Categories
Uncategorized

ANONYMOUS SEMINARIAN WRITES OF CORRUPTION.

January 29, 2020 by

In March/April of 2019, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) administered a survey to seminarians concerning the sex abuse scandals. Fifteen questions were asked wherein inquiries were made to the seminarians about whether or not they’ve seen or heard of sexual abuse in their seminaries. The results of the survey were published in September, 2019.

The last question in this survey asked “in your view, what are the most important steps, policies, or reforms that Catholic seminaries and houses of formation should take or implement to make seminary training safe and free from sexual harassment, abuse, and misconduct?” Seminarians were invited to “answer in as much depth as you wish.” The following essay is a response written and submitted by one participant in the survey. He has asked to remain anonymous in order to protect his vocation. The text has been slightly edited since its submission in order to provide some clarity and further information.
___________________
I think that this survey is one step in addressing a problem. Respectfully, it does not go far enough. The problem within seminary formation programs is not just with sexual abuse and/or harassment. Such things are a symptom of a much larger systemic problem. I am speaking of formators’ authority and control over seminarians who are expected to obey them.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has had to contend with many powerful and influential forces both from within as well as from without. I cannot say that all of the reforms of the Council concerning priestly formation have been implemented well. Confusion has reigned over the last several decades within priestly formation. Some programs are better than others but not all are equal in understanding, vision and implementation. One of the problems within formation programs is the relationship between authority, control and obedience.

Prior to Vatican II, there was a type of obedience that was expected of men who presented themselves for formation. Formators were, generally speaking, good at their duty and were upstanding men. The norms of the Church were followed (again, generally speaking) and there was an order to things that was respected and upheld. Since the Council, however, that obedience has been turned on its head owing to the various theological and ideological trends that arose in the Council’s wake.

For example, one area of formation that has suffered is human formation. Whereas Pius XII (in Sedes Sapientiae III) clarified that human formation was quite important, the “sanctification of the supernatural soul holds first place in the whole program of formation.” Now, however, much is made of human formation, not so much sanctification, and there are varying interpretations of what the “human” in “human formation” means. Sometimes, it refers to an authentic issue that needs to be addressed. Other times, it could be said to a seminarian because the formator is projecting his own issues upon the seminarian.

Formators engaging in such projection is an issue unto itself. Sometimes, the seminarian is completely unaware that it is being done. Others who do know what is going on can fall into one of two categories: 1) those who defend themselves, and 2) those who do not defend themselves.

If the seminarian falls into the first category, he is labeled “rigid” or “not docile.” Formators tend to be territorial and will not take lightly a challenge. The seminarian is made to be the “problem.” Sometimes, there is a form of psychological abuse that is used here. Labels like the aforementioned will be recorded in the seminarian’s file and that file is used as a psychological weapon, i.e. “you don’t want this in ‘your file’” or “this will go in ‘your file.’” “Your file” is here understood as a monolithic reality that will either canonize or demonize the seminarian.

This activity can be very damaging to a seminarian. The formation system is particularly dependent upon “word of mouth” from formators and one particularly damning comment (just or not) can hound a seminarian for his entire formation path, or even later. God help any manly seminarian who either questions or speaks against the emasculation. They are told that such is a “formation issue” which must be dealt with promptly. Counseling may even be recommended. Against such things, a seminarian has little to no defense. Their goal is to become a priest of Jesus Christ and this is jeopardized if he defends himself.

Being characterized as the “problem” can be devastating to the psychological well-being of the seminarian. He might begin to doubt his perception of reality: “Maybe I have a blind spot and did something wrong that I didn’t see?” Certainly, there are genuine times when a blind spot reveals itself in a seminarian’s formation. I am speaking, though, of when the system is abused by narcissistic, gas-lighting formators whose observations are not rooted in reality. In such instances, they act out, more often than not, from a sense of feeling threatened in some way.

Now, for seminarians who do not defend themselves, they are not much better off than those who defend themselves. They survived the initial matter, but at what cost? The cost is their manhood as they’ve been emasculated, schooled in the art of self-preservation. Men in formation are expected to obey blithely their formators, even if said men know better. What happens, then, when this obedience is towards something questionable? Two examples come to mind.

First, there is a case of a seminarian who witnessed pornography on a priest-formator’s computer. The incident was quickly covered up, denied even, and the seminarian was sent to counseling. He actually obeyed. The local Ordinary of the seminary was “indirectly” informed of the pornography by another priest. That matter was presented in hypothetical terms: “if X happened, how should it be handled?” Doing this afforded plausible deniability to the Ordinary.

