In April, the retired pope sent a compilation of what he described as “some notes” on the crisis to Klerusblatt, a German-language Catholic monthly journal for clergy in Bavaria.
Seeing the crisis as rooted in the “egregious event” of the cultural and sexual revolution in the Western world in the 1960s and a collapse of belief in the existence and authority of absolute truth and God, the retired pope said the primary task at hand is to reassert the joyful truth of God’s existence and of the Church as holding the true deposit of faith.
Most of the criticism, though, focused on Pope Benedict seeming to blame the cultural and sexual revolution of the ‘60s, especially when many cases of priests sexually abusing children occurred before that time, even if the public found out only recently.
In the new note, Pope Benedict said the “the general deficit in the reception of my text” was a lack of willingness to engage with his contention that abuse is related to a lack of faith and strong morals.
He used as an example a critique in the July issue of Herder Korrespondenz by the historian Birgit Aschmann.
“In the four pages of the article by Mrs. Aschmann, the word ‘God,’ which I made the central point of the question, does not appear,” he wrote
People, including priests, who abuse children are paedophiles.
Paedophilia is a psychiatric condition, an illness. Of course it is also criminal and immoral.
If paedophilia is caused by lack of faith tthen all the atheists and agnostics in the world would be paedophiles.
Most priests, and and many other paedophiles believe in God.
So they are not lacking faith and is not lack of faith that makes them abuse.
Pope Francis blames the devil for abuse.
And now Benedict blames lack of faith and morals.
Many Catholics were brought up with a skewed sexuality because of Catholic Church thinking and teaching.
And that skewed thinking is exacerbated by compulsory celibacy for the 400,000 men who are priests.
I do not believe that celibacy is a direct cause of abuse.
But I do believe it to be a contributory factor along with skewed sexuality.
The Catholic Church and its rules and teachings is a breeding ground for paedophelia.
And on top of that the church covering up for priests has led paedophile priests to assume they would not be found out ‘ and even if they were they would never face justice and punishment for it.
It’s not the devil or lack of faith that’s to blame.
Its priests being criminal and immoral that is to blame along with popes and bishop keeping it all covered up.
The church men are blaming the devil and lack faith when it really is their fault.
And Benedict was a right winger who thought the the church’s reputation was more important than children being abused!
100 replies on “EX POPE BLAMES LACK OF FAITH AND MORALS ON ABUSE CRISIS.”
+Pat: I do not agree with first sentence of your 2nd paragraph of “Pat says”.
By stating that paedophilia is an illness, a psychiatric condition, you grossly simplify an issue much debated by relevant professional opinion.
Worst of all, your gross simplification can appear to minimise culpability of abusers and certainly sends out a wrong message.
MMM, I have no desire to minimise that great evil.
But the DSM psychiatric manual lists paedophilia as a psychiatric disorder.
But then again we all have illnesses and disorders that we have to manage and control, sometimes with medication.
Those priests and people who do not manage their condition are 100% culpable for doing so.
Bishop Pat, MMM has a point.
It might be more accurate to describe paedophilia as gross psycho-sexual psycho- emotional, arrested developmental fixation, rather than a ‘psychiatric illness’ regardless of what the DSM, the ‘ psychiatric bible’
has to say. What’s included or excluded in the DSM is determined by a committee, not hard medical science. Sometimes what’s included is done for very questionable motives, such as monetary considerations.
Homosexuality was included in earlier editions of the DSM, and considered a psychiatric illness/disorder.
It’s was dropped from the DSM, now not considered a mental illness .The first edition of the DSM, DSM 1, was published in 1952 and listed 106 mental illnesses. DSM 3 from 1980, listed 265 mental illnesses/ disorders, while DSM 4 listed 297. To the best of my knowledge, DSM 5, published in 2013, included 14 or 15 new
‘illnesses or disorders.’
So called, psychiatric illnesses , contrary to popular opinion, are not chemical imbalances. The chemical imbalance myth was propagated by ‘Big Pharma’, particularly in the 1980s, in order to sell their wares, especially when Prozac was marketed. It’s a marketing ploy, with no science to support it. Psychiatry is in the pocket of ‘Big Pharma’.
