Categories
Uncategorized

HOW THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH.

NOTE: I DO NOT AGREE WITH MOST OF THE THINGS ROBERT ROYAL SAYS.

BUT IN THE PIECE BELOW HE HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

Robert Royal

Robert Royal – The Catholic Thing.

“For the past half-century or so our clerical leaders have on the whole done a remarkably ineffective job at keeping Catholics, especially young Catholics, in the fold. 

Our people are drifting away from the religion, and drifting not toward a rival version of Christianity, but in the direction of a complete rejection of Christianity, and even a rejection of God; and our leaders seem to have no clue as to how to stop the drift.

When I speak of a “drift toward atheism” I have a number of forms of atheism in mind:  (1) Outright and explicit atheism;  (2) Agnosticism, “shy atheism” or “an atheism that dare not speak its name”;  (3) A thoroughgoing religious indifferentism;  (4) Moral atheism, that is, guiding one’s life without reference to God;  (5) Nominal (or liberal) Christianity, which may be called “incipient atheism” – for I agree with Cardinal Newman that liberal religion leads logically in the direction of atheism.

Why have our leaders been so ineffective?  Allow me to offer a few very tentative suggestions.

1. The smallness of their numbers. Following Vatican II tremendous numbers of priests and religious sisters and brothers ran away from what had seemed to be their vocations, and they have never been adequately replaced.

2. The modesty of their leadership talents. The pre-Vatican Church abounded in talented leaders.  My impression is that our leaders today are on average far less gifted with leadership talents than their pre-Vatican II predecessors.

3. In recent decades, our leaders have lacked the confidence that all effective leaders need; and, of course, “leaders” who doubt their ability to lead will, for that very reason, not be able to lead.

4. My guess is that they lack confidence because many of them do not whole-heartedly believe in the faith; they have their doubts.

5.The child-molestation scandal. This damaged the moral credibility, especially with regard to sexual morality, not just of those guilty of these crimes but of all priests and bishops.  You may say, “This isn’t fair – to blame everyone for the sins of a small minority.”  And you’re right.  But it doesn’t matter.  The general public, including much of the Catholic public, regards these sins as collective guilt.

6.p The question of homosexuality. Homosexuality has poisonously permeated the priesthood during the past half-century, and it has done this in three ways:  (a) Some priests have been active homosexuals;  (b) Many others have had a homosexual orientation, even though they have abstained from homosexual practice;  (c) Still others, while neither practicing homosexuals nor inclined in that direction, are “soft” in their disapproval.  They don’t share the Church’s traditional abhorrence at the offense.

7. Fear of disapproval. Priests and bishops know that if they emphatically reaffirm certain age-old Catholic teachings – especially those regarding sexual conduct, but not these only – they will meet the strong disapproval not just of the world at large but of many of their own people, the Catholic people of their diocese or parish.  And so they decide that discretion is the better part of valor.

8. And there is a great danger that especially confronts bishops. Once you become a bishop, you are courteously welcomed into the local elite.  You are now regarded, at least in a formal way, as the peer of local bankers, businesspersons, college presidents, mayors, governors, newspaper editors and publishers, etc.

Though these people are too polite to mention it to your face, most of them regard any authentic version of your religion as out-of-date. 

Catholicism may have been a splendid thing in the Middle Ages, in the days of Aquinas and Dante and Giotto; and even today it is a tolerable thing provided those who profess it don’t take it too seriously. 

And so if you’re a Catholic bishop and you make it clear to everyone, both your own people and the non-Catholic world at large, that you whole-heartedly believe in Catholicism and you wish it to be a strong force in shaping American culture, you will lose face among your elite peers. 

You may even become a laughing-stock.  But as I said, these are polite people; they won’t laugh in your face; they’ll do it only behind your back.

There was a time in Church history when bishops were willing to be thrown to the lions.  I’m sure that many of today’s bishops, if given the choice, would be willing to die for the faith, willing to receive the crown of martyrdom.   However, martyrdom isn’t currently being offered.  Until it is (maybe a few decades from now), many bishops would prefer to avoid the “mini-martyrdom” of being laughed at.
It’s too pleasant a status to be a member in good standing of the local elite”.
 

