Any up to date news on JP?

Below two other pics of Portmouth’s bishop’s private secretary.




Can anyone tell us who is this young man who portrait hangs on Egan’s chapel wall?





Rather strange painting for a Chapel that what but. Private chapel Is that a bit like holy YouTube link. Sounds a bit do ray me me me hi strange…..


Pat, it’s Pier Giorgio Frassati an Italian who I believe is beatified. Pope John Paul II called him the man of the beatitudes


Hi the picture on the Bishop’s wall is
bl pier giorgio frassati

He us patron to the youth of Portsmouth Diocese.


Thanks 107 hi. Perhaps I need to not jump to stereotype folk without proper information. Keep the head down and thauld ears hup. Stay safe all


It gets better every day! I have followed Bishop Robert Barron for years as he is a greatly talented communicator, able to speak on a wide range of topics. I would certainly not wish to disrespect him, but honestly that jock who serves his private chapel is SO outrageously fit and handsome that jealous tongues will undoubtably wag. I would recommend we do some research on Bishops’ secretaries and special helpers and see what we come up with. Should be VERY revealing. Phyllis Egan has set the ball rolling with his Pip – about whom I suspect we are going to hear more – and then of course there is the daddy of them all in the person of the Pope Emeritus and his Georgio. Hold onto your hats: should be fun!


You may have put two and two together here and got five , + Pat. I think it is Blessed PG Frassati. Bishop Egan evidently has a devotion to lithe and handsome youth. More seriously, however, I really do call in to question his judgement, particularly in the case of JP Lyttle, what with all the flags being raised over a number of years. And then to ordain him. Well, the chickens will come home to roost now. I do wonder what advice he was getting from the formation staff at the various places JP spent time ? Not that I have a high regard for them for the most part, working as they do following a discredited and not fit for purpose formation policy and programme, but the regular moves of JP throughout his formation do suggest that he was being moved on at regular intervals. Was + Egan protecting him as this happened, and failing to listen to what he was being told about JP’s suitability ? You do wonder. It would be worth someone doing an audit of how seminarians do, perform, act, once they are in ministry, say within the first 5 years. I bet it would show a shocking rate of erosion, loss, questionable incidents, involvement in inappropriate behaviour, imprisonment, leaving, etc. I have worked in my professional life for a number of organisations, and there is not one that I can think of that would have such a questionable formation / training programme staffed by people who really didn’t have a rigorous background in training, and which produced such a questionable and fragile final product. There would be serious questions asked, a root and branch review, and prompt action. I don’t think there are many of us who believe that our seminaries are fit for purpose.


I was not looking for 5. I never heard of this young Blessed Frassati. But the whole affair raises questions about how JP was passed for ordination. A few years previously Bishop Hollis and the diocesan consultors removed him from Oscott.


I agree with Pat. What is one supposed to think? Egan might have chosen to have a portrait say of Dorothy Day in his chapel, but he didn’t. He might have chosen a sensible lady to be his secretary – why should a bishop’s secretary be a priest? – but he went for Pip. He might have followed the recommendation of his wise and immensely experienced predecessor, but he went ahead and ordained John Paul anyway despite all the warning signs. The common thread here is that they are all young, male and good looking. Has Egan introduced Pip to Sadie? Way to go, Phyllis!




His promotion to ‘sainthood’ was suspended by Pope Pius XI over certain, unfavourable allegations against him. We (‘most of us’, that is) don’t know what they were, but they might have been of a, er, sexual nature.😕

Apparently, the allegations were not proven, and his promtion was resumed.

The Romanists do not like their ‘saints’ to have ‘pasts’.


We have Elsie and the Nun at Westminster , and now Phyllis and and his Priest Secretary at Portsmouth – You could not make it up !


Bishop Egan hopes to go to Westminster next year or second best Cardiff or last resort Liverpool.

He thinks he is too Good in Portsmouth..

Is bishop Philip Tighe going to Dublin in the Autumn as new Archbishop.


