Categories
Uncategorized

THE PROBLEM IS HYPOCRISY NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.

Can I once again make the position of this blog and its author on homosexuality abundantly clear.

The homosexual orientation is as perfectly a “normal” a sexual orientation as heterosexuality.

For so long in history this was not the case and many millions of homosexual people down the ages suffered death and torture and all kinds of discrimination. One of these sad historic instances was the incarceration, torture and murder of homosexual people in Hitler’s concentration and death camps.

The homosexual community – most commonly called in recent times the “Gay Community” have fought a long and brave battle to gain equal rights for gay people. They must be always be honoured and praised for the battle and the sacrifices they endured.

Thankfully, the Republic of Ireland in recent times has given full marriage rights to gay people. Norther Ireland is now aligned also.

This blog primarily focuses on the corruptions that exist in the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these corruptions are about power and finance and others are about sexual matters.

The author of this blog – a gay man himself living in a publicly declared same sex partnership – has no problem about a bishop, priest, monk, or seminarian being gay.

But what this blog does object to is men and women taking public vows of chastity and benefiting greatly by those vows and their vowed lives, having second, secret underground sex lives – lives that are often promiscuous in the extreme.

We do not object to bishops, priests, monks, and seminarians being gay.

We object to them being hypocrites.

And to them making a fine living off their hypocrisy.

And to them thinking they are fooling all of the people all of the time.

If they do not like the teachings of the RCC then let them publicly denounce those teachings or leave the RCC.

But let them not, in a faithless and unspiritual manner, do as they like and laugh all the way to the gay sauna and the bank.

There is a story out there among the clergy of some seminarians going to a meeting of the St. Joseph’s Young Priests Society, collecting their grants, putting their cassocks in a hold all and rushing off to spend the St Joseph’s money in a gay bar and later a gay sauna.

And we have a sitting mitred abbey in Ireland who is brazening it out after being exposed as haven been sexually active in his monastery and haven visited a gay sauna.

This is not about sex, gay or otherwise.

It is about hypocrisy.

77 replies on “THE PROBLEM IS HYPOCRISY NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.”

You have my support Pat. Call me a liberal but I can understand a secular priest who might have a long term faithful companion, maybe not even having the you-know-what. It is Rome which is wrong on that one anyhow. And before any accuse me of hypocrisy I have never placed burdens on anyone’s yoke. But as for this carry on of going for a “quickie” then getting back in the collar. No one is perfect of course, but that is not the way to be living out priesthood. They would need to be having a word with themselves on that one.

Like

12.35

You can understand a secular priest’s having a longterm ‘companion’ (boyfriend or girlfriend)? Even one who has made a vow or promise of celibacy? Of course you can. Why did I hope for anything other?

None of you, including Pat Buckley, respects moral integrity, since you all would look the other way if a Catholic priest lived contrary to his vows/promise. It’s called ‘hypocrisy’. This blog is about it, but the clerical hypocrites, whatever their status, seem to think that THEIR hypocrisy is, well, more understandable; their heroic self-sacrifice a little too sacrificial.

No wonder I have such deep contempt for all of you.

Oddly, I have a deep disdain for … liars.

Like

Ohh luv something’s rocked your li’l boat this morning hasn’t it 🤭 why not focus your wrath upon the eejits who insist on a ridiculous promise (not vow) of celibacy. Which actually means refraining from marriage. Which, Bishop Pat has done. He’s not married but in a civil union. 💅

Like

10.33

Give up your boyfriend, ‘Father’. You know it makes sense.

Your sin will find you out, in time.

Like

The Sacred Priesthood is a Celibate promise and NO excuse if they cannot live in Celibacy they should leave now.
Nothing to do with Rome these disloyal clergy are shameful and double standards.
Faithful companions is a nice way of saying it but they should not be sharing the same bed in Church property.
I got that excuse only yesterday Faithful companion at 52 years old yet expects the Church to fund him on Sabbatical
Yes we are not all perfect but Clergy should show the way to try an lead the way.

Like

We have all heard from foolish companions of priests who are happy to be second fiddle and discarded at the drop of a hat. These men nothing more than spoilt brats whose only care is themselves.
Magna Carta, on the other hand, I would definitely have a fling with, but I’m not his type.