Many consider psychiatry as modern day quackery dressed up in medical jargon, with little scientifically to support many of it’s claims. Psychiatry might be best described as an ideology, wielding medico-power.
A GP friend of mine told me, when he was training as a doctor, a consultant/professor told him,
‘ I don’t know what psychiatrists do but we need them!’ Psychiatrists are needed to control those perceived as deviant. It’s another form of indoctrination with its ‘bible, priesthood, rituals and teachings’.
It’s being recognised for what it is and is being discredited by more ethically minded medics and professionals from a variety of backgrounds, as well as service users. Some of the practices of psychiatry are literally shocking!
Have a look at the role of psychiatry in the rise of Hitler and NAZI Germany.
For more infomation see psychiatrist, Dr. Peter Breggins website Breggin.com or his book ‘Toxic Psychiatry’.
Many emperors are scantily clad!
Thank you for that detailed and very good comment.
You have given me a lot to think about.
I agree that paedophilia is not a psychiatric illness or disorder, but I don’t agree that it constitutes arrested personal development. Personally, I should classify it simply as a point on the spectrum of human sexuality, more pronounced in some than in others.
This idea will anger/appall not a few, but the history of western Christendom has examples of adult-child betrothals/weddings, though the Church did at one time decree that copulation should not take place between such a couple until the girl was a certain age. However, the principle of adult-child unions was accepted without question and without moral scruple.
Don’t dress it up Magna, they are scumbags.
Where would you place zoophilia on the human sexuality spectrum?
In your opinion what, if any, factors, contribute to the point where people are located on the spectrum of human sexuality?
Quite correct, and indeed did not the DSM itself try to recategorize pedophilia as a sexual orientation recently?
1.13: MMM: I agree with you. Pat is prone to simplistic, black or white definitions on moral issues and on some medical issues. Whatever the cause of paedophilia – lack of faith or none, skewed sense of sexuality and spirituity – the sad deity is that paedophiles inflict almost irreparable damage in victims: guilt: invasion of bodily integrity: shame: loss of self esteem: suicidal ideation: inner turmoil: secrecy (tell no one: threats): confusion about sexuality: inability to form secure relationships: family divisions: spiritual conflict (am I loved/hated by God). Paedophilia is an insidious, dangerous and a life destroying power over victims. There may be some truth in Pope Benedict’s assertion that a lack of faith and prayer in a priest might lead him to be a godless individual, thus losing all moral integrity and not understanding the criminal nature of his behaviour. There is still much debate and research taking place about the meaning, cause and behavioural patterns of paedophilia. However, we must avoid simification of definitions and leave it to the professional to guide our understanding. The sad reality is that when anyone iscabused sexually by a paedophile, the damage is horrendous and often for a lifetime. From my reading about paedophilia, it is a multifaceted illness but one that can wreak havoc on a victim. Having been abused by a neighbour for iver a period of 2 years in the 70’s, I recall the fear andvsecrecy if it all but also the kindness of manipulation as if to make me feel good about it….which I did because it was like being loved but in s strange and crazy way. Thankfully I faced down my abuser at 16 years of age and that was the end for me. Yet, I know that the experienc damaged me for a long time. Paedophiles present as kund people, as in my case, but they are manipulatively dangerous. Let us be clear in our rejectiin of these induviduals but let us not be simplistic in definitions. I prefer the professional research and studied medical and psychiatric definitions.
Corruption occurs in professional scientific research, including medical research.
A dictum to remember when reviewing research findings; ‘whose paid the piper!’
No, I am not dressing it up. Paedophilia is now commonly regarded as a bye-word for sexual abuse of minors: rape and rape-sodomy. It has become associated with gross sexual deviancy, and criminality, but historically, this was not so.
Of course, rape and rape-sodomy of minors is vile and outrageous, and must be punished under civil law. But reacting to it only with strong emotions will lead to further misunderstsnding and misclassification of paedophilia, just as it did psychiatrically with homosexuality not all that long ago.
