Catholic Church admits moving paedophile Jesuit brother interstate after complaints of sexual abuse


The Catholic Church has admitted it shifted a paedophile Jesuit brother from a prestigious Adelaide school to another in Sydney, despite multiple complaints about his offending.

Key points:

Victor Higgs was found guilty of numerous offences from the 1960s to the 1980s

A review has found he was moved interstate when abuse complaints were made

A prestigious college in Adelaide has apologised for allowing the abuse to occur

Australian Jesuit provincial Father Brian McCoy has announced the findings of an independent review into the movement of Victor Higgs in 1970 from Saint Ignatius’ College, in Athelstone, to Riverview in Sydney.

The former Victorian chief justice Marilyn Warren was appointed to undertake the review in 2018.
Her review found at least three complains were made to the then-rector of Saint Ignatius’ College in Athelstone, Father Frank Wallace SJ, regarding Higgs’s conduct.

It also found at least some of the complaints were conveyed to the-then Provincial, Fr Francis Peter Kelly SJ, prior to the movement of Higgs.
And the complaints were a factor in the decision to move Higgs to Riverview in 1970.

In 2016, Higgs was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault against two students at Saint Ignatius’ College between 1968 and 1970.

Last year he was also found guilty of 16 offences committed against students at Riverview between 1971 and 1981.

College apologises for ‘hurt, suffering and pain’

In a letter from Saint Ignatius’ College principal and rector to parents, caregivers and former students, the school apologised for allowing the abuse to happen.

“That a Jesuit against whom complaints were made was moved from one school to another is a shameful example of how these matters were handled in the past,” the letter said.

“We reiterate our unreserved apology to them that these events were allowed to occur and for the hurt, suffering and pain that resulted.”

Saint Ignatius’ College campus in Athelstone, north-east of Adelaide.(Www.Ignatius.Sa.Edu.Au)
The letter went on to describe the college’s “sincere hope and endeavour” that current guidelines would make sure abuse would never occur again.

“We continue to extend our care and concern to all those who have suffered from past abuse at our school,” it said.

“We remain committed to providing a safe environment for our students and to supporting anyone who may wish to contact us about past abuses.”

‘We are deeply ashamed and sorry’

Fr Brian McCoy also released a statement apologising for the “failings” following the outcome of the review.

He said the abuse of any child was contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and Higgs had left the Jesuits in 2001.
He said he hoped the findings would bring some sort of closure or healing to those impacted by Higgs’s actions.

“It is with much sadness and contrition that I acknowledge and apologise for our failings with respect to these events some 50 years ago,” he said.

“We continue to hold those who have been abused in our hearts and in our prayers and extend to them our unwavering support. We are deeply ashamed and sorry.”

Fr Brian said the Australian Jesuit Province would continue to review the report and consider any further action that needed to be taken.


So, the Jesuits were at the “move the paedo about” stunt in Aussie.

And if they were at it there they were at it everywhere.

The Jesuits are no different than all the other dioceses and orders.

Put the church first and ignore the victim.

No.part of the RCC will ever successfully police itself.

It will have to be done by the civil authorities.

I have a friend feeling that the Aussies will lead the way.

Well done to them.

The Irish Jesuits currently have an opportunity to show us how just and open they are as they handle the current complaints against Father Paul Prior.


11:31, without due regard it is difficult to articulate a more rounded approach, perhaps this may lead to alternative attitudes. time will tell.


Ah, not sure about that. The true word is ?, REVOLUTION. As Committed by Lucifer and his own in heaven. Another day, prelates et al destroying souls. They pray for development of the churches teaching. It’s been the same for over two millennia and cannot be changed. They’re totally ignorant of the truth or they just ignore it. Desiring some type of self Fulfilling prophecy. Love to read and hear more about prelates saving souls.You can’t save souls by being nice. Contemporary Catholics, post VII haven’t been ripped into enough that there is only One of three things that will occur at our death. Heaven, purgatory or that terrible place of eternal suffering and separation from God for eternity….prelates leading the way. Oh, silly me. That wouldn’t be the church of nice. Tired of hearing the same homilies every week. A deceased priest I knew once said that homilies should be different for the faithful and regular Mass attendees and the so called ashes and palm types. Those really need to be awakened at Mass with nothing nice To make people happy. No, instead, reprimand, the threat of he!! and eternal suffering


Ahh Pat shut up. You are like an old cassette being played over and over. At least your man made Church will die with you.


