Thursday, 7 June 2018

After the landslide vote, Catholics are going to have to get used to life on the margin



Irish Catholicism will now have to be defiantly counter-cultural

by Jon Anderson Catholic Herald

The referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Irish constitution, which underlies Ireland’s strict abortion laws, marks the end of one of the last bastions of Catholic influence in the country. Leo Varadkar’s government will now move quickly to pass legislation that will introduce an abortion regime similar, though not identical, to that of Britain.
The referendum question passed much more easily than polls predicted, with 66.4 per cent of voters in favour to 33.6 per cent against. Thirty-nine out of 40 constituencies voted Yes, with only rural Donegal – arguably the most conservative part of the Republic – voting narrowly against. Yes campaigners were triumphant, with Dublin Castle being opened for a post-referendum party, while No campaigners have been left stunned over how this could have happened.
The scale of the Yes vote raises questions about the reliability of the polls and the assumptions that people on both sides had made. It was reasonable to assume that legalising abortion would be a tougher sell than same-sex marriage, which passed by 62 to 38 per cent in 2015. It’s much more difficult to make a secular case against gay marriage than it is against abortion. Also, the No campaign in the marriage referendum was shambolic, while the No campaign this time was much more professional and its representatives performed strongly in television debates.
But it possibly isn’t the case that the polls were so far out. Both campaigns expected from their internal canvassing that the result would be close. But published polls never showed the No vote higher than 34 per cent, and it was usually closer to 26. There was a widespread assumption that the large number of “don’t know” responses to polls hid a lot of shy No voters. In retrospect it seems more likely that the “don’t know” camp were those in the middle who didn’t like abortion but wanted limited change to deal with highly publicised tragedies such as the death of Savita Halappanavar (controversially blamed on the Eighth Amendment by abortion campaigners). In the closing stages, it seems as if these soft voters broke heavily to the Yes side, turning what might have been a narrow victory into a landslide.
This is speculative – the headline results don’t tell us much about the motivation of voters – but it was interesting to note the tactics of Sinn FΓ©in, the most uncompromisingly pro-repeal of the main parties. Earlier in the debate, its leadership had been criticised by supporters for its strong-arm approach to party representatives who were unwilling to support a Yes vote. Towards the end, a softer tone was taken and leading figures such as Matt Carthy and Pearse Doherty, who had a reputation for being close to pro-life thinking, were deployed to say that they were personally uncomfortable with abortion, but wanted a Yes vote to allow for hard cases like rape and fatal foetal abnormality. This was a conscious move: party leader Mary Lou McDonald is clever enough to know that her own brand of Dublin feminism wasn’t enough to bring the base with her.
But even if it was reluctant Yes voters who made the difference, this won’t matter. It’s true that the government gave the impression that the new abortion law would be more restrictive than it actually will be, but even if it had openly campaigned for a British-style abortion law that probably still would have got majority support. So the government will be in no mood to compromise, except possibly with forces to its left calling for the law to be liberalised beyond even what the government has proposed. It’s likely that within three to five years there will be a serious attempt to make the law even less restrictive.
The result also makes it more difficult for pro-lifers to sustain the idea that a rigged political system is to blame for their defeat. It’s true that a lot of factors stacked the deck against them. Ireland has been under pressure for many years from European Union and United Nations bodies, as well as international NGOs like Amnesty and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Most of the Irish political, media and cultural establishment have long been pushing for repeal of the Eighth Amendment. If the result had been on a knife-edge, factors like Facebook and Google censoring social media ads could have been decisive. But you can’t escape a two-to-one majority.
To look at it another way, media bias has been part of Irish life for a very long time. In the 1980s, when Ireland was supposedly one of the most Catholic countries in the world, it was commonplace for the media to identify an “enemy of the people” such as a bishop or pro-life campaigner – the other main disapproved group, the IRA, was banned from the airwaves – and run a week-long campaign to demonise them. An outsider who could only judge Ireland by its media would have assumed it was a fiercely anti-Catholic country. In fact, at the time the state broadcaster RTΓ‰ was heavily infiltrated by the Workers’ Party (formerly Official Sinn FΓ©in), a hardline Stalinist group that really did want to destroy Ireland’s traditional Catholic culture.
But it’s also true that the attacks would never have had an impact if they hadn’t resonated well beyond the small percentage of people who supported the party.
The people who may have best understood this were the activists of the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign who pushed for the Eighth Amendment in 1983. This was a lay initiative, not sponsored by the bishops, which was based on the idea that, although abortion was already illegal in Ireland, the taboo against abortion was already eroding and needed to be protected by a constitutional amendment. In retrospect, it is surprising that the amendment lasted as long as it has.
It’s also worth asking whether Ireland can still be called a Catholic country in any meaningful sense. There have been other countries, such as Netherlands or Canada, where the Church rapidly lost influence. The Irish collapse is more dramatic because it was long delayed, and because – given the size of the Irish diaspora – it is more important to Catholics internationally than other traditional strongholds like Portugal or Malta.
Exit polls indicated that around 90 per cent of voters aged 18 to 24 voted Yes. This undermines the case of those who imagine there is a Catholic revival in Ireland. In the abortion and marriage referendums, large parts of the Yes campaigns were based on kicking the Church while it’s down. Many would argue that the Irish Church deserves that, given the endless scandals of the past 20 years. The bishops kept a low profile during the referendum, and in any case, the Church is so discredited that an intervention from them might have been counter-productive. In fact the Orange Order took a stronger line for a No vote than many prominent Catholics.
At the moment, the only Catholic figure commanding any popularity is Pope Francis, which is why the referendum was held before the forthcoming papal visit. But Ireland has not been high on his list of priorities. So far his main initiative has been to remove the nuncio, Archbishop Charles Brown, who had upset local cliques and has now been posted to the backwater of Albania.
Irish Catholics are going to have to get used to life on the margins. Generations of young people have been raised on horror stories of 1950s Ireland, a time of poverty and repression, while modern Ireland worships consumerism and sexual autonomy. Religious education in Catholic schools has been terrible for decades. Even without the scandals, it would be difficult for Catholicism to get a hearing – and Ireland is a small country which is as ferociously conformist in its post-Catholic phase as it was in its Catholic phase. If Irish Catholicism is going to survive and rebuild, it will have to be consciously counter-cultural.