This is a serious suggestion – perhaps a calendar of hot priests to raise money for charity lol.
If none will volunteer we can get Magna Carta to be Mr December 🤗


Ooooh, I know! I had to have a couple of lunchtime gins just to get over him. Fortunately there is even less to do in the parish at the moment, so I thought an afternoon re-run of Dawson’s Creek before ringing the girls ex Allen Hall over a few more. Then I have to plan my next Day with Mary and give the poor sods what they want. I just hope they cough up for all I do for them. Holidays don’t come cheap.


Oh, my giddy aunt – the Knox Room at Farnborough Abbey! What could be gayer and who on earth gets to stay there as it makes no pretence of it not being a double room, yet within the monastic enclosure? Clearly then “No Women in the Rooms!” as Julian and Sandy insisted when they were running Bona Guest House. I haven’t laughed so much in ages since the postings from yesterday and today. I daresay Phyllis is not pleased at having been outed. As for Bishop Barron, he always liked the jocks since when he was Rector of the Chicago Seminary – all those gym bunnies and footballers!


Perhaps someone will be able to say if Farnborough Abbey still runs its summer school for young men who want to learn English lol


I watched the rest of Priest School on the BBC iPlayer, Bp Pat. The guys were all amiable. At one point, the spectre of KOB appears fleetingly in archive footage of the seminary, but it didn’t spoil the programme which I found quite interesting.


Can anyone tell us why Bishop Egan rings chimes before entering his chapel and during Mass.
Why chimes???


We should not ignore the references provided at the start of today’s blog to the Salesians, who have one of the worst records of abuse in the Catholic world. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is in the presentation of “exemplars”, that is “heroic” examples of sanctity and superhuman efforts on behalf of – or so it is claimed – the poor and marginalized. Inevitably, however, this is a cover story for abuse. Get real, folks!

Liked by 1 person

I see Parishes are struggling financially and taking to their Diocesan websites to get donations. Ferns been the latest.



I’ve just watched the second half of that obsequious Scottish panegyric on male Scottish persons in training😅 to become professionally indolent spongers. And guess what? The spongers-to-be have a gaggle of Franciscan nuns in seminary to fuss over them: to cook and to clean for them, and to wash their shit-semen-stained underwear. Well, are you surprised? How does this prepare adult male Scottish persons for the real world. It doesn’t, of course: it prepares them for complete dependency on others; in short, ‘to become everyone else’s damnable nuisance’.

I particularly liked the bit where the camp guy in round black specs spoke of bishops’ (as the Apostles’ so-called ‘successors’) being the channel through which God’s will is made known. Holy Christ! I’m not inventing this. This mincer would have got along with Cahal Daly, who believed, no tongue in cheek, that when the bishop spoke, God spoke.

Did you see the part where the ex-DJ stood, holding hands no less, with Monsignor Charlie ‘Christmas Pudding’ Burns? Literally holding hands with him in the old premises for training male Scottish persons for Romanist priesthood.

But, like the wine-fest at Cana, the best was served last. The guy who was finally ordained for Motherwell Diocese confessed his uneasiness after promising obedience, not to Christ, but to another Christmas pudding, this one in a silly hat: And so he ought to have felt. He said he believed he had lost control. And that’s because the fool did lose control: in that evil moment, he surrendered his conscience to an institution that is now mired in ever-emerging evil: the moment Satan entered his soul.

I did say that seminary training prepares these men for dependency on others, and this is part of the price for it: personal control, through active conscience, must be surrendered to an instuition that historically has been obsessed with, and utterly and cruelly ruthless in seeking, control of others.

This programme (in reality, favourable propaganda for the unthinking) confirms just about everything I have been commenting on the insidious nature of Romanist priesthood.

If anything spiritually good emerges from lockdown, it will be the blanket realisation (and it will be as startling as shaming) that people do not need Romanist priests to relate to Christ. And it will bring with it the secondary knowledge (and this is where it will shame) that they were, willingly, used by these spongers, made to feel that their was no access to Christ, and to redemption, except through THEIR persons, and THEIR sacraments.

And then people can comfortably, joyously, tell these ticks where to go. And I’d bet that it won’t be to Heaven. 👹

(Ack! Am just bein’ honest, like. Like the ordained guy about his uneasy feelings.😆)


He said he felt like he had given over “a little bit” of control, only a little bit. Not the full monty KOB would have expected of him. He also admitted at the start his parents remained silent when he told them about his decision to become a priest. I think the other will all be fine whether they survive the seven-years course, or not.


