MARIE COLLINS ON US TOUR TALKING ABOUT THE VATICAN HAVING NO OPENNESS ON ABUSE REFORM.

WASHINGTON — The Catholic Church has reached a crossroads. Its leaders can either change, become open and accountable, or maintain the status quo: an institution lacking transparency, wrapped in secrecy and beholden to a clerical culture that is at the heart of the institution’s problems.

That bleak assessment was made by Marie Collins, the Irish clerical sexual abuse survivor who was an original member of a papal commission dealing with the sex abuse crisis, and who said she is “hanging on by my fingernails.”

The scandal, she said in remarks Sept. 8 opening a five-city U.S. tour, is both systemic and global, and clericalism remains at its core.

“The church is at a crossroads. It can either continue to behave as it has for centuries, protecting itself, or open up and become the church we all want it to be, the church that it should be.”

Collins, in a separate interview with NCR following the news conference, expanded on her understanding of clericalism and how it played into her decision to resign, after serving for three years, from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.

During the past 20 years, she said, the church “has been reactive” and “has not changed one single thing unless forced to by survivors and those in the media. … I don’t believe the church has made any changes of its own volition.” She made her remarks at the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill at the outset of her tour, titled, “A Crisis of Culture: Seeking Justice to Reclaim the Church.”

Comparing the task facing the church to the Herculean labor of cleaning the Augean stables, Collins said she believes significant change can occur only with continuous pressure “by lay people who love the church.”

Her time of service on the newly formed papal commission from 2014 to 2017 provided a rare look for a lay woman at the workings of the Roman Curia, the Vatican congregations and offices comprising the highest levels of governance in the church. She came away from that experience, she told NCR, convinced that “it’s like a giant boys’ boarding school.”

She described her time on the commission as a series of frustrations and realizations that some in the Curia were intent on stifling the group’s work from the outset.

She said the first meeting at the Vatican turned out to be a harbinger of what was to come. The room where it was held contained a bare table and chairs. “No pens, no pads, not even water,” she said. When she asked who was going to take minutes of the meeting, she said the cleric secretary answered there was “no one in the Vatican available to take minutes.”

She said the commission was not provided a budget, was told there was no money to hire experts to aid their work, and that no funds were available for working group meetings between the main gatherings. “You know, you have some cardinals paying millions to renovate their apartments and things, you have hundreds of millions paid out in compensation to survivors. We’re trying to keep children safe to prevent survivors in the future and we weren’t given a budget.”

In August 2018, she met with Pope Francis during his trip to Ireland. It was the year after she had resigned from the papal commission. At the time, she gave the pope credit for a frank exchange with a group of survivors, but said she was disappointed that important initiatives suggested by the commission were not moving ahead.

“I got to meet the pope and say what I wanted to say. I may not have got the answers I wanted — all you can do is ask the question, and I did,” she wrote in the Irish Times.

In the interview here, she said during their exchange that Francis told her that “the commission was not honest with me” and that he could now trust it because it had been incorporated into the Curia.
She said she asked him “In what way were we not honest with you?” According to Collins, he replied, “I won’t speak about the past.”

“I couldn’t get an answer,” she said. “Who had told him that? Who had been saying things to him about those members and the honesty of the commission? I never got to the bottom of it.”

When she asked who was going to take minutes of the meeting, she said the cleric secretary answered there was “no one in the Vatican available to take minutes.”

In one instance, she said, she asked during a meeting about the status of a proposal for an accountability tribunal that had been advanced months before and handed on to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for implementation. Her question had been posed to Claudio Papale, a professor who also worked for the CDF. She said that Msgr. Robert Oliver, secretary of the commission, intervened and attempted to prevent Papale from answering, saying the question placed the professor in a difficult position.

Collins said that Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, president of the commission, eventually intervened and allowed Papale to respond. Collins said Papale told the group that the proposal had been blocked by the CDF and would never be implemented.

Some months later, after an inquiry from NCR, the Vatican acknowledged that Papale had resigned from the commission for personal reasons.

As an indication of curial meddling, she recounted her attempt to nominate Juan Carlos Cruz, a survivor from Chile, to membership on the commission. She has posted on her website a number of emails demonstrating efforts by a Chilean cardinal and the nuncio to Chile to block both his appointment to the commission and his invitation to speak at a conference in Rome.

