Categories
Uncategorized

AUSTRALIAN ARCHBISHOP REJECTS BREAKING SEAL OF CONFESSION FOR ABUSERS.

by Michael Sainsbury, Catholic News Service

YANGON, MYANMAR — The president of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference is the latest of the country’s senior clerics to push back against legislation to lift the seal of confession for child sexual abuse.

Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane made a submission to the Queensland state government opposing draft legislation that would see priests face up to three years in jail for failing to report confessions of child sexual abuse to the police; the penalty would be five years for “failure to protect.”

In his submission, Coleridge said a confession is between the penitent and God, and the priest’s task is to enable that dialogue.

“The proposed legislation would make the priest at this vital point less a servant of God than an agent of the state,” said Coleridge. “The mechanism within this legislation which deals with the confessional seal quite simply will not make a difference to the safety of our young people.”

Many priests have said they have never heard a confession from a child abuser, and some have noted that the psychopathy of many offenders is such that they do not believe they have done anything wrong.

In February 2019, Coleridge gave the homily at the closing Mass of the Vatican summit on child protection. He said the Catholic Church needs a true conversion that places survivors, and not the institution, as the focus of its concern as it enacts measures to combat the sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable people.
Still, the prelate’s insistence that the confessional should trump the state’s laws has drawn a storm of protest on social media by Catholics and other Australians, concerned that the church is still prioritizing traditions over child safety.

Others are concerned that the Catholic Church in Australia remains on probation after the damning finding of the Royal Commission Into Institutional Child Abuse and that the pushback from Coleridge and others will be seen as evidence that the church remains clericalist at heart and is not doing enough to change.

The Queensland government is the latest of Australia’s six states and two territories to propose such legislation, which comes in direct response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. From 2013 to 2017, the commission heard evidence that Catholic-run institutions were among the biggest offenders in scandals that reached back decades.

Last November, similar legislation was introduced in Victoria the state, home to the dioceses of Ballarat and Melbourne, which were at the epicenter of multiple child abuse scandals. Other states and territories have all signaled intentions to introduce legislation to remove the legal shield from the confessional for child sexual offenses.

Coleridge’s public opposition to laws tearing down any legal protection from the confessional follows similar statements made by Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher and Melbourne Archbishop Peter Comensoli.

The seal of confession has been an issue in other countries, too. For instance, in November, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that Catholic priests would die rather than break the seal of confession to report child abusers to the police.

“The history of the Catholic Church has a number of people who’ve been put to death in defense of the seal of confession,” he said. “It might come to that.”

PAT SAYS

The RCC, especially in places like Ireland, has become far too used to expecting state laws and constitutions, to make special provisions for them and their canon law.

Australia is run according to Australian civil law.

No private body, like a Christian denomination, is above civil law.

The RCC might contain a large number of adherents but it is still only a private body and a denomination. In fact, as the world is discovering, it is a dangerous cult.

The RCC needs to be taken to task by Australia and by all civil authorities.

The Seal of Confession is a a theological concept I happen to agree with.

BUT it cannot be forced on civil society!

132 replies on “AUSTRALIAN ARCHBISHOP REJECTS BREAKING SEAL OF CONFESSION FOR ABUSERS.”

‘The Seal of Confession is a a theological concept I happen to agree with. BUT it cannot be forced on civil society’
How is it being forced on civil society exactly?

Like

I see! So chaplains had no problems consigning those who confided in them to shame and disgrace? No doubt they not only got an erotic kick out of hearing the confessions of young squaddies and naval ratings, but had the thrill of power over their now vulnerable lives, and futhermore promoted their own self-interests as sound company men. On the one hand I am still gullible enough to be shocked by clerical moral turpitude; on the other I feel contempt, rage and loathing for these deeply damaged and damaging men. NB it’s the MOD apologising not the RCC! Yet Elsie claims her priests would go once more to the scaffold to defend the inviolability of the Confessional! Anybody any suggestions re who in Westminster say would opt for death before dishonour? Don’t all rush at once!

Like

Those Romanists who offended in this way were subject to automatic excommunication (latae sententiae), according to the 1983 edition of the ‘Code of Canon Law’.
I’m sure they gave a damn… and continued receiving the Eucharist at the altar.