That really isn’t good enough if he’s only giving a bit, and his commitment should be questioned.
Vox Episcopi vox Dei




Do you really believe that handing over to a Romanist episcopal parasite a little bit of control improves that man’s moral and spiritual position vis a vis Christ? Do you really believe that Christ is content with only part of a person?

Jesus was absolutely clear: two masters cannot be served. There is no such thing as divided loyalty with Christ. He is, as it were, greedy for our hearts, and he expects us to give over to him EVERYthing of ourselves.

Romanist bishops historically have done appalling things: things which would make even Satan blush. And the priests who obeyed them (for example, those who helped conceal the sexual abuse of children by Romanist priests) share their guilt.

That man was right to feel uneasy about what he had just done: it was a warning from his dying conscience.


Now now, Magsy Wagsy, you know very well that mummy has to don PPE when she approaches your laundry basket!


The lads are responsible for cleaning their own rooms and doing their own laundry.
And we Scots lads are fastidious about our personal hygiene. You never know when you’ll get run over as our mums always told us. Our kegs are pristine.




These spongers-to-be do their own laundry and clean their own rooms? Not according to that cod documentary. At 29.03, the narrator states that the gaggle of Franciscan drudges for these layabouts cook, do the laundry, and clean the college. 😕


Priests and bishops have used these woman for centuries. They are slaves.


Here MagnaTroll, remember the time shortly before you were turfed out on your horrid ass – and there was that lad from Kinnegaad you obviously had the hots for big time – and you thought he had gone in to Dublin on the 66 but he hadn’t – and he walked into his room to find you going through his laundry bag – and nose deep in a pair of his scuzzy jocks? God that was embarrassing eh? Skidmark Snuffleupagus was your nickname after that.


Could we have a complete list of Portsmouth suspect priests?

I had a friend who quit seminary and told me of the disgusting 3 knocks on the door policy.

Apparently Bishop Hopes once asked him to rub cream on his aching feet. What on earth?


Upon reflection of the love of Christ Our Lord, and the different ways in which scripture presents His love to us, there are many ways that His love is apparent.
We know the depth of a person’s love for us by what it costs them: if he or she sacrifices their life for us, it assures us of deeper love than if they only sacrifice a few scratches or bruises. So, Christ’s love is apparent by the depth of the greatness of what it cost Him. The same goes for you and I; we do not need to ‘prove’ our love, but we do need to express it in our daily lives. And at times and need…
We also know the depth of someone’s love for us by the greatness of the benefits we receive in being loved. If we are helped to get through a difficult situation, we will feel loved in one way.
If we are helped to make the right decisions in life, we will feel loved another way. If we are helped to escape from an oppressive regime and given freedom from danger, then we will feel loved another way. And if we are rescued from eternal torment and given a place in the presence of God with fullness of joy and happiness, we will know a depth of love that surpasses all human understanding.
—— ‘’Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as he is.
And every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
— 1 John 3:1–3


There is a very serious issue underlying the, erm, light-hearted comments today.
Out here in the real world, if an executive only appointed to roles close to him, big-breasted blonde women with short skirts, this behaviour would not be favourably seen in today’s business world.
We keep hearing of the all-male environment these clergy live in where women only have roles as mother, washing woman or virgin. And yet the simple fact of good looking men ‘happening’ to surround a bishop is apparently matter for comment.
I would reasonably expect a mature man to be able to relate to women in different contexts, to have some awareness of his proclivities and effect on other people and if he has undertaken celibacy to take steps to promote his own celibacy.
I would expect a variety of people to surround him because that is what the world is like.
The simple fact of ordaining a good looking man does not suggest a sexual overtone, but always being surrounded by only one gender or people who look similar may suggest a ‘type’.
A candidate for ministry who is good looking should have an awareness that he may attract more difficult situations ranging from crushes to ballistic 😀


One Direction – I wonder when they will release their next album?
Please One Director! Get back together ☺️


Well. well, well. I have to confess I am totally sold on Bishop Robert Barron’s little helper, Joseph Gloor. Is this man really too good to be true? I hope not. Call me a sucker, but I’m a believer! You can forget Gorgeous and all the others: this one is the real deal!


