The Dying with Dignity bill seeks to “make provision for assistance in achieving a dignified and peaceful end of life.”

Kerry O’Shea Sep 01, 2020 Irish Central

The Dying with Dignity bill, which was first introduced by TD John Halligan in 2015, is set to be reintroduced for consideration in the Dáil by TD Gino Kenny this month.

The bill, which seeks to “make provision for assistance in achieving a dignified and peaceful end of life to qualifying persons and related matters,” stalled when the Irish government was dissolved in 2016. When Halligan became a junior minister that same year, he was no longer able to move his own private member’s bill.

According to Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE), “Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under Irish law. Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as either manslaughter or murder and is punishable by up to life imprisonment. Assisted suicide is illegal. Attempting to commit suicide in itself is not a criminal act.”

When he presented it in 2015, Halligan said the bill was inspired by the late Marie Fleming, “who while in the final stages of multiple sclerosis took a landmark challenge to the Supreme Court on Ireland’s legal ban on assisted suicide. She lost that battle, but the Chief Justice said in the case at that time there was nothing in the judgment to prevent the State from introducing legislative measures with appropriate safeguards to deal with such cases as hers.”

Halligan added: “Suicide has been decriminalized but we still criminalize a person who assists somebody who is terminally ill to die. That is unfair, inhumane, and against the human right of the person who wants to exit this life of their own free will because of immense and intolerable suffering.”
In a piece published in July for The Irish Examiner, Halligan, who retired from politics earlier this year, wrote: “People forget that you should be entitled to a dignified death. It is unbearable to think that somebody is going to die and that their suffering should be prolonged.”

TD Gino Kenny, of Solidarity – People Before Profit, is now planning to reintroduce Halligan’s bill. Kenny told Dublin’s Q102: “If the Dying with Dignity Bill was legislated for, it would give those with an incurable and progressive illness the choice to end their own life on their own terms.

“Some people won’t do this but some people will and in order to do this the law needs to change.”

He added: “I think public debate and engagement is extremely important on this issue.

“Polls that have been done over the last few years have stated that public opinion is in favour of assisted dying. 

“So it’s very important that debate begins in earnest.”

The Bill was previously considered in a report by Ireland’s Joint Committee on Justice in 2018. Ultimately, the committee was unable to come to “a clear consensus as to whether legislative change is justified” and therefore did not recommend legislative change at the time.  

The Committee did, however, urge the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider referring the issue to the Citizens’ Assembly for deliberation.

Irish woman Vicky Phelan, who unearthed Ireland’s CervicalCheck Scandal after being diagnosed with terminal cancer after having initially been given the all-clear, supports the Dying with Dignity bill but does not want to see it go to Citizens’ Assembly.

Phelan told The Irish Independent: “I also don’t think that it is something that should be voted on by a Citizens Assembly since the courts ruled that there is nothing to stop the Oireachtas from legislating to allow for assisted dying as long as the appropriate safeguards are in place. I believe that this bill provides those safeguards.”

Phelan added: “I would like to see this Dáil having the balls to deal with this bill and to vote it through to give people like me the option of dying with dignity at home here in Ireland.”


The first thing I would say is that the decision on euthanasia is a decision for the people of Ireland  either directly or through their elected representatives.

Teligious leaders, doctors and others are entitled to express their views but the citizens of Ireland are not bound, and should not be bound, by these views.

As a Christian my ideal for myself is that I would want to leave the time of my death in the hands of God.

I would also hope that I might be granted the grace to see my death in the context of Christ’s death and offer up my sufferings with the sufferings of Christ.

Of course I cannot predict how I will feel at the time and I may not be able to live up to my ideals.

However at the moment I personally feel the need for the availability of assisted suicide.

But I have ministered to people dying of horrible diseases like Motor Neuron Disease who would have liked to have the option of not dying by drowning in their own saliva.

If the same sex marriage and abortion decisions are anything to go by then this assisted suicide bill might become Irish law.

In polls 60% of Irish people support this bill at present.

On the whole I would favour this bill as long as very careful safeguards are attached to it.

I don’t think the state should force people to go through months and years of pain and distress.

And God does not rejoice in suffering.

We Christians believe that Jesus did all the necessary suffering for us.

I dont think anyone choosing assisted suicide as as a way to die will be punished by God for not being able to embrace months of horrific pain and suffering.


You really are a sick man. The miles of lines of print you have typed on this blog seem to have done you little psychological, emotional or spiritual good. If anything, they have fuelled your pathology.



You make me chortle; you really do, like the characters in those DC Thompson children’s comics. They’re always chortling.

So I’m a sick man for rejoicing in, and for the celebration of, the demise of a domineering, controlling, corrupt and criminal institution, the RCC, which has blighted human lives, hope, faith and trust, not just in Ireland, but across the globe?

I’M a sick man? 🤔

Ohhhhhh, Father! Get away with you!

You make me chortle; you really do. 😊


No. It would be a rose on my coffin if it spared me pain.
The religitards would pile suffering upon suffering on people, in the name of their sadistic God, such is their passion for upholding abstract moral principle rather than the welfare and happiness of human beings.
How does it feel, knowing the deference and status Romanists in Ireland once commanded, to be ignored now, and even despised?
You are getting your comeuppance. And God bless the beautiful day! 😀


9.57: I presume your “insudious” type will avail of it! You are promoting a culture of DEATH not LIFE. Look at other countries where so called restrictive guidelines are now abandoned and we have a destruction of life – even for children. Incidentally many, many non religious people advocate against euthanasia.


Hear Hear@11:54.
Like you, I laugh at them. They really are so “puffed up” with arrogance and delusions far too long fostered by acquiescence. They simply can’t hack it to see that now challenged everywhere, and their taken-for-granted dominance vanish.



Promoting a culture of death? 😲Run that past me again. 🤔

Get this: death does not need promoting: paradoxically, it is part of life anyway; always has been, and always will be.

No; but YOU people are seeking to maintain a culture of extreme and unnecessary human suffering, not to benefit human beings obviously, but in honour of one of your abstract moral principles.

You care little about people, and you drive the rest of us to tedium with your harping on principles rather than people.

It is people that matter, not abstract principles. A morality built in abstraction does not have the welfare of others or anything at heart. Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for this: Which of you, if his oxen fell into a ditch on the Sabbath, would not go immediately and pull it out? And yet you condemn me for healing a sick person this day.

You would put an animal out of its terrible misery, but you’d casually tell a human being in appalling circumstances to ‘offer it up’, one of your endlessly useless platitudes.

Doubtless you’d have approved of those nuns who withheld pain relief from unmarried women in Iabour as a penance for their ‘sin’ . And doubtless you’d approve of Mother Teresa’s doing likewise with the sick as an offering to God. I’d bet not one of these bitches refused pain relief when they needed it; I know that Teresa died comfortably in a modern hospital, not on a palette in that shithole of hers some had the temerity to call a hospice.


He should be out of the priesthood. But then, some would point out that the priesthood is the right place for such a man, since it is as morally threadbare as he.


Oh, I’m sooo apologetic, Father!😢
You, of course, are the single and luminous exception to ‘morally threadbare’.😆


So will you, Bella, for rejoicing that a soul should be in Hell.
Jesus is not pleased with you. 😱


4.13: You are a promoter of a culture of DEATH. Simple as, not just physically (through euthanasia) but by your every vulgar and hate speech words used, you destroy and kill the spirit and soul of your perceived enemies. You abandon all human values of decency and mirality by your vindictive, nasty and abusive behaviour. Perhaps, unconsciously, your presence may well be a good argument for euthanasia!! Only joking, MC!! You are too precious to disappear too soon.


Look: the RCC has hardly been a promoter of human life in its morally convoluted history, now has it? Crusades, Papal Inquisition, Augustinian rationale for so-called ‘just war’, moral approval of the death penalty, the sacrificing of children’s welfare to the perverted lusts of priests, in order to protect the ‘good name’ of a vey bad institution indeed.
With the RCC, it has been smoke and mirrors most of the way: the illusion of moral goodness, of actually valuing human life as sacred, and from the cradle to the grave.
From the sanctimonious nature of your posts so far, you’ve obviously bought into the illusion, and it is making you look very incompetent and silly.
Before you even think of claiming the moral high ground here, make sure you are not just on a rise in the valley and looking down.
The RCC is in no position to lecture ANYone on the worth of every human life, because it cannot be heard through the gag of its own morally chequered and shameful history on this very subject.
According to Augustine’s confession, he heard the voice of God telling him to take up and read (the Bible).
Hear my voice: take up and read a good history of the RCC in Europe and in the New World (the Americas) in particular, but not one written by a RC historian if he is also a cleric.


Christ! 😨
Don’t belittle me by calling it my church. I have nothing to do with it; the Other Fella has. 👿
What’s this I heard about your wishing people in Hell? 🤔


+Pat. I admire and agree with your humanity. I can’t imagine being in the position of lingering and painful death and not being able to deal with it, or of my partner being in such as situation. What sort of people are we if we force extraordinary pain on others? What are we saying? “Even if you are in extraordinary pain you can’t die until God has decided you have experienced enough?” To be honest, it raises some issues about the whole God thing.


Thank you Anon@ 11:57 for an intelligent sensible and sensitive comment. Indeed this issue, and countless others !!!! raises all sorts of issues about the whole shibboleth of religion. As someone once said while quoting the clerical purveyors of religion:
“Indeed we know it’s a fraudulent farce,
but it keeps them in place, …so kiss my a**e”
Keeps them quiet and paying their dues.
So I live “High Hog”. Sure I’ve nothing to lose.”


I don’t think you understand the word ‘shibboleth.’
Aren’t you the guy who said once the education you received in Ireland was meciocre and that it wasn’t until you went on to ‘higher’ studies in the UK that you really were educated. If your use of the word is anything to go by, even your UK achievements leave much to be desired. Your style is lugubrious in tone and as dull as ditchwater in tenor – usually sacrificing clarity for long words and usually misplaced
An Irish proverb: You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.


Anon@9:38: Clearly YOUR “understanding” processes are impaired when you “think” I don’t understand the meaning of shibboleth, for in fact it very aptly describes the beliefs extolled by the RCC.
But of course I have to recognise that your capacity for reason, understanding and judgement may have been very much impaired if you never managed to escape the clutches of the RCC farrago of weird, wonderful and clearly nonsensical teaching.
By the way, could you kindly explain your use of and understanding, of the word “meciocre?” I’m afraid my education you refer to didn’t include such lexicology.


I never called it your Church, I called it Our Divine Lords Church using your strange name for Him the Nazarine. I never wished you in hell, I just pointed out that’s where you are heading with your heresy, I told you this in charity.


Pat, you said two apparently, and mutually contradictory, things: first, that you hope, were you suffering to death, thatyou would have the grace to accept this suffering as part of those of Christ and offer them up to him, and then, as a Christian, you accept that Jesus underwent all necessary suffering for us.
If he did, then why does any Christian have to offer up his own suffering in life? Doesn’t doing so suggest that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient for purpose?


1:10 am
Hopefully one wouldn’t want to be euthanised unless one were greatly suffering in the first place, it is to this end suffering may be offered up to the Lord.

I have accompanied a friend and family members who have died of cancer, and I believe that it is mostly the morphine which causes a person to pass from this life to the next; morohine is the usually the main ’cause’ of death in these cases.

I think the actual administration of the morphine, as opposed to prescription, may be in the hands of the patient for both ethical and moral reasons (little button in the hand of patient, connected to a syringe driver).
And possibly for legal reasons too.

Heres the conundrum: it is imoral to allow a person to suffer in really great pain, but if easing the pain causes the pain to ‘drift’ away, then that is not too bad.

The morphine also makes the suffering alot more bearable and it is less frightening for both patient and loved ones.
This is unquestionably a good thing.

As mentioned above, you will offten see a cancer patient in control of their own morphine via a button attached to a syringe-driver containing morphine.
Their pain, their morphine, their choice to ‘ease’ the pain.

Suffering is mostly inevitably a factor of life; it is our struggles and pains which we give up to the Lord.

Christ, in the garden, was in agony; yet He took the cup: “Please Father, let this cup pass: but if be your will, let it be done.”

He chose the cup. He suffered. He suffered for you and I. This was an act of love, He could have run a mile, but He didn’t; He stayed. He suffered.
However, the agony of Our Lord in the garden of Gethsemane was a different kettle of fish.

He took the nails as an act of solidarity (He took His own ‘medicine’ if you like).
His choosing the cross was an act of love;
He chose to be the sacrificial lamb once and for all time (remember: that’s how it was done back then: sacrificial offerings and burnt offerings, but He changed this) He met us halfway if you like.

The Incarnation was a ‘halfway’ point, if you like; the point whereby He rolled up His sleeves and possibly said something along the lines: “What a friggin’ mess- here, get out the way- and let me get stuck in with you lot.
I’ll be your sacraficial lamb, once and for all: but no more hurting lambs. Ok?
… I hope this kind of makes sense.

His humanity and divinity were not at odds, they were at one, they were in complete harmony.

It was at the foot of the Cross they gathered, their Lord hung thereon; battered, bruised and abused by those who refused to accept Him and His message of love.

The Chief priests and scribes plotted to kill Jesus.
Politics took priority over love, and the silencing of those who spoke out on injustices and failings in care for the most vulnerable was not tolerated by the Sanhedrin or Chief priests.


Thank you, but you didn’t answer my question : if Christ’s suffering is all that was necessary for salvation, why must we offer ours?
In all seriousness, I suspect that the notion of offering up one’s suffering is really a pious-sounding distraction from the more obvious question: if God really exists and loves me, then why doesn’t he heal me?


Anon@!:10: It’s not just Pat being inconsistent. It’s the whole RCC farrago!
Sure there’s not a bit of rhyme, reason, consistence or constancy in any of the whole religion thing!
You must have that magical quality of “faith” to accommodate the whole hodgepodge of it!


11:45 am
We do not have to offer ours, and if somebody does, that is their own personal choice. Maybe an act of solidarity with their Lord’s suffering?

Suffering is NOT necessary for salvation, nor did God require a bloody sacrifice.
These is no dogma on this in the Church, there are different theories, but that’s all.

People sacrificed lambs two-thoudsad-years ago and Christ may have decided to met us halfway and offered to be the last sacrificial lamb for all time.
No more hurting lambs or what not.
Bread and wine from now on; my body and blood.

In fact, Christ’s taking on the Cross was probably more to satisfy us and our foolish and stubern ways; He was essentially helping us move forward from all the old bloody sacraficial ways.

He genuinely suffered, to took the pain so the little lambs wouldn’t be sacrificed anymore, if you like?

He was bringing in the new dispensation.
He was working with us, and unfortunately at the time, we liked to sacrifice lambs.

He changed this.

Does this help a bit 11:45 am?


The NCW tells us things the “wider” church lamentably doesn’t get round to. These will take up no more than three years, which is long enough for having the kind of characters that are the arm of the combined Westminster and Southwark archdioceses, over you, in the light of the RCC’s lack of Holy Spirit belief.
Do join it.
Do learn the excellent Bible study method (using your side references)
Do insist on NOT being told non-core business
Do insist on the songs being sung well (sadly rare)
Don’t volunteer for anything “important” enough to involve going away overnight separately from the rest of your “community”
The things you need are: Initiation to Prayer, Shema, and Sermon on the Mount (in that sequence)
Operatives (who don’t represent Kiko’s intentions) may tend to under-stress your range of options; don’t let them do all your thinking for you.
If they are of goodwill, they will give you rope!


Saying that you want to leave the timing of your death in the hands of God, Pat, is really a quaint but outdated euphemism for allowing human circumstance to decide it: God, the creator of life, surely does not kill anyone; life, paradoxically, eventually does. Which is precisely why this bill needs to become law, with all its safeguards.
For some these circumstances will be relatively comfortable; for others they will be appalling, and the religious belief that these can become meaningful or redemptive suffering is just a whimsical, untested platitude.
When Catholics especially speak of ‘carrying the cross’, they mostly display ignorance of the true meaning of the phrase, which is originally biblical (from the Gospel).
To carry one’ s cross, in the biblical sense, is to suffer the consequences of holding Christian beliefs, even to the point of martyrdom. Now this makes some sense, even to non-Christians; but the idea that the ill effects of anything, from haemorrhoids through financial hardship to the suffering of a terrible and protracted dying, is merely another layer of meaning in this phrase owes more to sentimentally pious imagination than anything else. Even so, the view has a place in society, if only as a deception that may console many in relatively tolerable situations. But when it is used to help impose, by law, unnecessary and inhumane suffering on people whose path to death has nothing to do with martyrdom, but the cruel hand of human circumstance, it becomes yet another religious tyranny, devoid utterly of insight and compassion.


Hopefully, you will be back to more cheerful blogs soon, Bp Pat, letting slip more titillating details about Dickie Pursie, or the lifestyle of multi-millionairess, Kathy Kirby, both of whom are D.O.M.’s in their own right.


Why don’t you go off and bury your little head and brain in a children’s comic? It’s about your intellectual level.


Couldn’t help chuckling at this.
According to one of the dominstrixes, the pupose of their kinks on the altar with thus Romanist priest was to ‘defile a house of God’. 😅
But the presence of Romanists had beaten her to it.
Shades of Kildorrey, anyone? 😕




Catholic archbishops ask Mehole and Verruca to allow people attend mass, the archbishops say they fully respect public health guidelines, but that religious services provide “essential spiritual nourishment” for parishioners.

Spiritual Nourishment ? Financial Downfall more likely the reason – if they are receiving online mass what is the difference? Just that the churches have no one passing by dropping cash into the boxes. I would imagine their audience are not tech savvy and dont donate online like they want.


Essential spiritual nourishment? For priests and seminarians that invariably means an overbearing sexual lust for semen.


You sound like one of those begrudgers who don’t mind paying plenty to attend gyms,football matches,clubs etc. but moan if you have to contribute anything to The Church who have to pay for the upkeep of Churches and everything else they offer. The Lord loves a cheerful giver.


‘The Church’, as you quaintly put it, does not pay for the upkeep of ‘Churches (sic) and everything else it has to offer’ : the laity do.
‘The Church’ just sponges off people, always has. It has absolutely nothing to offer. Zilch. And people are fast catching on to this, which is why these sponging parasites are now recognised for the human leeches they really are. And what does one do with a leech, but remove it.
And this is precisely what the Irish are doing by largely ignoring hypocrites like Pope Francis and Arb Eamon Martin. 😀


Colossians 1:24

Paul’s Labor for the Church

24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in the sufferings of Christ.


Hello 12.06. You do know that hate is the language of Satan, which you appear to speak fluently, you must have had years of practice it.


I think Paul was wrong here, unless he was speaking figuratively (though what actually he was saying is not easy to know).
I don’t think Christ’s suffering was lacking in any way; on the contrary, it is our suffering for trying to follow him that is lacking in redemptive worth, but which is attributed to it by Jesus through the Spirit.
What’s a human analogy? A child who does everything his dad tells him to do in order to purchase a games console he has set his heart on. The child sacrifices, scrimps and saves, does odd jobs to augment his money, but in the end, everything he does is not enough: he cannot afford the console. But his dad has been watching his son carefully all the while. He knew his son would never be able to save enough money for the console, no matter how hard he tried, but he knew also that his son needed to try regardless. And when he saw that he had, he made up the lack.
I hate spiders, with a passion. The other day I watched a little one as it struggled, again and again, to climb out of my bath. It couldn’t do so, however often and hard it tried, and I knew that it would never do so, but slowly starve… or end down the plug hole. I made up its lack; I gave worth to its futile efforts by lifting it out.


The laity are part of the Church and therefore have duty to contribute. The Church gives us the Sacraments and much more, not as you say zilch. I find it hard not to laugh that one of the biggest parasite going has the audacity to say that about The Church. I agree with you about leeches and I would love to remove you permanently.


No,dear, Christ gives us grace; Romanist clergy give us merely the Sacraments.
You do know the difference, don’t you?
Don’t conflate the two: the Sacraments are just signs; nothing more. If I may put it this way: the Sacraments are the box which contain diamonds, but they themselves aren’t the diamonds.
‘Sacrament’ comes from ‘sacramentum’, which means ‘sign of the sacred’.
‘Sacrament’ does not mean ‘sacred’. 😀


You can’t separate one from the other, Magna at 1:41pm. Christ gives us the sacraments which contain His Presence, His grace and His strength. Christ gives us His grace through His sacraments. The priest is merely a minister – not the originator – of Christ’s sacraments. The efficacy of those sacraments do not depend on the worthiness of the minister either. They are ‘ex opere operato’ – their efficacy is ‘out of the work done’ by Christ.



Do you realise what you implied in the very first sentence of your post by making grace dependent on RC sacramental signs? Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (‘Outside the Church … of Rome … there is no salvation.) This is not the teaching of an ecumenical council, which you as a Catholic are obligated to accept.

By suggesting that grace is dependent on mere signs, you are limiting God in what he may or may not do, and exactly when he may do it. Which is arrant nonsense. God is confined to RC sacraments anymore than he was to the rituals of ancient Judaism. Otherwise we’d all be Jews. 😕

Have you studied the history of sacramental theology? In a tiny nutshell, sacramental signs have altered, again and again down the centuries…by the agency of clerics, not by Christ. Marriage as a sacrament was introduced in the Church only in the 12th century, again by the agency of clerics, not by Christ.

You are out of your depth.

You’d have better served God this day by remaining silent.


Magna at 5:50pm – they have not altered all that much at all. We have, for example, always used bread and wine for the Eucharist and water for baptism. Marriage as a sacrament always existed in the man and women’s loving commitment to each before it was formalised. It is God, not the Church, who has decided these things and entrusted them to His Church as the ORDINARY MEANS (not the ‘only’ means, so therefore not ‘limited’) of communicating to us His grace. The Church did not invent the sacraments. She received them from Christ and she ministers them in His Name and with His authority. The Church is the Body of Christ. It cannot be separated from Him. You cannot have Christ without the Church and the Church does not exist without her Head who is Christ. It is Christ Himself who has promised that He is always with His Church and that “whoever hears you, hears me”. In short, the sacraments belong to Christ and He has contained Himself under their signs and appearances. The Church merely administers them in His Name.


Whether sacramental forms have altered much or little is not the point, and I am not going to argue about such trivia. What matters (and what we are agreed upon) is that they HAVE altered, which proves my statement that these signs came by the agency of clerics, not by Christ.
Yes, marriage did always exist as a sacramental type, even among the Caananite pagans…before a certain pope had it formalised in the 11th century, but for for quite worldly reasons (which lets God off the hook here): a neurosis about sex (especially sex between priests and their wives), and a rapacious desire to prevent the property of married clergy from being inherited by their children. Again, this is further proof my that sacramental signs are construed by the agency of clergy, not by Christ.
Your bald statement that it is God who decided these things about sacraments rather than the Church is on the intellectual-faith level of the papal cry, ‘Deus Vult!’ (‘God wills it!’) for justification of the First Crusade, and is only marginally less risible. God no more bends his will to yours in these matters than he did to the sectarian bloodlust of an 11th century pope, who sought his own aggrandisement in Jerusalem rather than God’s glory.
We cannot have Christ without the Church? Tell this to the Jews, who had him in Yahweh long before Christians had him in the historical Jesus.
And whoever hears you, hears me … the proviso being the synchronicity of Jesus’ follwers with the will of Jesus’ himself. What should have been obvious to you is that the remark wasn’t carte blanche for Jesus followers to behave arbitrarily in the knowledge that whatever they decided, he would have their backs.
The naivety of your post is astonishing.


The allegedly banned person who goes on about parasites has won DWP Claimant of the Year for fifteen years running.


St Brigid’s Catholic Church, Westbury, Nassau County, New York, is where a child proclaimed the Gospel and a woman preached the homily on Sunday 25 September 1993, mid/late morning Mass in English in main church. Dream on, Doubting Thomas!


Jesus did. Just as he permitted the Second Vatican Council.
Now, Bella, you have a double reason for dismissing Jesus from your life, and I see you’ve already started: it’s the unchristian nature of your posts here.
A dead giveaway, that. 😕


Wrong again Polly the dreadful Vat.II defined nothing it was not a dogmatic council everything was ambiguous and the liberal elite who gained control used it for their own ends. Paul VI said the smoke of Satan had entered The Holy Church but did nothing about it. I’m with the Great Cardinal’s Ottaviani and Bacci who were among the few real Catholics left. The other idiots who went on about a new springtime and Pentecost which never happened. But we are not afraid The Church Triumphant will return despite what all you heretics think.


Mr. Hateful Vengeful Buckboy, you support anything and everything. Like most of your makeyup outfit and your beliefs, you are built on sand. You blow with the wind. A religious populist nut and your piotious waffle about uniting your suffering with Christ is risible. Think for a moment about your behaviour- YOURS- and the suffering you inflict on the many whom you despise! Can you fathom that? You censor many comments but you allow the hate speech if Magna reign supreme again. You are morally bankrupt and a whited sepulchre, lacking spiritual integrity. Look to your soul’s vacuousness. Pathetic…


Of course, it could be a case of mistaken identity, Bp Pat, someone may have confused his dish for someone else’s in the sauna.


I challenge Liffey Leahy of Limerick, Denny Rashers of Meath and Ponsie Fonsie, to a live open debate.

I’m Canon Matt Hep, and I’m running for Archbishop of Dublin

#Matt4TheHat #Dublin2020 #AbottleOfBrandyNeverHurtAnyone


What a waste of time. Grown men playing dressing up. At least +Pat’s ordination and then consecration to Bishop is valid.


Och Inspector! Are you a sort of wee Scottie version of Faither Broon? Och wouldn’t be just fan-dabby-dozey if the BBC were to fund a wee series on your gripping stories and breathtaking adventures? Ask wee Niki Krankie could she get it funded. It would be great for the arts in Scotty Land.


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 )

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