Like

The promise of celibacy was administered in a hole-in-corner way in seminaries 50 years ago, and the staff were not much in evidence. There was no preparation or discussion immediately beforehand and no warm congratulations afterwards. The murkiness has grown since then. Pharisaical bullies like Anonymous 10:20/10:26 might factor this into their reflections.

Like

gays are ok as long as they are not “promiscuous” and do not use grindr. love the sinner, hate the sin. It’s the old clerical line, redrafted.

Like

Gay might be okay, and it is okay when you accept your identity, and not choose the hypocrisy path as roman catholic priests. It is called honour and dignity!!!
But who through it in the street for you to find!!

Like

Absolutely! The church is riddled with hypocrisy! Gay clergy, priests to cardinals, should have their rights and the abuse of young non gay-seminarians who come to them for instruction should have the right not to be raped or abused.
But the far larger numbers of women should also have their rights as well, that is the rights of half the Irish congregation to be represented in the decision making halls of the church; and not just to be consulted over specific issues, but to live the lives of priests so that these issues of a priestly life are addressed directly where the shoe pinches. And that means that non gay priests, or men who want to remain celibate have the right to do so: marriage is not obligatory. But if priests are to be called father they ought to know what that term really means if they feel such a ‘calling’, but, let us have absurdities like bishop Casey deliberately denying recognition of their own child that he fathered..
And those women in the past who had children outside of wedlock should not have their infants dragged from their arms and turned into ‘Catholic orphans’, to be sold and experimented on – and often abused by clerics. The Church have to bring its doctrines into line with the actions of its agents; and their actions into line with their doctrines so as to end the lies and hypocrisy in the Church. And they can only do that by allowing women into their decision making , and allowing married priests to understand what actual family life entails, so that they can better understand the needs of the community which they administer.
I applaud Pat for giving a voice to those voiceless of Ireland; and shame on the Irish state for locking down fir thirty years all enquiries by those the Church wronged in the past.

Like

Its simple:
– Ordination in the RCC requires a promise / vow of celibacy = no genital / sexual activity.
– The RCC makes a big thing of this and insists on it for priests, with only rare exceptions.
– Priests publicly tell us that they are celibate; I have never heard a priest tell me from the pulpit that he is not celibate !
– It is not unreasonable for me to expect priests to keep their promise / vow of celibacy, given that both they and the RCC make such a big thing about it.
– If priests wish to be sexually incontinent, either homosexually or heterosexually, they have the option of laying aside their priesthood and pursuing another way of life.
– If a priest secretly carries on breaking his promise / vow of celibacy and remains as a priest, then that is dishonest, a lie, and hypocritical.
– If a priest is honest and open about his desire for a sexual relationship and lays aside his priesthood in order to purse that, then I have the utmost respect for him.
– If a priest does decide to lay aside his priesthood in order to pursue a sexual relationship, then I do not care whether that relationship is gay or straight. That is a matter for him entirely.
– The issue, as should be clear to all, is about honesty and transparency. When this is ignored and priests feel that they are able to live hypocritical, parallel lives involving sexual activity, then that fundamentally undermines any trust we have in priests, and indeed the Church. Such damage is irreparable once it is done. It presents an existential threat to the priesthood and to the Church.

Like

“It presents an existential threat to the priesthood and to the Church.” It has done for 1000 years babes 💅

Like

1000 years! A bit too much. It is time to stop. Gay men are walking with pride,,, If they are that ugly inside out that they cant fit in a relation,,, It should be a catholic church problem and true believers!!

Like

If it wasn’t for what I would call hypocrisy-lite, there wouldn’t be all the stories, for example, about Kitty and her fagettes, or about Dom Richard’s weakness for the sling at the Boiler House, that we all enjoy reading about.

However, I don’t like what Mary MacAleese calls ‘fake hetero homophobes’ within the clergy, who live double lives as gay men, but who are really stridently homophobic.

Like

Pat – while I approve of free speech, the poster’s reference (@9:59) to gay men is hateful and homophobic.
And when you allow this language on your blog I can understand why some of your detractors call you homophobic.

Like

9.59
So you differentiate morally among forms of hypocrisy. 😕
It isn’t clerical hypocrisy itself that interests you, but whether it concerns ‘fake hetero homophobes’. Tell us, ‘Father’, who is your current boyfriend? Don’t be alarmed: your duplicity is only (What did you call it?) … ‘hypocrisy-lite’, small beer compared with the other sort. And God does understand, doesnt he? ( Bishop Eamon Casey apparently thought so, too, as he broke his promise of celibacy … among other things … while having sex with Annie Murphy on a fluffy rug in front of a blazing fire)
All the Cathbots who post here in defence of these men, Catholic priests, are being made fools of by these liars and hypocrites. They laugh at you behind your backs for your sheepisness: your stupidity. They are destroying the Church, and they will not stop until they are stopped.

Like

The more homophobic the person, the more indicative it is that the person has unresolved internal conflict with their own sexuality. So, when I hear a priest or bishop going on about the sin of homosexuality, the more I know something is seriously amiss with that priest or bishop. I remember listening to KO knocking the bells out of gays, being the most strident and aggressive of homophobes, only to find out a few days later that he was at all sorts of things himself. So Mary McAleese is right to call out these fake hetero homophobes within the clergy ranks. If there is hypocrisy, then they are a prime example of it. It usually goes with lace and traditionalist liturgical antics and theology as well !

Like

I think lace is a particularly English predilection. Oscott, Wonersh, Allen Hall, VEC, and other traditionalist places dotted around the country. Don’t you think so….?

Like

According to Frederick Martel – the Vatican own the building and take rent from the biggest gay sauna in Italy – several Cardinals/high ranking prelates live on the same floor – the owner of the gay sauna says that business spikes during a Synod or Canonization
Cardinal Trujillo – President of the Pontifical Council for Marriage and Famiky Life – beat his rent boys mercilessly after sex and died of an undisclosed illness!!
Archbishop Marcinkus was a homosexual
Pope Paul VI was a homosexual whose boyfriend was an Italian movie star!! And they say Humane Vitae is a prophetic document!!
Pope Benedict has Gorgeous George
Cardinal Newman had Ambrose St John
Cardinal Wheatlands lover was paid handsomely.
Cardinal Keith OBrien had his lovers
And yet all of them condemn and hound homosexuals etc
Oh and check out the pretty boys who work for the Secretariat of State and wind up in the Vatican Diplomatic Corp!!
What’s that they say about fooling the some of the people some of time but surely not all of the people all of the time!!
The stink of hypocrisy is ancient not new – see Corrupter of Boys by Dyan Elliot – not even the incense from the altar can prevent its stench!!

Like

MMM FROM LATE LAST NIGHT

Yes Kevin, I’m indeed very well. Thanks for asking.
At end of November I was so disenchanted by the blogs incessant focus on monasterial misdeeds and the accompanying frankly puerile infantile comments, that I decided to avoid the blog for December. I didn’t miss it.
In New Year I’ve scanned December blogs and the comments. I stress scanned rather than peruse at any depth. Apart from a comment by Anon on 8/12@ 9.52, (Thanks, I couldn’t have put it better myself: heading was An Unlikely Story), I have found little to interest me, or to engage with. So much of it is dross, and when a sensible informative comment was made, the usual inane responses followed. I have taken note of those sensible ones, ( eg
on 8/12@ Dalriada D, and I appreciate Downpatrick D and Strangford S’s enquiring after me, and Anon too on 27/12 comments on the need for an atheist perspective, plus Fr Tommy’s kind words.
Reading the Jan comments to date indicates little change or a likelihood of sensible informative civil discussion. It seems that the Internet is awash with those whose capacity for civil informed discursive sharing of viewpoints is as impoverished as their intellectual and emotional intelligence. Perhaps historical levels of religious intolerance adds another layer to such characteristics.
I’ve watched a lot of YouTube debates and discussions on matters such as evolution and its evidence, religion/faith and its lack of evidence, origins of faith/religious belief systems worldwide, its continuation and psychological emotional and societal imperatives. I’ve found them informative and engaging. There are some standout conclusions.
It is very informative to see the complete floundering of religious proponents, even those in eminent positions of alleged superior religious standing, when confronted with informed analysis and incontrovertible facts from highly intelligent individuals of the calibre of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the like. Apart from quoting completely unreliable ancient texts, the eminent religionists invariable default position reverts to personal faith belief, and these are the supposedly best educated/informed concerning their religious beliefs. I have seen nothing convincing and a complete lack of evidence in their contributions.
So I see little point in hoping for sensible discussion through Pat’s blog though I do respect his efforts to expose the ugly underbelly of RC hegemony. I respect the caring efforts of devout individuals whether lay or pastoral/clerical inasmuch as it springs from their sense of our interdependence and shared humanity as opposed to merely proselytising.
I’ll finish for now by clarifying a common misinformed view of “an atheist.”
An atheist does not have a system or set of beliefs proving that there is no God. H/She as an atheist simply says “I see no proof of a God, or any gods.” In discussing religious matters an atheist will invariably pose hard questions in search of reliable factual evidence, and be entirely unimpressed by others faith beliefs.
I am an atheist and non believer. I am also a non believer that a china teapot orbits Mars! I treat religious beliefs with similar justifiable scepticism. Religion per se deserves no unwarranted respect. The RCC as an institution certainly deserves none, notwithstanding the integrity of some of its representatives.
MMM

Like

MMM,

Out of interest did you post a comment on the fake blog that was taken down two days ago.
They did publish a comment under the MMM handle.
I have a screen shot if you’re interested?

Like

No.+Pat. It certainly wasn’t me. As I didn’t comment since Nov, perhaps it indicates someone familiar with the blog and my contributions prior to Dec.
Thanks for offer to send it, but unless you think it’s something I could usefully comment on, I’m not interested in it. That also applies to lightweight comments from the usual ones criticising me personally or my views, who may well choose to do so now in response to my current comment.
MMM

Like

I didn’t think so. It had neither your thought or style about it. Obviously, it was just another part of the fakery.

Like

By Post Author

12.33: Pat, your effort to win back MMM will not be fruitful. MMM at 12.31 makes excellent observations. While I am a deeply convinced believer in God, I respect MMM’s honesty but I do not share his dismissiveness of religious belief. That aside, I too, like him, have resorted to You Tube for some worthwhile and excellent debates/discussions about religion, faith/religious belief, politics, philosophy, theology, humanism, atheism and have been profoundly enriched by my efforts. This blog has for many months engaged in very vicious and ugly invective in an attempt to analyse the crises in the Church. I absolutely agree that we must all shout out against abuse, violence, criminal behaviour and hypocrisy at all levels within the church. TRUTH and JUSTICE matter to all decent, good human beings, including the majority of clergy. This blog has targeted certain individuals and rightly so, but it has engaged in outrageous, hate filled, vicious, personalised and crucifying commentary against these individuals with some commenters engaging, not in intelligent and relevant debate, but use this blog to attack all clerics and incite hatred. That is totally unacceptable. Pat is also very selective about whose comnents he prints. I agree totally with you that we do not get informative, intelligent debate in the interaction of commenters. A blog like this could be a very useful forum for meaningful debate which is necessary for the Catholic Church and for priesthood and other related matters, but sadly, it all too quickly descends into a very offensive, personalised, name calling and caricaturing of certain people on a regular basis. The capacity of some for “discursive sharing” – to use your phrase – is non existent. Thus we are subjected to horrendous, vitriolic abuse. I hope and i plead with Pat to re-think the desirability of printing deliberately written, provocative comments. I welcome reasonable, honest and informed debate which is conducive to enabling a true renewal of what the church and priesthood should mean in the 21st century and I always welcome opinions and ideas which are challenging but intelligent. I wish you a good 2021, MMM. While I am on a very different life narrative than you, your sharing is always balanced and rational and generally expressed with respect for others.

Like

So @ 3.26, you’ve not even read his comments, for that’s what you’ve said. Perhaps this shows the poverty of expression he wrote about.

Like

MMM said the same things, over and over and over gain. We well and truly go the message.