PAT SAYS

Royal is right. The Church is being destroyed by:

1. Incompetent, not very bright, leaders.

2. Leaders who have little true faith and no prayer life.

3. The child sexual abuse scandal.

4. Sexually active gay bishops and priests.

5. Bishops and priests who are atheistic and oe agnostic.

6. Bishops and priests who are thieves.

HE’S MY DADDY NOT YOURS!

92 replies on “HOW THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH.”

Be careful. If you are losing weight effortlessly, it may indicate an underlying medical cause.

You should consider a visit to your GP.

Like

It’s those aubergine in cheese & tomato specials (of which the ones I get delivered are probably a pretty good imitation)

Like

You keep gravitating to theologically right-wing, Trump-trumpeting, American nutjobs, Pat; and, as usual, you come up with half-baked solutions (THEIR solutions) to regenerate Roman Catholicism.
Royal listed every thing he considered missing today fom Catholic clerical so-called ‘leaders’, and, predictably for a right-wing, Trump-trumpeting, American nutjob, he omitted the most dynamically vital. Paul speaks of it in 1 Cor : 13: LOVE (aka the Holy Spirit).
To possess all the characteristics listed by Royal necessary for effective so-called ‘leadership’ in the Church (and this would surprise men like Royal), one must first be open to the Spirit; but the entire cabal of Catholic ‘leaders’, the bishops, are open to only one thing: Canon Law; they even promise to uphold it upon episcopal consecration.
Right-wing, Trump-trumpeting, American nutjobs, like Royal (he’s from the same ecclesiological stable as that other right-wing, Trump-trumpeting, American nutjob, Michael Voris…the thug in a rug), see canonical, theological, and moral inflexibility as the collective whip that will keep Catholics in line, and in the Church. The fool doesn’t realise that it was in this context pre-Vatican II that the Church degenerated to the extent it has done, and will continue to do.
I can’t help thinking, Pat, that at heart you’re an old-fashioned Romanist, and secretly (well, not so secretly, given your occasional Freudian slips) hanker after the kind of priesthood you once aspired to, and achieved.

Like

9:10 am
Are you talking about Jesus when He wiped the floor with the moneychangers in the forecourt of the temple and turned their tables?
When He shamed them and put them onto the straight and the narrow, so to speak?
… I would have loved to have been there, you know; I would have rolled up my sleeves and given Him a hand.
I still can, still do; and will will continue to do so. Just try and stop me x

Like

Very unpleasant final paragraph about you, Pat, at 10:47. I don’t know why you put up with it, unless you are making allowances for it having been written when he had drink on board.

Like

I have been a priest for 44 years and am very happy doing what I do.
Being free of the institution has been a wonderful liberation.
I believe and I pray. I try and help all I can.
This blog is only part of the picture.

Like

Bishop Pat, your blog is a light which shines in the darkness; a lighthouse for all lost at sees.
You are my kind of Catholic Bishop.
You are my mum’s kind of Bishop.
You are a Bishop with a great love and joy for the Lord, and a pastor who tends the flock He has entrusted unto you with love and care.
You underestimate yourself, Your Grace.
Your faithful servant in Christ Jesus,
Peter

Like

10:47pm
Here you go again saying Patsy hankers after the true Priesthood which he achieved,and to me unfortunately rejected. You seem to forget that you also hankered and aspired the same but thank God you did not achieve it and were rejected. You are always going on about Right-wing nutjobs but never mention the Left-wing nutjobs who alone are responsible for the dreadful state we are in now.

Like

pat, if you’re ever in england let the blog know. god above we know the church is finished because of priests. i have been priest all my adult life. i have loved it. only got to know internet recently. so i can’t type much, but i still see you as my brother priest pat. i don’t sleep well. I’m up late. god bless all.

