POLISH ABUSE SCANDAL – VICTIMS TAKE ON THE CATHOOIC CHURCH.

Polish abuse scandal: Victims take on the Catholic Church

By Adam Easton BBC

Image captionMonika, now 28, has spoken of years of abuse as a teenager at the hands of priests
Marek Mielewczyk was a 13-year-old altar boy when a priest asked him to come to his presbytery.
“This is where I was abused for the first time,” he says.
He is one of several victims, now adults, featured in a documentary about Polish priests who sexually abused children.
Tomasz and Marek Sekielski’s film, Don’t Tell Anyone , was watched 20 million times in the first week of its digital release – and prompted an unprecedented challenge to Poland’s Roman Catholic Church.
More than 90% of Poles identity themselves as Catholics. For many, the Church and its rituals do not just provide spiritual comfort: they are part of a national identity.
That might explain why Poles have been slow to question the behaviour of some of their own priests, despite sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church in Ireland, the USA and neighbouring Germany.
Monika, 28, did not appear in the film. But she told the BBC about years of abuse during supposed exorcisms by priests around Poland when she was a teenager.
Her parents saw the priests “as heroes, people who were fighting against the devil himself” – but she believes they were manipulated.
You may find some of the details in this story upsetting.
The Catholic Church defended Polish culure, language and identity as the country was ruled by three occupying empires in the 19th Century.
After World War Two, the Church – and Polish Pope John Paul II – gave strength to the democratic Solidarity movement, helping it overthrow communist rule.

Image captionPolish bishops last month held a special mass as they considered the repercussions of the scandal
But the documentary has sullied that reputation.
Shortly after the film’s release, an opinion poll suggested 67% of Poles regarded the Church’s response as inadequate and 87% said its authority had been diminished.

How Marek challenged the Church

Marek Mielewczyk was abused for five years.

“I didn’t know about things like masturbation and touching. I had no idea about homosexual relations. I didn’t know that an adult could abuse a child,” says Mr Mielewczyk.
“He told me not to tell anyone, not to talk about it at school, and that’s what happened.”

The abuse continued until one Christmas Eve when he was 18, and he tried to kill himself by taking pills. His parents only discovered what had happened to him after he told a doctor why he had been suicidal.
When the doctor informed the local bishop about the case, he wrote back saying he was aware of the abuse.
Marek, now 50, has identified his abuser as Fr Andrzej Srebrzynski, and the documentary says the priest was subsequently moved from parish to parish for the next 28 years.
He was only removed from the priesthood in 2015. Even then, he was filmed taking part in a religious procession wearing his priestly vestments.
Fr Srebrzynski denies abusing Marek, arguing that it was another priest who molested him. A judge in 2017 ordered him to apologise to his victim, and he is appealing against the ruling.

How damaging for Church?

“There are no words to express our shame,” Polish bishops said in a statement issued in the days following the documentary’s release – acknowledging they had not done enough to prevent abuse.

Adam Szostkiewicz, a columnist for Polityka weekly, believes there is now a readiness for people to make the bishops responsible for their silence.
“This process will take time, but for me, it’s a point of no return for the Church,” he said.
“But for some Poles, if they lose the Church, it’s like they lose a part of themselves. They prefer to close their eyes,” he added.
“They see the Church as their mother, and you cannot say bad things about your mother.”

‘Nobody tried to stop him’

As a teenager growing up in a small town outside Warsaw, Monika – not her real name – was fascinated with black clothes, heavy music and drawing vampires.
Now an art student, she says her years of abuse began when a priest convinced her parents that she was possessed by an evil spirit, and began performing exorcism rites on her.
Soon, she was being taken around the country for so-called treatments by other priests.

"I was someone who liked art and was a little bit over sensitive and they turned me into a psychological wreck. They destroyed me", Source: Monika, Source description: Aged 28, Image: Inka

On one occasion, she said she was taken to a tiny basement room where there was a bed with leather straps.
“This priest strapped me to the bed and literally tortured me. He had lay people helping him, and this priest would shove a crucifix down my throat until I started to bleed,” she told the BBC.
“He started drowning me on this bed. He would pinch my nose closed and pour water down my throat. Nobody reacted or tried to stop him.”
Another priest she describes as a sadist. “He would strangle me and pin me down by lying on top of me. I could feel he was sexually aroused.”
She says he would tie her to a church pew or a radiator for so long that she wet herself.
While staying with one of the priests she would sleep in his bed. “He would drink alcohol. He also did things; he was a man with a teenage girl in his bed,” she said.
Monika only managed to escape with the help of her friends after they learned of her suffering.
She has since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociative identity disorder. She has sought support through the Nie Lekajcie Sie (Have No Fear) foundation which helps abuse victims.
She started legal action but prosecutors dropped her case after a court-appointed psychologist, whom the foundation says has close links to the Catholic Church, suspected she was lying.
The foundation sought another psychologist’s opinion, who found her story credible, and Monika is appealing against the prosecutor’s decision.

How is Poland responding?

