The point was made yesterday that a priest is a private citizen. But not so. He is a very public person, performing public functions everyday and having a strong influence and power in the community he lives in.

Indeed priests basically ran Ireland from 1922 until relatively recently.

They dictated the laws and constitution and dictated public and private morality for everybody.

A priest is a public representative of the RCC and by his office he is the face of RCC teaching and beliefs.

One of those beliefs is that sex is only to be used in Catholuc marriage between a man and a woman and must be oen to procreation.

The RCC says that homosexuality is a serious disorder.

The oppose same sex marriage and refuse to recognise it.

Many homosexual men and women have been refused absolution in the confessional.

So when a bishop, priest, pastor or canon lawyer upholds those things by way of his office, how can he then feel free to engage in sex with other priests, men or women?

Is he not saying “RC sexual morality applies to you, the laity, the lowest form of church life, but it does not apply to me because I underwent ontological change”.

In fact, if we believe Amy Martin a priest has undergone two ontological changes and a bishop three!

A priest takes a public promise of celibacy – so public that it is often carried in the media.

So, after such a public proclamation how can he behave in the opposite way inside his house or on a gay beach in Spain or in a gay sauna?

Is that not the height of hypocrisy?

But it’s worse.

Of late young gay men have been entering seminary knowing that they will have public acclaim, an upper middle class lifestyle and the best sex going.

The RC priesthood has been hijacked by the gays. That is why we now say the RC priesthood is homosexualised and is now a gay profession.

A priest who wants to be sexually active should not stay in the RCC. He should leave and follow another occupation.

Or he should do what many of us have done – join a church that allows sexually active priests or become an independent priest.

Sexually active RCC priests who live a double life are hypocrites and I would question their spirituality, faith and morality.

When someone is being a hypocrite other people are entitled to call out the hypocrisy.

That’s what some Dublin priests are doing this week.


Bishop pat, you have stated on this blog that when it comes to homosexuality cloyne is the very worst,with nests of homosexuals promisually practising homosexuality,is there outcry amongst the clergy?,even at a priest living with a young man in his parochial house or the now world famous incident in killdorrery church, because there is huge disquiet amoung the laity and complete silence from the bishop it would appear .


A good blog.

Hypocrisy, morally speaking, is an open door to other vicissitudes; it rarely stops at one compromise.

Personal ethics, spirituality, and priesthood unravel through hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy was the undoing of the Pharisees, and was the reason for Jesus’ excoriation of them in general.

I have no regard, no respect whatever, for Roman Catholic priests; at best, they are anti-social leeches. But those who flout the vow of celibacy, I should, rousingly, toss into the sea with that biblical millstone round their proud necks.

(Just sayin’, like.😕)


I’m afraid you are very out of date in your reference to Pharisees at the time of Jesus. Your stereotypical assumptions are clearly unexamined and are merely unenlightened prejudice. Go read the great Neusner, or Segal or Boccaccini. Rabbinic Judaism would not have evolved if it had not been for them. Steer clear of biblical topics.

Secondly, priests en masse do not take a vow of celibacy. It is only those who are also religious who do.

Thirdly, develop a sense of proportion and of the hierarchy of truths. You’d sentence those who broke their commitment to the current discipline to death. Those who flout the virtues of faith and truth are in a more serious error.


trouble is the promise of celibacy is viewed just as sceptically by clergy as the ban on contraception is by laity

suggest a rethink on both would be in order


I totally agree, MC.
Hypocrisy in one aspect of
life easily leads to further compromise and hypocrisy. The priesthood is rapidly unraveling.


Let him or her who is without sin cast the first stone at 8:38. No doubt you are the product of an immaculate conception if not of a virginal one.


At 8:20 M.Carta posting as anon.
If there is a fault in any of the three points, point it out.
If there is none, why do you resort to vulgar language?