11.48: So correct. If you wanted some inspiration, comfort, prayerful, challenging reflections, rational, intelligent debate and fair, just commentary, we won’t find anything of this kind on Pat’s blog. Sadly, while it’s imperative to name all wrongs, abuses, criminal behaviour and cover ups (Pat has done this admirably), all too often the commentary is repetitively obnoxious, vexatious, deliberately vulgar and filled with too much personalised insults, name calling and incitement to hatred. I lament the dominance of Magna’s viciousness and I hope Pat will exercise greater discretion with him.


9:03 am,

There are plenty of other online resources for prayer and reflections. Pat’s blog is not intended for such.

Pat shines a much needed light on the dodgy clerics who have destroyed people and faith with impunity, until now.


LOL 9:03! 🤣🤣🤣As if many of the good auld gaynooth goons are into prayer reflection and rational debate!? It’s a glaring lack of all these that has the Irish Church in such a mess.

Keep up the great work Pat. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.


I don’t always agree with Pat, but it is absolutely necessary that he does what he does. It’s not easy and the corrupt mafia in the Church come at Pat with everything and every trick under the sun to divert attention from themselves and attack the whistle blowers.

It’s only the corrupt clerics who have anything to fear.


I don’t want to disturb anyone’s faith, but this entire arrangement appears to be more Vatican doublespeak and liberal gradualism. On one hand we have a lot of deliberate attention given to the recent publication by Benedict and Sarah on priestly celibacy, with a spurious issue of whether Benedict’s name and picture should have been on the cover, which gives the publication more attention than it would have had otherwise. On the other hand, the Vatican likely intends to use the Amazon fiasco as the vehicle to usher in a married priesthood for such remote areas where they cannot get enough priests to go (like a special exception – nudge, nudge, wink, wink). They will back off their Pachema doomsday scenario and exclude the red herrings of a pagan idol and altered liturgies, but allow only in this incidence, the ordination of married men. The precedent will then open to door for such ordinations in any remote area, As for the Francis publication, it helps to placate the conservative Catholics thinking they still have a home in the de facto “pluralistic” Church. Vigano’s railings without action could be more of the same.
Such a change may seem “necessary” but it will ultimately mean a married clergy. Perhaps my criticism of the methods used to bring this about sounds too disrespectful and too sinister to be true, but one has to consider the entire history since 1958 with the good and the bad, and the gradual and continuous slide of so much. Also, as long as we have our leading prelates wanting to usher in a One-World government resorting to a fake crises like man-made global-warming, and nations and borders being essentially evil, then very little except that which is tried and true Catholic doctrine coming from the Vatican can be trusted. We in fact have a very” political pontificate”. That is not by accident. The Vatican is used to pontificating in a top-down fashion. The Church is not a democracy. Conservative Catholics are held in check by virtue of their obedience to the authority of the hierarchy, whereas liberal ones flaunt it and have more sway because in the name of unity, the hierarchy is afraid of losing the Church plurality, and like with the practice of ordaining homosexuals they are apt to look away, thinking they cannot do otherwise due to the lack of vocations. However, they will continue in the direction of watering down everything, with less vocations and less people bothering to receive the sacraments, as one thing is relaxed after another leading to the point where there is no real difference between the religious and the secular in the Church. There will be no concerted effort to resist the various anti-Christian and anti-family secular agendas in our institutions, until the point were there is virtually no difference between public institutions and Catholic ones.