The Have No Fear foundation is drafting a citizens’ bill to enable victims to file historical claims against priests and to allow for the creation of an independent truth and compensation commission, modelled on those set up in Ireland, Germany and Australia.
Poland’s conservative Law and Justice government is creating a commission, but with members appointed by politicians rather than experts. The party enjoys the support of many priests for its backing of Catholic values.

Image captionEarlier this year, a statue was pulled down in Gdansk of a priest who was defrocked in 2005
The government commission will investigate professions such as child-care and teaching as well as the Church.
Marek Mielewczyk, who is now a grandfather, realises the fight for justice will take time, but he’s happy it has at least begun.
After watching the documentary, his eldest daughter texted him “Daddy, I love you”.
“It was very moving for me. All those years of hard work had been worth it,” he said.

PAT SAYS

Here we read of the intense sufferings of Polish children and their families.

Another part of the empire where abuse, corruption were all covered up.

And just as Catholic Ireland is in the process of making the RC junta here an evil irrelevance so will the Polish do in the near future.

I have no regrets about giving my life to faith and God but if I had to do it again it would not be in the context of the Roman Strumpet.

What has represented itself as being of God has in reality being of Satan.

90 thoughts on “POLISH ABUSE SCANDAL – VICTIMS TAKE ON THE CATHOOIC CHURCH.

  1. Shut up pat! You are apart of the problem and bare the same responsibility as the rest of them. You still call yourself catholic and only talk about Catholic issues!!!

    Like

    1. “Bear faced lies” uttered Po bare!

      Like

      1. You didn’t come back at me @12:14. Did you even understand the point?

        Like

    2. Keep going Pat! You are part of the solution and Anonymous 12:14 am is part of the problem. A big part.

      Like

  2. Bishop P., you are the only priest I respect. Because you practise what you preach.

    Like

    1. 1.24: Same old mantra from Maggie Cartwheeling in the middle of the night, spouting loyalty to his puppet master. I love you Pat with all my heart, you and you alone. Heresy. Magna, take the cobwebs away from your eyes. Go out from your enclosure, observe and you’ll find many priests who share some of your ideas and thoughts and who’d befriend you. You’ll find us a welcoming lot, struggling to make sense if the darkness and finding our way through it. We’re good basically.

      Like

      1. 10:34am
        No one is good but God alone. Mk10:17.
        We do know the priesthood has moral cowards in abundance.

        Like

      2. A perfect example of removing a passage of scripture from its context and making a nonsense of it.
        Behold God saw all that he had made and indeed it was very good. Genesis 1:31

        Like

      3. 10:34
        Struggling to make sense of the darkness, are you? Poor loves.
        I haven’t a feather’s-weight of sympathy with any of you. You lot are part of the darkness; you deepened it when you vowed obedience to an evil institution through a mitred thief.

        Like

    2. 1:02
      Jesus himself said those words. Maybe he was being flippant, eh?
      The word ‘good’ in Mark, and the phrase ‘very good’ in Genesis refer to different things: in Mark, it is moral character: in Geneis, it is purpose (i.e. ‘God’s creation corresponded perfectly to his purpose’).

      Like

      1. 1:02pm

        A perfect example of removing a passage of scripture from its context and making a nonsense of it.

        Like

      2. Bluff and intellectual bluster again, as displayed in your earlier foray into Hellenistic Greek territory. Cite a single reference for claiming that the Genesis text refers to anything remotely related to purpose (an abstract noun) which nouns are not preferred by Semitic languages which like concrete nouns.

        Like

      3. How do you know Jesus spoke those words? Have you reached that conclusion from a simplistic belief that because it’s in the Gospel Jesus said it? You’re obviously not aware of the decades of scholarly debate on Mark which seeks to differentiate tradition from redaction. On what grounds do you place it in one categorybor the other?
        Flippancy is your default starting point.

        Like

    3. 11:22
      Still smarting from the repeated intellectual drubbing I gave you.
      Sad. Pathetic, really.😕

      Like

      1. Oh that’s your answer. I rest my case.
        A bag of wind.

        Like

    4. 11:55

      And how do YOU know that Jesus did not speak those words.

      Of course, no one knows either way…for certain. But this needn’t stop any of us from drawing conclusions on the subject.

      I believe that Jesus did speak those words because, in the context of messiahship, they cannot but be true. If man , like God, truly were good as God is good, then humankind would have the ability to redeem itself; no Messiah necessary.

      (Couldn’t you have employed this humble piece of detection for yourself?)

      Like

      1. Dear M. Carta, the fundamental flaw in your circular argument about messiahship in Mark is rudimentary: Mark 10:34 is not found in a messianic passage. Someone described your scriptural exposés as Wikipedian plagiarism. Your problem is more deep-seated: an inability to evaluate the sources from which your words are gleaned and which words pass from Wikipedia to here without passing through your brain.

        Like

      2. What you believe, without substantiating that position from primary and secondary sources, is of little import in resolving an issue of historical criticism.