Second, in ideology, there is a very popular expectation for seminarians to be “pastoral” and able to “reach people where they are at.” These phrases, in and of themselves, do point to some authentic realities within priestly ministry. The problem is when an imbalance is created by a one-sided emphasis upon them. There is more that is left unsaid, such as their relation to truth, beauty, goodness and how to lead the people (that seminarians desire to serve) to these transcendentals.

Needless to say, seminary formators hold all the keys—they have all the power and control—and can make life a living nightmare for a seminarian. Some formators may make it their goal to “break” a seminarian, i.e. remove any and all undesirable tendencies/attitudes deemed unfit for priestly ministry. This is good with respect to uprooting vice, but what about a seminarian dealing with a narcissistic, gas-lighting formator?

The effort to “break” a seminarian manifests itself differently, but a popular method has been the “pastoral year.” During this year, a seminarian is sent to a location believed to be the best arena for his “breaking” to take place. If the reason for the “breaking” concerns “orthodoxy,” for example, the seminarian is typically sent to a more “liberal” parish where one of two things will happen. He will either 1) be scandalized into discerning out of the seminary, or 2) somehow survive and demonstrate docility to his formators.

A gas-lighting narcissistic formator can leave an impression on those under his guidance that in order to be a good priest, one must maintain the status quo.

This thought is impressed by blind obedience and power-posturing through various means such as sarcasm, emotional abuse and/or sexual abuse. This, then, can lead the seminarian to see that he must not only go along to get along, but that he must also compromise his masculinity, faith and ideals in a self-destructive way so that he can get ordained and further his career within the presbyterate.

For example, there was seminarian A who was accused of assaulting another seminarian (B). The accusation was false and another seminarian (C) had direct knowledge that it was false. When seminarian C went to the formation authorities, he was told in so many words that if he wanted to have a career, he’d keep his mouth shut. This seminarian was ordained a few years later and is now pursuing a doctorate within the context of a fairly posh assignment within his Diocese.

Such compromises lead not only to a clericalist view of self and the Church, but also to a lack of the virtue of integrity by which one humbly seeks to live out the faith that one professes with one’s lips through one’s way of life. The undermining of the virtue of integrity then leads to the scandal that we see before us in our current age through figures such as the former Cardinal McCarrick and others. It becomes the primary roadblock to evangelizing souls at the parish level.

Some seminarians put up with such nonsense from formators in the thought that “I’ll just keep my mouth shut until the alb and stole hang loose.” Such thinking, however, shows the danger of this personal abuse because the seminarian seeks to please those in authority and has no supernatural faith and no relationship with Christ. Pope Francis himself encourages seminarians to speak up. Otherwise, then, a culture of enablement is created by which homosexuality within the priesthood and priestly sexual abuse, among other things, can then thrive.

By remaining silent, therefore, is the seminarian being formed in virtue and to be an effective preacher unto the salvation of souls? Is he truly growing in his baptismal and priestly identity as an Alter Christus? No, he has become skilled in the worldly art of self-preservation, not in the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a man of self-preservation will care more for the opinions of the people and will bow to them than to the Lord of Heaven and earth, the Just Judge.

Most seminarians simply desire to trust their formators because these seminarians cannot imagine the alternative. I know this because I have witnessed such people. They are unwilling to see the unpleasant side to the reality facing us today. For my part, trust is earned because of what I know as well as have seen, witnessed and experienced. I have been privileged to know some very holy people. I have also known some very evil ones.

I am convinced that when one has saints as formators, then one’s priestly formation will take on that character. If, however, the seminarian has narcissists and gas-lighters for formators, then I shudder against the monstrosities that shall arise.

PAT SAYS

This is deep and penetrating analysis by the seminarian.

There is currently a mighty crisis in RC seminaries.

There is the issue of thoroughly unsuitable formators.

And there is the issue of thoroughly unsuitable seminarians.

The system is profoundly broken.

And people, especially good and genuine seminarians, are being seduced, traumatised and destroyed.

The good seminarians leave.

The compromised ones thrive and become problem priests.

Promiscuous homosexuality is at the very core.

163 replies on “ANONYMOUS SEMINARIAN WRITES OF CORRUPTION.”

Exactly, Bishop Pat.
Promiscuous homosexuality is at the core of the crisis in seminaries as well as causing major problems in the priesthood.

Like

Many are called, few are chosen. It’s as simple as that. Ok some ‘formators’ might not be the full shilling, but the lord’s ways are inscrutable. If the seminarian truly has a vocation the Holy Spirit will lead him elsewhere. His bishop might send him to another seminary or he may find a community, or a significant other and settle down. It was ever thus. Nothing new here. Being a spoiled priest is tough, but the Lord will put the right path in front of you. Perhaps that particular seminary is not best suited for you etc

Like

Many think they are the “special ones” like Jose Mourhino! Special as opposed to sanctity being the operative word.