Don’t you like change Fred? Surely change is the only constant in our world. We have evolved from primordial sludge after all so evolution of humankind and its institutions will continue. Now whether it’s leading to “improvement” or otherwise, that’s well worthy of debate.


Watch the movie, A Matter of Faith. You can find it full length on YouTube.
It presents both Creationist, and Atheistic Evolutionist, perspectives on existence in way that wouldn’t go over the heads of non-scientists.
The public debate towards the end of the movie I found particularly interesting, even though there is an obvious bias towards Creationism.


Fed, you raise some interesting points. but in relation to many accusations against priest we must allow proper justice to take its place. This is just accusations and not even found guilty? This is dangerous and wrong to do. False sexual assault accusations are easy to make. They are the easiest to lie about. And many will believe any accusation now because of what has been happening. Plus constant adverts advertising for victims to come forward for money. Nice payday for the many people raised Catholic who now hates their religion, and constant hating on Christianity and Catholics on Twitter etc. As soon as anyone mentions the word Catholic or even Christian priests people automatically think paedophile, child abuser. As a Catholic I often see hate of this nature about Catholics in general not just priests.Cardinal Pell was convicted on a very weak (none existent) and bias case, with zero evidence, and implausible claims. Where’s their map for other religions, groups, school teachers, sports coaches, or simply accused male citizens… they’re going after Catholics only, because they hate us. Imagine if this was a map of Jews who people simply made verbal ACCUSATIONS against. Imagine people were encouraging accusations against Jews for money.
The bar for “credibly accused” appears to be set so low that should the superior in charge so much as shrugs a shoulder ad say, “I dunno, could’ve happened.” then it is considered credible.If we look through Can. 1717 §1 – Can. 1719 we see that care must be take to ensure the investigation does not call into question anyones good name (ref. Can. 220). This includes both the accused and the accuser.Can. 1720 on discusses the Development of the Process should the investigation proceed to the penal process. So, unless they are actually being charged I would say the “list” goes against Canon Law. An aside…..Can. 1720 If the ordinary thinks that the matter must proceed by way of extrajudicial decree1/ he is to inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense…


R.R, You are right that an accused priest is entitled to due process. But, unfortunately, many times more than not victims’ complaints have not been investigated thoroughly enough by the Church. Victims and their friends have been villified with the complaint’s process being completely in favour of the accused priest.
Plus, when a priest is subject to more than one complaint, years apart and in different countries, then this priest must be looked at very seriously indeed.
Most victims of clerical abusers are not interested in money; only justice and preventing abusing priests from abusing again.


I thought I was the Chosen One.😨
Time for me to come out to the world. I’ve already come out to DR.😕


Why has this kind of abuse been so prevalent among many in positions of authority throughout the ages. Y’ve got trafficking drugs wars brutality tribalism religious one upmanship and loads more I’m sure. The answer is salvation. How many are searching for the pearl of great price hi


it’s been prevalent among families, governments, non-religious organisations and others in positions of authority throughout the ages. Welcome to reality my friend.


It’s a reality that must be fought ‘Jacko’. And, of course, as I’m sure you’ll agree? the degree of culpability among corrupt clerics is far worse than in other spheres of society, as the consequences can be eternal.


Clerical abusers will be judged most severely by God. They will also have to answer for the scandal they have caused and the consequences of same.


@12:20 am, God Himself has revealed that priests, modern day Pharisees, will be judged most severely if they fail to live up to their duty and calling.

Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,[f] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.


The fundamental flaw in your presentation (I won’t dignify it by calling it an argument.) is your identification of modern-day priests with Pharisees.

These scriptural passage, of which you have cut and pasted too much, are applicable to every Christian.

And, find out something about the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. They were not a homogenous group. And many were highly-motivated and well-respected liberal theologians.