Like it or loathe it, zoophilia is another point, for some, on the spectrum of human sexuality. But the fact that it is such a point does not mean that it is socially or morally acceptable. However, it is there, on the spectrum.
Judgements on the appropriatess or inappropriateness of zoophilia are precisely that: human evaluations, but these are not intrinsic to the phenomenon itself, anymore than is homosexuality’s being ‘intrinsically disordered’.
10.03: Magna, have you been plagiarizing from Wikipedia again? We know how to Google zoophilia, paedophilia etc……No need for you to spell them out pretending you are an expert. As for homosexuality being considered a morally “intrinsically disordered reality”….You are proof it isn’t: rather it’s your psyche (not your sexuality) that’s definitely “intrinsically disordered”….Just sayin’ like…….FACT..
First, people aren’t ascribed a place on the spectrum of human sexuality: that would render the spectrum a purely synthetic concept rather than a natural fact of life.
Sexual desire takes many forms, sometimes those we regard as ‘perversions’, or as ‘sexual deviancy’. But these are human-value judgements; they are not intrinsic of the desires themselves. And culturally and historically, they vary and are changable.
Points on the spectrum are determined by sexual desire itself, regardless of its natue. To put it another way, ‘if such desire exists, it already and immediately is on the spectrum, whether or not others accept its place there’.
Ok. What motivates an interest to desire a ‘sexual object’…for e.g. a zoophile,..to desire to engage in sexual activities due to their ‘attraction’ or desire to do so?
You mean ‘what causes sexual attraction to the things you referred to’?
If I could answer that, I could probably answer the greatest mysteries of our time.
I don’t know what cause these attractions, but I do know that they exist in a wide range of hues.
It might not be so mysterious. A complex mix of factors such as psychological, psycho-social, environmental, early childhood deprivation, or failure in the facilitating environment, when an infants psyche is developing, particularly in the first three years, has a profound impact on the life of a person, including contributing to creating fixations or desires society considers loathsome.
Yes, it may not be mysterious, but the cause(s) does, currently, remain unknown and open, therefore, to speculation (including the unscientific, biblical view, that the sin of Adam and Eve brought about distortion in human sexuality).
Recently it was reported (gloatingly by some, I thought) that a new scientific study seemed to show that there was no ‘gay gene’: no genetic determinism of homosexuality. Some of these people, and organisations, appear set to take up the gauntlet on the staple view, among right-wing moralists and Catholics, that being gay is, therefore, not an intrinsic part of a person’s nature: that it is, on the contrary (as Cardinal Josef Ratzinger declared in a 1986 pastoral), an ‘intrinsic disorder’.
But the fact of homosexuality in human history cannot be put down to choice, or to someone’s not having a reliable father (or father-figure) around at an early age. These old chestnuts offer the wisdom of old wives tales on a subject that requires more serious and, frankly, more grown up treatment than many have given it. There is, for instance, an area of human development affected by what is scientifically known as ‘Epigenetics’; this has been acknowledged by some scientists as a possible locum for the origin of homosexuality.
I have never met a single gay or lesbian person who said that they had chosen their sexuality. Rather, they acknowledge having awakened to it, some of them at a very young age.
“I have never met a single gay or lesbian person who said that they had chosen their sexuality. Rather, they acknowledge having awakened to it, some of them at a very young age.” Sadly, one has to keep on asserting the obvious over against the entrenched homophobic refusal to acknowledge that homosexuality is part of the natural spectrum.
A lack of faith and morals, eh? Well, that would account for Benedict’s inactivity over reports of child-sexual abuse by priests during his tenure as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger (as he was then) was so concerned at the rising number of these reports that he expressly ordered that every one of them should come directly to him…whereupon he promptly sat on them: kept them secret, and took no action whatever. It seems his sole intention on issuing these orders was to cover up the degree and extent of the burgeoning worldwide scandal and criminality
A priest, Fr Juan Vaca (sexually abused as a ten-year-old boy, and subsequently, by Fr Marcial Maciel in one of his seminaries), reported to the CDF, over a thirty-year period, his abuse, and that of other boys. This was in part under Ratzinger’s watch, and, of course, Ratzinger kept these abuses quiet, too. On becoming pope, Fr Vaca declared Benedict a ‘very weak, weak person’.