Like

11:26 pm
Are you being over simplistic?
Tell us, what about the vocations of those abused by priests?
Was their abuse part of the Lord’s plan and His inscrutable ways to lead them?

Like

This comment really is rubbish – it implies that the Lords will always triumphs in the end and is the kind of pious nonsense used to avoid sorting out bullying and harassment.

Like

No, it’s not. 11:12 you need to trust in the lord. Or as the saying goes, “what’s for you won’t pass you.”

Like

Where is the line between ‘Not the full shilling’ and Dangerous, narcissistic and diabolical abuser – either mentally and emotionally or sexually?

Like

11.26

“Many are called, few are chosen. It’s as simple as that. Ok some ‘formators’ might not be the full shilling, but the lord’s ways are inscrutable. If the seminarian truly has a vocation the Holy Spirit will lead him elsewhere. His bishop might send him to another seminary or he may find a community, or a significant other and settle down. It was ever thus. Nothing new here. Being a spoiled priest is tough, but the Lord will put the right path in front of you. Perhaps that particular seminary is not best suited for you etc”

What utter fucking bullshit!

Like

This is a deeply suspicious document. For example the claim that for his pastoral year a seminarian will be sent to a typically ‘liberal’ parish.
The conspiracy theorist is screaming behind most of the words.

Like

Everything that seminarian writes was mirrored in my own experience. I had a totally corrupt, frustrated, immature, sexually-repressed and unhappy formator who projected his own frustrations onto me and other seminarians.
Seminarians were reduced to preformulating their answers to questions they knew they would be presented with by this formator before formation meetings. That’s how banal and routine this formator’s approach to priestly formation was. Which approach was in accord with his view of reality – not the Church’s.
This formator had no supernatural Faith, had a drink problem and seemed to think he knew more about sex than I or other seminarians, some of whom along with me had been in long-term relationships before entering seminary, just because he had read a few dated Freudian psychology books.
This unhappy and repressed formator was the cause of many men leaving formation of their own free volition; others being kicked out because they did not measure up to his subjective, flawed ‘model’ of priesthood. He created a toxic atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia and the genuine seminarians who wanted to become priests at any cost had to ‘play the game’ to get through.
This dynamic creates a fertile ground for sociopathic/psychopathic narcissists to wreak havoc on men who, while being flawed like everyone else, have a genuine desire to be good priests and who really want to evangelise.
It also creates an atmosphere of ‘omerta’ whereby the abuse is enabled and fomented with impunity.

Like

8:35am
I see you have been on holiday to sunny Spain!
Michael Farraday, the Victorian scientist, invented the Farraday cage – it is an amazing invention. Why not google it!

Like

You don’t have the courage or backbone to put your name to your comment, 1:10 pm; you issue cryptic nonsense, which means nothing, behind a pseudonym.
If you are Prior – as I have warned you already – you will be receiving some delayed justice, should you ever have the misfortune of meeting me, in the form of a right hook.

Like

This was very long and I couldn’t be bothered reading it. over 200 comments on yesterdays blog though. Any mention of maynooth seems to draw the crowds

Like

More long-winded, unsubstantiated TRIPE.

You’ll believe anything, Bishop P., as long as it denigrates the institution to which you once, willingly, belonged.

You censored a comment of mine, yesterday, because it made a similar criticism. And yet, on a previous blog, you piously professed that you ‘HATE CENSORSHIP’. (And there wasn’t a swear word in sight of my post.)

C’mon, Bishop P. Make up your mind. Are you different from the Romanists you clearly despise?

Or are you just as censorious?

(And hypoctitical?)

Like

+Pat: On 31st Jan @ 8:50pm I commented that I find Magna’s continuing theistic belief mystifying. I said that in view of his obviously extensive knowledge of religious matters in general, but in particular, his ability to demonstrate how ridiculous are many of the claims of the RC church. I would value a response from Magna to my implied question.
A MagBa Carta commented at 11:56 that he DID reply but that you had censored his answer.
Was that 11:56 comment from Magna? Did he reply? Did you censor his comment? If you did, can you explain why?
MMM

Like

I cant remember the details. I edit or remove very few of his comments but occasionally I fine one that I regard as way too extreme. I regularly censor nasty comments about Magna designed to get him started.

Like

Bishop Pat at 6.22, I accept censorship, with good grace, when I angrily express myself with extreme words, but I didn’t always do so in comments that you censored anyway.
Yesterday, my very first comment was critical of the length of the blog and of Anthony Murphy’s writing style; the second comment was a defence of Professor Ronan Drury. Neither of them was expressed with extreme words, but only the second was published. I can only conclude that you refused to publish the first because you simply did not like what I said rather than the way in which I said it.
This is how the institutional RCC reacts to opinions it does not like: it silences the authors.
It would, of course, be unfair to compare you TO the RCC for such censorship, since you are self-evidently less controlling than it. But there is justification for comparing you WITH the RCC on occasion, since you have, in my experience, censored for precisely the same reason.
I appreciate your not publishing comments designed to incite me, but I find it unfair when comments of mine are not published for reasons other than those you ordinarily state.
Yes, it is your blog, and this means that you control its content. But at least try to do so even-handedly, and only if comments (including mine) are expressed with extreme words.
When all is said and done, I am grateful to you for allowing me to take part in debate on this blog, since debating ideas has always been my singular passion.