Like

at 12.12
There is an alternative interpretation: how sure is the source of this information that the sacramental seal was at issue? It may be too much to expect that the differentiation between a confessional situation and say, a counselling situation would be high up on the priorities of the news source.

Like

3.00
Stop trying to split non-existent hairs. The betrayed military personnel themselves said that their being outed could have happened only through these clergy.
The highly personal, and supposedly confidential, information about their sexuality was disclosed under the presumed ‘Seal of Confession’.
It didn’t take an Einstein to trace the source of the leak.

Like

Nuance is not something you seem to know anything about, at 3.30. The issue is not who the sources of the information leaks may be. Rather it is the occasions on which the clergy in question were apprised of the information. More precisely, to spell it out for people unable or unwilling to see it, whether the information was conveyed under the sacramental seal of confession or under a different, albeit similar context.

Like

11.42
No; the issue is your lack of willingness to accept fact here: these personnel, frightened of dismissal just for being gay or lesbian, had told no one of their sexuality… except these clerics. So when they found themselves under investigation for a matter the authorities could not have known of unless they had been tipped off, they knew precisely who had betrayed them, and who had broken the Seal of Confession.

Like

Why do Catholics nowadays confess to Romanist priests? You’d think they’d have ‘copped on’.
The practice is bizarre, to say the least. It is certainly is not biblical, not least since there were no priests in the early Church, just followers of Jesus, who met in one another’s homes to commemorate him through a meal.
Only Christ can forgive sin.
The Romanist priesthood is not just redundant, but, as we now know, downright dangerous, especially to children and to vulnerable adults.
(Just sayin’, like. Y’ know?😕)

Like

Oh that’s easy, Magna, it was invented before iPads so the priest could get off on other people’s sex lives without having to buy dirty books.

Like

1.55: (Notice time…!!): Magna, despite your poisonous, hate raving narrative many people still come to Confession (Sacrament of Reconciliation), and avail of this moment of God’s mercy and love and also to seek comfort spiritual comfort. I thak God that I have the pastoral gift to offer this sacrament to many, particularly at Christmas and Easter. I think your theology and spirituality (the little that is evident) is very rusty, contrary to the GOSPEL and therefore, redundant.

Like

Magna at 1.55: I am saddened that someone of your supposed learning would continue to repeat ad nauseam the lie about “dirty Romanist priests”. While I understand the emotional, mental and spiritual deficiencies and dysfunctionality behind your constant angst and hate inciting vile, it is not acceptable that these words of hatred be allowed to define a one-sided narrative about priests on this blog. I cannot envisage any context or public space whereby such commentary would go unnoticed, probably warranting a criminal conviction. Look what happened to a Sinn Fein election candidate after his ignorant, racist, hate inciting outburst against Mr. Varadkar. He was de-selected. Rightly so and it is my belief he should have been charged with racism, prejuduce and hate incitement as his remarks against Varadkar were based on colour, sexual identity, race, culture and religion. Much like Mad Hating Mags, whose evil ugliness is demonstrably, morally reprehensible. He should be barred from expressing any further hate speech. Pat, start displaying some moral integrity.

Like

11.50

None of my comments on Romanist priests breaches any law.

You can suppose, assume, wish, surmise all you like: the Law does not hinge on your sensibilities, nor function on your finer emotional sensitivities.

Like

Magna, some readers say it is hate speech? Can you address that accusation, say what hate speech is and show how yours is not hate speech. P.

Like

‘Magna’s supposed learning?’ Magna did not get as far as First Divinity. Remember his lack of knowledge of elementary concepts of Fundamental Moral Theology.

Like

Actually, Magna darling, since I was sitting outside the box waiting for you on that occasion, the priest shouted, ‘HOW many times?’ and clearly couldn’t believe how often you had done it.