        Like

    5. 11:22 & 11:46
      Your eagerness to ‘get one over on me’ is making you more stupid than you are naturally (and, naturally, you have already proven yourself very stupid indeed).
      Did you study your comment at 11:22 before posting it? Even you must have realised the utter vacuity of your suggestion that ancient Hebrew, as a semitic language, has a preference for concrete over abstract nouns (and, by implication therefore, would be less likely to include the abstract noun ‘purpose’ in the Hebrew text of the First Creation Account, in Genesis).
      Seriously, you haven’t the remotest knowledge of Hebrew, have you? Certainly not of its philology. Had you even cursory knowledge of Hebrew, you would know, for example, that the Hebrew word ‘chesed’ conceptually combines two abstract nouns, ‘love’ and ‘kindness’; it is frequently used in the Psalms. But then, I don’t suppose you know the Psalms either.
      I shall make this extremely simple for you: the word ‘good’ as used in Mark and Genesis cannot refer to moral character in both instances, because in Genesis what is being referred to with this word is God’s ENTIRE creation, both animate (human and non-human) and inanimate. Most of what is referred to, then, cannot have moral character, because it lacks personhood. I wasn’t going to make this highly obvious conclusion explicit, because I thought that even you couldn’t miss it. But, on second thoughts, I figured it wiser here to err on the side of caution.

      Like

      1. Good post, MC.

        Like

    6. 4:05

      You need to evaluate definitions in logical fallacy. Mine was not a circular argument, since I did not begin with what I was trying to prove. You’ve publicly made a fool of yourself, again. I was about to add that ‘I do hope that you are not a seminarian’, but then I remembered the ‘dumbed down’ standard of intelligence of today’s seminarian and realised that you would fit right in.

      You need also to sharpen your comprehension: I did not state that passage in Mark as messianic; rather you read this into my words. What I did do was refer to the ‘context of messiahship’; nothing else. You really do need to read and reflect more discerningly. You have the comprehension level of a fouteen-year-old.

      Again (and pay attention this time), in the context of messiahship, we know that no one but God is ontologically good…which is why Jesus was necessary, in time, to enact for humanity something it could not do for itself: redemption.

      Knowing this fundamental truth about our ontological and moral nature makes the claim that Jesus spoke those words more likely, since the Jewish concept of messiahship did not embrace the idea of personal redemption: in Judaism, the Messiah (‘Masiach’) was not conceived as divine, but entirely human and Jewish ‘redemption’ , under his charismatic leadership, would consist of greater-self unity and freedom from Roman oppression.

      Your obvious antipathy towards me is blunting what little intellect you have managed to show so far.

      Like

      1. You sound like an RE teacher who has to use some of the jargon of biblical studies, without a qualification in that subject, and who never got on top of his/her game.
        Some major flaws:
        1. It’s a nonsense to speak of the Jewish concept of messiahship. There were, of course, many Jewish concepts of messiahship and messiahs (Note the plural form).
        2. Your offering is replete with anachronism. Redemption in a pre-NT is a concrete action, buying back something which was surrendered. To speak about enacting the redemption of humanity is an eschatological concept and is a post-NT (Greek) philosophical reception of Jesus’ death.
        3. The differentiation of ontological goodness from goodness in (concrete) action is foreign to biblical philology, theology and anthropology.
        Bluff redolent of confusion of primary terms displayed elsewhere is unavoidable when Wikipedia is your starting point.
        Obsta principiis.

        Like

    7. 10:42

      Dismissiveness is not refutation but evasion.

      I’ll take your undignified, uninformed and, frankly, underwhelming retreat as intellectual surrender.

      Like

    8. 12:36

      You really are a fool, aren’t you? But if you insist on a further drubbing by me, who am I to say ‘no’?

      Some major flaws in your post.

      1. ‘It’s a nonsense to speak of the Jewish concept of messiahship . There were, of course, many Jewish concepts of messiahship.’

      First, this is a strawman, a logical fallacy; it deliberately (and for tactical advantage) sidesteps my point at 7:49, that there was nothing in the history of Jewish messiahship that prepared the Jews of Jesus’ time for his ignominious passion, death, and resurrection. This is a fact, which you couldn’t refute; so you resorted to strawman argument to appear victorious. But even here, you managed to make a mess of things, yet again. Historically, there was indeed a single concept of messiahship…but with many variants. Plurality here lies in the number of variants, not in the number of concepts. The idea of deliverance is a single thread that runs through the Hebrew Bible, right from the Garden of Eden through the Flood and the diasporas to Jesus’ time. I did not deny that historically there were variants of this theme; you, however, were wrong to deny the conceptual singularity.

      2. ‘To speak about enacting the redemption of humanity is an eschatological concept and is a post-NT (Greek) philosophical reception of Jesus’ death.’

      Are you winding me up with this drivel? You sound like someone who has scoured a textbook for important-sounding words and phrases and then strung them together, without any understanding of them whatever, in order to sound erudite and impressive.

      Redemption is an eschatological and post NT philosophical reception of Jesus’ death? Have you read the NT at all, especially Acts, and Paul’s letters? It is this understanding of the redemptive import of Jesus’ death and resurrection that is driving these early Christians.