Like

7.22
Well, Bishop P. does make mistakes. As have you.
Read his post to me at 6.34…and then tell me whether you don’t feel a little foolish yourself.

Like

”Read his post to me at 6.34…and then tell me whether you don’t feel a little foolish yourself”

Translation: Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah! 🤪. Im the teachers pet and the teacher said sorry to me and I’m the best and the i’m the nicest person ever and I got a lolly of the teacher, so there you go 😌

Like

9.05

Hah, hah, hah😅

I was right. You do, don’t you, feel more than a little foolish now?😎

I’m afraid the figleaf end-comment just wasn’t expansive enough to hide, er, that projecting embarrassment of yours.😆

Like

What a dope this carta lad is. He had a meltdown over Pat. Shows that Carta is addicted to this blog. God bless the mark

Like

Are many individuals in seminaries and in the priesthood serving
Jesus Christ and the Church or serving a political agenda to change the Church?

From comments to this blog, Jesus Christ is rarely mentioned by these individuals.
Duplicity reigns, with promiscuousty at the root of many problems in the contemporary Church,
beginning and apparently tolerated in seminaries.They want their ‘cake’ at the laities expense.
Priesthood is considered, just another ‘job’. Such comments have been made on this blog in the past.

Spirituality is lost simply because the agenda of Jesus Christ is not paramount to many personnel in today’s Church. Santification, should hold first place in formation, according to Plus XII !
Apparently, spirituality is not even encouraged in seminaries. So what are these individuals about?

Is abusiveness in seminaries, families, or society, the work of Jesus Christ or the work of the Devil?
(Pope Francis is dead serious about the existence of the Devil, as is Church tradition.Might not be a metaphor).

” Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters”. Matt 12:30.

Like

How many times do you need to make your point? It sounds as if it is you who need to be convinced at 9.01.

Like

If you had a son, would you encourage him to 1. to to seminary 2. consider priesthood in its present form as a vocation ? No and No. Words that come to mind about seminaries and priesthood: odd, dodgy, dysfunctional, not normal, not grounded, strange, unhappy, abusive, duplicitous…..I could go on.

Like

8:23am

Don’t mind Dottie, dearie @ 10:11am. Do go on, if you wish.
I’m in total agreement with you. You’re absolutely correct.

Like

I had a awful experience in Maynooth and decided to leave. Within 5 years my next-door neighbour was accepted to Maynooth. I would not encourage or discourage him as only he can live his journey. I chatted with him when he told me and explained that if he ever had difficulty take it to the spiritual director and only the spiritual director. Sadly he spoke to the dean. He was one of the lads thrown out in 2016 for reporting ‘strange goings on’.
The outcome was obvious. The journey however was his to take.

Like

The fact is that Michael Byrne, around whom many of the “strange goings on “ seemed to happen, comes across then as now as a happy, talented, well-adjusted guy, good with people and capable of great kindness, compassion and empathy. Of how many of his detractors can that be said? As for one of the “lads” who reported “strange goings on”, he is now in a traditionalist seminary learning to say the Tridentine Mass. I ask you: who is more likely to be a force for good in the modern world?

Like

If Byrne is as you describe 11:02 am, why has Diarmuid Martin not ordained him to the priesthood?
Byrne can still be a force for good in the modern world if he wants to be.
Catholic priests are meant to be both a supernatural as well as a natural force for good. If you deprive the priesthood of it’s supernatural character why bother embarking on a life of celibacy, chastity, poverty and obedience? Or do priestly vows mean anything anymore?
What is wrong with a young man wanting to join a traditional seminary? Is this not a free world? Are you – and only you – the arbiter of what makes for the proper character of a priest?

Like

@11:02 am, In case you haven’t noticed, most people in the modern world neither listen to nor respect priests anymore because of the scandals. Clerics have lost all moral credibility in the eyes of many.
If Michael Byrne really wants to be a force for good in the modern world, he would be better of joining a political party, be a counsellor or something of this sort.

Like

So 11:02 am you are denigrating a young chap for entering a seminary not of your liking? It’s very myopic of you to write somebody of like that. He could go on to be a saint yet.