Like

Dearest, your forefingers should have been in your ears, while humming Hail, Queen of Heaven. 😱

Like

12.12
We’ve had this conversation before, Bishop P., some months ago.
It is virtually always Romanist priests, I suspect, who bandy about on this blog the phrase ‘hate speech’, as if publicly expressing hatred of an individual or group were a criminal offence. It isn’t… unless it breaches one of six legal grounds (including religion, sexual orientation, and political opinion), or if the intention of the author is to incite hatred or violence. I have never offended on any one of the six grounds, nor is it my intention to incite hatred or violence against any Romanist priest. Were I to do so, or were I to offend on any of the above grounds, then my public expressions of hatred would constitute criminal offences: they would be hate crimes.
The Romanist Church, in my opinion, should be charged with both expressing hatred AND with inciting violence against a minority social group on the ground of its sexual orientation. Describing the homosexual orientation as ‘objectively disordered’ and homosexual acts as ‘acts of grave depravity’ and as ‘intrinsically disordered’ dehuma ises homosexual citizens and encourages and facilitates disgust, anger, hatred, and, ultimately, physical violence against them, not because they belong to a group which has done terrible things, but because they were born with a sexual orientation to which they eventually awakened.

Like

“Magna Carta” despite your self-serving semantics and twisted logic, what you are constantly spewing on here IS hate speech and it is also lies.
There are good and bad human beings – including among the priesthood. I shudder to think what sort of specimen of creature you are.
Your attempts to blanket condemn all Catholic priests and your constant use of the Paisleyite word “Romanist” is simply pathetic and crazy bleating.
Furthermore, most people recognise your rants here for what they are – the tirades of an irrational lunatic.

Like

Look at Chapter 20.20 of John’s Gospel where Jesus gave authority to our first Bishops/priests to do so. Those who have the Protestant notion of going directly to God, feel the same stain of sin and unchanged through going directly to God. Yes this is because this is an erroneous position Those who go to a priest, in persona Christi partake in a valid sacrament instituted by Christ himself

Like

8.57

Presuming the disciples referred to in this passage as ‘Bishops/priests’ is more a leap of faith (pardon the pun) than historical reality. This is no biblical evidence whatever, in any of the four gospels never mind in John, to support your presumption. Besides, ‘disciples’, in terms of the Gospel, sometimes refers or alludes to other followers of Jesus, not just to The Twelve. Which means that ‘women may have been present on this occasion’.

You need to remember when reading the Gospel of John is that it is a style of biblical writing very different from that of the other gospels. John is concerned not so much with historical narrative as it is with theologising both the person of Jesus and his redemptive mission THROUGH SYMBOLIC HUMAN FIGURES.

Don’t treat John as you would a journalistic report.

Like

8.57 regurgitates undigested scriptural material without deriving any merit from the action. It’s as obvious as the nose on his face that he’s relying on third-party potted commentaries and that he hasn’t read a single word of the Gospel according to John in its original language.

Like

So Pat if I confessed something criminal to you, (such as theft, fraud, murder, lying under oath in court) would you report me to the police?

Like

He has stated here before what he would do – insist on ending the confession and be told your crime outside confession so that you or he could go to the garda.
In this situation the ‘penitent’ is not really repentant and either the penitent or the priest thinking that a penance is enough retribution for a crime, thus removing themselves from the arena of civil justice, is the sign of a dangerous cult.

Like

Bishop Pat has written, ” … Australia is run according to Australian civil law … “.
………..
Just to clarify matters, it isn’t.
The Australian States and Territories all have their own legislatures and courts. In all, Australia combines some nine major jurisdictions. There are some Federal laws that apply all across Australia, but by and large each of the jurisdictions has its own set of legislation and case-law.
Throughout Australia’s history the Roman Catholic Church has considerable power and over the decades it was able to obtain a privileged position for itself. Because of the way that the RCC had structured itself and the special status it had been given by the laws of the different jurisdictions the dioceses and Orders effectively did not have a legal liability (Vicarious Liability) to compensate victims for the crimes of their clergy.
It was only after the report of the Royal Commission that the laws have been amended. https://obriensolicitors.com.au/the-ellis-defence-is-finally-abolished/

Like

Hello again, +Pat.
Catholic prelates worldwide are fiercely protesting against any proposed legislation to “lift the seal of confession for child sexual abuse”.
Here in England Cardinal Nichols has said he’d rather go to prison rather than ‘break the seal’.
Let’s be quite clear. It’s all spin.
Making it illegal for dioceses and Orders to cover-up clerical-child-sex-abuse, and preventing any ‘Seal of Confession’ defence, would expose Church institutions to personal-injury claims based on their vicarious liability for the actions of the prelates and clergy involved in cover-ups.
For example, a few days ago we were discussing here the case of Fr Con Cunningham. Plainly Raphoe Diocese is vicariously liable for the crimes of Fr Cunningham, and I expect that it is already paying compensation to his victims.
But if there had been a clear legal requirement on the Church authorities to report such crimes to AGS – and with no exemption for ‘the seal of confession’ – then the conduct of Bishop Hegarty and others would also have been clear-cut criminal offences.
So Cunningham’s victims could also have sued Raphoe diocese for all the additional pain and suffering which that cover-up must have caused across the decades.
It’s likely the compensation awards for those claims would be even larger than the pay-out for the original assault. Even with all its wealth the RCC could not carry the costs that would be imposed by such legislation.