OMG! +Pat, he is gorgeous 🥰 lol.
But seriously, the way he talks about his faith in Christ and how he lives his life as a witness has just melted my heart.
I just want to pick him up and put him on my mantlepiece ( but he may be a bit too heavy, but I’d still try ☺️)
Jesus, I trust in you! 🥰


I feel utterly ashamed and disgusted with myself, but I cannot help wondering whether Bishop Barron’s friend, Joey Gloor, has a girlfriend. He goes around with a cute little white dog, which somehow makes him look a little camp notwithstanding his porn star good looks. God forgive me, but I’m barely hanging onto my biretta at the moment. Pier Giorgio Frassati take these thoughts away from me!


4:32pm this “Magna Carta” –

What an absolutely loathsome individual it is, whoever is behind these “Magna Carta“ posts.

Deranged and demonic jealousy screams from its every splurge of hatred.

“Semen and shit-stained underwear” is it?? It’s your own disgusting habits you are describing!

God bless the Dean of Maynooth for discovering this idiot’s dysfunction and slinging this specimen out on its ear.

Once again it’s off on its nonsense about “divided loyalties”. There are no divided loyalties when the priests vow obedience to their bishops.

Christ, who indeed desires all of our hearts, has clearly said about His apostles, “whoever hears you hears me and whoever rejects you, rejects me and the One who sent me (Luke 10:16).

He said, “as the Father sent me so am I sending you”. There is no contradiction whatsoever between obeying a bishop and being faithful to God. This is an invented and false “divided loyalty“. concocted by this lying troll calling itself “Magna Carta” – an individual beside itself with envious rage.

And we can be very sure, that the “mooching and indolence” etc., it maliciously alleges about priests, is exactly the lifestyle in which this despicable creature wallows and vegetates, year in and year out.

Also, this troll’s attempts at sermonising (Christ is “greedy” for all of our hearts) are vomit-inducing.

It would answer this troll better were it to examine its own black heart before Christ.


7:32. pm

So when bishops cover up abuse is it covered up in the name of Christ?
Or for the sake of Christ? Would Christ approve of covering up of abuse perpetrated by priests?


I think Bp Pat should do a one-day blog on “Magna Carta” during the lockdown. I am sure he had some connection with the late Lomansey? Unrequited love, perhaps, or a full-blown homosexual affair. He may have also been painted in oils. I wonder.



I’ll give you the acknowledgement you deserve, because I have rarely read a post so nonsensical.

That scriptural passage in Luke has, for generations, been misunderstood, and deliberately misused, by dilettantes like you. If you examine its wider context, it clearly refers not to the Apostles, but to ‘seventy others’, whom Jesus sent out in his name to preach.(Luke 10: 1) So if we were to take your risible, eisegetical reading at face value, Jesus gave the authority you boast NOT to the Apostles, but to others.

How’s your foot? It must be painful after shooting yourself in it. 😀


Nothing wrong with my foot, troll.

Even more explicitly, Christ said to Peter and then to the apostles “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven”. You see where this is going troll?

Christ sees no “rivalry” whatsoever between Himself and those He has entrusted with the continuation of His mission.

Your oft repeated, ad nauseam, ‘pet theory‘, therefore, of alleged “divided loyalties”, is a fabrication devised from your own malice, a lying fantasy arising out of your own jealous spite.




It is not just your foot that needs attention: it is your fifth-grade understanding of Sacred Scripture.

You were wrong earlier, about apostolic authority; and you are now trying to conceal your embarrassment, and your intellectual ignorance, by raising a strawman argument.

Jesus did not gave authority exclusively to The Twelve, and in particular to Simon Peter: he gave it to ALL he sends out to preach in his name. This is obvious from Chapter 10 in Luke.

Moreover, when Jesus addressed Simon Peter directly on the subject of assembly-building, he was expressly clear: Simon Peter was to be the foundation, historically, but Jesus alone would be the builder. And he builds through the entire assembly of believers, not just through an elite few.