      Have you read Paul’s challenge to those who deny the Resurrection? Have you read his thoughts on the Parouia? This isn’t post-NT stuff, you utter fool! You really are letting youself down. You can’t be this thick-skulled, can you?

      3.(Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, along comes more unadulterated bullshit from you.) ‘The differentiation of ontological goodness from goodness in (concrete) action is foreign to biblical philology, theology and anthropology.’

      I really don’t know what to say. If you knew ANYthing about Scripture you would know it as ‘salvation history’. Interwoven in Scripture is the motif of man’s infidelity and God’s fathfulness; of man’s inescapable bondage and of God’s being the only one who can deliver him from it.

      ONTOLOGICAL GOODNESS IS IMPLICITLY WRIT LARGE IN SCRIPTURE, you utter berk!

      Haven’t you read Jn 3: 16? ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that the world might have life through him.’

      Or 1 Peter 3:18?

      Away with you, dilettante.😅

      Like

      1. It’s in the detail that your superficial grasp of biblical studies is shown for what it is.

        1. Your first fallacy: Nothing prepared the Jews for Christ’s ignominious death.

        Not one but four suffering servant songs from Deutero-Isaiah refute that allegation. They are: 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-7 and the greatest and most lyrical of them all: 53:13-53:12 which Roman Catholics hear proclaimed every Good Friday. When did you last celebrate the Commemoration of the Zlord’s Passion.

        2. Your second fallacy: the uses of the concept of redemption as it applies to Jesus’ action in respect of humanity is not an eschatological concept. All references to the consequences of Jesus’ resurrection asit rlatrs to humanity’s fate are, by fefinition, ipso facto eschatological: that is to say, they relate to his final or last (Gk: eschatos) victory over death.

        3. Your third fallacy: ontological goodness may be differentiated in scripture from moral goodness. Biblical philology, theology and anthropology are incapable of such a differentiation, since ontological is a category foreign to all three.

        Your inability to evaluate the questionable sources for your bluff and bluster is the most fundamental and most consistent error of yours detectable in almost ever line of your obnoxious, anachronistic and ahistorical musings into territories you know little about.
        QED

        Like

    9. 3:47
      I knew that you would come back with the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah, and equally, I knew that you would be clueless about their contemporaneous character. When these passages were transmitted, centuries before Christ’s birth, those involved were referring to contemporary or past events; they were not foretelling the future about Jesus of Nazareth. You do understand this, don’t you? (I dared hope that even someone as dim as you would understand biblical prophecy primarily as wisdom rather than fortune-telling.) The ‘Isaians’ did not know that their words would, centuries later, (and only in the post-Resurrection period) be understood as allusions to Christ.
      As Luke states of the risen Jesus in his conversation with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: ‘And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.’ (Lk 24:27)
      No; the history of Jewish messiahship, with its esoteric allusions to Christ, did not and could not prepare Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries for his passion, death, and resurrection.
      You are wrong, yet again.
      As for your second point, you said at 12:36 that redemption is an ‘eschatological concept AND…a post-NT (Greek) philosophical reception of Jesus’ death.’ I should think that, by now, even you would know how demonstrably absurd this is. You’re a fool for repeating it.
      As for your third (and blatantly silly) point, I never said that ‘ontological goodness may be differentiated from moral goodness’. Stop inventing strawmen to save face, you ridiculous person.
      As for ‘QED’, the only thing consistently demonstrated in this thread is your astonishing ignorance, inept ability to reason, and your questionable command of English.

      Like

      1. “I never said that ontological goodness may be differentiated from moral goodness. Stop inventing strawmen to save face.’ M. Carta
        I refer you to the following:
        Magna Carta 28th Jul 2019 — 5:33 pm
        “The word ‘good’ in Mark, and the phrase ‘very good’ in Genesis refer to DIFFERENT THINGS: (emphasis added). in Mark, it is moral character: in Geneis, it is purpose (i.e. ‘God’s creation corresponded perfectly to his purpose’).”which at
        29 July at 7:49, just a few posts below this one, and by way of reply, you describe as ‘ontological’ goodness.
        Now your denial may be explained by either of the following alternatives, neither of which reflects well on you:
        1. You forgot you had differentiated both. In which case your present outpourings on any subject are delusional and don’t reflect a continuity of consciousness from one to the other.
        2. You are economical with truth. (Readers will pardon the euphemism.)
        Nemo dat quod non habet.

        Like

    10. 1:25

      I don’t mean to be rude, but your degree of oburacy is almost as amusing as your level of stupidity.

      Yes, ‘good’ in Mark and Genesis do refer to different things, as I said: moral character, and purpose respectively. I even took the trouble to explain this to you from the biblical text. How did you extrapolate from this that I differentiated these uses of the word ‘good’ as referring to moral character AND personal
      ontology? How on earth does ‘purpose’ mean ‘ontological good’?😅

      I have refuted EVERY point you have made, since you haven’t made either a reasonable or verifiable one yet.

      Are you elderly? Initially, I thought you might be one of today’s crop of braindead seminarians, but I’m beginning to think that you are old and forgetful. If you are, then this debate stops now.