Like

This is a bunch of tragedy queens pointing out how different they are and special. There really is nothing to see here.
The reality is stated in the article: paedophiles will not confess this so the problem will not arise.
The church is just trying to get out of mandatory reporting so they can carry on protecting abusers.
At least if priests do end up in jail over this ridiculous business, there won’t be any children in there for them to abuse!

Like

Confession is not a magic duster but hi. Priest does not forgive God does. Let the buggers sweat. Civil law should go ahead and see what happens next hi

Like

Pat, I do not share your view that the Catholic Church is a cult. That’s most unfair. However, I believe that if any person came to confession to confess child abuse or murder or some serious crime that warrants court justice, I would have to, in conscience, justice and truth, to discontinue the confession and state my moral duty that I cannot protect such an individual and that I would have to bring this truth to the civil authorities. This is my position now. Thankfully I have never had to discontinue any confession for grave reasons in over 40 years in ministry. On one or two occasions I had to ask individuals to rerurn as they were very drunk, thus very incoherent and saying crazy things. But I have never had any person confess a child abuse or fatal crime in all my years. I believe that once a priest becomes aware of the criminal nature of a person’s confession, the situation then become one of conversation and conscience where I have to make other important decisions, ones that are required by civil law, not canon law.

Liked by 1 person

You’ve just confessed that the Seal of Confession is an absolute sham.
I hope confession-going Catholics read your post carefully: it amounts to a gurantee that you are prepared to betray their trust.

Like

10.18: Magna, don’t rewrite or partially interpret my comnent at 9.46. I trust I have sufficient moral experience, insight, discernment and knowledge to know when to allow or disallow a person to tell me a criminal secret and expect me to not advise about the conscientious, right and moral approach to take. I would not protect a criminal. Common sense and rational people know the point I am making, but you deliberately act as provocateur.

Liked by 1 person

10.18: If the priest vehemently defended the seal of confession even “protecting” any criminal, you’d be on him like a viperous, condemning God, flinging boulders of abuse, calling him an enabler, an abuser, a protector. Magna: You haven’t a clue. You are morally and spiritually defunct, that means DEAD in spirit, heart and soul…..DEAD.

Like

Don’t confess to being an active poofter in Glasgow RC Cathedral. Remember the bloggers on here have been refused absolution. Nasty Priests.

Like

I’m not surprised that Mark ‘Friar Tuck’ Coleridge is making a show (and I do emphasise ‘show’) of being willing to deny himself liberty (‘go to prison’) in order to defend the so-called ‘Seal of Confession’: most of those who confess these crimes are Romanist priests. So when it comes to a choice between shielding clerical abusers and protecting the abused, we all know where the Romanists stand. Nothing has changed.
As for the nonsense about confessional seal, a commentor posted yesterday that Romanist priests were breaking this seal willy nilly by ratting on LGBT military personnel to their chiefs, thereby ensuring their dishonourable discharge from the British Armed Forces. Judas Iscariot, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
As for denying himself liberty, I mean ‘seriously?’.Does Coleridge look the type to deny himself much? Like the vast majority of Romanist prelates, he’s obese, which suggests personal indolence and hedonism. You can bet your last dollar that this (I was about to say ‘gutless’, but Coleridge is hardly this) parasite will not go to prison himself, but will expect subordinate Romanists to do so instead.
I sincerely hope that this matter becomes law: nothing would make me rejoice more than to see as many Romanist parasites locked away for a number of years with great, big, horny hairy guys in tiny cells.
At least, the kids would be safe for the duration. 😆

Like

9 59: The Carta bitch’s hateful and hate inciting outbursts are surfacing volcanically, being spewed out burning and destroying all in its pathway. What a foul, depraved, predictable comment. I am surprised that Pat is constantly facilitating this dangerous speech.