Like

OMG! Bishop Pat, your little dog is absolutely adorable 🐶🐾
Yes, I’m not a big fan of Royal either, but I do like a few of his books; I thoroughly enjoyed reading his ‘Dante Alighieri – subtitled: Divine Comedy, Divine Spirituality.’
It’s on a shelf in my mum’s if anybody wants it? Just let Bishop Pat know and I will post it.
Why called a comedy? Well of course, in classical literature there were only two genres: Tragedy and Comedy; with comedy almost always starting of sad and ending happy, or; starting bad and ending well…
Sock ☹️ and Buskin 😊 are the names of the sad and happy masks you see on the front of old theatres- which are mostly now bingo halls, these days… which is also ironic in itself.
Anyway, I thought Royal gave good commentary-like guidance here through Dante’s cantos and an expanded insight into the cultural and biographical aspects of Dante and his love of spirituality.
If I am to be honest I am not the biggest fan of ‘hings’ hell and purgatory but Jesus does make it clear satan and hell are real: so like it or lump it.
It was was an exciting read for me, but that’s just typical for me lol, and if you are not really into theology or are not that familiar with Catholic eschatology or the whole purgatory thing then this book is a general ‘Cristianised’ substitute: and most certainly a supplement to Dante’s Inferno.
It is a must for those of other Christian denominations as it allows for a richer and fuller understanding of the facts including the realities oh heaven and hell: and the consequences of sin including the abuse of authority.

Like

There can be good and bad kinds of agnosticism but the wrong kind, in a pastor, is not constructive. As for 6b and 6c, what motive we should impute often gets shown up in the conduct of the prelate concerned,
How many institutions of formation ask the public to pray for the quality of formation? How many bishops ask us to pray for the quality of formation of their successor, their COOs, their “safeguarding apparatchiks” . . .
As for Head Office Becciu would have been sheltered for longer if he hadn’t disagreed on something else important. What is being showcased may or may not be true (there is no-one’s word for it), but in addition sometimes overfocussing can be a subtle form of distraction.

Like

+Pat: The emphasis here is on what clerics have done, or failed to do.
This however has the underlying assumption that the clerical raison d’etre, in other words, their whole mission and purpose, is unequivocally based on there being absolute truth in the ridiculous religious propositions they profess, promote and propagate.
I believe that this completely ignores what the “laity” have been doing. By that, I am referring to the increasingly developing awareness of the irrelevance of religion per se. There is an increasing realisation that it’s all a sham! And that is the reality increasingly recognised, and quite apart from, but in addition, to the behaviour and duplicity of religion’s clerical advocates.
Put bluntly: increased understanding of our world, particularly in its more “developed” areas, has made many aware that the religious bullshit we were fed as children is a total mythical farrago entirely based on supposed “holy books ” allegedly effectively written by the great God Himself. You have to ask yourself just how “great” this alleged God is when he, or she, determines this to be the most effective means of communicating important truths for our behaviour and relationship with him.
Fact is that the vast majority of present secondary school pupils will have more scientific knowledge and awareness of our world than the “flat earth” writers of those supposed “holy books.” In reality, they are but successively multi transcribed versions of believers accounts of alleged events which current biblical scholars endlessly dispute over.
Reality is that the laity have moved on, and left the clerical caste floundering in a morass of their own making.
MMM

Like

1.14am: MMM – The time of your bullshitting explains, yet again, your predilection for repeat narratives. Drink perhaps has a part in this. You have printed this same comment ad nauseam. We could allmost write your opinions at this stage. While I appreciate the challenges you have put to religious minded people, of recent times you are gleefully obnoxious, insulting and very, very intolerant. You agreed before that tolerance and respect are essential in civilised debate. You seem to have abandoned both virtues. Sadly.

Like

I think he’s cucooning because he is really old, and not everybody responds well to the isolation. People are also more bad-tempered on Twitter and Facebook, I’ve noticed, so lockdown might partly explain the rages, repetition and ultimate pointlessness of his overlong posts. It’s not as if someone is going to turn around and say “Thanks for pointing out I’m as thick as champ and indoctrinated as a child and unable to think for myself. I’ll stop believing now because of you.”