The so-called ‘cultual and sexual revolution’ of the 1960s (blamed by Benedict for the abuse scandal) was actually an inevitable and important sociological phenomenon: a rebellion against the stale authoritarianism of the day and a demand by young people across much of the globe for a voice in social affairs, a protest by them for a listening ear. But it didn’t happen in a historical vacuum: its causes occurred well before the 1960s. I cannot believe that those events in that time are not related to the fact that the 20th century brought not one, but two, world wars, along with the anarchy that war inevitably generates, especially the breakdown of sexual morality on foot of such mass killing and destruction.
Benedict’s own church has never shied away from morally excusing war on certain grounds, the principles of so-called ‘just war’. When people devalue human life to the point of its mass and indiscrimiate destruction, they have been groomed to devalue everything else, including sexual morality. It is no good Benedict’s blaming such an abstract thing as a historical era for the abuses in the Church when the real causes lie uncomfortably much closer to home: with the teaching of that church itself.
MC, good post. 👍
Where does the natural spectrum begin, and end?
I think the current lack of faith is actually caused (in part only) by the abuse crisis.
Of course he’s absolutely right that a lack of faith could also cause abuse – if you genuinely believe you could go to hell for eternity you would have a good go at not sinning but these priests seem to have no such fear.
But then of course they’re far from being the only people who don’t have insight into the likely effect of their actions on others!
Ah! Ratzo, the Hitler Youth, hatchetman for JPII and lover of handmade shoes resurfaces. As the above posters state he covered up abuse and financial irregularities in the church for decades. When he became pope and things started to go belly up and he began to feel that he was going to be called to account, he decided f**k this I’m out of here and moved to a VERY comfortable retirement funded by, as Magna would say, the sheep. This man has no courage and is a blatant careerist, he should be serving a long sentence in the darkest dungeon for his crimes.
8.10: If you had been in Germany in Ratzinger’s time you too would have been forced to join the Hitler Youth. Undoubtedly and unquestioningly. Don’t skew historical fact to suit your hatred of the former pope and of the Church. Let’s not perpetuate the LIE..
There is no lack of faith in God, there is a lack of faith in the church, and for very good reasons.
Excellent comments above, especially Anon@ 8:10, and Magna @ 7:42. I was generally aware of the disparity of views concerning relevance of psychiatric opinions which you @ 8:10 have ably laid out. My own limited psychiatric training and subsequent experience has made me cautious of psychiatric opinions, certainly not taking them with any degree of certitude: My memories go as far back as when ECT was seen as an answer when nothing else worked!
My main concern has been +Pat’s apparent gross simplification of a very complicated and much debated issue: one which abusers or their defenders could possibly misuse. You have shown that the issue is much more complex. Thank you.
Alarm bells went inside me re RED shoes. That is not what you expect from a pope. I remember clearly when he became a pope on the day he came in public. I could see it was ego and power which shone through his eyes. It was like yeah I got that job etc. That was careerist as I couldnt find the right words to express it but poster @8.10 got it spot on.
There is a video of Ratzinger slapping reporters hand in anger when reporter in question asked him a question on sex abuse. That was enough for me as he knew it no question so faith and morals have nothing to do with it. He just knew it and avoided the question by slapping reporter’s specific question and went inside papal car.
Anon@6:34: Much good sense in your comments, especially “these priests seem to have no fear.”
This resonates with what I have said in comment several times to +Pat’s blog. And that has gone unchallenged.
I believe that many RC clergy have not only “lost the faith, [by that I mean loss of belief in the veracity and central relevance of the RC
institution as ‘speaking for God’] but have lost belief in the very existence of God.