Like

9.50: Magna is high in dope, fantasising about big, hairy, horny guys. The very wording displatsvtge thigh about Magna’s sexuality, totally gay, as only a sub, perverted, immoral and reckless gay person would writecsuchbwords. Mags, you do a disservice to human sexuality mkin all its firm and beauty. Simply, you are ugly.

Like

‘Most of those who confess these crimes….’
Pure, unadulterated piffle. No statistical information offered to back up your claim. And, in fact, contradicting the fundamental statistic that the same percentage of clergy abuse as for the general population.

Like

3.17
Use your head, for once before you expire.
The Romanist Church has been so adept, so successful, at concealing both the incidence, and the scope and degree, of sexual abuse by her paedophile/ephebophile sons and daughters that the percentage of Romanist clerics and religious must be greater than the silly little, non-statistic you referred to.
Look up the word ‘statistic’. You clearly haven’t a clue what it means. I do, since I read statistical mathematics.

Like

I’m getting so weary of this blog I’m sorry to say. I persevered for a while but I’ve had enough. The constant ping pong abusive comments between MC and every other commentator. His incitement which naturally produces more incitement. Just looked in this weekend to see the same old carry on. I will get the usual response- goodbye and good riddance which is a predictable pattern on here so I’ll save you from typing it yourselves. Little point complaining to PB because I’ve reached the theory that he actively encourages it and relishes it – now that is very worrying indeed.

Like

1.13: You are so right. Pat, sadly, is a facilitator of this weary, vile hater, Magna. Hatred lies at the core of Magna. I also believe that Magna actually speaks for Pat, that Pat lets Magna speak his true feelings. The recurring dominance of horrendous, abusive and ugly tit for tat commentary is an affontnt to human decency. If Magna expresses his poison once, usually from 1.30am onwards, , it is my belief that Pat should not print further abuse. Perhaps Pat is now morally and ethically in the vicious stranglehold of Magna, which suits his own twisted agenda.

Like

I’m sorry you are weary and are leaving.

I’m trying to keep a balance between free speech and censorship.

Like

Pat, there’s no room for discretion when it comes to differentiating (or ‘keeping a balance,’ as you call it) between free speech and defamation.

Like

Protect our communities; let Bishops release all the names of credibly accused clergy of abuse against children and vulnerable adults.

Like

What sort of person regards the verbal abuse of others as “silly stuff”? Get a grip of yourself and cop yourself on.

Like

Why is an apology considered sufficient for breach of the seal and causing careers to be ruined? I always thought there was a severe penalty for that? Any canon lawyers about?

Like

No priest or bishop has apologised, as far as I know. Yet they scream protection for the very rights they infringe and betray.

Like

3:59
More silly stuff!
What about the systemic cover up of abuse of children and vulnerable adults by the church while protecting perpetrators? Is the church guilty of crimes against humanity? That’s something to get worked up over.
Get a grip and cop on.

Like

Look at the long list of people convicted all over the world of the crimes you talk about, silly fool @ 4.24pm. Nobody is above the law and the law has and continues to deal with them. Let’s not deal with it hysterically like the lynch mob you clearly belong to. Let the law deal with it, not keyboard ranters and ravers like you cupcake.

Like

It’s supposed to invoke automatic excommunication (latae sententiae), according to the 1983 edition of the Code of Canon Law.

Like

Yet I wonder whether any military chaplain who betrayed his penitents back in the day now considers himself excommunicated. I should coco: he’ll be enjoying a generous pension courtesy of the MOD whilst pledging his fidelity to the Church’s timeless teachings, the f*****g hypocrite and parasite.

Like

2.44
You are right.
These men would have rationalised to themselves what they did. And considering that their church teaches deeply homophobic, and unscientific, things about homosexuality, they probably felt satisfied with themselves, too.
The Romanist Church has a great deal morally to answer for through its treatment of gay people. And it should be made in a court of law.

Like

5:12 pm
Look at the long list of cover ups by Bishops which continues to this day throughout the worldwide.
I’m NOT a member of a lynch mob. Are you?
Let the law deal with both perpetrators and those who aid and abet in crime both outside and within the Church.
Let the State provide safeguarding (funded by the Church) as the Church is unable to police itself. (Fact).
The long list of people convicted all over the world who are not priests don’t claim to be ontologically changed, morally superior or spiritual leaders considered ‘other Christs’. Nor can they hide behind a Bishop!
Stop the clerical key boarding ranting and raving.
Stop the delusional distorting of facts.
Face reality.
Get a grip man and cop yourself on.