One of the emails mentioned O’Malley, proof, Collins said, that he knew that members of the hierarchy were attempting to interfere with the work of the commission. She said when she asked O’Malley during a meeting why he had not informed the group of that attempt: “He didn’t answer. He just shrugged his shoulders.”

In response to a question, O’Malley’s spokesperson Terrence Donilon responded that he was in “no position to comment on Marie’s recollections. The cardinal’s position and actions with respect to the situation in Chile is both public and well known. This includes his support of Chilean victims.” He added that O’Malley “has great respect for Marie and her ongoing commitment to safeguarding.

Indeed, Collins, in turn, expresses her respect for O’Malley, but says that the incident is indicative of the pervasive nature of the clerical culture.

In addition to her regard for O’Malley, she gives high marks to Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s chief abuse investigator, for his work on behalf of victims and in rooting out the truth in places like Chile, and to Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.

“I have a lot of time for Scicluna,” she said. “I have met with him. I think he, in the old phrase that we don’t use much now, he gets it, he really does. He gets things done. He is not intimidated by anyone with a greater title than he has. He will go in, as he did in Chile, and ask the questions that need to be asked.”

As for Martin, she thinks if it weren’t for the clerical culture “he’d have a red hat by now.” That he has not been named a cardinal she believes is due to the animosity of other Irish bishops toward him for his role in helping to expose the extent of clergy sexual abuse of minors in Ireland. Martin, who worked in the Vatican most of his career, was appointed archbishop in 2004 and shortly thereafter began reading through the voluminous documentation on sex abuse in the records of the archdiocese. He handed over some 70,000 documents to a government commission studying the scandal.

“He’s totally different and I think his skill and experience should have been used at the Vatican level. Instead, he’s been isolated and ignored,” Collins said. “In my view, he should have been on the papal commission for the protection of minors because his experience in Dublin was excellent.” She said his child protection office in Dublin could be used as “a blueprint and put in every diocese.”
He is not popular with other bishops and many priests, she said, because he reversed the strategy of his predecessor, who worked to keep the files secret, and consequently “is looked on as a betrayer” by the clergy. But, she contends, he is deeply respected by lay Catholics and non-Catholics in Dublin.

He is, she said, an example of what happens when someone bucks the clerical culture.

While claiming she has no ready answer for the clerical culture — they have to ask themselves the question of how the crisis came to be, she says — she did have a suggestion for dealing with the Curia.
She described the Vatican as “a bubble” teeming with ambitious clerics. “There’s this climbing the slippery pole and the whole thing is getting to the top. And it’s a hothouse of gossip and all this other stuff.” She said if she had her way, she would put everyone who works in the Vatican “on a five-year term, and I would send them back to their parish or whatever for a length of time, and then they can come back. I wouldn’t keep them there for eternity.”

Her tour, with scheduled stops in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, New Orleans and Los Angeles, was organized and sponsored by 13 church reform groups.

[Tom Roberts is NCR executive editor. His email address is troberts@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter at @NCRTROB.]
*The caption for this photo has been updated with the correct location.

PAT SAYS

I think that Marie Collins insight into the goings on in the Vatican, the hierarchy and the curia show us exactly what they are like.

They are a clerical dictatorship and all they want from the laity is their money and blind obedience.

These guys are not interested in truth, faith, hope or charity.

They are not interested in Jesus, except to have hijacked his mission so that they can have endless power, money, control and sex.

They are as evil as the authorities in Iran and Syria.

We must continue to expose them at every possible turn until the people of the world recognise them as the evil ones they are.

I don’t know why Almighty God does not unleash total destruction upon them.

61 thoughts on “MARIE COLLINS ON US TOUR TALKING ABOUT THE VATICAN HAVING NO OPENNESS ON ABUSE REFORM.

  1. “I don’t know why Almighty God does not unleash total destruction upon them“.
    The Vatican, like every other human society, has good, bad and indifferent. But that comment above of yours Buck is indicative of your complete mania.