Jon Anderson is a freelance writer



The RC Church, as it existed in Ireland from 1922 to the 1970s is finished - and thank God for that!

Ireland was a priest ridden  country.

The bishops were the virtual unelected government.

The 1937 constitution was a  confessional Catholic document.

Millions of Irish people were victims of some kind of the Roman church.

The unionists in the North was right when they said: "Home Rule is Rome rule".

Of course some, or many, priests, brothers and nuns did a lot of good in schools and hospitals. Mind you, they were well paid for it by the state.

And now is the time for karma!

Now is the time for pay back.

The Irish people need to see to it that the RC Church has no place in public life.

We need them out of  of our schools, hospitals and all institution.

We need to send the popes ambassador back to Rome and take ours out of there. 

The "Holy See" is a rogue state anyway.

By all means let us have freedom of religion.

But let us rid ourselves of our religious colonists who probably hurt us more than the Brits ever did!

The Brits took our land.

The Romans vandalised our very souls!

86 comments:

  1. Grow up Buckley. You'd have no arse in you pants but for the said Romans!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No arse in his pants but for the said Roman?! Oh, grow tf up!

      Said Romans sponged any wealth they had off the Irish State, in other words, from the Irish people. It was the Irish people who fed, clothed, and housed vulnerable Irish families; no one else.

      Delete
    2. I am in th UK. We used to have a very good Augustinian friar as parish priest. He had spent some time in Ireland. I one parish there were several curates, each had his own house. This is when Ireland was a very poor country.

