Thursday 18 October 2018




AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF ENGLAND, WALES AND SCOTLAND

Concerning St. Mary’s College, Oscott




Dear Bishops,

Like countless faithful Catholics around the world, I am sure many of you have been shocked and sickened by the recent scandals committed by the former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.  Further suffering is being inflicted by the silence of other cardinals and bishops who knew about his behavior and said nothing — and indeed continue to say nothing. In light of the explosive report by Archbishop Viganò, it becomes even more apparent that the homosexual cabal operating in the Catholic Church exists at the very highest level and even incriminates Pope Francis himself. 

I hope and pray that the action of the Holy Spirit is now beginning to purify the hierarchy by exposing the evil committed by homosexual clergy around the world. I feel it is my duty to now inform you and faithful Catholics that the homosexual collective within the hierarchy which enabled McCarrick to function in an unobstructed manner is still alive and well today in the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
Towards the end of May 2018, I was dismissed from my post as formation tutor at St. Mary's College, Oscott by the rector, Canon David Oakley. The reason for this was that I recommended that an openly gay seminarian discontinue the program of formation. Clearly, as an openly gay man, there was no hope of him being ordained. David Oakely informed me that his bishop was "adamant" that his student was staying in formation and that this was not how he and a number of bishops interpreted the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.   

In light of the McCarrick scandal and the Viganò report, it has become very clear that cardinals, bishops and senior clergy from around the world are still openly dissenting against the Church's teaching that prohibits the entrance into seminary formation of men with a homosexual orientation. This is the root cause of the most pressing scandal of our times. In fact, it is destroying the priesthood from within.

Oscott


Apparently, the policy in Oscott appears to be if a candidate is not "acting out" his homosexual tendencies at the moment or behaving in an inappropriately "camp" way, then he is free to follow the formation program and move towards holy orders. The rector will not dismiss a candidate from the seminary who admits to being "gay" out of fear that his bishop will not agree with his decision. The problem, therefore, quietly continues.

This approach is clearly ignoring the Church's teaching on this vital issue, yet for some strange reason, bishops are still not being made accountable for disregarding this important instruction. Whilst the teaching is clear, the practice in so many dioceses is deeply compromised. Can I make a huge plea that something be done about this widespread abuse?

I can also state that two of the spiritual directors in the seminary are very compromised on the issue of homosexuality — one individual admitting to me his own gender identity is very confused and the other openly stated that homosexual priests are a good idea as they are better able to minister effectively to homosexual Catholics! Neither would adhere to Church's teaching and acknowledge that a key part of their role as spiritual director contained the "duty to dissuade (a homosexual person) in conscience from proceeding towards ordination."

I am writing to you all with a petition to act and take the necessary steps to reform the three remaining seminaries in England. The orthodox and heterosexual seminarians deserve a seminary free from a gay subculture and free from academic and formation staff who are homosexual themselves.

For the sake of brevity, I will summarise my findings from the year I spent working in the seminary:

The problem begins at St. Luke's Institute in Manchester where a number of seminarians are asked to undergo a psychological assessment as part of the selection policy. The director of the institute, Fr. Gerard Fieldhouse-Byrne, has some very strange views on homosexuality himself and seems happy to admit homosexual men into the formation program. This is a problem that the bishop of Salford needs to address.

Canon David Oakley is prepared to admit homosexual men into his seminary and will not dismiss them unless their public conduct becomes unsavory. He is a compromised and cowardly man who is not prepared to make a stand and disagree with the bishops on the issue of homosexuality.

A number of bishops from England and Wales are happy to admit seminarians who are openly gay into the formation program and proceed towards ordination. The bishop of Menevia is one such example.  

One of the spiritual directors at Oscott Seminary has admitted to being sexually attracted to young men. It is highly inappropriate that such an individual hold such a post. The rector is aware of this fact but seems unable to confront this individual. He even noted that the friends who accompany this individual for holidays each year are also homosexual. Another of the spiritual directors in the seminary thinks that homosexual priests are a great idea as they can minister to the gay Catholic community.