      Like

      1. The answer is both:
        1. In the first instance, there repeated evidence of a discontinuity of consciousness in the reactionary, superficial, contradictory, and incongruous, and defective posts which bear your pseudonym.

        2. Secondly, you are economical, nay, veritably parsimonious with the truth. (Alert readers may substitute the word ‘liar.’ )

        3. Your several unsuccessful attempts at backtracking are as obvious as the nose on your face, only more so. You had alleged that there was nothing in their tradition which would have alerted the Jewish people to the notion of a suffering messiah. (You also let it slip you thought messianic expectation was homogenous. You were laboring under the misapprehension that only one messiah was expected.) I referenced the four so-called suffering servant songs. You created a strawman by raising a point about their literary genre – prophecy – a point which no one was disputing. You informed readers that prophecy was not prediction – which nobody had claimed it to be and which any biblically and theologically literate neophyte knows. The main point of my referencing these four poems stood, namely, they were part of the ‘torah, the prophets and the psalms’ which Luke grouped together as the bible of Judaism of the first century CE. That is to say, the status of these collections which include the texts from Deutero Isaiah was not in doubt. They were there for every one to read and hear. It is therefore, false and seriously lacking in biblical nuance to allege that the Jewish people at the time of Jesus, had no conception of or preparation for a suffering messiah. QED
        אָ֨מַ֤ר נָבָ֣ל בְּ֭לִבּוֹ אֵ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֑ים

        Like

    11. 2:43

      Listen, pal: we’re done.

      Enough of this (meaning ‘your’) nonsense.

      Like

  3. The Vatican like North Korea is a rogue state and should br treated as such, funds frozen and a travel ban imposed, thats the only language they will understand.

    Like

  4. It’s disgusting.
    Celibacy is obviously a farce, symtomatic of so much Rcc institutional hypocrisy.
    It’s a worldwide toxic clericalist culture, much of it totally corrupt.
    Many of these men in the clergy/hierarchy are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
    Academic qualifications mean f**k all, not to mention trying to prove intellectual prowess, a hobby
    for some clerical posters to this blog, symptomatic of ego, arrogance and pride.
    No doubt, good priests in Poland, also keep their mouths shut and their heads down, not wanting to get involved,
    fearing penalties from their bishops. Change in the Rcc will only occur through victims, survivors of various types of clericalist abuse, and the People of God, challenging the institutional corruption, if necessary, with the assistance of the civil policing authorities.

    Like

  5. It should be the Polish State taking on the Catholic Church in Poland, on behalf of the victims / survivors of abuse. Whether that will happen in short order I doubt, because the Polish Government is a rather right wing, nationalistic grouping and they see the Catholic Church in Poland as intrinsically interwoven with the Polish national identity, and the Government will not want undermine that too much. It’s rather like it was in Ireland in relations between the Catholic Church and the Irish State up until well in to the late 90s and probably beyond. But, as in Ireland, the situation will change in Poland and eventually, and quite rightly, the Catholic Church will be called to account for its misdeeds, its coverup, its abusing priests and bishops. There is an inexorable process taking place throughout the world where secular state institutions are coming to realise the grave failings of the Catholic Church and the Church’s own inability to deal with them and govern itself. These secular state institutions are beginning to take the matter in to their own hands and are not afraid to confront cardinals, bishops, priests and others and call them to give an account of what they have been up to. Rightly so. The victims / survivors in Poland will probably have to wait a bit longer for accountability and justice, but it will come. The Polish Catholic Church will resist and scream blue murder at having to be answerable. Just like + Vin and others who did not like one bit being hauled in front of IICSA to account for themselves. And after that exposure and flagellation, they are sorely wounded and have retired to lick their wounds. But, their credibility, integrity and believability have disappeared. They hang on in desperation, however, arrogant and self-regarding to the end. The terminal push should be given to them. Papal Nuncio and others with some influence, please listen to us and rid us of these embarrassments, who are lucky that they have avoided even deeper accountability and responsibility. In some jurisdictions they could find themselves facing prison for their coverups, their lies, and their carelessness and lack of attention to duty and detail. I guarantee, in spite of their public words, that at heart they are still wedded to the idea that they must at all costs protect their Church rather than seek truth and justice. It is a mindset that their generation is simply not able to root out of themselves and all their decisions and actions will be filtered through that mindset. They need to go.

    Like

  6. I wonder if there will be a public enquiry or commission set up by the Polish government to investigate events.

    Like

    1. Public Inquiry in Poland. Are you for real. The Papal representatives will be leaning on senior government figures and giving it ‘ Just leave it with us chaps. We can deal with this in house. Now if you leave it with me the pope will grant you and all your families a plenary indulgence and remission of all your sins. Now lads on your knees……..’
      I can just picture it.

      Like

  7. Keep going Pat.

    Anyone telling you to butt out is an abuser by proxy.

    If any of these people had a conscience they would welcome these things being revealed, but they haven’t.

    It is not only that there is no such thing as a good priest, there is no such thing as a good Catholic because if there were they would be revolted by the behaviour of the cult and rogue state they belong to.