      Delete
  2. Doesn't take Buckley much time to return to his nasty, cheap, anti Catholic narrative. You only see what you want to see Pat. Despite all your supposed courage and vision (?), you haven't encouraged much renewal or enlightenment. My soul is certainly not vandalised by being a member of the Catholic Church. In fact, despite all its sins, I see the essence of its beauty, goodness and divinity. I find my strength in the small community of my parish in its fidelity to the Eucharist, to the sacred memory we celebrate and in the good works we carry out together. I'm not one to gloat over the the flaws, wrongs or imperfections of others. The mercy of Christ prevents me from doing so. We pick ourselves up, confident that the remnant will be God's work. That's where I discover hope. Your analysis is not new, just more sneering and vicious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MourneManMichael7 June 2018 at 09:42

      Is there some sort of parallel here between the decline and eventual demise of the "Great British Empire", and the past "Glorious Catholic Church?"

      Some observers, pointing to hard factual evidence, acknowledge that the Britain which once 'ruled the seas' is now but a pale anaemic shadow of its former self.
      In similar fashion observers point to the rapidly waning influence of the RC church and its loss of control right across the sphere of its former influence.
      Of course there are still pockets of "true believers" for both institutions who prefer to live on in the delusions of past glories. I think Jeremiah at 5:21 and Matthew at 9:26 had comments on the matter.
      MMM

      Delete
    2. Thank you poster @ 1.43.
      for attempting to bring back balance. God bless you.

      Delete
    3. You find strength in the small community of your parish in its fidelity to the Eucharist? Whatever the hell this means!

      More likely than not, it means, in practical terms, bending an ungracious knee to Rome, and its priest-parasites, like John Gates.

      There is probably only one thing I loathe more than the priest-parasites who are destroying the Church and its faith in Christ; it's the lickspittles (people like you) who have always, uncritically and subserviently, fed this vile beast; and you continue to do so, with your cash donations to 'poor Father'.

      Shame on you! You are co-responsible for the dreadful evil the priest-parasites have committed, including the devaluing of human life to the point where a nation will overwhelming vote to endanger the lives of its most vulnerable.

      Delete
    4. Remember good people - don’t feed this disgusting contemptible TROLL. Don’t bite! That’s what he wants you to do.

      Delete
    5. Magna Carta's Mum7 June 2018 at 13:56

      Magna darling, don't forget to end your comments by inviting a cash donation for Poor Mother!

      Delete
    6. 10.40: Magna, you wouldn't understand what fidelity to the Eucharist means? You are crass, offensive, twisted in your sense of humanity. You are unable to respond with any empathy, rationality or tolerance. That will always be your sadness and contribute to your misery. Your hate filled words are counterproductive.

      Delete
    7. Pat, you have serious questions to answer. Why do you allow the hate filled, offensive, demonic Magna demean, ridicule and abuse others in so vile a way? A simple answer please. It's morally reprehensible that he is allowed peddle such bigotry.

      Delete
    8. 14:07: Bigotry? What bigotry?

      A statement bigoted only if it is demonstrably untrue and unreasonably held.

      What did I state in my post at 10:40 that fits this bill?

      Delete
    9. 16.15: Magna, if you research the meaning of the word bigotry, you'll have no difficulty in recognising its presence in every diatribe that pours forth from your mouth. You are DEMONSTRABLY a true bigot!

      Delete
    10. 18:11: You didn't answer my question. Why? Afraid of being proved wrong?πŸ˜†

      Delete
  3. Sure the diocese of Raphoe is backwards anyway. Enabling abusers. Still sending children to major seminary. Mothers still sending sons for free education without ordination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Karma and pay back you say? Is that what motivates you and this blog? I’ve never read such a vicious hate filled anti-Catholic commentary of yours that follows this newspaper article on the blog today. You’ve done pretty well from the Romans yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anti-Catholic? Oh, do try to read with greater discernment. It's anti-Catholic Church establishment.

      You're intelligent enough to know the difference; start showing that, then.

      Delete
    2. The TROLL is attacking most posts on here today. He’s awake early and wanting you to react - don’t fall for it and don’t feed the TROLL.