In his opening address to the synod on young people Francis makes it clear that dialogue in the church and between the church and the world is a two-way street.
“This Synod has the opportunity, the task and the duty to be a sign of a Church that really listens, that allows herself to be questioned by the experiences of those she meets, and who does not always have a ready-made answer. A Church that does not listen shows herself closed to newness, closed to God’s surprises, and cannot be credible, especially for the young who will inevitably turn away rather than approach.”
This is the context for issues such as obligatory clerical celibacy and same-gender relationships to be reviewed.


yes, the authorities need to get down from their high horse and review their prescriptions, listening to those affected by them


How the RCC twists and turns in an attempt to appear ‘contemporary ‘, while at same time the holder of ‘eternal truths.”
Consider Francis’s words in the light of one of his predecessors, saint (yes Saint!) Pope Pius X ‘s Lamentable: Syllabus Condemning Errors of Modernists described the notion of freedom of conscience as madness, claiming that “Only the college of pastors have the right and authority to lead and govern; the masses have no right or authority except that of being governed, like an obedient flock that follows it’s shepherd”.


Lamentabili actually.
The pope can’t win with people like you mmm.

If he steers the church in the same direction, he is accused of intransigence. If he charts direction taking account of the joys and sorrows, the hopes and fears of contemporary humanity, you accuse him of words like: twisting, turning, attempting, appearing, contemporary.

By the way, we have moved on since Pius X of blessed memory. In fact, a General Council took place in the intervening time.


It’s Lamentabili sane exitu (1907). “Freedom of conscience” was condemned by Gregory XVI in 1832 and Pius IX in 1864, but where does Pius X do so?


Correct @1:01: “Lamentabli” indeed: for this predictive text on my phone has a mind of its own!


Good post, MMM

In 1906, Pope Pius X’s encyclical ‘Vehementor Nos’ was a ill-tempered and churlish reaction to the French Government’s having statutorily separated church and state in the running of the country.

Pius, like most clerical leeches of his time, believed that he should be obeyed, along with his fellow bishops, as the repository of divine truth: he highhandedly claimed that it was the duty of the faithful to allow themselves to be led (what he didn’t add, but should have was ‘by the nose’😕).


Again @1:01, indeed the Pope cannot “win”, however you choose to define winning, with “people like me (your words). The reason is twofold: firstly because I see that the Pope is simply a man chosen from within the cabal of a fraudulently concocted, mendacious, hypocritical, erroneous self serving organisation to promote its own interests. I see no evidence to support that in any way he leads or represents a deity. That’s “him” in objective terms irrespective of his personal merits.
Secondly, and as for “me”: I’m a thinking moderately intelligent educated individual, no longer constrained by the emotional and psychological shackles of a traditional Irish cradle catholic unquestioning acceptance of all that guilt ridden coddswallop heaped on us in childhood by the minions of the RC institution.
So your Pope has no chance of “winning” over “people like me”. And there’s lots of us outside the sheltered cocoon of the restricted thinking and safe environment seemingly inhabited by many RC clerics: escapist security on their part methinks.
If “your God” exists and gave me a brain surely I’m expected to use it: not abandon its use in favour of religious gobbledygook of whatever flavour I happen to have been born into?
And don’t even think about that ‘free will’ farrago !
As Dave Allen used say: “May your God go with you.”


+ Pat, some were wolves in sheep’s clothing. Ask anyone who was a victim/survivor of clerical abuse.


Correct at 1.49. Sharp!

Re M. Carta at 3:07.

A syllabus (videlicet Lamentabili sana) functions by making its contents explicit. It does not rely on implicit communication. Your comment is an instance of eisegesis, an action you have previously engaged in here.

Your post at 3:03 is flawed by several value judgments and further weakened by unacknowledged sources (an unacknowledged source more likely) which you appear unable to evaluate. This too, would not be for the first time.



Your posts just get more and more bizarre.

Absolute rubbish!

Again, you’ve made an uneducated fool of yourself and have proved that you are as knowledgeable of Vehementor Nos as you are proficient in deductive reasoning.

Have a cuppa and set your brain on auto-pilot; it might, then, begin to work as God intended.


The expression of a (negative) spontaneous reaction while perhaps liberating for the speaker doesn’t begin to enlighten the hearer or reader how the speaker is addressing the subject.