    I have laid down a challenge here before and needless to say nobody has taken me up on it, so I will do it again. Any priest commenting here, claiming to be good and claiming to be different, comment with your name and diocese or order. You can’t and that is because you are a slave to the institution and permanently compromised.

    Any takers?

    Like

    1. Lead by example!

      Like

    2. 10 46: With such laudatory anonymous courage, let you be the first and the bravest! Then I’ll follow you. Ok? Or is courage just an easy word? Let’s have you in REALITY : let’s know who you REALLY are: let’s have you, a GOOD CATHOLIC presumably, lead the crusade. Then the revolution begins. It needs a moral, truthful and courageous visionary – not keyboard anonymous trolls!! The stage is yours!!!!

      Like

      1. Haha thank you both for giving the answer I expected! No, I’m not a good Catholic, and am not even Catholic of any description. Yours is always the answer I get and is always a diversion from my point. I could identify myself here but am not going to. I am also not eligible for the challenge because I am not a priest. *You* on the other hand cannot.

        Any so called good priest going to take me up on the challenge? Come on, priests, identify yourselves.

        Thought not.

        Like

  8. I am sure you are aware of the free ‘catholic’ newspaper ‘Alive’. The editor of this publication was Fr Brian Mckevitt OP. However since before Christmas he ceased to be the editor; that role being temporary filled by Fr Maurice Coulghan OP.
    It seems that Fr Mckevitt OP was removed/suspended from public ministry before Christmas also. From what I have learned it seems the allegation stems from Fr Mckevitt’s time at the infamous Dominican run Newbridge college; one home to the prolific child abuser Vincent Mercier (formally a Dominican priest, but still financially care for by the Irish dominican province). In a radio interview on the ‘Liveline’ show a few years ago Mckevitt had denied being at newbridge at the same time as Mercier; the Newbridge college annuals from the 1970’s tell a different story.

    Like

    1. There is a Dominican called Maurice Colgan who is Prior of Pope’s Quay in Cork. He interviews prospective recruits for the Order.

      Like

    2. 10:59 am
      Fr. McKevitt was featured on EWTN this morning on the My Country My Faith programme with Kathy Sinnott, hosted by Fr. Owen Gorman. The topic for discussion was the abuse scandals, poor catechesis and the erosion of catholic faith and renewal.

      Like

    3. Vincent Mercier raped a relative of mine when my relative was around 12 yrs.
      Most of my relatives family walked away from Catholicism as a result.

      Like

    4. And butter wouldn’t melt in McKevitt’s mouth. Pushing a hard line, conservative agenda. Railing against the modern secular world. I always think there is another, secret, side to people like this. They push a hard line theology because they have something to hide. Always we should ask the question, what is it that they are trying to keep us from knowing about them ? And the answer is usually the obvious ! They have secrets to hide. There is no better defence than offence. So, off they go telling us all off and calling us back to faithfulness in the truth message of Holy Mother the Church. Well, if he has done wrong and has his secrets, then may he be punished twice, once for those, and a second time for lauding it over us and selling us damaging theology.

      Like

    5. Never liked that judgemental, narrow-minded-rag, ‘Alive’
      Glorified toilet paper.

      Like

      1. Poster at 5:38am

        Considering this poster is the most judgemental person on this blog, who is never done judging The Church,the Clergy, faithful Catholics and everything else that does not agree with her chaotic mad lifestyle. To call anything else judgemental is risible.
        Evivva Maria!

        Like

      2. Poster at 5:38am
        Considering this poster is the most judgemental person on this blog, who is never done judging The Church,the Clergy, faithful Catholics and everything else that does not agree with her chaotic mad lifestyle. To call anything else judgemental is risible.
        Evivva Maria!

        Like

      3. 5.38: Maggie darling, surely your Mumsy didn’t give you the Alive newspaper in the toilet! Does that explain the dirty marks left indelibly printed on your rearend?? Yuk……the practices in your household…..yuk!

        Like

    6. 8:20 & 8:26
      Barking Bella alert at both these times.
      This is the lying hypocrite who would describe herself as a ‘good traditional Catholic’, yet is sneaky enough, duplicitous enough, to post under ‘Anonymously’ as well as ‘Bellarmine’.
      Oh, well. I guess ALL good traditional Roman Catholics are LIARS, like the ‘good’ priests they worship.😅

      Like

      1. Poster at 11:10pm
        How like you to revert to ad-hominum insults when anyone corrects you. The fact that you accuse me of posting anonymously when we all know you do it all the time, is risible. I do not worship any priest but I respect all good holy priests which despite what you say, far out number those who are not. I tell you this in charity,get off the GARGLE and get help with your sleeping problem I do worry about your mental health.
        Evivva Maria!