    Like

    1. It was a tad strong Pat.

      Like

  2. More news from the US.

    Like

  3. Be careful Pat with wishing for God to unleash total destruction on them, the bishops. You too might fall under the mighty unleashing of God’s wrath. Is your life pure, morally whole and spiritually acceptable to Go? Apart from my facetiousness, I honestly believe that unless we allow women of Marie Collin’s stature to guide us, to advise us, to be involved in decision making processes, the men at the top will continue to onky see the institution. Marie is a woman of immense integrity, justice and truth. Her calm, steady, assured composure under pressure, with clarity of thought and analysis is a refreshing reality for all who truly care for the Church – by this I mean the laity, the Pobal De. Marie has proven herself a most amazing advocate for change, truth and justice. I only wish the hierarchy would allow her to be their adviser, to not be afraid of listening to her, to embrace her compassionate wisdom and learn from her Christianity. Women like Marie one day will bring about true, Christ like renewal and be the true visionaries and builders of a new Church community. She is a blessed person and has so much to offer a broken, rotting church system.

    Like

  4. Charleen Mcgarry 16th Sep 2019 — 1:36 am

    Good on her for doing this

    Like

  5. Pat I will forward on the exact list of those young adult seminarians selected by him for the Pit. it is a very small list, each of these adults had the free will to say no, but Pat they were terrified of him. Ledwith’s layer evolved into Mullaney’s layer of horrors.

    Like

    1. 3:32 am. I think free will is compromised in a person who is terrified.

      Like

      1. Good point.

        I think that truth applies to just about every Christian who ever lived and who was made to fear God as the ultimate , avenging judge.

        Like

      2. Ar’ah Tom, is it yourself that’s in it. I was beginning to think you’d gone on further studies

        Like

    2. At 3:32am – would you ever cop yourself on!

      Like

      1. 3:32am

        Drunk and alone with nothing better to do. This false crusade will only bring bad luck on you.

        Get help and fast!

        Like

  6. Cesspit cesspit cesspit.

    Like

  7. “… it’s a hothouse of gossip and all this other stuff.”

    I presume “other stuff” is… well, you know.

    Like

  8. The deadline for Pell, seeking leave to appeal is Wednesday afternoon, and friends said: “the expectation remained that the child sex offender will lodge an appeal.”

    In the meantime, the nonce remains in the Melbourne Assessment Prison as he is at extreme risk of being assaulted by other inmates if he is released into the general prison community.

    Like

  9. Anonymous 15th Sep 2019 — 11:54 pm

    So when are we going to get your blog about Fr Eamonn Murray?

    bishoppat 16th Sep 2019 — 8:21 am
    There is a process happening. Eamon did something very wrong to me recently. I want to give him the chance to do the right thing.

    Like

  10. I was somewhat taken aback by Francis’s comments re Confession that when God forgives, He forgets the sin – he loses that memory. However well intentioned, it might seem that the Pontiff was suggesting that you can go to Confession and then walk away as if nothing had ever happened. Yet the Church has always insisted on the need for penance and reparation where possible. In the old language there remains after absolution a temporal penalty to be paid; hence the scam over indulgences. In today’s language, one might say you still have to own what you have done, take some responsibility and move on. As John Cornwell demonstrated in his book a few years ago about the link between Confession and the abuse crisis, the dark box not only provided an unsafe place for victims, but gave predators the opportunity to abuse, find a fellow priest to absolve them, and then repeat over and over again with no admission or awareness whatsoever of the evil they had done. No wonder Marie Collins comes up against a wall.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. MournemanMichael 16th Sep 2019 — 1:20 pm

      Good points @11:09.
      I agree that some abusive clerics may have followed the ‘magic roundabout ‘ pattern of confession and relapse. But I also believe that a considerable number of RC clergy were unhibited in their abuse having lost faith and belief that religious teaching had any relevance. Their loss of belief alone did not CAUSE the abuse, but surely it must have played a significant part in the thought processes of long term serial abusers.
      MMM

      Like

    2. What you describe was never the church’s position @ 11:09, but a travesty. Yes. Forgiveness is a grace – to the forgiver and forgiven alike – to paraphrase Shakespeare. What was called a firm purpose of amendment was necessary in order to be reconciled in the sacrament.

      Like

      1. 7.53

        ‘Firm purpose of amendment’ would have better been expressed simply as ‘repentance’. But even this word is lacking.