11:48. I find your comments shameful. Why should Pat or anyone else shut up? It is only by speaking out and highlighting these diabolical anti Christ actions that people will start to recognise the cesspit which controlled every aspect of our lives for so long. In fact it is Pats duty and the duty of all of us to speak out. By remaining silent we become tacit enablers of this type of abuse. The RCC has demonstrated that it is unable to clean up it’s act and adhere to both God’s and civil law. They much prefer to protect the “firm”.It is incumbent on the civil authorities to robustly pursue these vagabonds. How many more are being shielded from justice? So Pat please for all our sakes continue to speak out


Absolutely agree ! Definitely ! I guarantee you that various bishops / archbishops look at this blog, or have their minions do it for them, and take note of what is being said. It puts them on warning that they are being surveilled by us, and that we know what is going on. It hopefully encourages them to be more transparent and honest, because we are going to find out sooner or later what they are up to. As an example, I’ve picked up that there are some concerns from various quarters about the prospective new bishop of Northampton, and they have been expressed on this blog. I bet that this has been picked up, and people will be doing some retrospective investigation to make sure. The Nuncio and others will appear to be stonewalling – they don’t like to have to answer openly to the minions like us – but quietly they will be taking notice and looking at things. They will also be encouraged in their actions to do something about the situation if they discover anything, because they know that if they just cover it up and go ahead, it will in time come back to haunt them. So, this blog, and others, and + Pat are doing a great service at keeping the clerical hierarchy and class on their toes. For too long they have been able to dupe us, lie to us, coverup, look after their own interests. No more. Thank God.

Oh, and by the way, surely there are some SJ correspondents that could tell us where Prior is ? I think we deserve to know. We would not want him being put somewhere he can carry on with his antics, and we can’t really trust the authorities to do the right thing, so a bit of public exposure is needed to assure us that things are being done properly. As I said, we need to keep them under observation, and keep them on their toes. They have brought this on themselves, by losing our trust over the decades with their coverup, collusion, lies and duplicity. They are responsible for the likes of this blog and its necessity. They can blame themselves. Don’t blame + Pat.


Anon@10:28, I take your comment as an earnest enquiry. I’m no expert in evolutionary chemistry or development and acknowledge that many such experts will propose varying theories. But there seems considerable consensus on the shape of evolution. For further information I suggest the following for starters: R Dawkins ‘ The Ancestors Tale; The Selfish Gene; The Blind Watchmaker, and B. Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything.
That’s your starter, and happy reading.


Hi MMM, I have read Dawkins but he has failed to answer what caused life itself. He puts it all down to pure chance, which is a very weak premise upon which to predicate the subsequent complexities and intricacies of the myriad forms of life that have evolved post the Big Bang. Evolutionary Chemistry can not of itself answer why there is something as opposed to nothing.

My comment was an earnest enquiry to know your own theories as to what you think caused the Big Bang?


Don’t take any advice from Mournful Mickey. It would be very suspect indeed as the Newcastle man isn’t right in the head.


Anon @ 12:51: My short and honest answer is, that I do not know. Developed human intelligence forever considers cause and effect and our assumption is that that every effect MUST have had a cause. This thinking tendency is very prevalent in many religious traditions, and the RCC certainly has been influenced in this direction by Thomistic thinking. For my own part I’m quite content to acknowledge that the unknown mysteries of our origins and existence are just that, unknown mysteries, and I don’t feel threatened or diminished by not knowing. I only have to consider how insignificant the earth is in our own universe, and that this universe is but one of millions to get a sense of perspective. I’m content just to accept that “we are where we are.” That contentment as much derives from an acceptance of reality as acknowledgement of the illusory shibboleths of religious beliefs.
As Iris de Ment sings, “Let the mystery be.”


MMN, our explanation for that mystery is the mysterious God. This gives us meaning and makes some of extra eager to do good.


My own view of this is that pure chance would be far more plausible! Of course this is a very unsatisfactory answer to humans who like to have reasons for things, but in nature surely chance is a plausible explanation?
It is also a plausible explanation for such questions as ‘Why did I get cancer?’.


MMM, Thank-you for your answer. I appreciate it as you come across as an intelligent, reflective person.