Like

When references are made to the summer of love or strange goings on at Maynooth, we all know who are up for discussion. It’s water under the bridge and when all the mock outrage dies down pretty harmless stuff. The point about Michael Byrne is that he has been up-front about who he is, and that in itself is rare among the clergy. I prefer the Old Rite on the rare occasions I go to Mass at all, but not the coteries of tight little virgins who hang onto Mother.

Like

@3pm, the summer of love it may have been, and strange goings on were for certain. but on an official level, it is referred to as ‘the crisis’, by figures in Maynooth.

Like

@3:00 pm. Are you Byrne? If you are why don’t you put your name to your comment, if you are so upfront? If you are not him, why are you deputising to speak on his behalf? and why don’t you identify yourself?

Like

@ 3:00 pm. Really? you think that the 2016 Maynooth disaster was “all pretty harmless stuff”. Well if you call ruined vocations, the National Seminary being made an international laughing stock and reduced to pariah status, rectors and formators having to leave the country as “pretty harmless stuff”, your definition of “pretty harmless” is different to most people.

But if you are a psychopathic narcissist who has no conscience and therefore couldn’t care about anybody but yourself, well yeah, I suppose it’s “all pretty harmless stuff”.

Like

8:23 am,

Only after having conducted intensive research of a prospective seminary and its staff would I allow my son to enter.

Like

@11.02

You clearly know identities and therefore were a seminarian during the ‘strange goings on’. You present yourself as having remained in contact with Michael Byrne and therefore must have been one of his supporters in Maynooth. This would justify your obvious bias.

However you use his identity here needlessly; thereby indicating that you have no/limited respect for him or his privacy. Did ye sleep together often?

Like

All this talk of Sociopaths and narcissists in charge of seminaries! Is ‘Farraday Cage’ still at Valladolid, does anybody know?
And is Terry Drainpipe still trying to shift that badly damaged 1986 Ford Fiesta with no engine? Who would take it?!💃
Strange thing, Canon law. Once a priest is ordained, he becomes like SHIT stuck to a white sheet!

Like

8.23: You could indeed go on and on…overstating your wrong judgments and painting all with the same brush. Rabbit on if it keeps tou happy. What perfection have you achieved or have you found the perfect community of God? When you do, let us all know. .

Like

12:09

I wouldn’t go seeking perfection in Catholic seminaries.
Catholic seminaries are toxic.
Decent, respctful and people of integrity seems too much to ask for at this point.
Forget your perfect community. A little lived Christianity would be a start.

Like

I think of Judge Judy here. The verdict is in in so many ways. Where is the sentence. As th mammy used to say talk is cheap

Like

Magna: Could you comment on Pat’s response please? I find it strange. If perhaps you had let rip with such language as to warrant censure surely +Pat would remember? Was the MagBa comment yours?
MMM

Like

12.05: This business of using your name as if talking to yourself is tiresome, nauseating and very narcissist. Learn to write grammatically correct.

Like

2.23
What Pat is doing is referring to himself in the third person. Not a crime. Not even an error, grammatically or syntactically. Some of the best works of literature employ this device.
Why don’t you learn how not to see grammatical mistakes where there are none? And learn the terminology to be able to make you point simply?

Like

Why confine your curiosity to MC? Why not ask any of the more than 6 billon on the planet who subscribe to a theistic religious tradition?

Like

Bishop Pat, thank you for this post, I can relate to this poor seminarian’s experiences all too well.
I, too, was treated in the most abhorrent way imaginable, but I will not say too much – but what I will say is that I did contemplate taking my own life on two occasions (something I did not reveal to most) and it were local Anglican clergy who stepped-in and housed, fed, and picked me back-up-again. (Funny enough, the Roman clergy were nowhere to be seen! And at the same time, nobody knew anything about anything…)
The Anglican priest who took me in whilst I was at my lowest ebb, would, at first, not let me leave the table until I had finished my food as I was so thin and unwell at the time. He has been like a Father figure to me for many years and is essentially a member of my family, and I am very proud of him as a wonderful priest and, as a Father figure in my life.
Some years ago, my baby Cousin died in a house fire; my family and myself being devastated: this Anglican priest gave my Cousins a television so that they could watch tv and play their computer games, and a few other bits-and-bobs as they had lost everything in the house fire.
Even to this day, every time I see my Aunt, she tells me to ‘Give her love to Fr P.’
One vicar (whom I did not tell all my troubles to) I met in the chapel of a Liverpool hospital; I did not divulge anything too alarming to him as I did not want to burden him.
But I think he could see I was sitting in chapel, looking rather pissed off. He threw the kettle on and got the biscuits out and at one pint he had me laughing; I walked out of that hospital as though I was floating on air.
Of course, I did not tell him all the nitty gritty details of my situation; I just told him that I had had a ‘shitty time’ and was ‘not very happy.’
When I was leaving (after eating all of his biscuits lol) he politely said ‘Please let me know how you get on and I am here [in the hospital] most days if you fancy a cup of tea and a chat.’
I have not seen him since but do I do plan on going back for a cup tea and a chat at some point. This time I will take along a large packet of biscuits.