Like

I shouldn’t worry @1.13pm because you are one of many to abandon this blog because of ONE individual. The blog is now tolerating hate speech, and verbal abuse of others, it’s a bear pit at times. The PSNI are investigating a NI Lord for hate speech for using a word I have seen printed on this blog often.
Pat has given the empty promise in the last few YEARS to deal with this but it proves Pat’s promises and words are in fact hollow indeed. I’m not surprised you have chosen to leave because Pat insults people by using the same old censorship argument. If you want people to take you and the blog serious in future then actions rather than words and promises that never come to anything in the end.

Like

1.55

Did you report your church, ‘Father’, for the dangerous emotions it has stirred against homosexual citizens of this country?

Did you report it for implicitly advocating unqualified discrimination against them on the ground of their sexual orientation?

I’m willing to bet that the answer to both questions is ‘no’.

You hypocrite. It is only when you, and your colleagues, feel unjustly treated that you discover a voice of protest in yourselves.

The lot of you make me sick.

Like

More bile and yet more venom. You are losing credibility Pat with every single post like that – taunting people, abusive and inciting – disgusting behaviour that surely you can’t condone.

Like

2.10: And you, vile piece of disreputable humanity make tgecrest of uscsick with your poisonous vomit. You have nothing but hatred to spew out. You, sadly, Carta are the liar, the vilest of crap, the biggest fool and a dangerous psychopath of a hate inciter. Indeed, Pat is answerable for your hatred, racism and unacceptable prejudice.

Like

2.10: Surely Magna, it’s impossible to be any sicker than the putrid vomit of an all night booze up which seems a regualr routine. All the signs are evident of a dope, drink crazed crackpot. I hope to God you are never close to any child or vulnerable person.

Like

Have you not in the past “Magna Carta”, expressed disgust and disdain at the sexual practices of same sex attracted persons, such as anal intercourse? You said the anus is designed only for defecating. And haven’t you more or less stated that, in your view(s), it’s “ok” to be homosexual but that they shouldn’t have sex? Or was that one of your personalities or personae other than one out of which you are currently speaking? 🙄

Like

3.26
You probably haven’t ever opened its covers, ‘Father’, but do take time out from your hectic schedule to check your church’s teaching on homosexuality: it does allow for discrimination against homosexuals, provided it isn’t, er, ‘unjust’.😕
And while you’re at it (whatever IT might be), ask your colleague above whether he has ever reported his church for these matters. I’ll bet his answer is ‘no’.😉
See? No bile or venom. Just truth. 😅

Like

7.33

You are right. I do believe that same-sex intercourse is morally wrong, but not same-sex relationships.

I have never described these as disordered, which the Romanist Church does; on the contrary, they can be the seedbed of personal holiness.

Like

The incongruous nature of your comment on personal holiness vis-a-vis the material emanating from you is striking.

Like

The archbishop is right in one respect. Confession is between the penitent and God NOT some priest. Confession in the RC church is a lot of baloney. The priest is not God even though some of them think they are. R they saying that we should go to a man to confess our sins when that same nan could be living the most outrageous life contrary to Gods law. Silly billies!! Just man made up crap. Seal of confession indeed.

Like

I see we’re going round this part of the circle again so I will repeat that Pat, you must be aware that you have many enemies in the church and one of the obvious ways to discredit or even silence you, is to turn your blog into a bear garden.
You say that you want to be challenged by your detractors and that would be fair enough if you and they were on a level playing field, but they do not have your innocuous intention and will stop at nothing until you are silenced and/or bankrupt.
My advice again would be to have a written policy of what is allowed on here, make it detailed and stick to it rigidly.
If you do not do this you actually risk losing a large part of your ministry of truth-telling.

Like

@2.39 pm Well said and I agree. What worries me is that the abusive person on here is turning off people who are neither abusive themselves or nasty.