I groan when I see “Biblical scholars” or interpretive historians of the RCC ‘s evolution attempt to debate and decipher significance, relevance or importance to various historical documents, questionable and otherwise, as to their relevance and origin.
Seems to me like a debate as to whether the doomed musicians conducted by Wallace Hartley on the sinking Titanic, were playing in the key of C, or maybe G, when the waters finally engulfed them
In reality, it’s entirely irrelevant and insignificant, but nevertheless it seems to provide some distraction, importance, and kudos for those devoted to such oneupmanship passtimes.


The moral authority of the Catholic Church in western culture, is shattering. Clerical sex abuse scandalous criminality and complicit COVER UP by Bishops, plus powerful prelates leading double lives in secret and then proclaiming moral standards that everyone else should live by, plus the rampant moral corruption amongst many clergy, leading double lives, having the best of both worlds, is destroying the credibility of the Catholic Church, organised religion, and the Gospel. Nothing destroys credibility more than hypocrisy.


‘ Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.’ (Matthew 12:25.)



There is nothing immoral in hatred and anger; they are natural, God-given emotions, since God himself expresses them in salvation history. Scripture can confirm this.

Roman Catholic priesthood is an evil, and it is destroying the Church. But its agents (priests themselves) are not abstract and, therefore, deserve all the emotionally driven opprobrium they willingly draw down upon themselves.

(Just tellin’ it like it is, like.😆)


Poster @ 4.07
Emotions are pre-moral entities. Acting out of hatred or anger, of course, enjoys no such moral neutrality.


And we are witnessing, in the Church, the truth of that statement, even as we debate on this blog.
The clerical leeches are draining the Body of Christ of its vigour and integrity.
Apparently, there is only one way to rid a bodily attached leech safely…burn it off.😞


4.13: I agree Magna! Burn off the leeches. Just wondering when your leeches of hatred, anger, poison and vengeance will cease growing deeply in your heart? What will it take to burn those leeches out of your filthy skin? Tanks of fuel I suspect!!!! Allow yourself the grace of God’s mercy to redeem you, dearie!!



Ha ha ha 😂

What pretentious utter garbage!

You need to stop thinking in such random fashion; it makes you appear intrinsically disordered.


Did Jesus sin when he acted out of anger by driving the money changers from the Court of the Gentiles?😀
Did he sin when he excoriated the Pharisees by calling them ‘fools!’? He was more than a little pissed off when he railed at them that day. 😂
(Psst He said other not very nice things about them, too. 🤗)


No. Jesus didn’t sin. The distinction is between emotions (pre-moral entities) and action which will have a moral character, depending on a number of factors (e.g. intention, level of provocation, seriousness, consequences etc.).



How do you manage to type such pretentious , illogical drivel without the foreknowledge that it will invariably be laughed at?

The poster at 4.07 said (and I quote) : ‘Acting out of hatred or anger, of course, enjoys no such moral neutrality.’ (Which in decent English means ‘it is sinful’.)

Are you that poster? You probably are, because you sound just as crass.

To take that statement at face value means ‘that Christ sinned not once, but multiple times’.

I wonder whether you’ll now realise how inexpressibly stupid you have been.


The late KOB wasn’t just an example of a hypocrite, but how hypocrisy can morph out of control. The plaster saint was eventually brought down, disgraced, ostracised, and exiled for the rest of his life. Let it be a warning to other priests and bishops who may also be liars and don’t tell the truth.


It’s singing thauld song again and again. Celibacy is a form of control. The mighty can’t admit thinfallible is fallible Sure the Church employs God on a rolling contract. Here’s wan Hi Is God Celibate but


Local accent is fine in written speech. In fact it can be attractive and it’s a matter of some regret that they are disappearing.
However, when it comes to written communication, since body language is missing, using a standardized form of a language is necessary. Spelling is one element of such form. It’s difficult to interpret what someone else means in speech or in writing at the best of times. My normal reaction when it comes to your post is to scroll past for that reason.