Making such a blunder as you did at 7.32 pm yesterday is, as Holmes would say, ‘elementary’, and it should have been obvious to you at the outset the gaping hole you were digging for yourself. But you were blinded by anger with me and by your desire for vengeance that you, as we say here, ‘lost the run of yourself’. We have another expression for it: ’emotional immaturity’.

I’m too polite to tell you to ‘grow up’.😕


Oh dear, oh dear “Magna”, what a weak and limp-wristed answer.

The bishops are the successors of the apostles and the “seventy two others” are their collaborators in mission – the priests.

To all of these Christ, according to the Gospel and the tradition, did communicate his own authority so they cannot be seen as rivals to Christ but an extension of his ministry. He gives them his own mandate as he had received it from his father. No “rivalry” or “divided loyalties”.

Promising obedience to a Bishop is perfectly legitimate and in no way detracts from loyalty to God.

When a husband and wife make vows to one another do they put God in second place? Far from it. The same when a priest promises respect and obedience to his Bishop.

Yes of course the Bishop is “only a man” but God has chosen to create human beings and to work with and through human beings. In fact he loves human beings.

It is a perverted theology that denigrates human beings and I suspect you are infected with it. Your loathing of priests and bishops, it would seem, arises from some subjective experience in your past – rejection? Disillusionment?

It’s very sad but all of reality for everyone else cannot be viewed through the damaged prism of your bitterness.

Some human beings do terrible things and some human beings do beautiful things. Many plod along and are not extraordinary in one way or the other.

We cannot focus solely on one or the other. Balance is necessary and balance is something you entirely lack in your expressed views. You come across, in fact, as quite off your trolly.




Your capacity for scriptural eisegesis knows no bounds, does it? Not even when you become desperate, and silly with it, to defend the hierarchical authority of the institutional Romanist Church?

If you knew even a little about early church history, you would know that the ecclesial structures in existence now, along with their warped ecclesiological apologetics, simply did not exist; they were later corruptions of Christ’s teaching. There wasn’t even a priesthood in the early church, just a community of believers (of equals), who broke bread in one another’s homes in obedience to Christ’s instruction. The bread and the wine became the body and the blood respectively, and regardless. No ordained Romanist priesthood was necessary, just obedience to Jesus.

Those seventy others received exactly the same charisms as the Apostles. Had you bothered to read Luke 10 more carefully than your vacuous comment at 7.32pm yesterday shows, you might have discovered this fact for yourself. But with you, who can tell?

If I loathe Romanist priesthood, it is because it is not of Christ: it is not the model of discipleship, servanthood, sought by Jesus and, indeed, commanded by him. This disobediebce to him has brought terrible consequences for the entire Church historically, but never more so than today. Disobedince to Jesus opens a door for evil; I think we both can agree that the Romanist priesthood has not been wanting in that respect.

Someone like you, however, couldn’t give a damn. In fact, you defend the very the status quo that has allowed these dark shadows to prevail in the Church.

Oh! Try to improve your fifth-grade understanding of Sacred Scripture, because your fascile ignorance of it is, frankly, beyond embarrassing.😕


After throwing John Paul Lyttle to the wolves yesterday, Buckley, you’re asking any word on him?

He’s in a parish saying Mass – not in hiding or removed from ministry – and he will receive a new appointment when recovered from his ordeal in Reading, at the hands of a nutcase who took a set on him.


I am glad to hear it was all a misunderstanding. As you seem to be in possession of the facts, whom then are you blaming for the scandal? The parish priest or the alleged victim of unwanted attention.


“Magna Carta”, your bullying, snarling and sneering are wasted on me and I am not getting into a dispute with a faceless troll on a blog site.

You are twisting the plain sense of Scripture and attempting to rewrite the Tradition as it has come to us from the apostles. There is no NO “disloyalty” to Christ – no conflict of interest whatsoever – in the vows of obedience priests take to bishops.

This is a perverse attempt on your part to put a deliberately false spin and a mischievous and wilful misinterpretation of what the vow means.

It stems from your own malice, dysfunction and bad mindedness. God help you.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s