Based on my own reading of Dawkins and others like him, they seem to either deliberately or undeliberately get caught up in very complex evolutionist and scientific theories about the dawn and development of life while ignoring what I believe to be the self-evident fact and principle that nothing cannot come from nothing.

Houses, hospitals and schools, etc., don’t appear by pure chance but must be first conceived of in an architect’s mind; then block-layers, carpenters and roofers must all work with building materials to bring that conception to a livable, material reality. Wouldn’t it be great if all this could be achieved by pure chance!? But I have never witnessed such things come about by pure chance. Have you?

Now if we extrapolate our thought experiment to the Big Bang, does it not appear to be very intellectually weak to say that it, and life itself, which is far more complex than houses, happened by pure chance? Or it is just an unfathomable mystery that we can never, in any way, understand?

Now, I know of course, that we are thinking this through based on our, human way of thinking. But, could there be a bigger mind that is the cause of our minds and everything we see? In fact, because this world is intelligible to us humans, does that not indicate that this world was thought into existence by a thinking being? A mind that, in itself, our finite minds can never fully understand, but that, nevertheless, this mind must of necessity exist.



Bertrand Russell might have counter-argued that proceeding from First Principles alone (the Creationist perspective, posing an eternal deity as the First Cause of everything that is) raises the very objection Creationists ask of Evolutionists: Who or what created the ‘sludge’ (or, in this case, God)?

Simply answering the Evolutionists with ‘no one, created God because he is eternal’ offers that very response to Evolutionists in return: Ok. So why, then, can’t the sludge be eternal? Why indeed?

Intellectual stalemate.

Which is where faith comes in.


Hi MC @ 7:51pm. I take it your answering for MMM? That’s ok.

If the sludge were to be eternal and everything evolved therefrom, how is this world intelligible to us? How could inanimate matter such as eternal sludge produce thinking, self reflecting human intellects?


No, I wasn’t answering for MMM: I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy, circular reasoning, expressed by Creationists in their staple explanation for the existence of all that is. Positing an eternal deity as the First Cause of everything is a presumption, not necessarily a fact. It certainly isn’t a verified claim.
When asked to justify the presumption, the answer is usually along this line: God is the First Cause of everything, because he is eternal, and he’s eternal because he is the First Cause. This is circular reasoning: a proposition attempting to attest its veracity: I am true, because I say that I am true. This kind of quasi-reasoning is anti-intellectual, though not unintelligent.
By the way, inanimate existence, in its most elemental form, may not be capable of sophisticated reasoning, but its random conjunction with other, or even higher, existential forms, can interact chemically, and to a certain logic, to produce predictable outcomes. While these conjunctions can be random, the more fortuitous of them can produce outcomes that not only aren’t random, but are entirely predictable, logical, and intelligent.
There is elemental intelligence in the most rudimentary forms of creation, which can evolve, through random conjunction, into higher forms of existence.


Hi MC, I wasn’t positing a deity as a first cause of creation as a presumption at all. Of course no one can empirically confirm what was the originator of the Big Bang. I was employing a thought experiment to the Big Bang and then asking the question of why is this world intelligible and why can we think and self reflect.
These primordial higher existential forms you speak about, what are they and how did they arise from eternal sludge?
Can you point me to evidence of inanimate substances such as sludge interacting with higher existential forms to produce higher forms of existence?