The archbishop of Birmingham and the archbishop of Westminster have both been informed of these issues and seem to prefer to ignore them. Why do we continue to have such passive and feeble-hearted clerics in such high places of leadership in the Church? Why are they afraid to speak out on topics such as homosexuality in the clergy and the toxic gender ideology sweeping through our schools?  

These are not only facts but shocking allegations against the present life of the seminary in Birmingham. Action needs to be taken to address the homosexual culture in the Church's hierarchy. Scandals like those of Theodore McCarrick and Cardinal Keith O'Brien are just waiting to happen. The normal, heterosexual students in Oscott demand that the homosexual clique in the seminary be dismissed and that the homosexual or bisexual staff members be dismissed also. 

Are there any good bishops left who are brave enough to begin the wholesale reform of the priesthood that is so badly needed?

I was fired from the college for striving to uphold the Church's teaching on homosexuality which is a grave injustice to me personally. It is extraordinary to think that I was asked by the rector to make a public oath of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church at the beginning of the academic year. It is my fidelity to that oath that has cost me my job and deprived the seminarians of the only qualified formator in the seminary.    

In the summer of 2016, I was forced to resign from St. Patrick's College, Maynooth because they were ordaining openly homosexual men to the priesthood, and two years later I have been fired from St. Mary's College, Oscott for stating that homosexual men are not to be admitted to seminary formation and priesthood. We are surely living through dark times for the Catholic Church. Are there any good bishops left who are brave enough to begin the wholesale reform of the priesthood that is so badly needed?  

With every blessing in Christ,

Father David Marsden, S.C.J.
Former Formation Tutor

PAT SAYS:

One has to admire Father Marsden for his consistency and courage.

It is the accepted teaching of the Catholic church that homosexual men are not allowed to enter the seminary or be ordained.

But while pretending to uphold their Churches teaching many bishops around the world are sending  homosexual men to seminary and to ordination.

This is total hyprocisy.

Many of the bishops and seminary staff ignoring these rules are sexually active themselves and some of them are having sex with seminarians and priests.

This also makes a total laughing stock of the celibacy requirement.

The church hierarchy needs to make its mind up.

1. Impose celibacy properly and expell all sexually active  bishops, priests and seminarians.

2. Change the rules and teachings and allow all sexually active bishops, priests and seminarians carry on to their heart's content. 





  

83 comments:

  1. Pat

    The real hypocrisy is your agreement with this mans warped interpretation and clear hatred of gay men which you seem to support?

    Those men were not safe from Fr. David Marsden's obsession with homosexuality.

    A good psychologist would call it projection and a deep seated homosexual homophobic tendency.

    When it comes to Fr. Marsden the line from William Shakespeare comes to
    mind ‘The lady doth protest too much’.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Georgous

      Delete
    2. Where did I say I agreed with Fr. Marsden?

      I do not agree with RC teachings on this matter.

      I have no problem ordaining and man or woman because of their sexual orientation.

      Delete
  2. I am greatly surprised at your conclusions here, Bishop Pat. You sound as irrational, as homophobic, as that intellectual automaton, David Marsden.

    The teaching of the Church is that unjust discrimination against homosexuals is morally indefensible. And yet you become moral blood brothers with a priest who would endorse a ban on the ordination of gay seminarians for no reason other than their sexual orientation?

    The documents on which are based the banning of gay candidates from seminary were themselves based on the work of disgraced priest/psychotherapist (and part-time, self-repressed gay man) Monsigneur Tony Anatrella. Is your moral judgement so myopic, Bishop Pat, that you, like that pious halfwit Marsden, can overlook this highly pertinent fact?

    Again, you do surprise me. 😕

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MC, I am only saying that the RC Church can't have it both ways - teaching one thing and practising the opposite.

      I do not accept the RC position personally.

      I am happy to ordain gay men and women who have partners.