      Delete
  5. Unresolved old toxic issues and unresolved anger completely distorting people's perception...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I for one am immensely grateful for Pat´s courage and integrity in telling that most diificult thing: the truth. Yesterday a friend told me of his family‘s distress in their small rural parish in Somerset concerning their new parish priest’s refusal to discuss his petrol expenses of 9,000 pounds compared to his predecessor‘s 3,000 pound use the previous year. He removed the item from the agenda, was verbally aggressive to a female ( note! ) member of the PCC, reducing her to tears, and then preached about a culture of hate in the parish the following Sunday. Sound familiar, and will anything be done? Today His Grace Archbishop Cushley, pictured on the front page of the Catholic Herald in his palace surrounded by antique furniture, reminds the quivering faithful that missing Mass on Sunday is a „mortal sin“. Presumably the takings are down.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And who will listen to the likes of Cushley? To his attempt to 'restore order' (hierarchical subservience and obedience) by moral intimidation?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pat Buckley’s comments today - and the follow up from his cheerleading troll, “Magna Carta” - can only be described as moronic and bigoted.

    Incidentally, that is no such thing for a Christian as “karma”.

    Buckley’s reference to so-called “karma” speaks volumes about his mentality and motivation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. And one of these days you too will get your own “just deserts” (sic).

      Delete
    2. That will be God's business.

      Delete
    3. 11.39 - "desserts" - not your spelling...

      Delete
    4. "just deserts" is correct, "just desserts2 is incorrect

      Delete
    5. 15.05: I suggest you ask Google or Oxford dictionary for spelling - "desserts".

      Delete
  9. During the publication of the Murphy Report, I watched an article on BBC Newsnight that featured pictures of children not only making rosaries but also the leather belts, some with threepenny-bits sown in, that the “Christian” brothers used on them. It was horrific.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Neither the blog piece nor the comments can cover up that Irish people have generally turned their backs on Jesus. It is Jesus who offers peace, the opposition offer war in all their disguises. The horror of abortion was wrapped up with rights, healthcare and words like compassion and it may be that all those who voted 'yes' committed mortal sin or were already living in mortal sin. Time will tell. The catholic bishops in union with the pope on a faith or moral issue, despite their personal sins, is effectively the voice of Holy Spirit. Judgement will come. Perhaps it is here already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not believe or accept that the voice of popes and bishops is always the Holy Spirit speaking.

      The Holy Spirit speaks through all the People of God.

      Delete
    2. 13.44: You a**e is spewing my h s**t today. Hate monger. Where is the God of Jesus in instigating such foul mouthed, vile, bigotry and deliberate hate. Shame on you.

      Delete
    3. I am reading "Altar of Secrets" at the moment. It is about the corruption in the Filipino church. The clergy are no closer to God than we are.

      Delete
    4. Pat Buckley at 13:44 - Nonsense. The Holy Spirit does not speak “through all the People of God”. Populist meaningless claptrap. Jesus was very specific about who spoke with His voice and it was not “all the People of God”.

      Delete
    5. 16:07: Where in the New Testament does Jesus say that he restricts the guiding 'into all the truth' by the Holy Spirit (the Counselor) to the Apostles and their so-called successors, the bishops?

      Delete
    6. TROLL is back

      Delete
    7. To Peter alone it was said “feed my lambs, feed
      My sheep”. To Peter alone were the keys given to bind and to loose.

      Delete
    8. Don't believe that.

      The authority was given to the whole church.

      Delete
    9. 16.07
      “When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12:11–12)
      Your argument is not advanced by your intemperate language.

      Delete
    10. 18:46: What you have done is called 'proof texting': picking a portion of Scripture and taking it right out of its didactic context. Very unacademic.

      If you read more widely, you'll discover that Jesus said HE, not Peter, was 'the way, the truth, and the life'. And that when he had ascended, he would send, in his name, 'the spirit of truth' to lead his followers into 'all truth'. The source of this truth, as Jesus makes perfectly clear and which you have ignored, is Jesus himself. Peter cannot, therefore, feed anyone, since this would contradict Jesus' words that 'he was the way, the truth, and the life' and that no one could 'come to the Father' except by him.

      Delete
    11. Troll @21:53, I know very very well that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. You’re condescending cant only illustrates your narrow little mind.

      Jesus, who said, “I am the Way ....” ALSO said TO PETER ALONE “Feed my sheep ....” There is no contradiction whatsoever to anyone with half a brain.

      And Pat Buckley you’re not believing something is neither here nor there - it only shows how much in error you are.