I can find no other reasonable explanation for such grave, repetitive abuse over such extended periods by so many clerics, and I say that even while making allowances for warped understandings of sexuality and human frailties.
The other significant factor you also acknowledge is a blatant disregard for the damaging effects of abuse on vulnerable children.
Yes, thank you for this response. To me it is so obvious that one of the central tenets of the Catholic faith is that sex should be between one man and one woman who are married. To fail to be concerned when any other sexual activity is going on is a sign that you don’t really hold that central tenet.
I am not talking about people in, say, Pat’s position who publicly profess a different version of the Catholic faith (an independent definition of Catholicity) and publicly is in a same sex relationship. You will not find it difficult to hear Pat say that his definition of Catholicity and sexual ethics are different!
For years the bishops have not been publicly enforcing Catholic sexual ethics on their clergy. We have seen endless examples where bishops have been warned by the sPs that priests would abuse children again and most recently there have been priests on here alleging that bishops are frightened of calling their priests to behave because they won’t have any priests!
The key point you make is that no allegedly faithful Catholic comes out and challenges this situation, in fact the only one I can think of is Bellarmine who doesn’t hesitate to say that an unchaste priest must go.
One man one woman, a central tenet of faith? Bah, where is it mentioned in the creed? If so central, why does the Old Testament ignore it blithely?
One Catholic forum – nameless started to attack me as a troll when I said cardinal Burke gave me creeps when I went in Cork church by accident as I saw his dress was too feminine – cappa magna. Its was too prissy for my liking. Too gayish and pissed me off. Is he gay or what? Is RCC gay church??
Bellarmine, your cruel remark to DU @ 1:54 warrants an apology.
It was sickening and revolting display of mother burke’s cappa magna. Unhealthy all male- no diversity and very uncosmopolitan. It freaked me out as I nearly puked out.
They are living in another world enclosed world with ugly dress such as cappa magna. Drama queen re that kind of dress.
Denim jeans. is fine even better than cappa magna.
Not the ‘ I hate Cardinal Burke because he wears a Cappa Magna in a photograph I once saw’ again. If you said he didnt have the grandeur of a true Roman like Dr Macquaid of Dublin then maybe you would be right but the boring he’s wearing a dress so he’s crypto homosexual needs a rethink, you don’t hate him because of what he’s wearing but because he’s the only vaguely traditional Catholic leader left even though everyday he says the 1970 Supper of the Lord
Anonymous at 8:49pm
That will be right! I don’t think so,get back to the bog ye came out of.
9.53: Your second sentence from “If you said he didn’t…” nedds to be rewritten. It is awful and utterly meaningless.
Anonymous at 9:53pm
Who rattled your cage? he was not wearing a dress as you say he was wearing a vestment you cretin. Have you read Sacra Sanctum Concilium there is no Supper of the Lord in the Catholic Church. It is The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass although you might not think it with what you see with the novas ordo morons, unless you go to the church of Ireland? You are right in what you say about him being vaguely traditional I am sorry to say.
Deaf and Dumb at 9:40pm
Your description of His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke is sickening and revolting you should be ashamed of yourself. I think it’s you that’s the Drama Queen. The Capa Magna is very cosmopolitan much more than a denims in fact it quite freaked me out that anyone could think so.
CDF (aka holy inquisition office) sat on abuses files for decades as they did nothing like defrocking Priests or laicased way back. All they did was to move Priests from parish to parish or to another diocese. Faith and morals have nothing to do with that. It’s their knowledge of the abuses and also their inability to stop the rot. For instance, fr b Smyth was known in 1965, Fr marciel in 1943, abuses in my ex school went on for some 40 years without telling our parents/other parents as well on enrolment day as to what’s went inside school/bedroom doors, Fr gino burressi (fake stigmatist), Fr fortune and singing priest Fr Walsh, Carrick et al. Ratzinger and John Paul II knew it all along over the years as faith and morals have nothing to do with that. It’s all distraction and diversions–smokes and mirrors. Starting to see that the top tier of the RCC is evil as they call themselves as the church nothing to do with the laity subservient.