With respect, if you aren’t positing a deity as a first (or ‘initiating’) cause of creation, then you must believe in a non-deific explanation. Which in turn means that you believe in a purely scientific (or evolutionary) perspective of the origin of creation.
As you mentioned the ‘Big Bang’, you must know that initially, some 13.5 billion years ago, matter, energy, time and space existed in the first instance through an event none of us was around to witness, much less explain: the so-called ‘Big Bang’. If I could provide you with an exhaustive explanation of this, I should not only win every Nobel prize for natural science, but be revered for having ‘cracked’ the mystery (if not the meaning) of life itself. I’m not that good.
From these elements evolved, through random conjunction with one another, complex structures called atoms, and from these were derived even higher structures, molecules. More complex molecules were formed through continued interaction with atoms, but also with other molecules. In time these interactions, for the first time, produced larger, and living (capable of growing and reproducing) structures called organisms. And from organisms were eventually formed the species you and I belong to…homosapiens: humankind. From this point, intelligence, and self-reflection, themselves evolved as these early humans interacted with one another, and with their environment. This is called ‘learning’.
Each evolutionary stage, from lower to higher existential forms, came about initially through random conjunction, and then through innate natural intelligence. As these stages occurred randomisation decreased as each conjuction was governed by this intelligence; if you will, through Natural Law. The entire process proceeded through a period of billions of years.
Christians believe that the initiating cause of this was a living eternal being we call ‘God’. Atheistic evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that the process did not need external initiation, but was entirely self-propelled and self-governed.


Thanks MC. I appreciate your answer.

How can an inanimate, purely material life form transmit a higher form of life such as the immateriality of a thinking intellect? Even through a slow, long random process of interactions?

Does this not appear contrary to reason? Such as a lower form of life like a stone eventually becoming a human being through a long process of interactions with other simple life forms such as trees.



Well, as I said earlier, I am not good enough to ‘crack’ the mystery of life; but then, none of us is.

My inability to provide you with the answers you seek isn’t, therefore, necessarily an indication of losing the argument: BOTH Evolutionism and Creationism are theories, and are likely to remain so. Neither sin can conclusively win the debate.

The current limitations of scientific knowldge, and human intellect, simply won’t allow pat answers to your questions. However, in time these limitations will expand outwards (‘evolve’, as it were) perhaps to the point where the questions can be answered, at least plausibly.

If you truly believe that evolution from inanimate to animate matter is contrary to reason, then you seem to be suggesting that humans must have appeared holistically, in one creative burst, (which leaves you in sympathy with the creation accounts in Genesis). Or you are suggesting that humans could have evolved only from lower forms of animate (organic) matter? Your mention of a stone is actually the Achille’s heel of your argument: a stone is, of couse, too far along the evolutionary trail to alter existential course.

Creation (ALL creation), including that stone, evolved from far simpler forms. Somewhere along the evolutionary trail sideroads began to emerge, as randomised conjunction of forms, along with the innate intelligence of them, narrowed increasingly the outcomes of these interactions; diversity of more complex structures then emerged. Somewhere along the way, the point of no return for each of these was reached, which means that, thereafter, there was no possibility of existential redirection.

Statistically speaking, the evolutionary process could be expressed as a possibility that became a probability that became a certainty.

Anti-evolutionists sometimes argue that if Evolutionism were scientifically credible, then (as you suggested) why don’t such things as stones evolve into something else? But as I have implied, there is in natural evolution a scientific determinism that will not allow established forms, however complex and intelligent, to cross speciel or other boundaries.


Thanks MC for your interaction and effort.
I am not interested in winning arguments (I lose most of the time!); just debating and discussing the deeper issues of life!


11.30am There is not much hope of the Yank Nuncio in London doing anything in relation to the Northampton appointment as the Nuncio is a buddy of Donald Trump. That tells us all we need to know. David Oakley allowed openly gay seminarians to stay on in Oscott Seminary. This man is also aware of two spiritual directors, one of whom admits to fancying young men. The whole thing is a farce and now he is being made a bishop. Jesus wept.


Oh, we know all about that. So will the Nuncio and the various bishops who have lobbied for him to be elevated to the episcopal ranks. But what about his own personal behaviour ? There are rumours and allegations and past history. Should it be considered ? Or is it all too late ? If the latter, and there was something dodgy lurking in the closet, then if I were he I would, even at this stage, decline. Because, if there is, it will out, and it will be more painful at a later date. Just saying….


By ‘openly gay’, I presume you mean ‘sexually inctive gay men’. What on earth is wrong with ordaining such men?



See the confusion you’ve caused? You need to define your terms, for everyone’s sake.