      The authority was NOT given to the whole Church. Even in the natural order, authority is not given to everyone or there would be complete lawlessness and total chaos.

      Delete
    12. 23:05: You're beginning to sound desperate, as well you might, since your points are so obviously weak.

      Of course there's a contradiction! Only Jesus, through the Spirit, can feed his followers. With what? With truth. And as Jesus made it clear that he ALONE is truth, then what he reportedly said to Peter can only have been figurative. In fact, these words, along with the entire last chapter of John's gospel, are an addition to the Gospel of John, which naturally concludes with Chapter 20. Chapter 21 is a later redaction to a completed gospel. In case you still don't understand, IT IS A MAN-MADE ADDITION. None of the Synoptic Gospels (written earlier than John and, therefore, more likely to be historically reliable) has Jesus say any such thing to Peter.

      Even if (for argument'snsake) it is taken that Jesus did speak these words to Peter, where is it stated that Jesus gave this instruction to Peter alone?

      You prune! Nowhere in Chapter 21 is Jesus reported as saying any such thing!

      As I said, you sound desperate, because you know your argument is weak. And not just weak, but pathetic, too.πŸ˜†

      Delete
    13. 23.05 Jesus said that to Peter. Your addition of the word 'alone' suggests you think Jesus didn't mean that anyone else should feed his sheep.

      That's a poor hermeneutical principal to adopt in relation to the teaching of Jesus.

      For example, Jesus said to the disciples who asked him to teach them how to pray, 'Pray like this: OUr Father, who are in heaven....'

      According to your approach, because Jesus said this to a specific band of disciples, the answer was intended for them alone. No one else should say the Our Father.


      I think you better think it out again.

      Delete
    14. Not at all. He said specifically to Peter - not to James or John or any of the others. Employ all the gymnastics you like - you cannot get away from the simple facts.

      Delete
    15. Magna Carta at 23:51 you are as thick as two short planks. “Man made addition” is it eh?

      Because it doesn’t tally with your falsehoods it’s a “man made addition”? ROFL

      Let’s see what other “man made additions” there are. Ah! There’s one! “Love your enemies”! Someone must have made that one up too.

      Where do we begin and where do we end with these “man made additions”? Anything else you don’t like and want to throw out as a “man made addition”, eh Troll?

      There really is no point arguing with a fool and a buffoon on a blog like this. So Cheerio LOL

      Delete
    16. 13:26: 'specifically' does not mean 'alone', or 'only', or 'exclusively'.

      It is not a question of 'gymnastics', but of evidence. And the evidence is clear (unwelcome to some, like you, but clear nonetheless): Jesus did not say that ONLY Peter could 'feed' his followers; this is a fact, whether you like it or not.

      Nor could Jesus have said any such thing anyhow, because, as he makes clear elsewhere, only HE is the way the truth and the life. In other words, 'only HE can feed his followers, since only HE is truth'.

      As I said (but you, clearly, didn't want to know), Chapter 21 of John's gospel is a later redaction of this gospel, probably by a male writer and obviously by a strong supporter of Peter's legacy; it, naturally and transparently, concludes with Chapter 20. You don't know much (if anything) about biblical scholarship, do you?

      YOU would very much like to get away from these facts, wouldn't you?

      Not one of the Synoptic Gospels refers, or even alludes, to Peter's having such a role, and this is because that remark in John' gospel is a literary licence (a fiction), along with the entirety of Chapter 21.

      I'm sorry if all this disturbs your ultamontane comfort zone, but, if you're not mature enough, either intellectually or emotionally, to handle biblical truth, please don't get in the way of others who are.

      Delete
    17. 13:35: Good that you had the sense to throw in the towel.

      It's about the only sense you've shown so far.πŸ˜†

      Delete
    18. “Magna Carta” troll you are being completely and utterly obtuse.

      Christ, after He ascended to Heaven, left His Church to continue His mission with the power and help of the Holy Spirit.

      There is no contradiction whatsoever in Peter and his successors feeding and looking after the Lord’s flock and Jesus Himself doing so through them.

      That is how the Lord Jesus Himself has arranged things. Your twisting and subverting of the Word of God - indeed your outright denial of it because it doesn’t suit your warped prejudices, makes not one button of difference to its Truth.