        Like

    7. The Dominican, Fr Michael Commane lacerated what he called ‘the freesheet’ Alive in very convincing terms. It’s tabloid journalism at its worst.
      http://michaelcommane.blogspot.com/2019/07/alive-is-tabloid-journalism-at-its-worst.html?m=1

      Like

  9. There is one in England (IICSA), there is currently one going on in Scotland. I’m sure there have been various commissions in Ireland looking in to child sexual abuse, not just in the Church, but in other institutions as well, but given the predominance of the Church in schools, orphanages, industrial schools and parochial contact with children there will be a wealth of material to be investigated in respect of the Church. In the USA various State organisations have undertaken their own investigation in to the Catholic Church in their State, almost treating the Church like it is some kind of organised crime ring. Which it is in some respects, with people colluding, covering up, lying, disseminating, buying off, and doing everything it can to protect is own interest and its reputation. You can only imagine the distorted and screwed mindset of Church bishops and priests who thought that it was more important to protect their Church than it was to protect children. But, that is what they were thinking and that is what they did. And we still see it happening in this day and age.

    Like

    1. 8:26pm
      ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’
      Ever hear that before, Bellarmine?

      Like

      1. Anon at 7:49pm
        Thank you, I have, but it does not apply to disciples of satin.
        Evivva Maria!

        Like

  10. Few things have been bugging me:
    First 300 years of church , there was no bible, no sacraments, no institutional church, no bishops or priests just group of followers.
    Now we have bible, sacraments, institutional church, priests. Any explanations as how that came about from no bible et al to bible m, institutional church et al????

    Like

    1. Simple answer Deaf Lad
      Money, power and sex. Same old trinity of vices.
      On The big chair, Sunday broad sheets on the table and a touch of Ralph Vaughn Williams playing in the background. Living the dream!

      Like

      1. MournemanMichael 29th Jul 2019 — 12:15 am

        And “more Powers, or Bush to your ears and elbow DD ”
        Vaughan Williams you said: The Lark Ascending, I hope: my favourite, tho Thomas Tallis Fantasia Theme runs it close.
        But on music: I’m now watching/listening “again and again and again” to BBC4’s Status Quo Live & Acoustic London Roundhouse concert recording. Loud! Mourne sheep on the mountain don’t mind.
        The only catholic thing about me must be my musical tastes!
        MMM

        Like

    2. With all due respects – no bible for the first 300 years of Christianity? You need to review this claim.

      Like

    3. 8:45am
      Disciples of satin! It applies to ALL human beings, Bella, regardless.
      Stop rationalizing to justify lack of charity, a bit of ‘satin’ lying in yourself.

      Like

      1. Anonymous at 11:19am

        What did I tell you, you’re at it again posting anonymously but I know it’s you. I can sense it. I am always praying for you out of my Christian charity, no satin their.
        Evivva Maria!

        Like

  11. The full documentary ‘Tell No One’ by Tomasz and Marek Sekielski, mentioned in the article, can be viewed on YouTube. It has English subtitles.

    Like

    1. Wrong Bella!
      Your senses are working overtime.
      Live all of the gospel, Bella, particularly the Lord’s imperative of Charity.

      Like

  12. Molly and me and the baby make three

    Like

    1. 12:19 pm
      When you finish listening to Molly and me and the baby make three, key in the YouTube search ‘The Shame of the Catholic Church’ and take your pick!.

      Like

    2. he’s a right auld Molly for sure. just sayin like 🙂

      Like

      1. Yeah. A Molly out of Gayenooth. 😝

        Like

  13. This unfolding of sexual abuse, while not entirely unexpected, is the beginning of an implosion in the Polish Church. Such is the intrinsical close nature of the Church and Polish politics that it will take time to impact on people’s consciousness, but it will. Once the initial stories of truth are told and believed, an avalanche will descend on Poland. It will be similar in other countries, yet to manifest the same pattern which we’ve witnessed in Ireland, USA, Canada, Germany, Chile …etc….but the TRUTH will win. No one can ever try to excuse any abuse in any context or era..

    Like

  14. 3:38pm
    I wouldn’t be looking to clergy or hierarchy for brave courageous truthful moral or spiritual visionary leadership
    or any other form of leadership, for that matter. There’s plenty of anonymous clerical trolls on this blog.

    Like

  15. 3.38: You’ve proved my point. You are a liar. You haven’t any courage. If you read nothing, reveal yourself..And your diversionary tactic to say you are neither a priest not a good Catholic is idiotic and a way of avoiding truth. You simply don’t have the courage. So, shut your asshole…..and stay behind your keyboard. You are bogus.

    Like

  16. Rofl!
    I knew no ‘good’ priest would take up my challenge and also that the ‘good’ priests would try to turn it on me and then become abusive, because you see, that is what you all are, abusers.
    For the umpteenth time, any priest in ‘good standing’ (ironic, that phrase) feel able to put his name and Diocese or order on here? Thought not, because you can’t.
    The only serving priest I have known put his name on Pat’s blog is Bill Mulvehill, and look what a torrent of abuse he got from the holy priests.