      Delete
  3. Yes, there is a definite problem in seminaries with promiscuous homosexuals among staff and students with all sorts of potential for scandal and harm.

    HOWEVER, something about this man, David Marsden, sends all the alarm bells ringing and red alerts flashing furiously.

    There’s obviously something wrong with HIM as well the system he decries.

    I certainly would not take David Marsden and his concerns at face value. Something definitely not right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It is the accepted teaching of the Catholic church that homosexual men are not allowed to enter the seminary or be ordained."

    False. There was a disciplinary directive, and it was basically not accepted. Doctrine is not involved.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The world's bishops and seminary directors decided that the banning of gay students was impracticable, discriminatory, and would cast the church in an obnoxious homophobic light. Thus the Vatican directive remains a dead letter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As a sexually active bishop you are clearly arguing for option 2.

    Fr Marsden is arguing for option 1.

    You believe a gay person can be a priest or bishop. Fr. Marsden believes that gay-oriented candidates must be "weeded out" at entry level.

    How can you admire a homophobic screed that expresses the opposite of what you believe on these fundamental points? Please explain the logic of your stance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I admire Father Marsden for his consistency and for standing up to hypocrites.

      I do not agree with him.

      "I disagree with all you say but I am prepared to die for your right to say it".

      Delete
  7. The truth about the illcit behaviour of the Maynooth trip to Prague would result in resignations and expulsions from continuined formation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Would he not have been better off focusing on sexual acrivity rather than homosexual activity? Celibacy is celibacy afterall.

    ReplyDelete
  9. +Pat- take the plank out of your own eye before you cast judgement. If these rules applied in your day, you would not have made it through the doors of any seminary never mind ordination.

    Re-read the letter carefully. He is seeking retribution for being sacked, and like his friend Viganó he is throwing mud to see were it sticks. Look at his language. He describes heterosexuality as "normal", he is the only one qualified in formation in the Seminary, heterosexual men are "orthodox" as opposed to a gay man who is- heretical?

    This man is dangerous! He should have nothing to do with any aspect of formation in any seminary in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So in your "Pat Says" - by logical conclusion, you, Pat, should not have been allowed into the seminary had you revealed your sexuality. While you weren't active, it was known that you were gay by your overtures and mannerisms. Shouldn't your standards for others apply first and foremost to yourself? I cannot square your thinking. Is it for CATHOLICS only? Seems so. If that's your thinking - utter hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a Roman Catholic rule.

      It does not apply to other Catholics who are not Roman, like me.

      Delete
    2. Pat, your hypocrisy is galling. Are you really that thick? "It does not apply to other Catholics who are not Roman". FFS I've never heard such rubbish in all my life. Did it not apply at your Diaconate and Priestly Ordination? You still act out from those Ordinations so step down into the lay world if you are no longer "Roman". What utter crap you spout Pat. Do you not realise how stupid you look saying that.

      Delete
    3. Clearly 10.25 is unaware about the lack of arbitary celibacy in the non-latin Catholic Churches (of which many are in full communion with Rome)

      Reign it in 10.25, reign it in.

      Delete
  11. Here we go again. Is the Church missing the point. Of course inappropriate sexual activity and abuse of any kind needs to be rooted out. But what about the roots. Does anyone care about God and prayer and spiritually any more. Why are success stories in these areas not being highlighted on here. I fear the modern church comes across as a semi secret medaieval secret society with a language and sub culture to match.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, this is just the rantings and obsessive dysfunction of a Talibanesque single focus person who hasn't got a grounding in the real world. It's a one track record playing over and over again.

    Longley and Nichols will have heard it al before, and will take a broad and wise view of it, seeing beyond the single issue which Marsden talks about. Seminary training is about developing integrated and well grounded men for the priesthood, from a wide range of backgrounds and personalities, and sexualities, and is designed to ensure that the priesthood does not become some sort of Stormtrooper elite which tramples over the faithful in pursuit of some purist ideology. Let's leave that to the Legionaries of Christ and other such ilk.

    So, I discount these rantings and ravings from Marsden, all couched of course under the top cover of Church teaching, but really are the sickly obsessive mutterings of an unbalanced man. He'll be lecturing us about the evils of masturbation next. Really !

    ReplyDelete
  13. MournemanMichael;

    Are people of a homosexual identity proven/known/acknowledged to be more significantly sexually active or promiscuous than those of a hetrosexual inclination?
    I ask from a position of ignorance on the matter.
    I ask noting the words in fifth parag of the blog which say that, "..if the candidate is not 'acting out' his homosexual tendencies......etc." That seems to be the nub of the issue.
    As I understand it, candidates are obliged to celibacy regardless of their sexual orientation. Most people recognise that some candidates as seminarians, or subsequently as priests, will depart from that requirement, and of course there is significant concern both within the RC church and externally as to the quotient of those professing but ignoring celibacy requirements, and the consequent implications of this.

    Is it right to bar one simply on the grounds of a homosexual inclination without strong evidence showing the intrinsic nature of that inclination substantially increases the liklihood of the individual abandoning the celibacy requirements?
    And I ask that simply as a matter of equality and irrespective or acknowledgement of what may have been specified by a pope or the RC hierarchy.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Practice seems to be that active homosexuals have relations with peer priests, to the detriment of genuine brotherly bonding. The result is a political quagmire within priesthood where genuine guys get forgotten about while poor-quality clerics can prostitute themselves into comfortable parishes and bishoprics.

      The ultimate result is the absence of genuine leadership due to the prostitutes at the top promiting prostitutes to succeed them and crushing anybody who might threaten them.

      Delete
    2. 11:51, you didn't answer Willo's highly relevant question. It is the very first sentence of his post.

      Delete
    3. MournemanMichael:
      On further reflection. ( brisk Mourne post breakfast walk musings: it's the air!)
      I suppose my earlier questions neglect the realities of context. An inclination to promiscuity is situational as well as personal inclination. And if individuals, seminarians or priests, have difficulty coping with celibacy per se and find themselves, as one of a homosexual inclination, regularly in the company of other similarly struggling individuals of like orientation, might that be a relevant factor for consideration?
      I suppose though at the heart of it all is the questionable attitudes of the RC church towards sexuality per se and the much more questionable requirement of clerical celibacy within the Latin rite.
      MMM

      Delete
  14. Sounds like this Marsden fellow suffers from HOCD (Homosexual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).

    By publishing his letter, Bp Pat, you are not really helping him. HOCD is taking up a significant amount of his daily life and thoughts and causing him nearly crippling anxiety.

    I can only hope the bishops can find help for this sad case.

    Concerned pensioner.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bp Pat, I presume your bishop knew perfectly well that you were a queer when they sent you to seminary and to ordination all those years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know what he knew. At that time I was a repressed and quilt ridden "queer" :-)

      Delete
    2. "Quilt ridden queer" Oh Pat: surely not a Freudian slip: or a clever play on words?

      Delete
  16. You can tell Marsden is a good one when he makes Brendan/Stephen/Magna/Georgous go buck mad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will you stfu you immature moron @10.14. You are the stalker aren't you? The one going on about Bel g afraid of Mullaney. Pat, cop yourself on printing this shit for godsakes.

      Delete
    2. Strange goings on Maynooth lol

      Delete
    3. Marsden is a 'good one', 10:14? 😕

      No.

      But that statement of yours is a bloody good one. 😆

      Delete
  17. Patrick your own Seminary report classed you as having homosexual tendencies because I have seen it. You were not so innocent in this regard, so can you please stop the sickly hypocrisy here. On the subject of Marsden, this man should never have been sent anywhere near a Seminary. I say that because he has deep homophobic views and opinions and uses Church teaching as a cover. He actively makes it his business to root out people who are gay in his unprofessional questioning of them. In Oscott for instance he would ask gay Seminarians which members of staff were sympathetic to them. That was his clear agenda and crossed many boundaries. A totally unacceptable, obnoxious and nasty individual who caused more harm to decent students than good. He should hang his head in shame along with you Pat for double standards here. Despicable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father Marsden has a right to his views.

      We have a right to disagree with him.

      He is following the rules laid down by the pope for seminarians.

      Is the RC Church not schizophrenic on this issue?

      Is that you Diarmuid?

      Delete
    2. It never ceases to amaze me how people respond when Bishop Pat measures the Catholic church by using the Catholic Church's own standards.

      Delete
    3. Bishop Pat, Fr Marsden has absolutely no moral right to such views, since they are not the teaching of the Church, but merely papal directives (from popes Benedict and Francis). Moreover, these directives (based on the discredited work of Mons Tony Anatrella) are objectively wrong. No one is morally obligated to act on such directives; in fact, there is a clear moral obligation to oppose them. Marsden cannot be ignorant of this fact. If he is, then on intellectual grounds alone, he should never have been involved in seminary formation. If he is aware of this fact, then clearly he is acting unjustly. On this ground alone, he should not have been involved in seminary formation either.

      Did Pope Francis have the right to his views on the Chilean abuse survivors when he called their complaints against Bishop Juan Barros 'calumnies'?

      It doesn't matter a jot whether one shows 'consistency and courage' in holding views which are, at best, highly questionable, at worst, faux psychology and deeply immoral and unjust. Consistency and courage do not make right what is clearly wrong, both scientifically and ethically.

      There is not one, credible piece of scientific evidence to support Marsden's clear premise that homosexuals, by dint of orientation, are naturally promiscuous and, therfore, more likely than heterosexuals to act on their sexual desires. This is not science, but homophobic prejudice; and Marsden, who seems to see himself cast in the glorious red mantle of a potential martyr, should be ashamed of himself. If he has any moral backbone, he will apologise for the injustice he has caused, not least to himself for making such a public spectacle of a man whose behaviour could become almost as scandalous as that of clerics he criticises for protecting former cardinal, Theodore McCarrick.

      Delete
    4. MournemanMichael:
      Good points Magna. This is you at your best.
      MMM

      Delete
    5. Magna- you have expressed the point I wished to make perfectly. I couldn't have expressed it any better

      Delete
  18. David Marsden is entitled to his views. A man who identifies himself as gay / straight can enter priesthood and stay celibate. David however has the opinion that a man who is gay should not be admitted to holy orders. This means he thinks you should not be a priest or bishop Pat.

    Do you agree with his opinion? Do you think gay men (whom are celibate) should not be admitted for holy orders?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I disagree with Fr. Marsden.

      But he is showing up the hypocrisy of the church which preaches celibacy but is fast becoming the biggest gay club in the world.

      They can't have it both ways.

      Delete
    2. 10.52: I guess you're lucky Pat - you certainly have it "both ways"!! Every day! We're jealous and envious.....

      Delete
    3. You can't have it both ways either Buckley. Make up your mind and stop changing the goal posts. This blog highlights your rank hypocrisy today Pat and Marsdens also. One minute Marsden is right and one minute you disagree with him - which is it Pat?

      Delete
    4. 10.52 You would think that by now we would have married priests and lay preachers.

      Delete
    5. 10.52: Pat, you tell the Church it can't have it both ways. Really? Unlike you who has "IT" every which way - back, front, sideways, top....Need I say more? You know what I mean, don't you, hypocrite!

      Delete
  19. LOL! - Fr Marsden's assertions are proven by all the kittyesque comments here today. The RC priesthood is seething with lying homosexuals. Just a quick scan over the comments section is proof of that. I am so glad that I joined a born again Christian group years ago that abides by the Word of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born again Christian - don't make me laugh. We were already born again through our Baptism. You stick with your smug little 'Born Again' group. It's people like you that give Christianity a bad name. Full of in the closet homophobes more like. That Dentist up in Castlerock that murdered his wife because he was having a ding dong with another woman - he was a born again preacher - I rest my case.

      Delete
    2. You or many RC priests haven't received Jesus as your Lord or Saviour 11:39. That's why you all commit these sins that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Read the New Testament to see how far the RC church is currently from real Christianity. Praise be Jesus my Lord and Saviour! God bless Fr Marsden for telling the truth! You can insult me all you want 11:39 for it is then that I know the Spirit of God rests on me (1 Peter 4:14)!

      Delete
    3. Dead right 11:39 - plenty of furtive “gay” and “straight” sexual antics among the “born agains” - some of their preachers included.

      Delete
    4. Ha ha 12:36 - I’ve met more than a few cottagers who, it transpired, were “born again”. Don’t kid yourself, you sanctimonious, self righteous prat. Talking thru your rear end.

      Delete
    5. 12.36 Are you for real?

      Delete
    6. 12:36, not a few of those under scrutiny in the RHI Inquiry in the North of Ireland have “received Jesus as their Lord and Saviour” and are “born again”. They also have the morals (including sexual) of barnyard tom cats. So wise up and spare us your opportunistic, bigoted, religious notions.

      Delete
  20. The truth spoken in Marsdens Open letter to gay bishops in Britain will set all the sems who felt targeted by his classes and sermons on church teaching free to roam around altars down in Cork or similar even if the truth is as revolting as hotel Babylonia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @11.58 Will you go away little immature person. Yes you, who keeps saying "Hi Brendan, Stephen" etc to every comment. The one who is scared of Mullaney and yes you, the one who keeps saying the truth will set you free. I don't know why Buckley keeps facilitating you.

      Delete
    2. What truth did Marsden speak? Do you really know? Or did you type without thinking?

      Delete
    3. @12.21
      Hi Mullanney

      Delete
  21. At last thoughtful discussion of an important issue without the usual childish vituperation which bedevils this blog. Let’s treat Fr Marsden’s narcissistic outburst as a valuable contribution, since it does highlight the astonishing hypocrisy in the Church concerning homosexuality. Marsden is right that this is a huge crisis, but wrong that it is homosexuality, which is unremarkable today in any other walk of life, which is the problem. The issue is cognitive and practical dysfunction whereby a priest say can thunder against sodomy in a baroque pulpit but himself be a screaming queen with plenty of same sex experience. Even more serious is the crippling of frank and honest discussion especially in schools where Catholic educators are not only failing in their basic purpose to educate but sailing very close to the wind concerning anti discrimination legislation - this is bound to become the next issue on which the Church will fail and retreat even further into irrelevance.
    Back to Fr Marsden, all the alarm bells are ringing concerning HIMSELF. I am quite impressed by Longley and Oakley’s handling of the situation, but it only confirms the fact that the priesthood IS a gay cabal. For all practical purposes there are NO heterosexual seminarians. This in itself is a clearly unhealthy situation, and the disastrous fall out is all too apparent. Fr Marsden’s suggestions would compound the problem by encouraging the perception of public virtue going hand-in-hand with private vice. It is the unsustainable model of priesthood itself which is in crisis.
    Oscott by the way is no concern of Nicholls’s: he has his own Allen Hall to worry about, not to mention strange goings on at the English College and the Beda.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Marsden was correct about the need to expose “Gorgeous”, etc. in Maynooth. He has a point about the predominance of homosexuals in seminaries - staff and students. Promiscuous behaviour (gravely sinful) and a so-called “Gay culture” cannot be tolerated and accepted, in seminaries, among those who may be called to the priesthood. Entirely incompatible with our Faith.

    However, Fr Marsden reveals his true colours with his uncritical and unquestioned acceptance of the Vigano letter and agenda. Marsden, therefore, is not a wise guide on this issue overall. There is something seriously amiss with him also.

    From reading his letter, it is clear that he is not a psychologically healthy and balanced man. Unfortunately, this will give bishops the excuse to write off any concerns he may rightly have about genuine abuses and anomalies.

    Incidentally, Pat, did Marsden send you a copy of this letter to the bishops? How did you discover it? He was singing dumb for long enough about his role in Maynooth was he not?

    ReplyDelete
  23. How did you get Marsden’s letter, Pat? Did he send it to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It arrived in your inbox, I get that. From whom though? It's easy to tell.

      Delete
    2. You didn't mention this fact on your blog until I asked you about it. Why the cloak and dagger Pat? You are never quite as it seems and you are hiding stuff just like you hid that fact until you were asked. That's sly and not nice. Going off you.

      Delete
  24. "The Catholic Church has become a billion dollar bank for homosexuals". Said Stephen Brady (Roman Catholic Faithful).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pat, you are so confused about your opinions and beliefs. Your makey up theology and spirituality is all over the place as shown today by your contradictory statements. Go back to Catholic Teaching, at least as a solid foubdation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Talk of "quilts" reminds me of my own halcyon years at Oscott. We had our very own "Duvet Martyrs" - a group of lovely young men who tried to emulate the Douai Martyrs, but maybe took it a little too far with their devotion to one another - especially after lights out. The whole lot of the fair young men were expelled in one fell swoop by the then Rector, a nasty piece of work by the name of "Madge McKinney". I believe this homophobe, with a peculiar mannerism of sucking in his (bad!) breath through his teeth, is now one of the very bishops that Marsden has written to.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Magna Carta's Mum18 October 2018 at 18:37

    Magna darling, do you remember how I used to sew Sacred Hearts into all your clothes to keep you safe?
    Speaking of which, that is an awful picture of Fr Marsden. Unless he's on the way to a beard mommy dearest likes priests to be clean-shaven. For religious, the habit (clean with no dandruff) also meets my approval.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do indeed, Mommie Dearest, recall that pious habit of yours, but I cannot say with any degree of fondness.

      Dearest, I know you had the sweetest intentions, but couldn't you have drawn the line at sewing those pictures of the Sacred Heart into my underwear? All that red, dearest! Depending on where the pictures were sewn, it could look as if I had just had a period, or that my haemhorroids had popped.

      Honestly, dearest! To this day, I swear my PE teacher believes that I'm really a transperson with chronic piles. 😲

      Delete
    2. Magna Carta's Mum18 October 2018 at 22:47

      He also thought you had the world's biggest nipples, visible under your best, darling.
      Actually I do regret that. Those holy images were intended to protect your virtue. Sadly I think they did, and it stopped your ordination. But don't worry, darling, there's a reward in heaven for boys as close to mummy as you are.

      Delete
    3. Ah Sweet Jaysus! Who the f*** needs Hinge and Bracket with these goons writing the Magsie/Mommie scripts!!!! Funny as a diagnosis of the big C.

      Delete
  28. I loved when marsden used to say how are ye girls to the cabal in his sermons and cry babies used to run out crying to hugh.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Interesting at 17:26 as “Madge” a couple years ago presided at a Mass of welcome at his cathedral in Nottingham for LGBT Catholics and their families. Are you sure the queens at Oscott didn’t have it coming?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I hear that Fr Oakley at Oscott will be addressing the students tonight about this letter. It would be interesting to hear what the official take is on this at Oscott ?

    And, I hear that students when they were there could barely have a conversation with Marsden that didn't lead to him going on about sexuality and masturbation. The man evidently has a fixation problem.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We must face facts English clerics are generally camp and gay there was no way they could handle a alpha male working class man from Birkenhead

      Delete
    2. Hi Georgeous!

      Delete
  31. Who is Madge?????

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bp Pat, please try to concentrate on homosexuals on the next blog topic.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 23.26: Why don't you go to Larne if you want sexual thrills from homosexuals? There you'll find plenty! You are a moron and an idiot. Imbecile par excellence.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The truth will set Stephen Wilson Free even if the truth is revolting. The prague incidnet will be exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Stephen Wilson, will you join Brendan Marshall in University of Ulster Coleraine.

    ReplyDelete