In next 20 years church here might survive in small or little packets but attendence have been dwindling since 5 years ago re my observation.
Bella, read the gospels! You can’t see the wood from the trees. 😎 ( Just tellin’,it like)
Anon? at 11:21pm
Take off those sunglasses, you can’t see anything. (Just sayin’, like)
Bellarmine @ 11:13, the Capa doesn’t make the Cardinal. Ask former Cardinal, Ted.
“Teach Your Children”
Composed by Graham Nash.
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. (Album; Deja Vu 1970)
You, who are on the road,
Must have a code
That you can live by.
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a goodbye.
Teach your children well.
Their father’s hell
Did slowly go by.
And feed them on your dreams.
The one they pick’s the one you’ll know by.
Don’t you ever ask them, “Why?”
If they told you, you would cry.
So, just look at them and sigh,
And know they love you.
Can you hear and do you care
And can’t you see
We must be free
To teach your children
What you believe in,
Make a world that we can live in?
And you, of tender years,
Can’t know the fears
That your elders grew by.
And so please help them with your youth.
They seek the truth
Before they can die.
Teach your parents well.
Their children’s hell
Will slowly go by.
And feed them on your dreams.
The one they pick’s the one you’ll know by.
Don’t you ever ask them, “Why?”
If they told you, you would cry.
So, just look at them and sigh
And know they love you.
Once again the Cathbots are notable for their absence. Could it be that saying ‘look at the thousands of faithful priests’ would seem ridiculous even to them in the face of the evidence?
Bella, I don’t wear sunglasses at night, unlike you!😎 They’re a fixture for you, pal! ( Just tellin, it)😳 Anon? 😂
I never wear sunglasses at all you cretin! my eyes are always fixed on the teachings of Our Lord and His Immaculate Bride The Church. Your vision is only fixed on the list of cheap price drink. (Just tellin’, it like) Anon? yer Jacksie!
11.29: Mags under anonymous..We recognise your wording – not clever at all.
How many times must I say this?
I DO NOT POST UNDER ‘ANONYMOUS’.
And I didn’t post at 11.29.
Not very clever!😂
11:29 was not Magna Carta.
6.07: You are back again. The silly, ignorant and uneducated idiot. If this is the only response you can give to this serious topic, you are a moron. Go and educate yourself.
Bingo! Typical abusive comment by Fr Sanctimonious.
Thank you so much, dear Father, for showing publicly exactly what you are made of. You actually make my comments so much better than I could myself. Because I can tell you all I have to say in one short phrase, but you make my point about you so much better.
9.40: I’m not a priest at all, sir. Many lay people, like myself follow this blog in the hope of contributing something worthwhile, but I notice your stupid, irrelevant comments frequently. Someone has to call you out on your inanities. So don’t clap yourself on the back just yet: wait until you are more learned and articulate and learn to stay with the topic or issues of the blog.
Oh I’ll clap myself on the back when I feel like it because if you try reading my post you will find it is about the subject. Also my comment remains applicable because it wasn’t specific to priests it is about Cathbots 🙄
Of course there is lack of faith because people were introduced to a system rather than how to build a relationship with God. Imagine a 14 year old in confession saying what do I say next or a grown adult saying I was disobedient hi. Morals come from respect rather than learnt responses but Gnite all hi
Good nite hi fly.
Introduced to a system hi fly staying put on babby food rather than introduced to solids.
Now many are starving with spiritual anorexia. More have religious indigestion from systemic
bulimia having been overfed on rules and regulations with an overdose of rituals never realising
God’s a lover, is alive and loves ’em like crazy.
Good Nite fly hi.
Absolutely true, Fly.
Relationship with a ‘system’ rather than Christ.
Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago during the first wave of this crisis: the three causes of this problem are infidelity, infidelity and infidelity. Lack of faithfulness to one’s priestly vows, ones priestly identity, is absolutely basic.