Like

Pat, you should not equivocate or pretend you are a defender of free speech when you encourage and facilitate probably the worst hate inciter on any blog, i.e: Magna. The Journal.ie and ither social blogs, while allowing some extreme comments do not facilitate the horrendous, ugly and abusive comments seen on your blog. You are essentially pouring much oil on Magna’s twisted, dangerous, hate inciting ideology. I believe you are very selective in whom you choose to censor. If your blog is about truth, justice and accountability, let it be just that, not a forum for vile, unnecessary and hate-filled rants from an obviously depraved and delinquent mind. You will loose any moral integrity if you give your blog to the dominant darkness of Magna’s vitriol.

Like

5.38: Excellent comment. Articulate, insightful and true. We are all becoming tired of Magna’s take over wuth abuse, vitriol and sneering contempt for all. It is unacceptable.

Like

I do not always approve of Magna’s tone and chosen words. On the other hand he has often produced some very insightful and profound comments. I wish he were more restrained and circumspect. I personally do not use the terms he uses even though I could not hold a lower opinion ofhe RCC and many priests than I do. I hold these opinions because for the best part of 40 years I have ministered to thousands hurt and destroyed by the RCC 😥

Like

Pat, You do not address the problem as per usual. You are trying to defend Magna by saying he has made good contributions when the vast majority of them are abusive and offensive to many others on here. I’m not surprised people have chosen to leave the blog because of him and your feeble excuses made for him.

Like

5.38
Surprisingly, we are of one mind…on the issue of ‘truth, justice and accountability’ for the blog (though, to be frank and logical, I’d have prioritised accountability over justice, but that’s a quibble).
The truth, however, is that…well, the truth isn’t always welcomed by Romanist priests here, is it, especially when it doesn’t adorn the old chestnut, that there are ‘good priests’? If ever there were an oxymoron, this one is a classic. A truly good priest would not have forsworn Christ for obedience to a Romanist bishop. It really isn’t rocket science, you know; but to some here it might as well be, since they appear unable to differentiate between a Romanist bishop and the Son of God.
As for Bishop Pat, I assure you he does not encouage me in any way; quite the opposite, in fact (not least because he has edited more of my posts than you know). No; Romanist priests alone provide me wth enough encouragement to contest their treachery and duplicity.
I’m flattered you believe I have an ideology; I don’t. Just a ‘beef’. But thank you anyhow.
As all the best posts conclude, ‘and finally…’ My comments are not hate-inciting, anymore than a newspaper report (or a blog account) of paedophile priests is hate-inciting. Yes, some people will will turn hating, at least momentarily, because of what they read there; but incitement to hatred was not the intention of the authors. Just like me. 😆

Like

Pat your a bit like them yourself. You ban freedom of speech. You do not put posts up which are not offensive and are just people trying to give their opinion, but hypocritical. I know you will not put this up.

Like

6.52: The majority of contributions of a hateful, vicious and vulgar nature are from a lay fool, Magna and others of his ilk. Open your discerning mind if you possess one.

Like

8.17
A ‘LAY fool’? 😲
That phrase of yours is charged with so much clerical hubris and condescension, towards non-clerics, it counts as a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot. Doesn’t it, ‘Father’? 😆

Like

8:17
Silly stuff.
Your comment speaks volumes.
What does your discerning mind tell you about clerical hypocrisy, abuse and cover ups by the professional Christians, all contrary to the Gospel?

Like

8:17
Well look at the dogs dinner the geniuses in the hierarchy have created in the Church with all of their supposed education.😂

Like

I don’t find Magna’s comments offensive. I think he gives a refreshingly frank view, and is often learned and wise.
Some of the comments from priests on here are just plain abusive and those are the ones Pat should stop, you acknowledge the hurt the church does but allow them to continue it on here.
The priest said to me as he was messing with my anus that it was holy because he was a priest and many of the ones who comment here have the same attitude.

Like

Total and utter fabricated and moronic response if ever there was one, you can see through that in an instant lol. Pat/Magna we are not fools because that post @ 7.23pm is so obvious it’s almost laughable. Try to sound more authentic next time. You can’t defend the indefensible.

Like

You’ve allowed this answer to a survivor? Is this seriously what you want your blog to be like?

Like

7.51
You are as mistaken about me as you are offensive about the poster at 7.23. I am not he.
What he says, though, about that priest resonates with what I have just learned about manipulative clerics from the first episode of a documentary on BBC I-Player. Bishop Peter Ball, of the Church of England, used a similar tactic when seeking to abuse the young men he seemed constantly to gather around him.