That Twitter stuff from the pervy priest – he is Fr Charles Gosnell CF. The “CF” bit is about him being some kind of Chaplain to the Forces. There is another Gosnell who looks after the military Cathedral in Aldershot, but it’s not him, I think. He’s an ex-Anglican and married. But, it does remind me of the rather exotic and roaming characters amongst the chaplains that I came across when I was in the Forces ! Oh, boy, there are stories to tell ! It was a rather eclectic group of priests, most of whom appeared to be ‘free spirits’ and people who didn’t appear to be able to settle in to their dioceses. The life was independent, semi-detached from the Church, well remunerated and with the ability to live quite a nice life, with the odd bit of adventure thrown in. And, I suspect that for most of them the promise of celibacy was something that was optional. Some were quite open about it. Some were very good at what they did and the kind of person you wanted beside you when in danger or under fire. Perhaps celibacy was irrelevant in those circumstances ? People in the Forces weren’t really interested in all that. All they were interested in was whether this chaplain / priest could cut the mustard and be alongside them when the chips were down. And, mostly, they did.


With regards to the catholic control of the Irish Free State later Republic of Ireland since 1922, that is correct. As one historian said, the Irish substituted on monarchy for another. When the British left, the catholic church with their monarchy and hierarchy took over, and thus the rot started.

I have never understood why young active gay men would join the catholic seminary. A church which teaches that homosexuality is “morally disordered” would be the last place one would thing any gay young man would want to join.

As a protestant, I personally have a liberal view on sex, and I see nothing wrong at all with sexually active clergy, as long as they are honest about it. Whether they are straight, bi, gay – who cares? As long was they are helping people in need, doing good, and bringing spiritual guidance to people, if they are honest about their sexuality, then that is all is needed, just get on with your job as a priest.

After reading this blog for sometime, I am truly astonished at the amount of hypocrisy in the catholic church. I never ever thought that parochial houses, monasteries and seminaries were hot beds for gay sex.

It must be very difficult now for catholics to trust their clergy, and when one passes a parochial house, it might cross the minds of many thinking what goes on behind those closed doors of that place, which parishioners no nothing about?

Now in 2019, with the drought of catholic clergy available, and with many parochial houses closing, or just having one priest in resident, does this make it any better? With less priests living together, is the temptation for sex just increased, as they have no other priest living in the same residence with them?


Oh my total attack on the Church and its Clergy, Religious and Bishops.

It is only a Small fraction of Clergy, Religious and Bishops who do not keep their vows or act correctly in the name of the Holy Church.

People on here should have a look at themselves and ask yourselves have you sinned in anyway.

How about the ones entertaining the Clergy, religious and Bishops they are just as bad.

And then the people on here who entertain the Married Men with NO thought about the Wife or the Children .

Keep saying your rosary and Prayers as they will be needed.

God Bless you all.


Auld Gossip Alert at 9:43am

O my listen to St Maria Goretti she thinks she’s so pure, I don’t think . She has a very bad memory, I think she should look to herself, and ask if she has sinned in any way. And then the people on here who perv. on young men and get banned from every pub they use. Take your own advice and keep saying the Rosary and prayers you sorely need then.
God Bless you all.


Paul, it’s far more than only a small fraction who do not keep their vows.
Check research compiled by Dr. Richard Sipe.


And if they keep their vows, they are usually frustrated, chronic masturbators, angry, dysfunctional, odd and just fucked up ! They probably think they are holy, but at what a fucking price !


An American Bishop when asked whether priests should be allowed to marry quipped ‘OH if they love one another I don’t see why not’!!


Pat, any word on Fr Dwayne Gavin who arrived in Slane (after a stint as chaplain in Paris) in September 2017 as PP only to take a year out in July 2018 (10 months as PP) to write a book or a thesis. The year is up but he wasn’t mentioned in the recent clerical changes. We’re hoping the lovely new bishop will tell us when priests leave because the other one didn’t, yet we’re all supposed to down tools and run to the local Church for ordinations and silver anniversaries of priests etc. We never get to give the ones who leave in Meath diocese a going away present or a party.



Without conscience, some of the abuses may never be reported. It seems to me that RCC twists people’s conscience to their liking by obeying the pope or bishops. It’s more akin to USSR.

Conscience is the moral arbiter of any person. Conscience enabled me to report abuses. They found it very hard and incredulous as to believe my story some 25 years ago but now it’s common knowledge. Believe it’s v important to believe victims story.

It’s complete hypocrisy and sheer arrogance by popes and bishops in last 100 years re covering the cracks which got wider and wider for us all to see inside.