Pardophiles are pure scumbags . In relation to the paedophile clergy within the rc church, they are scumbags who have been aided and abetted, not to mention coveted up by their church. Lack of faith my arse. They are twisted hateful bastards who abuse for their own ends with no thought for their victims
This bishop resigned today.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
Anon. at 8:21am
Not before time, I’m so glad you have now accepted it’s all you fault. Now say a good Act of Contrition and all will be well.
Bellarmine @ 12.30 have you lost the plot?
U are sick and twisted cos you are calling people names. That is beneath you as it says more about you. You don’t give a damn about tt as you are fawning Mother Burke as i dont call him cardinal anymore.
Hope that you get banned here.
Just watched a YouTube video of a German Catholic commentator Gabriele Kuby,
who in a recent book called on the Rcc to publicly repent as a Church for the abuse scandals.
5.37am: If you quack like a duck, and walk like a duck, then.you are a duckhead!! Stop quacking….say something useful.
Bellarmine @ 1:23 pm are you a retired priest or bishop?
12.56: Perhaps you might re-articulate your sloppily expressed rant at Bellarmine! Can’t follow your scribbles…..
Bishop Pat, those remarks by Bellarmine to Deaf Lad (referring to him as ‘dummy’ and ‘dumb’) were well beyond the pale of acceptability and should not have been published.
MC. at 1:30pm
Patsy don’t you think Maggie has some cheek, with the names and foul mouth remarks she makes all the time. The remarks made by deaf lad concerning a Prince of the Church was beyond the pale. So if he gives it out he has to be prepared to take it back. But what laugh Maggie of all people she who is the foulest of all in not just in my opinion.
You do not call a person with a physical disability.
Frankly I’m getting tired of your stupid comments.
I will be paying more attention to what you write.
MC at 1.30pm
Thanks for your comments much appreciated re your support. Yes it went beyond the pale – disgusting but I move on.
Oh gosh why has Mullaney moved into a former sems family home
I have removed the offensive comment Bellarmine against Deaf Lad.
To be honest I find Bellarmines comments very unintelligent and blind. I think he is one of those RCs who would be proud to have a child abused by a priest. I will watch him comments more carefully. I can hardly bear reading them.
Patsy at 2:08pm
Patsy what a cheek you have, you don’t mind remarks made against priests and members of the hierarchy and yet you pull me up for retaliating. Also how dare you say that I would be proud to have a Child abused by a priest. You owe me an apology for that remark. I have never ever supported anyone who is guilty of abuse in fact the exact opposite I am the first to say call The Guardsin and have the prosecuted how you could make such a remark. I can also hardly bare to read some of comments you make.
Remarks against priests and bishops are about their corruption.
I would not call a deaf and dumb priest a dummy.
You do support a church that is an international abuser in every way.
That makes you an abuse supporter and co abuser.
U are descipable being calling me name which summed up your view of me . Totally disgusting comment by you as you didn’t see fit to apologise to me not pasty. Pasty at 2.08 doesn’t have to apologise to you.
I get it that you are fanatically loyal to the church as I reckon that you support the abusers all the way no matter how serious are consequence suffered by the abuses.
I make no apology re Burke cos it was extremely outdated and purely anquited dress which isn’t relevant in this day and age.
Church at top tier which I mean by pope, cardinals bishops are rotten to the core due to their failure to protect the kids like myself many years ago. I have no time for them now.
Finally it’s you who should make an apology for your foul and totally disgusting comments. Descipable cos u have no respect for any human being if you continue to name calling and make disgusting comments. Enough said.
+Pat: Please ban Bellarmine. I find his remarks tedious beyond belief. They are always negative, hostile, and make no informative, helpful, or even intelligible contribution to this blog. Despite advice, he has continued ad nauseam a repetitious quasi childish mixture of religious mantra and personalised attacks. The evidence is that he is incapable of change.
I am blunt in saying this. I hope others who feel likewise will say so.
I feel exactly the same about B as you do.
I am very loath to ban people.
But I going to keep a very tight scrutiny on his comments.
I find him to be obnoxious.