        Repentance isn’t really a turning away from wrong behaviour, but a change of attitude towards it; in other words, ‘desiring to do the opposite’. This alone is sufficient for reconciliation; it also lifts the psychological burden imposed on a person by the words ‘firm purpose of amendment’, which are easily misconstrued as ‘must try harder’.

        Words here are extremely important. I have known people to suffer terribly in their minds, because they thought that continually relapsing in besetting sin was an indicator that they were not serious about turning to God.

        No matter how hard a person tries, he will always fall morally. But what is important here is the maintenance of the desire to do better…like the apostle Paul, who was deeply conscious of his human frailty in not being able always to do the good he desired to do.

        Many confessors, through sheer stupidity and ignorance, have turned people away from confession, because they mistook the usual moral relapses as a sign of insincerity and gave people a humiliatingly hard time over it. But as I told one person: the confessor hears only the moral failures, NOT the moral victories (those occasions when temptation was overcome).

        God sees in the round what the confessor sees only in very small part.

        Like

      2. I am afraid you are quite incorrect @7:53 pm. I would refer to the Church’s age-old position reiterated in the Catechism 1459-1460 from which I quote:
        “Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he [sic] must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his [sic] sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance’. ”
        I would have thought this common sense: it is also integral to the 12 Step programme. That this may not be generally understood might explain the abuse of the sacrament of reconciliation, discussed by John Cornwell in relation to clerical abuse, when there is in fact no actual reconciliation at all.

        Like

      3. The late Mgr Gilbey explained the point about satisfaction. If somebody owned up to me that he had helped himself to 5 quid from my wallet, I should at once tell him not to worry about it any further – entirely forgiven and forgotten – but I should still like to have my fiver back!

        Like

    3. 11.12

      I made a number of points in my post at 7.53.

      Which of them, in your opinion, was/were wrong? Or are you suggesting, again in you opinion, that they all were wrong?

      Absolution by a priest does not take away sin, because it cannot take away what is not truly renounced by the penitent. The key here to forgiveness and reconciliation is not the confessor, but the penitent.

      What you quoted is nonsense: no sinner can make amends, restore spirirual health from sickness; only the Lord can do this through openness to sanctifying grace.

      A sinner can never make satisfaction for sin; I should have thought this patently obvious, a first penitential principle as it were, given the fact that only Christ himself could expiate for sin; hence his incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection.

      When I mentioned reconciliation (with God), I was not implying spritual and moral perfection, but the means of this through allowing God to work these miracles of his through sanctifying grace.

      If you wish to talk in terms of penance (that is, ‘of punishing onself for sin’) the effect of this will be felt in a penitent truly repented, for when he or she, through grace, seeks to do the opposite of morally wrong behaviour, the punitive effect of self-denial will keenly be felt.

      God does not want penance, in the sense traditionally understood. But repentant hearts willing to bear the Cross IN BIBLICAL TERMS. This means, as I have already intimated, ‘a willingness to endure the suffering that naturally, and inevitably, come the way of a person ontologically reorientated to Heaven’.

      Like

      1. You didn’t make any point @7:53 pm unless you have also added Anon to your list of noms de plume. Nobody is expected to make satisfaction for wrong doing in the sense of an eye for an eye. However, just as there is restorative justice in the secular realm, it is simply good psychology as well as co-operating with divine grace to take steps to make up or undo some of the harm we have done. The Church recognizes the particular circumstances and situation of the individual penitent as well as the gravity and nature of the sin, so, as with the “three Paters and three Aves” type of penance, these may be simply a gesture rather than the balancing of guilt on a scale. The section 1460 in the Catechism immediately following the paragraph you dismissed as nonsense not only makes sound sense but supports your own interpretation:
        “It [the penance] can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once and for all.”
        So what’s wrong with that?

        Like

    4. 11.36
      And what if he couldn’t pay back the stolen fiver? Would you take this as ground for withholding forgiveness? If you did, you would not receive God’s mercy upon eschatological judgement.
      Read the parable of the wicked steward, the guy who was absolved by another for being unable to repay a debt, but who, in turn, physically threatened another who could not repay his debt.
      Make sure you read to the end of the parable, for its point lies there.