      Delete
    19. Back in my Catholic days I, too, used to believe that. Sadly nowadays, looking back on the history of the Church, it doesn't appear to me to be an organization that has been guided by the Holy Spirit.

      Would a Spirit-led church have chased after riches, power and position - the very things that Jesus warned against? Led by the Spirit of someone who said "Love your enemies; do good to those who hurt you" would it have carried out crusades and heretic burnings? Would a Spirit-led Church have transferred child-abusing clergy from one diocese to another, thus making a mockery of "Suffer little children to come unto me" by turning it into "Little children who come unto me suffer"?

      I just can't see it. As far as I'm concerned the behaviour of the Church down the centuries gives the lie to any claims that Jesus was raised from the dead and sits in power at the right hand of the Father. If he really HAS got any power, why has he allowed 'his' Church to go so dreadfully, shamefully wrong so often?

      Delete
  11. Galatians taking about reaping what you sow. Sounds like karma to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13.50: Paul, what a stupid, unintelligible comment! From Pat's stable of makey up religion. Bizarre.

      Delete
  12. 13.50 If you undertook any proper theological studies, particularly inter-faith studies you will find it’s the non theistic religions that promote the theory of Karma not the New Testament. Your theory, reasoning and argument is somewhat confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a lot of assumptions about what theological studies I may, or may not have, completed. Do you know me?

      And, if you read my comment properly, I never claim the NT was promoting the concept of karma, merely that ‘ reaping what you sow’ sounds close to the concept of Karma.

      Yes, I realise, Karma is much more nuanced theological/philosophical concept than this with close ties to the concept of reincarnation, however, in my defence, I was merely making a passing comment on a popular blog and had I realised that my theory, reasoning and argument would come under the scrutiny of , what would appear to be your superior knowledge in this area , I might have given it a bit more thought. Then again ....

      Delete
    2. 18.33 We can assume plenty about the level and depth of your theological studies as a lay person based on the nonsense you gave us about Karma. I’d also question how you arrived at the strange conclusion that this is a popular blog.

      Delete
    3. And there you go again with your assumptions. At some point you need to stop assuming and stop playing your game. Am I a lay person? Is it impossible for a lay person to have theological qualifications?

      By popular blog I mean that Pat allows all type of postings to be made - some are insightful - some are not - some are humorous - some are not. Some of it is gossipy etc. My point is - it’s not a blog for the intectual heavyweights to discuss serious theological issues. There is room for that but that’s not it’s primary function.

      What precisely are your theological qualifications? It would be interesting to hear/ read some of your theological insights. Please share them with us instead of trying to have a go at mine - assuming I have any.

      Delete
    4. 14:28
      Hinduism is not a non-theistic religion. Buddhism is agnostic around the existence of God, therefore not a non-theistic religion either. So which religions are you referring to?

      Delete
    5. Exactly - that is why when I referred to the concept in my later post I referred to it as a theological/philosophical concept. ( covering all bases - as it were.)

      Delete
  13. The Irish people made a sensible, responsible decision, drawing on Christian methods of reflections. Clerical intransigence on this is a suicidal policy. Listen to the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @15.00
      Considering that the majority of the Irish nation can now justify the killing of human life in the womb, any historical sense of victim hood as to how poorly the Irish were treated by the British can now fade into insignificance

      Delete
    2. 15.25 I agree with you there. A century of freedom in Ireland has meant loss of the true faith, huge levels of debt on everyone, arrogance like never before and a country hurtling towards the most miserable future of our own making.

      Delete
    3. Yes 15.00 listen to the people and be led to hell.

      Delete
    4. 15.00 ‘drawing on Christian methods of reflections.’
      Are you for real?

      Delete
  14. Clonard Novena 2018: 13th - 21st June

    For anyone unfamiliar Clonard Novena is run by the redemptionists at Clonard Monastery up off the Falls Road in West Belfast.

    With all the talk of miracles over the last few days I’d like to invite all the readers and everyone is Welcome. It’s a very special Novena with miracles known to happen.

    Www.clonard.com has full details

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And please give generously.