But if you meant ‘sexually inactive gay men who have the moral integrity not to pretend (to lie) that they are straight’), then you are opposing the injunction in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that there should be no ‘unjust discrimination’ against these men. Barring a man from the priesthood because he is gay breaches that injunction; it is also sinful.


2.06: MMM: You are saying rather circuitously that really, you can’t explain life itself, its intricacies, mysteries, complexities, its beauty. Your quoting of Iris de Ment; “Let the mystery be…” is the equivalent of saying God made the world, which is my rational explanation and belief since I believe in first cause principles. God for me is THE CAUSE OF ALL THINGS…


But you then come up against the problem that Christian theology can’t deal with, of why people get apparently random suffering for no reason. If you would tell me it is a part of God’s inscrutable plan or willed by him for some reason you are depicting a deity who is a monster and who could step in to relieve all suffering but doesn’t. Arbitrary chance, with or without the presence of a deity is a better explanation, and even if God just leaves the world to muddle on the question of suffering and God’s failure to relieve it, remains. There is the possibility of random suffering in the presence of a deity who is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc, but again this runs right against the traditional Christian understanding of God.
I have a very tricky question, actually, which I would be interested to hear answered by the brains on here: why did God create Magna Carta and for what purpose?


3.15: That question about why God created Magna (Mad Arrogant Gargantuan Noxious Arsehole) is THE unanswerable mystery! Often wonder if it (Magna) just created itself? It is so different from the rest of humankind. A weird, inexplicable yoke…


he is weird. I suspect he has no friends. but there are people like him out there. would frighten the life out of ya lol


Could equally ask the same question about you or anyone else! Why did God create you?


Who told you that God does not ‘step in’ to relieve human suffering? Probably someone (perhaps yourself) who lacks faith, the prerequisite for divine action for good in this world.
To parsphrase the Gospel: Who among you if his child asks for bread will give him a stone? Or a fish and will instead give him a scorpion?
If you (who are evil) know how to give good things to your children, then how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him?
Those Christians who do not wait upon God with expectant faith can, well, expect nothing from him, because their faithlessness has tied the hands that would feed them with so much that is good and that would provide evidence of his paternal love and largesse.


Anon@2:06: We’ll forever differ, but I think that we humans have invented gods to help us cope with the vagaries of existence and inevitable demise. The ‘useful existence ‘ of God, and especially the ‘all seeing ‘ God of monotheistic faith’s, especially Christianity , has also proven useful to push us towards living in harmony despite our selfish nature. So there are many features of religious beliefs which are useful on both a societal scale and on an individual level. But I don’t think that necessarily makes their tenets true.
On +Pat’s point, I don’t think it’s necessary to believe in God or the ‘mystery of faith ‘ to behave morally. The evolution of cooperative endeavour provides inherent embedded guidance for most of us, while being human there are inevitably abundant extremes of behaviour.
An interesting factor not often considered is the sheer length of humankind’s existence and its many evolutionary branches leading to present day homo sapiens. 🤔


Thank you Magna for your comments above, especially that at 10:41. You earlier rightly raised the concept of “faith.” That’s something I readily accept I do not have but acknowledge it as a significant factor for many.
In looking for “explanations” for our existence and evolution into (fairly!) intelligent beings with self consciousness, I think the tendency towards only accepting as valid, explanations we can “understand,” (by that I mean validate) predominates. I think this overlooks the limitations of our feeble intelligence; the possibility that there is no rational, logical or guided functional “direction” to our existence, and furthermore ignores three significant factors well beyond human experience or understanding: infinity of space, of time, and infinite probability.
The “Infinite Monkey Theorem” is an interesting concept in this respect. I’m sure you’re well aware of it, but just mention it here that others more familiar with finite concepts check it out and consider its relevance to some of the big questions of our existence.


7.15: Are you referring to Maggie and Patsy, the conjoined twins? Girlie types the pair of them, joined at the backend!!


Paul Prior is in hiding with the Jesuits. Prior has multiple abuse allegations against him. Justice for the survivors.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s