      Like

    5. 12.29
      My points were, of course, made at 8.44, which you already knew. And I don’t have ‘a list of noms de plumes’: I have just one, ‘Magna Carta’.
      You did not provide in your previous post the section (1460) that immediately succeeds the paragraph whose statement on atonement for sin I described as ‘nonsense’. Even so, it does not alter the incorrectness of language in that paragraph (of making satisfaction for sin, or of expiating sin).
      Put very simply for discussion’s sake, sin hurts both man AND God. In the latter case, sin can never be expiated by a person, only by the person of Christ. So to speak of making satisfaction for sin here (of expiation) is ontologically impossible.
      Sometimes even where persons are concerned, sin can never be expiated by the offender, e.g. the sin of a man who abducts, rapes, and then murders a six-year-old-girl. Such wounding by a person so wicked on the girl’s family could never be healed by anyone except God. The language of satisfaction (of expiation) here is not only pointless in spiritual terms, but also in terms of so-called ‘restorative justice’; self-evidently then, personal expiation for sin cannot be the ground for reconciliation with God. This, as I stated in my post at 8.44, is simply a change of attitude towards morally wrong behaviour. Change of this kind is the sole personal foundation upon which spiritual and inter-personal relations (including those which seek to restore harmony and peace among wronged and wounded indiviuals, and their ememies) can begin to heal, grow, and become perfect. From start to finish however it is and can only be a work of God alone, by the grace of God.
      The inclusion of so-called ‘penances’ in sacramental confession continues the Church’s traditional
      conceptualisation of sin and forgiveness as a form of penitential bookkeeping in which losses (sin) must be restored to credit by the sinner. In this respect, the Church’s sliding scales of punishments should remain where it truly belongs: in the past.

      Like

  11. Magna Carta's Mum. 16th Sep 2019 — 1:20 pm

    Magna darling, mummy hasn’t forgiven your failure to buy me a bottle of tonic on Saturday. This is not excused by your temporal works of mercy, your first responsibility is to mummy. I was forced to drink a rather elderly bottle of Campari and will definitely give you a temporal penalty soon.

    Like

    1. 1.20: Magna, what contentment or meaning do you get by playing different personae on this blog: Magna Carta: Magna Carta’s Mum and anonymous sometimes? Your prose is typical of your jargon. As for your attempt at humour…..scratch your a**e!

      Like

      1. Mommie Dearest, will you kindly explain to that nasty man at 1.42 that you are not I and that I am not him…me… Whatever. (I do become confused sometimes, dearest, with all those dramatis personae I’m supposedly adopting: it’s hard to keep track of one’s change of costume.😕)
        I promise you, dearest, in restitution for Saturday’s sin, I shall buy you as much tonic water as Cleopatra had asses milk to bathe in.😊

        Like

    2. Darling, I can’t explain, I am laughing too hard! I think ‘enmeshed’ was the word the psychologist used, although we have only been mistaken for each other in recent years, as you have aged and begun to resemble a crotchety old lady. In fact I was asked if you were my elder sister!

      Like

  12. Pat, however horrendous and sinful any institution’s behaviour is, you as a bishop have no right to wish upon anyone the vengeful wrath of GOD. God is our ultimate judge and repays each person accordingly. Yes, we condemn all ABUSE and criminality and cover ups but you cannot slam the sinner further into the ground than he or she has already done by their own abusive behaviour. I hold no brief for abusers but I trust in the justice of civil law to ensure justice is done and seen to be done. Flinging around populist sound bytes achieves nothing. You are a master of the shallow sound bytes and a master at instant condemnation. Thank God you are not my judge. Stop playing “god”…….We have one Lord only….

    Like

    1. The press and media are being used by God to point out it’s defects. The church thought it was a perfect society and it is now finding out that no one thinks so.

      Like

    2. 1.38
      One Lord only?
      Yes, and for Roman Catholic priests, it’s the pope.

      Like

      1. 2.56: Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha….what a laugh you are Miss Cartagena! You just about know how to spell LORD – pity you don’t live his WORDS..Poor Mags: always tryingbto be like Miss Jane Brodie….”now girls, listen.up…” . It would serve you better if you had the courage or humility to own your own rottenness and sought cleansing from the LORD JESUS. Your comment is childish, almost a schoolboy bully type….