    Like

    1. Fly On Th Wall 28th Jul 2019 — 9:56 pm

      7.54 If any dacent priest put their proper name on here they become victims of the Prafia rhymes with mafia. Apple’s lemons wonky pairs They all turn up here. The abuse and vicious name-calling one reads has nothing to do with the message of Christ. It’s a sad picture really but

      Like

    2. 7 54: And look at what happened to him! He imploded through every word he wrote. He was abusive to everyone, showed no sense of moral judgment and fell flat in his face with stupidity, faux outrage and moronic musings. Are you living in cuckoo land? Any priest with a modicum of self respect would not use this forum to debate serious issues as he would be mocked, ridiculed, denigrated and scorned. There are more constructive, positive and proper fora for priests to discuss the challenges facing them and which are far more productive than empty platitudes expressed on this blog by miscreants and hypocrites like you. So, if you want a scrap, go to your local boxing club!

      Like

      1. Fly on Th Wall 29th Jul 2019 — 9:01 pm

        9.59 D ya know you make a fair point on reflection. So what exactly d ya believe is the purpose of the blog and why do me and thee contribute hi

        Like

    3. 7:54
      Isn’t it wonderful that we are blessed with so many ‘good’ priests. (Whew! I almost typed ‘moral cowards’ instead of ” ‘good’ priests”. )

      Like

  17. It’s so laughable reading this blog today. So many misfits and oddballs, former priests and spoiled seminarians talking about the Vatican being a rogue State etc. You can spot them a mile away

    ,

    Like

    1. What’s a former priest ? And what’s a spoiled seminarian?

      Like

    2. But is it a rogue state? Is that not a fair minded question?

      Like

    3. Because obviously it’s their fault the Vatican is a rogue state.
      Blame, abuse, deny…

      Like

    4. 9:07
      Oh! Another ‘good’ priest. You can tell because, being so ‘good’, he is not conscientiously averse to making accusations without evidence.
      Tell me, ‘good’ priest: how was I rejected? From seminary? Is this what you think? That because so many others (most of them ‘good’ priests, like you) have made this accusation, it must, therefore, be true?
      Have you proof that I was rejected in ANY way? Produce it if you have.
      And what psychological wounds do I have? Again, proof?
      You are right about my hatred: I absolutely loathe Roman Catholic priesthood; it is a veritable evil. The evidence is all around us, including your lies on this blog.

      Like

    5. Oisin the observant 28th Jul 2019 — 11:33 pm

      It takes one to know one.

      Like

  18. 5.21: Magna, at least I am making my way through the darkness of Church scandals and challenges and many parishioners know my genuine concern for truth and justice. Unlike you, I am surrounded by a community of people who try to imitate CHRIST and who look out for one another with compassion. Unlike you, you are enclosed in a darkness caused by rejection, life’s psychological wounds and by personal decisions you make that turn you into a monstrous hater. And – surely after all these years since seminary, you must have discovered that hatred, anger, bitterness and self righteousness damage you rather more deeply than you realise.

    Like

    1. Why on earth do you waste your time engaging with this “Magna Carta”?? This entity could be absolutely anything/anyone. It could even be Diarmuid Martin for all ye know 😂
      Talk about arguing with thin air?? “Magna Carta” by its own admission answers with different hats/masks on all the time. It even has an “Ian Paisley hat/mask”. The best thing to do with this thing is not to engage.

      Like

  19. Fly On Th Wall 28th Jul 2019 — 9:46 pm

    By their Willies shall ye know them hi. There were strange goings on in Jesus day but the good news managed to be preached. Willies were not an obstacle. Now we have Willie worship but where is the Good News. If all ye want is Willies join the playboy franchise. I’m sure yed find a kinky korner. Let’s have a church of the Gospel hi but

    Like

  20. Unlikely Maurice Colgan is an editor of anything.

    Like

  21. Unlikely Maurice Colgan is an editor of anything.

    Like

    1. The proverbial two planks!

      Like

  22. MournemanMichael 29th Jul 2019 — 1:34 am

    I’m obliged to say Anon@ 9:59 that I, for one, do not agree. I think that this blog, critical of RC orthodoxy as it is, ought to merit intelligent response from the RC Establishment. This blog site consistently criticises RC Church practices pinpointing specific issues. But the pathetic responses, or lack of, simply highlights the complete inadequacy of the RC Institution’s ability to provide any sensible coherent response.
    A priest, by his public role, with the power and privilege associated with it ought to be able to debate and explain the relevance and basis of his role. I agree that a few are less able/articulate to do so, and may, with integrity refrain from comment . But that surely doesn’t apply across the board, especially to all those DDs and others “educated” via the RC orthodoxy.
    But consistently here we find no RC clergy able or willing to provide any, (yes any) sensible coherent response to the many criticisms levelled here at their institution, organisation, ethos, history, or, in essence, their ‘raison d’etre.’
    QED (If only it were so easy!)

    Like

    1. 1:34am

      Good post, MMM. I agree.
      But it’s very difficult to defend the indefensible, regardless of academic credentials.
      Remember, some of the smartest and most educated in the Rcc, created much if not most of the mess.

      Like

  23. MournemanMichael 30th Jul 2019 — 1:23 pm

    You raise a good point @ 1:28. Thinking about academic matters like the current blog exchanges over biblical matters reminds me of an angling anology: “no point in having all the expensive tackle fishing where there’s no fish!”
    MMM

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close