Like

You can all talk all day on this blog and comment until the cows come home. It won’t make a blind bit of difference.
The Irish hierarchy who could sort this all out in a heartbeat are going to do NOTHING. You are a dealing with a collection of men who are listless, incompetent, spineless, gutless and clueless. They have no cojones. They are also incredibly arrogant in their stupidity and have a stubborn “we won’t be told what to do by you” mentality.
Some of them also are compromised, having had their fingers too in various “honey pots“ and they are awaiting the phone call, email, letter, or knock on the door that will result in their downfalls.
In the meantime, back at El Rancho Gaynooth, the chicken hawks are in charge of the chickens. Various dysfunctional sociopaths and narcissists can play with seminarians’ lives to their hearts content and call it “formation“. Fanny the president can preach rank heresy and not a bother on her.
Paulette Pry-er nSJ was quickly ushered out quietly and allowed to indulge himself elsewhere. Pat Buckley is correct in that an awful lot of this dysfunction can be traced in lineage back to the “wounded healer” big Sally Baptist Brady.
It’s an utter shambles. I think all we can do is sit back and wait for the crash of the rotten tree hitting the forest floor.

Like

4.58: Whatever about gagging for it, I cannot believe a word from this seminarian. It’s like a fantasy, an essay gone way of course and direction. I’d like to know the age of this seminarian!! Pat, did you write this piece? Thank God the formators I had in the 70’s were nothing of the kind. As students then we had reason to complain about lecturers, particularly the “lay” ones. They weren’t the best but the priest professors were generally excellent. We had a wonderful lady drama and speech lecturer and a brilliant lady art lecturer. I cannot understand this snowflake generation of seminarians!

Like

@5:26 pm. Unfortunately, it’s not fantasy but reality in seminaries all over the world.

It’s what happens when you get narcissistic formators, who never had a vocation and never had a real committed sexual relationship, and who were reduced to projecting their frustrations and repressed anger on easy victims such as seminarians.

Like

@12:23 am, Yes, I am on a mission: to participate in my prophetic role as a lay person. Conversion sometimes means speaking out to help protect the common good.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html
“In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but a oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power. But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.(2)”

Like

5.26

I, too, find it hard to believe what that seminarian is saying. And judging by his answer’s length, I find it equally hard to believe that the questioners don’t regret allowing him the freedom to answer at will.

His is the usual gripe from traditionalist Catholics: every problem in the Church is put down to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

His trite solution to the perceived deficiencies of seminary formation is to call for the presence of saints as formators, in the naive hope that their ‘saintliness’ might rub off on seminarians. Some hope.

If only he had made this suggestion in the first sentence of his answer instead of the penultimate one, we’d all have been spared a protracted ramble through a highly personal fantasyland.

Like

What Is Deacon Byrne up to these days? He is super hot and I wouldn’t mind a dabble myself. I’m 48, too old for him?

Like

MAGNA
I just got back from a full day commitment in Portadown and went through my bin.
I found 3 comments by you that I binned.
2 should NOT have been binned. I apologise.
1 said that Romanist turds should be flushed dow the toilet. I thought that we should not call any human a turd.

Like

6.34: Here we go again. FFS, what kind of relationship have you, Pat, with principles and conscience. You rightly binned Magna’s horrendous, obnoxious, poisonous hate speech, yet you tell us the content of his ignorant, dangerous speech. That you me is contradictory, revelatory of you and Magna and you may as well have printed his poison. Censor hatred?????Only when it suits. Outrageous.

Like

6.34
Thank you, Bishop P..
I appreciate the apology.
And I understand why you felt unable to publish the third comment.

Like

7.34: Mags, you’ve never grown up or matured into real manhood.! Still at the mammy ‘pat took my lollipop’ stage of development. Always the victim. Always seeking attention. The classic bully, who, unfortunately, twists Pat’s hand all too frequently. And the maestro puppeteer, Bucks, attends to your every whim. Grow up, the pair of you. Twisted, nasty, hateful children. Go out and seek meaningful friendships.

Like

Byrne is a typical narcissist. That’s the usual response from someone who thinks the world revolves around him.