        Like

      2. Magna, I love it when you get angry, grrrrr

        Like

    3. 3.52
      Ah! But my comment is also true.
      It certainly touched a nerve in you.😆

      Like

      1. 4.33: Magna, surely you’re not jumping with delight at this hour of the day thinking you’ve floored an enemy?? Thought this happened only after midnight when sizzled with drink! God help you, poor sod.

        Like

    4. 4.42
      ❤ Babs. 😎

      Like

  13. If anyone reading today’s blog takes from it anything other than anger at Pope Francis’ insincerity in claiming ‘zero tolleranza’ in dealing with child-abusing Roman Catholic priests, he should be laughed at.

    I believe Marie Collin’s account of the corruption that remains in the Vatican, and, also, in that arrogant, grinning, hypocritical Latino pope; he’s a Romanist through and through, wedded not to Christ, but to a deeply clericalist structure of governance in the Church, the so-called ‘Holy See’.

    But there is great hope amid the murk! Didn’t God promise Abraham that he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if only ten righteous people could be found there? Well, we have more than ten on our side: if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the collectively raised voices of all the good priests we are constantly assured really do exist; and they are angry, these Christmen, protesting the continued moral canker at the so-called ‘heart of the Church’. Yes, God will surely spare this modern-day Sodom when he hears that dissenting chorus from his good sacerdotal souls, his priests.

    Won’t you, God?😕

    Like

  14. 2.43: Boringly repetitive narrative. Written about the 20th time in a matter of days. What folder number did you find this repeat crap. Nothing new. More of the same. Now that you’re up and about, go and find something worthwhile to do, like visiting the poor and the homeless or befriending some lonely, elderly person. I’m sure you’ll find many opportunities for charitable work that may make a difference…..for the good and well being of others. This of course would require sacrifice, willingness, live and compassion….all of which I’m sure you fully possess. Wouldn’t it be a more satisfying and fulfilling way to spend your time than trolling like a nasty bitch?

    Like

    1. 3.47

      The only ‘boring repetitive narrative’ here is the presence of the continued absence of good priests, those we are constantly told exist by self-promoting clerics on this blog. Unfortunately, these ‘good’ men continue to hide their very bright lights under very large bushels; unfortunately too, they’ve hidden their good deeds as well, cos no evidence for them can be found.

      It’s interesting that your more annoyed by my posting on this subject, to expose the lie about Roman Catholic freeloaders, than you are in the fact that these same fellows, despite all protests to the contrary, are as spineless as an invertebrates.

      You’re one of them, aren’t you?😕

      Why not start proving me wrong by publicly, and openly, protesting the hierarchical serpents (like Francis, and Noel Treanor) who are toxic to the Body of Christ?

      Why not, just for once, show ‘other’ rather then ‘self’ interest? It would give me nothing to post about, wouldn’t it?😅

      Like

      1. 4.30: Magna, as someone advised yesterday, wiuld you for God’s sake, stop allowing your tormentors annoy you. You are becoming paranoid with your desire to retaliate with vicious commentary. Stop giving yourself unnecessary angst..Those good priests, of which there are many, who are very other centred rather than “self” centred (a condition epitomised by you) are not the least concerned with your rants. Get a life.

        Like

      2. 4.30: I read your first sentence and closed my eyes and lo and behold, I almost completed your comment verbatim. Mags, you are predictable, boring, same old, same old… If you removed the gin scales from your eyes you’d have no difficulty recognising the many good priests who, despite their failings, serve CHRIST faithfully, in a way that you could never imagine. Your hatred for clerics is so ingrained in your every gene that you are imprisoned within its grasp. Thus, you are a total anathema to God’s ways and to Christ, that’s of course if you believe!! When I celebrate mass tonight I’ll pray for your conversion….

        Like

  15. Pat, we are not foolish. You are Magna Carta and people have been saying this for so long now. That’s why so many have left this sewer of a blog. Publish that one!

    Like

    1. I am not Magna. But I like Maga, while I do not always like his more extreme comments.
      If you think the blog is a sewer then you visiting it makes you a sewer rat 😊

      Like

      1. You like “Magna”? Have you met it then? You say you don’t know who it is? How can like it if you’ve never met it/him/her/them?