Like

7. 23: Your makey up story and lies are nonsense, crafted very badly and written by some fool and illiterate. All priests do not act carry out such depravity, if it happened at all.

Like

Pat, seriously you talk about free speech but you have allowed that Megan comment which is ridiculous. You are running a free for all and people are taking the piss out of you, but you won’t see it!

Like

It’s quite remarkable that Pat, the champion of truth, respect and accountability (failed champion) has allowed today’s blog be a repeat of what we now get every weekend, Fri/Sun, a hurricane of filth, flowing like a fountain, hitting everyone in sight. Pat, this hate inciters must be stopped by YOU. Some of us are believing that Magna is tolerated because he speaks your true thoughts, which you wiuld not have the courage to express. Why allow such abuse from him? Tell us why. You, Pat, must respond truthfully to the question of your facilitating this offensive material. Don’t shy away, don’t equivocate. Today’s offerings from Magna are appalling and I suspect you are tolerating this abuse against Catholic Priests because you agree with Magna’s every sentiment of hatred.

Like

Tell us @ 8:47, why so much abuse and cover ups by priests and bishops?
Why are the ‘good priests’ afraid to speak out? Don’t shy away from my questions please.

Like

9.01: Your response is superfluous to the argument about Magna’s vitriolic abuse and nastiness urging hatred against priests. Do you think that’s a solution to anything? Or are you a carrier of his toxic virus too? Can you not use your intelligence? Good priests have spoken out frequently: You need to open your ears: You need to look beyond the confines of this blog for other narratives.

Like

8.47

Surprisingly, I agree with you. (We must have been buddies in a previous life.)

Yes, my ‘offerings’ today are indeed ‘appalling’. But recall the masthead of this blog:

‘ THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE EVEN IF THE TRUTH IS REVOLTING.’

Indeed, even if it’s appalling. 😕

G’wan, ‘Father’. Take the plunge into liberty. 😎

Like

10:55
This blog is centred on abuse, corruption and crime in the Catholic Church, not on Magna.
You need to be honest instead of avoiding uncomfortable facts and questions about the Church.
Good priests have NOT spoken out frequently about criminally in the Church as most priests are moral cowards keeping their mouths shut for fear of retribution from bishops and superiors.

Like

Faltering logic. It’s unlikely 9.04 got beyond First Philosophy. A logical fallacy rears its ugly head:
Although the truth may be revolting, not everything that is revolting is the truth.

Like

8.34: Ah, poor auld Magna: reduced to the lay state because he was thrown out of the seminary, defined as totally unsuitable, dangerously psychopathic, with mad, erratic moods and a potential endangerment to all. Your drunken rants on this blog validate the right decision made by authorities. Your coping mechanisms have pushed you to the edge of madness. I suspect you nust be the loneliest person, bereft of intimacy and on a fast track to self implosion. You are morally reprehensible as a human being. You shame yourself daily. Sadly, you seem to delight in your misery and deadness of spirit.

Like

1:01am
This is a blog centred on exposing ‘the truth’ of the culture of corruption,abuse and crime within the Institutional Catholic Church.

Like

Magna at 8.34: Oh 😆😆😆😆😆😆the jealousy and rage at being made feel insignificant. For That is what you are, insignificant. 😁😁🐑🐑🐑😁😁😁🐑🐑🍄🍄🍄🍄: Magser, stay off the dope mushrooms – they’re killing your brain.

Like

11 20: Minnie Dear, have you prepared the spuds for the Sunday roast? Ironed the shirts, polished the boots, cleaned the loo…etc…? Hope the kitchen sink is clean..sleep well.

Like

Fr. Lollipop Josie, do your parishioners, particularly, your female parishioners know how sexist, chauvinistic, anti-feminist and abusive you can be? I doubt it.

Like

11.20: Monica:😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😋😋😋😋😋🤣🤣🤣🤣 : you’re a laugh thinking of you at the washboard, apron attached and ciggie in mouth, ring in nose… 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🍅🍅🍅🍅

Like

Imagine being like Magna and spending all of a Saturday on Pat’s blog. Has he no partner, n family, no friends, no other interests with which to fill the best day of the week? It’s all a bit sad and lonely, really.

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