1.55: MMM: I believe all contributors who engage in nasty, put down, ad hominem comments should be barred for a long, considerable period. Too much personalised vitriol has been printed against too many people, supposedly in the name of justice and truth. Bellarmine is by no means the worst culprit. Magna is outlandishly obnoxious and degradi g.much of the time. So called seminarians, ex seems, ex priests and other disgruntled I dividual’s have commented horribly and unacceptably. Pat needs to ban some, very definitely and especially those utter nutters who make semi porno suggestions and lewd remarks about named individuals. Totally unjust and adds nothing meaningful to necessary dialogue and debate about important matters.
2.08: Pat, you too are nasty when you choose to be. There is a lot of hypocrisy going on in your attitude. You are so blind to your own sins that you fail to recognise your utter bias, hate and hypocrisy. You do not have a monopoly on morality, justice or GOD!!
Patsy at 2:57pm
Yes all you lot want is a mutual admiration society all of you trying to beat each other by your insults about The Church. None of you can stand anyone with a contrary view to your own. Too bad I will always give the right view wither you lot like it or not. I am still awaiting your apology Patsy about that dreadful remark you made, if you have any decency you will retract it as you know it is not true. I know you don’t like me and the feeling is mutual but there is such a thing as fair play.
I will be giving you no apology. I meant what I said.
Does anyone know how the “like” button works? I tried to use it to indicate agreement to Anon @3:27 comment but only got a non functioning screen pop up.
Anyway, my point is that I certainly agree with +Pat severely limiting contributions of the scurrilous type referred to. They degrade the value of this blog, and expose +Pat to potential ridicule for posting them.
Don’t forget to include clerics who regularly use abusive language and make abusive remarks.
MMM, do you have an account with wordpress?
A.@ 4:43: No word press account. Is it necessary to have one just to indicate a like/agreement with someone’s comment?
And, as asked previously, if anyone knows how to reply (directly on the blog) to a comment lacking the reply facility, please share.
Click the like icon to go to WordPress. Otherwise just give the👍
Pat, your comment at 2.50 is unfair. Anywhere human beings are operating will always have an element of self interest and a level of abuse. But remember we ordinary people must try to key into that basic church structure each day to obtain some grace for our lives. We cannot pick and choose which clergyman walks out to offer mass. Just as we can respect you and this blog but not know what you or others might say next. We need to keep a balance. Purification and renewal somehow go together.
That’s the point. You SHOULD be able to choose who you will have minister to you – or at least be consulted.
You should also KEY into Jrsus and his teachings.
It’s the problem with the RCC. Too much hierarchy and clerics.
We must key into the Holy Spirit daily. Christians are supposed to walk in the Spirit. The Spirit is not contained in a structure.
We do key into Jesus and the Holy Spirit by availing of the prayer and service opportunities provided by the church. Can you not see that?
Magna darling, do you remember how we used to love watching Kojak together? Mummy had a terrible crush on Telly Savalas! But I am particularly reminded that there was an episode called ‘A House of Prayer, A Den of Thieves’…
“Who loves ya, baby”? “Bellarmine”!
I do indeed, Mommie Dearest. A d I recall your remark on the title:’It isn’ t the Jerusalem Temple they are referring to here, but to the Roman Catholic Church. ‘
You were proved right, dearest…which means I owe you a fiver. Crikey! How much is that worth today? 😳
I am sure I insisted on guineas, darling.
Yes I can. I didn’t say to the contrary.
I’m saying church ‘structure’ is not the only means of keying into Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Bella. I agree fully with BP Pat. Ur comments are tedious, boring and I truly believe that you must like the sound of your own voice. I for one do not expect nor would I wish to have everyone on this blog agree. The whole point of this is exchanging views on certain topics. You, however, contribute nothing. All you do is regurgitate the same claptrap day in day out. Despite your attempts this blog isn’t and never will be about you. It is about exposing the endemic corruption in a Christ betraying so called church. I cannot remember one time when any of your posts were valid . You only try and fail to boost your own ego. In the words of Trump – SAD