        Like

      2. You can like people you’ve never met!

        Like

      3. Oh Pat, do stop digging! Even your name calling of people resembles Magna to a tee. When you disagree with people’s genuine opinions you quash them just like Magna. As someone rightfully said a few days ago your name is toxic and your agenda equally so.

        Like

    2. 4.36: Pat is definitely not Magna Carta. Though Pat is sharp and can be articulate, he doesn’t have that horrible, vulgar, mad demonic personality as that thing Mags Carta has…

      Like

    3. Pompous idiot at 5:06pm BOTH YOU AND MAGNA CARTA are the problem. Both of your attitudes suck! A plague on both your houses. Two utter bores – you should be locked up together in the same cell.

      Like

      1. 9.41: Pat has been asked to edit the trading of insults that some commentators engage in. It’s strange that most of the repeat tirades happen when Magna contributes. There is only so much we can tolerate of the childish insults being thrown around. Pat, by now you must recognise the patterns. Do some editing or deleting.

        Like

  16. 7.13: You 8bvioysly don’t know the meaning of passive aggressive. Go back to your psychology books. It doesn’t apply to me – I’m calm, collected and very rational…just having fun with Magna and not a cleric at all. There are many non clerics and people of no faith who observe this blog…So, what’s your problem?

    Like

    1. Well, your words ‘when I celebrate Mass tonight’ for a start.
      Look, Father, nobody expects you to be intelligent, but if you go on Pat Buckley’s blog to have a pop at people, at least make your lies consistent.

      Like

      1. 7.41: Are you on tablets to make such an inane comment? You could learn to articulate properly….for a start!

        Like

  17. Fr 5:06 really should look up the meaning of ‘passive aggressive’.
    You carry on Magna and Pat, your annoying all the right people!

    Like

  18. Bp Pat, the convicted child sex offender, George Pell, was the Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the time of the commission set-up, so it figures the commission was not provided with a budget by the peadophile.

    Like

    1. 7.38

      Well said.

      Like

  19. This is a serious comment, but won’t sound it. After what happened to me my dearest dream is to be called anathema by one of those whited sepulchre, a Catholic priest. So I am quite jealous of Magna being called such above.
    Well done Magna 👏

    Like

  20. So let’s get this straight. Pat is MC. MC is also his mother.
    That’s how the conspiracy theory goes, right?
    So is every cleric who comments here McCarrick?

    Like

  21. Conan Supporter 16th Sep 2019 — 8:34 pm

    From the Limavady Parish newsletter this weekend:

    THANK YOU Conan McGonagle and his family would like to give heart-felt thanks to all his benefactors and parishioners who gave so generously towards a fund founded to help pay the annual fee for his formation and travel costs to the Fraternity of St Peter in Denton, Nabraska, USA, where he will continue in his training for the Catholic Priesthood. Conan asks for your prayers.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Francis is deluded. Why would an independent commission lie to him? It’s more likely that “the infallible one” has had his head turned by those in the Curia who do not want him to know the truth. Let him who has eyes see and him who has ears hear. The RC institution isn’t interested in the truth nor is it interested in victims. It is merely interested in self preservation. The words have been used many times on this blog but it truly is a cesspit that has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Christ. It is a business organisation and a ruthless one as well. Anyone who casts any aspersions on it is demonised. The sooner this failed and sinful organisation falls the better. In the rc church’s mind a victim is only a hindrance to the preservation of their business. They don’t care about the truth. They don’t care about victims. All the rc church cares about is itself. Always has done and always will.

    Like

    1. 8.53
      First-class comment.
      You are probably right that some creep in the Curia told Francis that the Commission had lied. But then Francis had a serious moral obligation to allow the Commission a right of reply. According to Collin’s account of events, this clearly did not happen.
      You would think that after Francis’ mishandling of the Chilean abuse survivors (when he ended up with egg all over his inanely grinning face), he would have learned a vital lesson: to check and recheck the evidence before drawing conclusions.
      Francis acted just as unjustly here and the fool should be held to account for it. Someone lied, and should be made to pay.

      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