Like

@9:14: Indeed I HAVE abandoned deferential tolerance and respect for religion.
Why should I respect such a hocus pocus shilleboth propogated by an elitest abusive hierarchical organisation unable to rationally and reasonably justify its core beliefs and existence? It doesn’t deserve or command any deference, and it’s defenders should be prepared to martial good argument supporting its underlying substantiality, rather than engage in attempted diversionary ad hominem attacks.
For example in respect of yourself: what justifies you inferring from the time of my posting that I may have been intoxicated? Was my spelling, grammar or articulation sufficiently confused to warrant this assumption? I think not. In reality it is, on your part, another insipid attempt to deflect rather than make a contrary argument.
And to both you and A@ 9:28: Perhaps I DO have to repeat my beliefs over and over again. I’m aware there are some “slow learners” who struggle with some of the issues and arguments on this blog.
MMM

Like

11.50: Repeat your beliefs, MMM – but not your incitement to hatred. Thank you.. Early morning drink fuelled imaginations are often vulgar and offensive. Seems you have chosen your rough edged, nasty, vulgar side…

Like

Dearie me! A mild touch of the “snowflake ” syndrome causes Anon@ 1.38 to conflate criticism with hatred. It were ever so that criticism of their religion seems to evoke such misguided thinking and interpretation in followers of religious beliefs. It’s almost as if it adversely distorts their ability for ordinary reasoning.
Now surely that can’t be true, ……….or …..?
MMM

Like

Thanks Anon@9:16am, but a wee bit early for me!
May I just comment here, that despite me referring Anon @9:14 to articulation and SPELLING, neither he or the other grammar/spelling police have criticised the deliberate misspelling in my comment @ 11:50. Perhaps they are solely interested in martial like interaction than marshalling any contrary argument to points I have made.
Interesting.
MMM

Like

Rahner, Teilhard, and their copycats like JP II, reinforced lay passivity. Clergy compulsory celibacy hasn’t been addressed like it needed, but even bigger is buying into colloquial confusion about what is “gay” when no sexual obsession is apparent. There are those who dote on those of certain “mannerisms” and those who loathe them. Perhaps seminary authorities and VDs are pretending that the obsessed (in any direction) aren’t obsessed, and this needs bringing out more frankly. Voris’ biggest mistake to my mind is to still think there is such a thing as “Holy Communion”.

MMM, rather a lot of religion isn’t written by flat-earthers, it is just written how it is written. Only the segregationist Falwell says you have got to take it “literally literally”: are you a Falwellist? It was bad authorities that abused us and it is bad authorities that we must shrug off us. You in Northern Ireland had bad religion (described in “Faith and Fatherland”) which had bypassed my then corner of the south east for a while. My family never believed in cookie-cutter either before or after Council, and neither did quite a lot of our neighbours at one time.

I greatly honour you as a non-believer but if you maintain I have put myself in the wrong that is abuse of your power like the Romanists’. Don’t accuse those of us of attempting to impose any obligation who aren’t. You used to be precisely on the ball almost all the time. What happened to constructively asserting?

Bp Pat doesn’t affiliate to a somewhat power abusing apparatus (which has some exasperated genuine clerics – including a few bishops – hanging in, they don’t know how). His public want trappings which he is entitled to reproduce. The danger to sneerers and finaglers is that God honours sincerity in ordinary people more than those do.

St Paul says “we believe in part”. I do Saint J H Newman’s “degrees of inference” on my diligently dug up background knowledge. Anthropology, logic, oceanography, astronomy belong to everybody and atheists don’t have a right to trash them for the general public (or themselves). I never state any religion when corresponding. My actual belief doesn’t look remotely like anyone’s. Everybody ought to do as per taste, and well, and respectfully.

Like

As Royal has said, ” … they lack confidence because many of them do not whole-heartedly believe in the faith; they have their doubts … “.
And that’s the nub of it, Behind the scenes, organising the running of Vatican II, were Karl Rahner and his gang of agnostics; and like maggots they were eating their way, unseeen, through the entire body of the Church.

Like

That’s the nub of it? Doubt?

Doubt is the obverse, and indispensable, side of a coin: faith is the other.

A believer who has never experienced doubt, and felt accepting of it, is someone whose faith has remained immature.

Like

11.37

No, sin is not the opposite of faith: one might have deep faith, but still morally lapse.

How often do you sin in a day? Does this cause you to doubt the existence of God, and his mercy? Or does it make you turn to him in hope?

If anything, sin can, paradoxically, actually spur faith.

Nor is doubt always a facet of faith. It can test it from time to time, but it is not necessary for its existence.

When the coin of faith/doubt is tossed by life’s circumstances, there is 50-50 chance that it will settle on one side or the other; it cannot settle on both similtaneously.

Like

The number of Catholic priests in the world has been circa and hovering between 419,000 and 414,000 since the 1979’s the decrease is nominal it’s the population increase which highlights the priest shortage and ratio of priest to people.
The seminary system unchanged since the Reformation doesn’t and can’t train leaders in this or any previous or future era.
Celibacy is the device which upholds the elitism of the clerical state and masks homosexuality, paedophilia and abuse of power (financial).
Baptism not the priesthood is the essence of Christian faith and whilst it takes a brave man or woman to say so when among clerics, it’s the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the giver of life, who renews the church – by opening the windows or with a wreaking ball?
We tried opening the windows it’s time for the wreaking ball.

Like

What’s a wreaking ball? You typed it twice so it can’t be a typo.

Have you tried Anglicanism? You’d love it.

Like

@9:32: You don’t appear to know the verb “wreak”. As used by Anon@ 9:19, it’s entirely appropriate. The verb means to cause great harm or damage!
MMM

Like

11.20, this is good. You love language, why don’t you love other secular things also? My parents (who weren’t “instructed”) and I composed our religion out of what was offered by secular individuals. The Romans (who didn’t have schools down our way) even “confirmed” me when I was 9. Secular learning and free inference never did have to back abusive hierarchy nor hocus pocus. My family never thought we were obliged to think so.

Like

It is one thing poking fun at and satirizing bishops and priests, for example, with camp names, but quite another blaming “poisonous” homosexuality for the demise of the church.
It is the same sort of trope people, including the Nazis, used to blame the Jews for every disaster.

Like

Mmmm ? I don’t think we are talking about deporting and gassing the bishops. Rather, just calling them to account. That’s not a trope. It’s reality and fact.

Like

Every theologically right-wing American Catholic, like Royal and Voris (the apparent ex-queer 😂), blame homosexuality, just the tendency alone, for almost all the moral degeneration in the Catholic Church from the second half of the 20th century onwards. And if they aren’t blaming this, they are blaming Vat II.
It’s a familiar refrain, and it is as persuasive as it is novel. It also spares them the intellectual effort of going beyond pet and bigoted shibboleths.

Like

It is the hierarchy of the Church – popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, Vatican bureaucracy, diocesan bureaucracy – that seem to be what causes the problems in the Church: sexual abuse of children and the vulnerable, financial abuse, abuse of power and privilege, duplicity and dishonesty in their own lives, coverup of which some is criminal. All these things predominantly are failings of the apparatchiks, the clerical hierarchy. They must look to themselves for the failures that have happened and the consequences that have come about because of those failures. I am truly shocked when I hear clergy talk about and bemoan the lack of faith in the laity, in particular in young people. What do they expect following their abysmal leadership and example of the last decades ? As we have developed as people and become more educated, another aspect has emerged. People use their brains and their reason to interrogate the faith, and by and large many come to the conclusion that the Christian narrative, as well as other faith narratives, are just too convenient and too artificially constructed, indicating that they are in all likelihood the construction of humans rather than the divine. And, so they begin to look at things afresh, and to find alternative explanations to the big questions of life. You only have to look at the Christian story which only goes back just over 2000 years and the Old Testament story that may go back another few thousand years, and one does wonder why the whole of the Christian story is predicated upon just an eye blink nanosecond of time in eternity. The biblical and theological construction of the story is so contrived that it is obvious that it has been artificially constructed. And then, the laws of physics which we know exist are so conveniently transgressed. Now, I know that people will say that God can do whatever he wants, when he wants. But, it does seem just a little bit too convenient, doesn’t it ? I think people, liberated from ignorance and clerical oppression, begin to think for themselves and see this. Which is a good thing. I’m sure God thinks that as well ! I t doesn’t mean people are without spirituality or faith. It just means that they are not willing to be constrained by the christian narrative, and are happy to look beyond it. Which is not surprising given how unconvincingly christian leaders seem to take the christian story seriously themselves, particularly in the way they live their lives.

Like

@9:53. Thank you for an excellent commentary putting the Christian narrative into perspective. I think we may agree on many matters, particularly your views on how people have come to more realistic perceptions of their existence in both space and time.
MMM

Like

Anon@12:19. Hooray! Your comment is most welcome: seeing someone on the blog using their brain and being open to questioning elements of handed down stuff is refreshing. That you make informed choice to retain certain beliefs is entirely a right I respect.
It’s the idiots who neither wish to be better informed themselves and deny others that right for whom I have little respect.
MMM

Like

I know, I just fail to see how intelligent thinking people can’t see this. It doesn’t mean that they have to give up on faith, but it astounds me how so many bright and thinking people are able to be taken in or taken in such simplistic, contrived, twee, saccharine nonsense that patently will not stand up to inquiry. I know people say it is about faith, but faith in what, any old shiite that is fed to you ? We have a responsibility to question, to think, to enquire, and to discover. Organised religion with a handed down prescriptive narrative doesn’t want us to do that. Since I started to think this way, I feel liberated, as well as uneasy because doubt and not fully knowing can be uncomfortable. But, it is also exciting discovering new things. Better than being constrained by a clergy dominated blanket of patently made up stuff.

Like

On one specific point, Genesis ch 1 verses 2 onwards were simply an impression of as far back as people could remember and merely “stood in for”, as a kind of visual aid, “beginning of a story” as concept. Meanings and teachings were supposed to be distinct from the text (unless your name is Falwell). A huge amount of 19 th and 20 th century research has confirmed this.

Like

Uncle Ted is a prime example of the damage one man did in the US church. He was known by many to be up to no good for years. Didn’t stop his climb up the clerical ladder. I wonder why the report on him is still withheld. More than likely, it probably contains more scandal.

Like

Is he still alive ? Where is he living ? Although, I can imagine that given his networking plausibility he is still being feted by ‘faithful’ Catholics. I bet he’s not nailed down in some place of prayer and penance, but rather hobnobbing it about the place and rather enjoying his retirement. It is a pity that in the US there is still a statute of limitations and that his egregious criminal and abusive behaviour cannot be prosecuted. Otherwise he would be in jail. Rightly so.

Like

9.32am Ah bless you, a grammatical correction so early in the day – but honestly thank you for taking a wrecking ball to my innocent typo!!
What’s important to me is that it made you feel better and may I say try to resist assuming mine or anybody’s religious affiliation or presume to pass judgement on which denomination to join. Hey especially so on a blog where one is given the dignity and privilege of anonymity. Nah forget it – if it makes you feel better assume and judge away to your hearts content we both know you can’t resist it!!

Like

A@10:04: You let him off too easily! Perhaps you were just humouring him, for indeed some of them need cossetted. I’ve “put him straight” in a direct comment.
MMM

Like

12.18

Obviously his intention was to be novel rather than idiomatic, in order to express his point more effectively and to attract attention. Which clearly he has done.

I have a wet wipe here if…

Like

‘Catholicism may have been a splendid thing in the Middle Ages’ : this is Royal’s utopian historical fantasy. And it is a fantasy. This was the era of internecine religious conflict: the period of the Crusades. And soon followed by the terror and tyranny of Papal Inquisition.

It was a time marked by religious bigotry and persecution, especially of the Jews.

Perhaps this is why God, during the Middle Ages, supposedly spoke to that rich young man from Assisi, Francis, and asked him to go forth and repair his ruined church… because Catholicism was such a splendid thing. 🤔

Like

The single, most-important factor in the decline of Roman Catholicism from around the middle of the 20th century was the expansion of national education, especially the provision of free third-level study. Even dear old Cahal Daly recognised the significance of this for the Church, especially for the hitherto largely unquestioned teaching authority of the bishops.
The sexual abuse criminality in the Church is a catalyst for this decline, but it is not the cause of it.
A better educated, and more theologically aware, generation is not prepared, any longer, to be dictated to from the high podium of theocratic authoritarianism. Like their predecessors in the socially shifting sixties, they, too, have something to say.
Royal would prefer to ‘fix’ the Church, from the top down, by adding the steel of authority to the episcopate, but this has already been tried; and its bones are bleaching in the desert of expanding indifference among lay Catholics.
Until the bishops learn to let go of power in the Church, they will never regain authority, of which both historically they have confused one with the other.

Like

Well said@10:56 in relation to increasing educational progress as a major factor in shaking off dependence on a virtual ecclesiastical monopoly of education and information.
MMM

Like

Nonsense at 10.56
The churches’ contribution to education in Europe is the single most significant foundational element of European culture.
‘Faith seeking understanding’ has been promoted by Christian churches for at least a thousand years.

Like

1.43
I was speaking of secular education, free of the intellectual prejudices and constraints of Roman Catholicism.
I should have thought this obvious.

Like

RCC AND EDUCATION.
Oh yes indeed @ 1:43. You are quite right. The Roman Church has ALWAYS been foremost in promoting learning and understanding. In fact it was way ahead of the times back in 1633 when the Vatican formally tried and sentenced Galileo to imprisonment for heresy. His Sidereus Nuncius explanation for the movement of the earth in relation to the sun was indeed contrary to the superior understanding of those learned clerics of the RCC. And they were entirely correct in imprisoning the poor man until his death in 1642.
Aren’t YOU lucky to have such a fount of knowledge and wisdom to rely on?
And the rest of us? Well we’ll just have to acquiesce to the superiority of your church………….NOT!
MMM

Like

I’m no Franciscan scholar and I appreciate things get lost in translation but wasn’t the word St Francis heard ‘rebuild my church’ not ‘repair my church’ for a rebuild suggests a starting again from scratch -whereas a repair suggests cosmetic and not substantial – you know, ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ mentality – whereas a rebuild suggests the need for, if I may say so, a wrecking ball to the structure whilst leaving the foundation intact.

Like

11.10

I’m the poster at 10.19.

The consensus is ‘repair’ rather than ‘rebuild’.

Francis initially misunderstood the instruction and began repairing, not rebuilding, the ruins of San Damiano (St Damian), the church building in which he reportedly heard God speak from a crucifix.

Like

11.23 I’m new to the blog and am finding my way – I’m not new to the petty spite, immaturity and intellectual arrogance of Catholic clergy and their kind who delight in correcting spelling mistakes and liberally dispense advice whilst missing the wood for the trees or as someone once said strain out gnats and swallow camels!!

Like

I have never met or communicated with Mullaney. If I did I would have a lot of uncomfortable questions to ask him

Like

He calls homosexuality an ‘offence.’
Can anyone expect to be taken seriously in a civilised society who articulates such views?

Like

1.34
Actually, he was referring to ‘homosexual acts’ (presumably sexual acts) when he used the word ‘offense’.
However, Royal did describe homosexual orientation itseld as having ‘poisonously’ permeated the priesthood, which is as vile an instance of homophobia as you are likely to come across.
I don’t understand why Pat Buckley, himself a gay man, periodically looks to such men for incisive analysis of the state the Church of Rome is currently in. That really is a mystery.

Like

He calls homosexuality an ‘offence.’
Can anyone expect to be taken seriously in a civilised society who articulates such views?

Like

The NeoCats are on the up. First Westminster Cathedral, now Plymouth Cathedral! They have launched initial cathecisis on The Way on Tuesday and Thursday evening. Plus there’s an Italian-born Westminster NeoCat seminarian is on placement in Plymouth Cathedral, before going on mission in Israel.

Bishop Mark is not of that persuasion, although he is lead Bishop on evangelisation. Perhaps he will try Fr Witon’s new jacuzzi when he next visits London.

Like

FFS, Littlemaniple will be swinging his handbag at you next and threatening all sorts of screeching torture. Why don’t these idiots just see that they set themselves up for us to take the piss…..

Like

7.02
Nobody on this blog has a problem with Father Peter Littleton except you!
The only person setting themselves up for us to take the piss is you… except we won’t, because of our ardent feelings of pity towards you.
You’re obviously sitting alone in your stained underpants, in your dirty little bedside, surrounded by reminders of what could have been had you not been kicked out of seminary.

Like

At 8:04pm – spot on. You can bet there are also quite a few soggy tissues snd damp socks strewn around too as the result of his “thoughts” about Fr Littleton.

Like

7.02: Why don’t tormentors and harrassers like you cop on? If you are a priest, you are a disgrace to be statlking this priest, for that is what you are doing. But whoever you are, you are a bullying, abusive and offensive idiot. Get a grip. Pray that God will rescue you from your deranged pit of hatred.

Like

8.13: Hater, put yourself before the Altar of God and pray for a spirit of mercy – andGod’s mercy for your hatred. .

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