One thing is clear was that church cannot be trusted. So much mental reservations and lies on their part as they kept doing it until they crack.

It looks more of a cult when they shut down re defection process and leaving us in no man land as to where to go etc. Also when they try twist and manipulate the Catholic’s conscience by resorting to obedience. It is that virtue and culture of secrecy which enabled them to cover up multitude of abuses since 1920’s.

It was the documentary movie named ‘mea maxima culpa’ that opened my eyes a lot further and wider which led to stunning realisation that JPII knew the abuser Fr Marcel as he couldnt fire him cos he needed that huge well of money coming from Dr Marcel itself. That’s sheer hypocrisy and total dishonesty on their part including pope himself, cardinals bishops et al.

I couldn’t rationalise that JPII who enabled Marcel to continue cos of that money that Vatican needs as he became a Saint later.


Hi DL: From your comments recently I think you are having your eyes widely opened to the reality of the RC church, its organisation and lack of credibility. Do continue that journey.
Your comment on the obvious contradictions between conscience and obedience is highly relevant and shows your awareness of clerical manipulations throughout history to “massage” the laity into following ecclesiastical edicts.


I remember a US priest telling me years ago that an official of the diocese of Boston quipped that child abuse used to be a perk of the job, a quip which was hastily withdrawn after a public outcry. I can’t remember the name of the official or his role, and can find no reference to this online. Can anyone substantiate whether this happened and who said it? Or is it just my faulty memory of an even older priest’s throwaway comment?


I remember watching a programme about the Boston scandal, and one prolific abuser was described as “a lovely little leprechaun of a man.”


Anon @ 12:52: You mention the matter of sin. If I may make a comment on it.
We’re all familiar with the “Ten Commandments” as per Deut. 5:6-21 The first “Half” seem an odd concoction with little relevance to our daily human interactions and obligations to be caring towards each other. Only the second “Half” seems to instruct us to care for one another by not causing injury. And the penalties for transgression seem inordinately steep; eg death by stoning in Leviticus 24:16 for taking the Lord’s name! Death for cursing father or mother (Exodus 21:17) or working on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15). And the contradictions! “Thou shall not kill” as per Deut 5:17, yet later in Deut 7:1 “You must destroy them totally….and show them no mercy”!
Yet these biblical commandments are only the best known! What about the over 600 other commandments I’m told are in Exodus alone? [21:32 The owner of a bull which gores a slave must pay 30 shekels to the slave’s owner, and the bull must be stoned! etc etc: ]. All weird and wonderful commands ignored and forgotten, yet they are all there in religions holy Bible]
So what exactly is sin? Is it transgressing these weird and wonderful instructions as interpreted, massaged, adjusted and promulgated by religious edicts from self appointed clerics possessing knowledge of what their God has somehow decreed in certain holy books, while others are conveniently ignored? Would it be “unsinful” if that God had decreed murder as good and acceptable?
Or are certain acts and behaviour sinful in themselves irrespective of supposedly godly mandates? In which case is God is redundant and unnecessarily “dictating” morality?

All interesting questions. But whatever way one looks at it, religion and its proponents have certainly capitalised on sin to set themselves up as the interpreters of righteousness and the sole conduit for forgiveness.
Probably the best money making racket ever invented. And they won’t give up their power, prestige and comfortable lifestyle easily


Interesting as I didn’t know re 600 other commandments.

Well said re what’s exactly is sin? Is today sins totally different from 200 or 300 or 400 years ago?

You have gotten it right re religion capitalised on the issue of sin and became interpreters of sin and guardian of Catholic’s conscience. Indeed you got it spot on re generating money racket scheme. It reminded me of Martin Luther and the issue of indulgences linked with money as well.
Also the problem with these bible books as who wrote it and are they from god or spirit inspired?

First 100 years no bible no church no sacraments no bishops just a group of followers. How did Catholic Church come into being and did they ‘invent ‘ all sacraments, no bishops just first 26 popes were married etc.once I delve into their history as church doesn’t seems to be exactly what they aimed to be just their evolution from start to now which would imply that their doctrines would evolve into something like women Priests or something radical????


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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