      Delete
  15. God’s justice is not “karma”. God’s justice puts things right and ultimately restores and heals. Karma is just the ugly sensation of “getting your own back”.

    And the justice of God will be manifested against the causes of sin and scandal in His Church - not against His Bride the Church which will be finally purified and perfected.

    ReplyDelete
  16. People talk about Karma as if they were marking a spread sheet with brownie points for and against themselves and other peoples. That is not the proper understanding of Karma. In Galatians you reap what you sow is a means exactly that if you plant flowers hopefully you will have flowers. Your actions are a force and they have consequences upon yourself and other people that's what Karma means. It's not some sort of charm. If you wish judgement upon others you will be judged. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. But also remember there is nothing in eternity that the power of the Trinity can't prevail against. And also the Spirit of purification is blowing through the Church and a stronger and a much Holier Church will emerge. People are human and they sin God's mercy extends to all who ask of it and God alone knows what it is peoples thoughts etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will definitely smaller.

      More pure?

      Only if it gets rid of clericalism.

      Delete
    2. Such as people 'ordaining' themselves as bishops! Catch a grip Pat.

      Delete
    3. Such as the PEOPLE choosing the bishops and pastors!!!

      Delete
    4. Who chose you. It was just you. Pat your talk, cartoons, etc are so far removed from the model of Christ who you are supposed to represent. A bit more humility and honest prayer. Servant of Christ?

      Delete
  17. The comments are very funny today. Father's feeling rather waspish!

    ReplyDelete
  18. 18.20 nothing funny about the comments, but a sad insight into how far Pat has gone. The holy spirit can speak through anyone or any situation but there's also an authority - the head of the church - which should be listened to and respected - and certainly not ridiculed. It's a time for prayer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus is the head of the church.

      The papacy is the invention of men.

      Delete
    2. You have a lot in common with Evangelical Protestantism and Free Presbyterians. I'm sure the DUP will give you free honoury membership.

      Delete
    3. They're not wrong on everything!

      Delete
    4. Pat, the papacy is an invention of Jesus.

      Delete
    5. Pat at 20:07 on June 7th - the Free Ps and “Evangelical” Protestants “are not wrong on everything”?

      Are they “not wrong” then on their opinion, that your “unsaved” soul, Pat Buckley - and the “unsaved” souls of multitudes like you - (and me) are going to roast in Hell for all eternity?

      Are they “not wrong” on their views on gay people?

      Or are they “not wrong” only when and where their bigotry and hatred coincides with yours, is that it?

      And they are “not wrong” where you, in your own hatred of the Church, can borrow their vicious invective of “Romanist” and “whore” and “Popery” etc., etc., for your own twisted and bigoted purposes?

      People see through you Pat. You are a completely absurd individual - a side show and a laughing stock. What a waste of your life and priesthood. God help you. You are more to be pitied.

      Delete
  19. Fr. Darcy addressed the Presbyterian General Assembly in Belfast. It went down very well indeed along with great humour and laughter. I hear the DUP are keen to get him on board to address them soon also. He’s a popular man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Woe to you when the world speaks well of you. This was the way they treated the false prophets".

      Delete
    2. Fr Brian is loved in Fermanagh. People are so jealous of him.

      Delete
  20. Extraordinary article in today's Irish News from the Administrator of the Armagh Regional Marriage Tribunal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A sprinkling of childish and frustrated comments from the anonymous few (gobshites) Jesus showed good choices come from godly choices not the law. Dear frustrated we cant change the past but can work for a better future

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Christ never talked with a language like you. Follower? Imitating Him? No, just someone who lives a double life. I can say this because your posts contradict themselves depending on the topic, weather, time of day, etc. You at times show depth of love and spirituality, and the next sound like an atheist secular, dead, sad commentator.

      Delete
  22. Clinard Novens. Cash only. No cards or cheques please. They leave an audit trail. Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  23. 20.42 People are complex Sometimes a person can only learn the hard way through doing

    ReplyDelete
  24. Pat this is a shocking revelation of Mark Moriarty is on Pastroal Placement with King Puck. King Puck is Moriarty's mentor in the field of how to live a double lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete