Categories
Uncategorized

IRISH BISHOPS SHOULD PUBLISH A LIST OF CREDIBLY ACCUSED PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS

101818-kgo-split-clergy-img.jpg

Catholic Churches Are Releasing Names of Accused Priests, But It’s Not Enough
Rick Snedeker/Godzooks blog

There’s good news and bad regarding the Catholic Church’s continuing clergy sex-abuse scandal.
The good news is that American bishops are beginning, independent of papal direction, to publicly release lists of priests “credibly accused” of sexual abuse crimes, particularly against children.

th50OP9GA1

The bad news is that it’s not as simple as it sounds.

As the Catholic Church faces a wave of federal and state attorney general investigations into its handling of sex abuse, bishops around the country have struggled with how to react. Some have locked down defensively. Others are waiting on guidance from the Vatican, which instructed American bishops last month to wait on taking any collective action until the new year.
But dozens of bishops have decided to take action by releasing lists of the priests in their dioceses who were credibly accused of abuse. And they are being released at an unprecedented pace.
Terry McKiernan, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks sex abuse cases, counted “at least 35” dioceses releasing such lists. That’s nearly double the number released in one year since 2002, when the first one was independently publicized by the Diocese of Tucson, Arizona.
“We’ve never seen this kind of outpouring before,” said [McKiernan]
The lists are coming out on the heels of a stunning grand jury report released in August by Pennsylvania’s attorney general, which laid out in wrenching detail sex assaults against more than 1,000 victims by more than 300 priests. Similar investigations sprouted in more than a dozen other states. A nationwide federal probe also appears likely, as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in November notified every diocese in the country not to destroy documents regarding their handling of child sexual abuse cases.
The disclosures have trickled out week by week — 10 names in Gaylord, Mich.; 28 in Las Cruces, N.M.; 28 in Ogdensburg, N.Y.; 15 in Atlanta; 34 in San Bernardino, Calif., among many others. All 15 dioceses in Texas have agreed to release lists. Last week, the leaders of two major Jesuit provinces, covering nearly half of the states, released the names of more than 150 members of the order “with credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor.”
This is all welcome news for victims. Yet, as always, the devil is in the details, one of which is accused priests’ strong argument that they are not receiving due process to submit evidence and fairly argue in their own defense. The names of such protesting priests were redacted in the recent Pennsylvania filing.
Another key reason that bishops have been so wary in the past to release such lists is the tedious, inexact difficulty in deciding which allegations of abuse are really “credible,” and good-faith worry about ruining priests’ reputations and lives mistakenly. Also, to be frank, far too many bishops and other church leaders have simply covered up accusations and quietly moved abusive priests from parish to parish to avoid official notice.
For example, in a small Arizona town where I worked as a news reporter in the 1970s, a local Boy Scout leader and a local priest were accused of pedophilia. The priest allegedly abused a boy who had been sent to him for counseling by his parents after the youth revealed he had been abused by the scoutmaster. The scoutmaster was ultimately convicted of victimizing seven boys. I could not find conviction and sentencing reports in a Google search, but I recall from the time that the scoutmaster received a lengthy prison sentence and the priest was reportedly reassigned to a seniors parish in Florida.
But the new diocese lists reveal alleged abusers who have long been under the public radar, most but not all of them already deceased by now. And the lists, however expansive, do not necessarily include everyone victims were assaulted by. A former bishop’s assistant in Buffalo, New York, recently claimed that the list put out by his diocese held only 42 accused priests’ names, when its internal list contained more than 100. So, while encouraging to many people, the lists are not being received with unanimous praise. However, diocese officials say names can still be added to the lists.
Still, many appalled by the relentlessly unfolding church scandal believe the only way true justice will be served is if investigations are fully implemented by secular law enforcement agencies with the power to subpoena Church records and officials, not self-policing, which has been a human and public relations disaster for the faith.
If there’s anything positive from these lists coming out, it’s that all priests should know they’re being watched and that they will be exposed. Whatever cover-ups used to be in place are slowly being eradicated. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s so much better than it used to be.

FROM: http://www.bishopaccountability.org

“Thank you to readers who have sent us additions and corrections. We are preparing improvements based on your advice. This database was last revised on September 11, 2018 at 1:10 p.m. Dublin time. So far, we have twice revised the entry for Gerard Cleere and added entries for:
• Br. Edward Bryan CFC
• Fr. Arthur Carragher CSSp
• Fr. Camillus Donovan OCSO
• Br. Vincent Downey SG
• Fr. Gerry Kearns
• Br. Thomas McCarry CFC
• Br. Diarmuid Ó Luanaigh CFC
• Fr. Terence Rafferty
• Br. James Treacy CFC
• Fr. Andrew Allen OP
• Br. Stephen Allen CFC
• Fr. Ronald Bennett OFM
• Fr. Dominic Savio Boland OFM Cap
• Fr. John Brosnan
• REDACTED
• Br. Edward Bryan CFC
• REDACTED
• Fr. John Calnan
• Fr. Michael Carney
• Fr. William Carney
• Fr. Arthur Carragher CSSp
• Canon Martin Clancy
• Mr. Gerard Cleere
• REDACTED
• Fr. Donal Collins
• REDACTED
• Br. Christopher Cosgrove FMS
• Fr. Patrick Crowley
• Fr. Daniel Curran
• REDACTED
• Fr. Tadhg Daly OMSH
• Fr. Con Desmond FSC
• Fr. Daniel Doherty
• Fr. James Donaghy
• Fr. Camillus Donovan OCSO
• REDACTED
• Br. Vincent Downey SG
• Fr. James Doyle
• Br. Seán John Drummond CFC
• REDACTED
• Canon Peter Duffy
• Fr. Michael Dunn
• Br. Donal Dunne CFC
• Br. Paul Farrell CFC
• Fr. Malachy Finnegan
• Fr. Seán Fortune
• Fr. Bernard Gallagher
• Fr. Donal Gallagher CM
• Fr. Martin Greaney
• Fr. Eugene Greene
• Fr. Jim Grennan
• Fr. Gus Griffin CSSp
• Br. Brendan John Halpin CFC
• Br. John Hannon OFM
• Fr. Patrick Hughes
• Fr. Gerry Kearns
• Br. Joseph Keegan OFM
• Br. James Kelly CFC
• Br. Patrick John Kelly CFC
• Fr. Peter Kennedy
• Br. Robert Keoghan OFM
• Fr. Christopher Kilkelly
• Fr. John Kinsella of Dublin
• REDACTED
• REDACTED
• Fr. Eugene Lewis WF
• Br. Vincent Lewis OCSO
• Fr. Donncha Mac Cárthaigh MSC
• Fr. Patrick Maguire SSC
• Br. Francis Patrick Mallon OSM
• Fr. Henry Maloney
• Fr. Francis Markey
• Fr. Patrick McCabe
• Fr. John McCallum
• Fr. Gerard John McCallion OCSO
• Br. Thomas McCarry CFC
• Fr. Francis (Frank) McCarthy
• REDACTED
• REDACTED
• Fr. Paul McDaid
• Fr. Patrick McDonagh SDS
• Fr. Paul McGennis
• Br. John McKenna CFC
• Fr. Tom McNamara
• Fr. James McNamee
• Fr. Michael Gerard McQuillan
• Fr. Vincent Mercer OP
• Fr. John Molloy
• Fr. Michael Molloy
• Fr. Henry Moloney CSSp
• Fr. Harry Moore
• Fr. Michael Mullins
• Fr. James Murphy of Ossory
• Fr. James Murphy of Cork and Ross
• Fr. Thomas Murphy
• Mr. David Murray
• Fr. Thomas Naughton SPS
• Fr. Denis Nolan
• Fr. Oliver O’Grady
• REDACTED
• Br. Diarmuid Ó Luanaigh CFC
• Fr. James J. O’Malley
• Fr. Ivan Payne
• Fr. James Prunty
• Br. Dennis Quirke FC
• Fr. Terence Rafferty
• Br. James Redmond FC
• Fr. Noel Reynolds
• Fr. Andrew M. Ronan OSM
• REDACTED
• Fr. Brendan Smyth O Praem
• Fr. Joseph M. Steele CSSp
• Fr. Joseph Summerville
• REDACTED
• Br. Maurice Tobin CFC
• Br. James Treacy CFC
• REDACTED
• Fr. Tony Walsh
• Fr. Brendan Wrixon”

70 replies on “IRISH BISHOPS SHOULD PUBLISH A LIST OF CREDIBLY ACCUSED PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS”

Fr Gerald Murphy, Down and Connor, ordained in 1991, is missing from that list. He sexually abused his nephew and it was in the news in the late 90’s. There is no trace of him anywhere on Google though. He is originally from Downpatrick.

Like

Scumbags the lot of them. That they would seek to hide behind the cloak of Christianity is shameful

Like

The list you’ve given is very dependent on public reporting of credible accusations of abuse and the real total is likely to be higher, not forgetting that many abusers are never even accused.
This seems to be the case with all these lists, for example Collegeville Abbey has published a list which is criticised by the writer of the behindthepinecurtain website.
Did anyone seriously expect the church would ever publish the contents of its secret archives? If you can hear whirring it is the sound of shredders going full tilt in case the police turn up with a warrant.

Like

And still, people will continue to support financially this evil, man-made institution. They are morally complicit in its foul corruption.

Like

Once again, ad nauseam, for allegedly “intelligent” people, your little composite displays crazed and myopic hatred which attempts to indiscriminately tar every priest. But it doesn’t work and it will never work. People see through your games and they see you few malcontents for what you are.

Like

4:15
‘…crazed and myopic hatred which attempts to indiscriminately (sic) tar every priest.’? It’s all in your head, dear. (And given its apparent tendency to wild imagining, we’re happy not to be there.)
We don’t need to tar anyone, much less the clerical whoremongers who comprise that antropological evil, the institutional Roman Catholic Church. It’s priests tar themselves when ordained, since they vow obedience to a mere man (a bishop, more often than not, bloated, worldly, and corrupt), rather than Christ.
Now, we’ll pause a while, in hope of hearing this very bad penny drop, in your rather vacant head. 😆

Like

The you go again, Composite “Carta” repeating that absolutely ABSURD allegation about priests vows of obedience to bishops, which has no foundation except in your own utterly irrational and myopic hatred and prejudice.
A priest’s vow of obedience to the bishop IN NO WAY usurps his loyalty and obedience to Christ! IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER!
That you’re “composite” of supposedly intelligent individuals would repeatedly make this ludicrous and baseless claim is truly ridiculous.
But then, of course, you are a little gather up of dysfunctional and pathologically embittered former and current clerics aren’t you?
There is no rational basis whatsoever for this utterly obtuse claim of yours and your constant harping on it clearly reveals you lot as risible fools – a nasty and vicious little canal and, I think, even Pat Buckley is beginning to cotton on to your profoundly stupid and BORING antics.

Like

I actually agree with Magna that there can be a contradiction between obedience to Chizt and obedience to a bishop – as many bishops are not good representatives of Christ.

The NT tells us that: “Obedience to God comes before obedience to men”.

Bishops and other clerics have tried to order me to do things contrary to Christ’s teachings.

I think MC makes very excellent points- that meaning he has no need to be abusive to anyone.

Like

By Post Author

I took a vow of respect and obedience to my Ordinary and his successors over 40 years ago.

Not once, NOT ONCE, has there been the slightest conflict caused between Christ’s absolute and primary claim on me and that vow.

The vow is to assist the bishop as a collaborator in serving God’s People. It is not for the bishop’s own sake the vow is taken.

Let me assure you of this, had the bishop ever asked me to do something contrary to God’s Law, I would disobey him in a heartbeat.

What’s more, if it involved crime, I would immediately report him to the police. Period.

It is disingenuous in the extreme, to attempt, as this “Magna Carta” outfit has been doing, to suggest priests put “loyalty” to a bishop before obedience to Christ and the Gospel.

Any priest, who covers up for an errant/criminal bishop or fellow priest, is guilty of profoundly betraying the ministry of Christ. This has indeed happened with devastating consequences; but let us be clear that is BETRAYAL and a diabolical violence against Christ’s Body, the Church.

Put simply, the vast majority of priests have found no conflict between their vows of obedience and their fidelity to Christ. And the vast majority of bishops would never ask their priests to act in a way that is contrary to the Faith and Christ.

When it has happened it is an aberration and a grievous offence – not the expected norm.

Liked by 1 person

Patsy at 6:40pm
Well Patsy that didn’t last long, you’re on agreeing with your cohort Magna, don’t tell me that his comments aren’t repetitive, tedious and boring it’s the same old rhetoric over and over again. But what can we expect you have the same agenda and you ignore or don’t publish others with a contrary view.

Like

6:30
You sound frightened, almost hysterical. What’s wrong? Are you a clerical whoremoger for whom the penny is finally dropping? The sudden, terrible realisation, nearly intolerable in its broad sweep, that you, as a priest, have wasted your life, because you willingly vowed loyalty to someone other than Jesus?

Like

You see there it goes again – the Carta composite. I am neither “frightened” nor “hysterical”. Your bullying tactics won’t wash with me, guys.
Your use of words like “whoremonger” is disgusting and offensive in the extreme. You show yourselves clearly as irrational creatures blinded by hate and prejudice and when you are challenged back, robustly, you hurl insults and groundless accusations. Utterly pathetic.

Like

7.03 have you ever stood up for justice for anyone in the face of your superiors? I suspect you haven’t. Too many clergymen today hear no evil and see no evil in the hope of being well thought of and in the hope of promotion. If you ever help a person maligned by your confreres, you might have a very different view of obedience to men and to Christ.

Like

7.26: Pat, you promise not to allow abusive comments. Good but why are you allowing Magna continue ripping people apart with abusive language. You contradict yourself all too frequently. Magna’s constant use of “whoremonger” and “parasites” is offensive, racist and incite hatred of priests. Why do you allow such abuse?

Like

Patsy at 7:26
Patsy that was not abuse I was just stating a fact there was no abusive language. I thought Polly’s comment at 6:49 was abusive I’m surprised you published it with that dreadful word she uses ad infinitem.

Like

7:03

You vowed to OBEY a man who is not Christ.

You made a MAN your God rather than the God-man.

In making that very vow you turned your self-serving back on Christ. This is why the Church is in crisis, because Christ was forsaken that day, through that despicable and self-serving vow, by Judases, like you.

Even now, forty years after that ritualised betrayal, you haven’t the courage to own up to what you did.

You emphasise that not once has that vow conflicted with your service of Christ. Are you blind, fool? The vow itself conflicted with your so-called service. It should never have been made.

Like

7.03: Excellent comment but expect that toe rag Magna to respond with his usual ignorance and abuse! Your comment is intelligent and will be understood and well received by normal, intelligent people. The bandwagon of bullies and hate inciters, led by supreme hater, Magna, rolls on and on. God help them.

Like

Absolute and utter claptrap. An obtuse and moronic comment from a ranting bigot. You are beyond reason and you attempt to pass yourself off as “intelligent”. You show yourself to be utterly irrational in your hatred and contempt. You are really to be pitied in your pathological bitterness. Keep ranting and raving all you like. People see you for what you are.

Like

@8:36 – you are utterly off the wall in alleging, that making a vow of respect and obedience to a bishop, is to make him into a “god” and to “forsake” Christ.
Promising to help the bishop and, for example, to go where he asks you to go and serve the people, is simply collaboration with him for the sake of God’s Kingdom.
Your bizarre attempts to make this vow into something it clearly is not is manifestly malevolent on your part.
Reasonable, sensible and balanced people see your attempts as calculated purely to give maximum offence. Your false allegations and malicious lies are clear for all to see.

Like

Pat I was talking to a former Irish Presidential candidate and he said Michael D only went to the carol service last night because he was attracted by the scandal regarding gaynooth that you published on the blog and his driver really really wanted to go. I actually think they met Brendan, Stephen and Mullaney.

Like

Isn’t that a list of individuals who’ve been tried, convicted and imprisoned ?
Who determines what is a credible accusation and what criteria determines credibility?
A court of law, is a public forum, trial in front of a jury on basis of evidence and sentencing by a Justice.
Lists of names, simply put into the public domain, on the basis of an apparent or what appears ‘a credible accusation ‘ is extremely dangerous, not just for clergy, but for any professional or any citizen.
Far too many lives have been ruined by false allegations and false accusations!
There has to be justice for all!

Like

No, it’s not all the tried and convicted. Some tried and convicted are not allowed to be named by the Court because it would be too easy to trace the business back to the underage victim, who has to be kept anonymous. So, there are some priests who have been tried and convicted, but their names are not public. So, there will be more who should be on the list.

Like

10:37; Fair enough.
In my view, those tried and convicted, but who were not named at the time of trial in the interests of protecting the victim, ought to be named publicly, without jeopardizing the victims privacy, in the interests of public safety.

Like

Kool cat, Beyond reasonable doubt for determining criminal cases and balance of probability for safeguarding, as far as I am aware.

Like

11:33;
That’s right Tom.
My query is , what’s considered a credible accusation; who makes that determination and on what basis.
There are many false accusations made against professionals in all walks of life.

Like

George, you have been found guilty Get over it.
Grow a pair…and stop fiddling with little boys’.😆

Like

2:03
I suppose, to any reasonable mind, an allegation would render ITSELF credible if it were made by a certain number of individuals (e.g. minors) against one person.
A credible allegation is not a criminal conviction, nor, in an ideal world, should it be regarded as its equivalent. But when it comes to balancing the right of an individual to a presumption of innocence and safeguarding the welfare of other children, a choice may very often have to be made between the two interests. Which would you choose?

Like

2:03; I agree, Magna.
Who decides what’s a credible accusation and on what grounds?
Problems occur if only one allegation is made by one child against a professional; or if an allegation is made through the parent or by the parent, on behalf of the child,claiming the child was abused.
Years ago, a doctor friend of mine, while still a junior doctor in a hospital, had a false allegation made against him.
It was withdrawn but could have ruined his career before it even began!
He’s an excellent doctor and a man of great integrity.
What about where there’s been potential collusion between ‘victims’ for all the wrong reasons?
My point is, there’s a myriad of potential situations and NOT all accusations are necessarily genuine.
The DPP determines if an allegation is worthy to be taken to trial.
This is an area fraught will difficulties.

Like

KC @ 5:04
We have the same reservation, about collusion. But where the safety of children is concerned, for us this must have first, final, and decisive consideration.
There is, in this life at any rate, no such thing as an infallible system of justice, judicially or otherwise, just as there is no such thing as infallible magisterial teaching. (Pope Francis’s recent expunging of traditional, pro-death-penalty teaching proves this conclusively.) So there is no point in hand-wringing over the issue: someone will, from time to time, suffer a miscarriage of justice.
Historically, the pendulum of preference has always swung solidly in the diection of the institutional Church: priests have always been favoured and protected; children always sacrificed. To redress the balance, there should now be a presumption that minors who accuse Roman Catholic priests of sexual (or, indeed, other) abuse are telling the truth, even if this evidence might not be strong enough to secure a prosecution in court.
If someone must suffer in such an imperfect system of justice, we’d much rather it were the clerical whoremongers, who, let’s face truth here, are responsible for this entire, revolting situation in the first place; it certainly isn’t the children.

Like

5.44: Mags, being so viciously dangerous and abusive a person, who monitors your behaviour around children or vulnerable people? Just wondering…..You pose a serious risk to any person, young or old. You hang yourself by your nasty, hateful, demonic and irrational attitudes and abusive language. Can’t camoflaogue your evil forever.

Like

-5:44
Magna; historically, society has never recognized the rights of children.
That, has been a major contributing factor into the societal culture of abuse towards child, as well as clerical abuse.
Your right; the pendulum of preference has always swung solidly in favor of the Church. Priests have always been favored but, equally adults in general, particularly those in the professions. Did you know, it’s believed Sigmund Freud altered his theory of psychoanalysis over the issue of child sexual abuse, for fear of being ostracized by his professional colleagues? How far must the pendulum swing as a counter balance? Do we include, as well as catholic priests, teachers, social workers, child care workers, scout leaders, child psychologists or child psychiatrists ; fathers whose estranged wives make false accusations of CSA in retribution….etc; where does it end?
How many innocent someone’s must suffer in such an imperfect justice system? Justice, the law and legal due process, must be based on legal principles, not emotion, regardless of the victim/survivor/accused, profession or crime.

Like

6:03

You are raising a strawman, aren’t you? Trying to divert attention from the blog topic, sexually abusive Roman Catholic priests?

We wonder why. Perhaps YOU are one of these clerical whoremongers. If you are (and we strongly suspect that indeed you are), it is understsndable that you would feel so strongly averse to any light’s being shed on your , er, misdeeds.

Yes, this would explain your diversionary post, wouldn’t it?😆

Like

8:53
And when it comes to a decision over an allegation, credibly made, by more than one child, should it favour the priest (as it always has done…to terrible effect), or the children (traditionally, the sacrificial lambs to priestly sexual criminality)?
There HAS to be a decision.
Choose!

Like

KC @ 8:19, children now have legal rights, regardless of historical precedent.
Hasn’t history taught you anything? You ask how many innocents must suffer…. Your point suggests erring in favour of credibly accused adults, including the whoremongers, Roman Catholic priests. Don’t you think these whoremongers have, historically, been given far too many passes, to the detriment of children’s welfare? You appear to be defending the status quo.

Like

– 11:16
Magna, anyone defending the status quo, particularly in relation to the Catholic Church, would have to be out of their cotton pickin’ woolly brain.!
If lists are to be put into the public domain-(I don’t have a problem with that); it must be very very clear whose name is included on the list and why.
That’s NOT a black and white choice.
I’m also suggesting, similar lists of credible accusations of CSA against others professionals, like teachers, doctors, social workers…etc… would also have to be put in the public domain.( I don’t have a problem with that either). I’m saying that it’s up to the civil authorities, police force, judiciary- the DPP- to determine what’s deemed worthy of being considered a credible accusation. That’s their area of expertise. Not the Bishop or a Church committee or council.
I’m also advocating upholding the law for All citizens. I’m not suggesting erring on the side of the adult. Life and professional experience has taught me of the complexities around this issue.
The Churches can’t police themselves, but, in my experience, neither can other professional fraternities.
The fraternity looks after its members!
That’s always been the case.

Like

Pat I am a victim of maynooth psycological abuse as Collins got angry at me for going to Cafe Bon Bom instead of going to CPE.

Like

10.19: Snowflake, get a grip on yourself. Your comments is so ridiculous. Tell us how serious the “abuse” was???? Wait till you cone into the real world. Grow up and get out of your short pants or go back home to mamny!!!

Like

Today marks six months since the announcement of credible allegations against McCarrick. In those six months, three additional U.S. bishops have retired/resigned/ been suspended amid allegations of sexual misconduct: +Bransfield of WV +Jenik of NYC +Salazar of LA.
True to form, Francis is doing sweet FA about it, except shooting the messenger, blaming the devil and stopping US procedures to finally bring bishops to account.

Like

5.31: Not all contributors are clerics you goof! Get a grip on yourself and do something more noble and useful. Idiots like you should stay in your trailer trash.

Like

5:55 Must have rattled your cage!
Buddy, you’ve elevated me to trailer trash!
In fact, I come from the very same place as you!
Of the earth, muck, glorified ensouled dust!
So thanks for the elevation buddy!

Liked by 1 person

The horrors exhumed by the Pennsylvania grand jury, detailing abuses across six dioceses, sent tremors through the American Catholic church reaching to the Vatican. Perhaps not since the Boston Globe revealed the extent of similar abuses within the Catholic Church in Massachusetts in 2002, has misconduct by priests and efforts to conceal it been outlined in such detail.

While stunning in scope, the Pennsylvania grand jury report landed as a wave of abuse allegations also washed over the Catholic Church in Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Guam and the District of Columbia.

From
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2329159002

45 states looking to pursue Catholic church for documents on abuse by priests, Pennsylvania attorney general says

Good!

Like

Yes, very good.

The Whore is on the run, trying to hide her retreating, revolting flanks.

But the chase is on.

Tally ho! 🏇

Like

Bp Pat, you’ll need to lighten up for the festive season. A nice new Grindr scandal or a BlacksForDaddies disgrace would be more appropriate for the holidays. I hope you won’t let everyone down.

Like

Maybe you should go and buy a porno mag instead you waste of space. If that’s all you are wanting over the festive season then you need psychiatric treatment.

Like

8.12: If Pat responds in the way you request, he’s a bigger fool. You need to take your brain out of your backside. You are crap!

Like

Hi what’s credibly accused but. One is either guilty or hinnocent If guilty flag it up. What’s ever been done for the victims. Are we dealing with the Church of God or the Church of misguided sex and responsibility so

Like

8:38 Fly on D Wall;
If only, fly, if only.
Not a lot done for victims, fly. We are dealing with a mixture of both Church of God and irresponsible misguided damaged humanity.

Like

A lot of priests in the teaching profession, whilst they may not have engaged in sexual abuse, are guilty of emotional, psychological and physical abuse. Once witnessed Paddy Walsh slap a guy, who is now s well known journalist, across the face because he addressed him as Father. Still remember his words ” if the church has seen fit to elevate me to the rank of Canon, you will call me Canon” !!! On another ocassion we were standing outside class messing about. Out of nowhere came “sniff” and wacked one of the tallest guys in the class with his umbrella, shouting at him “you look like a cheeky boy”! Incidentally the guy was an absolute gentleman. I remember thinking that I couldn’t see Christ in sniff’s actions. Yet he was further elevated to the position of bishop. A cruel, self serving, and egotistical man. Yet he was the chosen shepherd for the diocese of Down and Connor. Even in that role he terrorised priests. Abuse personified he is.

Like

When I was in the ‘Wing’, Paddy phoned my home on one occasion and, even though a canon, referred to himself simply as ‘Father Walsh’.
Puzzling at the time (as much as now). 😆

Like

A.C.. What you describe was typical of a number of the De la Salle brothers of my old school. Most were gentlemen, but a few more senior ones were sadistic vicious bullys.
Martin from Mayo

Like

Leave a comment