Like

The very mention of the name “gorgeous” and this blog explodes with comments. He seems to command attention both negative and positive. A polarising figure in Irish Catholicism – an openly gay man who feels called by God and is not apologetic for who he is. He has also shown an amazing level of restraint. Fascinating.
An observation, if I may; many of negative comments would appear to come from anonymous people. Why hasn’t anyone stepped forward to personally accuse this man of the behaviour they attribute to him? Either he is lying or they are. In my limited experience, I believe that he is not the man that this blog makes him out to be. Anyone who has met this man knows what I am saying. So lets look at it:
1. No student (conservative or liberal) from Maynooth has ever come forward to say that Michael was a bully, sexually suggestive or that he ever made any sexual advances on anyone there. He is allegedly “promiscuous”, yet no one has claimed to have been with him. This is important to note.
2. Although connected with the “summer of love” his involvement was minimal – he was not the one caught in bed and he was not the one who got students expelled. He was guilty by association to people involved.
3. The rumours and accusations discussed on this blog have all, so far, come to nothing. This would suggest something sinister was going on in the background. (A certain group that was out to get him maybe?)
4. Many people on this blog bring up Diarmuid Martin not ordaining Michael as indication of guilt, yet we do not know the reason why he has not progressed. It could be his own decision not to go forward, it could be Diarmuid wanting him to take time out, but one thing is certain, he is still an ordained Deacon under the umbrella of the Archdiocese and there are no plans to laicise him like (Chris Derwin).
There were many rumours on this blog about what he was doing the last two years but it is my understanding that he spent that time in Hospital ministry. He must still feel called to do that type of work. Hospital ministry is challenging because you deal with death and dying on a daily basis. It indicates his strength and resolve to be able to give to people when he naturally must be hurting himself. Who knows what the future holds for him. I wish him well in whatever he decides to do. If he wants to be a priest, he can be, his challenging life experiences will enable him to understand people in varying circumstances. If he wants to leave and remain a chaplain, there is no shame in that. He would still be doing Gods work.
These are just some of my thoughts on his situation. He is a polarising figure with the ability to challenge the Church at its very core.
God bless.

Like

Jesus was a polarising figure, the saints, popes, priests and church leaders were also polarising figures.

Like

I did a lot of work on 2016 Maynooth. Michael Byrne was one of the central characters if not THE central characters in these events. Archbishop Martin also had access to other information and people, not mentioned on this blog.

Like

When you say central fugure what do you mean?

Did he get caught in bed?
Did he get students kicked out?

Like

Central figure in the development and running of the Maynooth promiscuous gay ring involving seminarians and priests all over the country.

Like

D would not discuss that with me. D would actually have Gorgeous’ true best interests at heart.

Like

08:02

Pat that is a bit much now. Calm down will ye. The guy was not running anything of the sort.

Like

08:01
So being normal and dressing up for a halloween party before he was a seminarian is a bar for priesthood now? 😂 Get over it.

Like

Ah the poor wee innocent lamb Mickey Byrne. Sure the former Administrator in Marlborough Street is forlorn and inconsolable since Mickey was whisked down to Cork to escape the hurricane he helped cause…

Like

Pat,

What do you mean I don’t have all the facts. I know more than you. Are you referring to “Mart” that supposedly came forward with fake pictures and allegations that were squashed immediately squashed by Byrne?

Like

8.01
And yet the pope prances around in a lovely, bespoke white frock.
As for his cardinals and bishops…all that scarlet and red? Those flowing, tailored, Gammerelli drapes?
Ooooooooooooh!😲

Like

7.37: An excellent, Christ-like comment; full of kindness, non judgmental, compassionate and merciful. Also a very challenging and just, fair comment. I met M. Byrne on at least 4 occasions and found him to be very caring and personable. Others who worked with him found him a very good person, aware of his flaws, owning the truth of his sexuality, courageously withstanding the most horrible treatment by Pat and his cohort on this blog. There was very little consideration for his parents and famy who were deeply hurt by this blog. Pat, sadly, has abrogated to himself a deity like authority which he uses to smash people to pieces. I am not against naming wrongdoing, corruption or criminal behaviour but the level of toxic poison poured over M. Byrne is enough to push any person to self harm, fatally perhaps. His inner strength is commendable in the face of so much hateful scrutiny. Can we not discuss the wrongs, hypocrisy, contradictions and unacceptable sexual behaviour without being viciously personal? If anyone has information of this man re: sexual abuse, let them go to the gardai. I prefer the humanity of someone like M. Byrne to the obnoxious, arrogant, despotic, self righteous mindset of Pat and his friends.

Like

What an inverted pyramid of waffle 8:21 pm. The word inversion is most apropos as you seem to live in an alternate dimension where reality is what you make it to be.

Please drink a strong coffee or have a cold shower to awaken yourself from your self-imposed stupor.

Like

8:21

I agree with you. The very mention of Byrne and Pat is all over it. He cannot leave that man alone.

Like

I can safely say that Byrne does not care what any of you think. He especially has no regard for Pat and his conspiracy theories.

Like

All we need at the moment is Byrne taking self-adoring selfies of himself in soutane and sparkling cufflinks bought by Fr Damo.

