and all too quickly judge and condemn. Nothing of Christ in your actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jessica Fletcher

      Delete
    2. What?! You know Christ, 21:09?

      I'd never have guessed.

      Delete
    3. 21.09 You like to ridicule Pat for his work? You think he needs to be in possession of all the facts all the time? Pat, just do your best. There is no one doing this good work in the church but you.

      Delete
    4. 22.31: Mags, the viper is out from under his rock. Yes, indeed, I do know Christ. Do you?

      Delete
  24. Pat, I'm very worried about the fake Magna Carta. His posts today have been to the point, have insulted nobody and he has not used any racist language or called anyone a ho.
    Do you think he's had a stroke? Or perhaps they've given him weekend leave so he has to behave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are in LOVE with me, aren't you?💓

      Delete
    2. It's since you insisted on showing me your smalls, darling.

      Delete
  25. Pat please report all your findings to RTE investigation section on Maynooth seminary.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pat inquire more into the seminary trip to Prague last yr.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pat expose the real hidden story of what happened on the Prague seminary trip in which Fr Fanny was on. Dark hidden secrets.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Do you mean a seminarian from the North and one from the very South of Ireland. Wink wink.

    ReplyDelete