Like

7.37
Whatever about your claiming to be a ‘good priest’ your Latin is not good, dear sacerdos bone. You should write sacerdos bonus.

Like

Pat, those two supreme narcissists, Prior and Byrne, were eulogizing Byrne here in effort to distract and divert.

Like

Marsdens only crime was to expose the number of fags that David Oakley allowed to stay in Oscott and turned a blind eye. Isn’t this the issue that got Gaynooth into the shit.

Like

8.07
There is nothing principled in hatred, bigotry, unjust discrimination, and disrespect for others.
Marsden is isolated not through righteousness (as was Christ), but through Pharisaisim.
Jesus didn’t think much of Pharisees in his time, and, I suspect, wouldn’t think much of them in our time either.
Good riddance to Marsden.

Like

7:55 & 8:16
Deflections!. I wonder why.
Getting a wee bit uncomfortable boys?
Mention of promiscuous gay sex ring of seminarians and priests countrywide
from Maynooth making people feel uncomfortable? I’d say so.

Like

Pat, some time ago it was suggested that we write to Cardinal Sarah in Rome about lazy Irish bishops delegating dogsbodies to confer Confirmation and I wrote. To my surprise today (after a long time) I received a nice letter personally signed. He said he was aware of other complaints regarding this and he has passed my letter and others to the relevant department for investigation. I know this will not amount to anything but at least they have been made aware. I particularly highlighted that Armagh and Derry were some of the main culprits. Good old Sarah.

Like

9.07 you are a sad little man aren’t you. The holy spirit isn’t bothered about Bishop or Priest so why are you? Trouble maker.
Failed Priest I suspect .

Like

Ah! It does the human heart a warmth and a cheer to gaze upon the serried ranks of…future parasites, Christ-betrayers, who, as the psychological and spiritual vampires they are trained to become, will drain EVERYthing a person has: his wealth, his conscience, his faith in God, his very soul.
Oh, for the days of the Spanish Civil War! The Republicans knew precisely how to deal with such ‘men’.

Like

Magna, you have just given a perfect example of the type of unacceptable behaviour you called out and criticised just a few comments above.
Conclusion: you are not consistent in your thinking.

Like

In the real world no one over the age of 15 wears a hoddie it’s the new soutane obligatory for all seminarians of any age it’s safe and slovenly at the same time

Like

Fintan is a good normal Bishop who has to put up with Mick Collins and his mistakes. Where will Mick Collins go next, maybe lay chaplain
.

Like

The seminarian’s protractedly rambling 💤 response proves my claim that there can be no such thing as a morally good, Romanist priest: the seminarian admits that these men are not free to oblige personal conscience.

These men, devoid entirely of moral integrity, willingly invite into their lives abandonment of conscience.

I haven’t a morsel of sympathy to feed any of these Christ-betrayers. And had I any, I should withhold it, that they might starve to psychic death.

The world is a much better place without these parasites, because they not only feed on people’s wealth through personal bone-idleness, but suck out and then trample on their hopes, their dreams, their faith, and their spirit.

These men, Romanist priests, are anti-social, the enemy of everyone, but especially that moronic category of Catholic (the ‘Cathbot’) who willingly allow these vampires, parasites, to prey on the spiritually living.

(Just bein’ candid, like.😕)

Like

Not long now MC until you start getting into a drunk rage around 1 or 2am. Get back to your gargle you menace to society.

Like

10.42

Have you read Acts of the Apostles?

Bystanders accused Jesus’ early disciples, too, of being drunk when they spoke the truth in tongues.

I am used to being called a drunk by commentors here. It is the reaction of those who cannot refute the posts from me by which they feel most threatened.

It is almost amusing, like the occasions when a child caught with a hand in the cookie jar protests: ‘I was putting it back in. Honest to God, I was.’

😕

Like

10 26: No Magna, not being candid at all: Just being your horrible, vicious, hate inciting, vulgar self. And Pat thinks your calling priests “turds” warranted censoring? You are both horrible, nasty bastardos, recycling a deep hatred for priests. Devoid of conscience. Just proves that Pat is as twisted, morally and spiritually, as you are and uses you to express the poison which he doesn’t have the courage to express himself. If in this drunken rant you believe what you say, you deserve a cliff edge end to your life. It’s a horrible, selfish and battered existence from your life’s collection of hatred and vengeance.

Like

10.45
Believe me I could call you people far worse than that.
Be grateful that I exercised self-restraint, and Bishop Pat consideration…for you, and your ignominiius kind.
Priest.

Like

Fr David Marsden is a saint. He has been subjected to the most heinous aspersions being cast upon his good character by the usual clerical and seminarian suspects who caused the Maynooth maelstrom of 2016.

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