Like

Thank you @ 1.28. That thanks are for your kind wishes, but even had you omitted those, I would thank your intelligent informative comment.
Yours and the retired priest’s below are the sort of comments I welcome and can make the blog a fascinating read.
MMM

Like

I think that’s unkind. MMM is never abusive and is entitled to his views and opinions.

Like

4:52pm
Not true he has been abusive to me, along with his friend MC, I called them The Mutual Admiration Society. Their views were never mine but I am entitled to my views and opinions even if they are contrary to that lot.

Like

You are entitled to your views and most welcome here. MMM may have strongly disagreed with you but Id be surprised if abused you.

Like

By Post Author

@5:29: So MMM “abused” you?
Evidence please, giving date and ID’ing info for checking.
Or is your allegation just a Trump like hate salvo?
The “evidence” you present, or its lack will allow us to judge you.

Like

Pat reading the comments today it is apparent that some people are trying to take over your blog by persecuting MMM and the claim you outed a seminarian.
Your enemies in the Roman church literally never have enough of attention, money, power, etc and will stop at nothing to stop you.
Having failed in setting up a fake website they are now on your blog telling other people who can and can’t comment and making allegations about you.
I know you value your blog as a place of free speech but I would suggest you get a bit stricter about what you allow through. You also have a considerable following of people damaged by the church and I honestly think you wouldn’t be unfair to give priority to other voices over priests whingeing.

Like

5.59: A most absurd comnent. You haven’t a clue about the fake blog set up. Not a clue, yet you make a definitive judgment. As for “whingeing”. Most of the stupid whingers are ex seminarians and disgruntled, dysfunctional nutters, you being one of them. Very few priests follow this hate blog. The many who complain about clerics – non clerics primarily – are the most abusive, ugliest commenters on Pat’s blog, MC in particular. MMM was one of the most balanced and intelligent contributors. Even he became tired of the abuse and trash on this blog.

Like

With all due respect 5;59 I am a priest in a Scottish diocese and many in our presbyterate discuss the blog on a daily basis. Whether or not they contribute I know not but it certainly provides a talking point for many of our guys.

Like

Just as a matter of interest, Bishop Pat, how many comments don’t you publish? I comment on here from time to time anonymously as I can’t think of an interesting handle and you’ve always published my comments.

I don’t like some of the abusive language on here sometimes related to homosexuals or alleged homosexuals. Were similar language and invective aimed at women or people of different religions and ethnic backgrounds or other protected characteristics, there would be a greater uproar.

I do, however, like sensible discussion and I have had interesting responses from those in the priesthood and those outside. The better the comments which don’t resort to vulgar abuse, the more interesting it is to come back here and engage.

Like

I am a retired priest. I retired myself some 10 years ago, at an age that was considerably earlier than the usual 75. I have not been laicised, and I don’t particularly wish to be laicised, even though I do not carry out any ministry any more and I do not celebrate Mass. I do not rely on my diocese or any other Church organisation for support – I was in the fortunate position of having property, pensions and family money that I have inherited in order to support myself very comfortably, indeed more comfortably than I lived when I was in ministry ! I decided to retire myself because I became tired of having to implicitly live a priestly theology of life that I did not believe in any more, and which I saw as being injurious and harmful to me and so many other priests. One aspect of it concerns celibacy (and, no, I have not entered in to relationships since retiring), but there is so much more about the priestly life that can do harm and leave priests desolate and destitute, emotionally, psychologically, physically and financially. In addition, I found over the decades feeling increasingly uncomfortably by implicitly being associated with moral and theological matters that I just could not bring myself to be associated with any more. Women, divorce and remarriage, access to sacraments, sexuality, inordinate concern with sexual, genital and relationship matters, and so much more. And, in addition, getting older and just looking at so much that the Church goes on about, and thinking that it was silly and unsustainable. So, time to retire ! I will not allow the Church to liaise me – actually they have no grounds as far as I’m concerned – because to do so would essentially deny the years of faithful priestly service that I gave the Church. So, I simply stay retired. My name and my address are in the diocesan directory. I’ve never been c/o. I spend my time doing all sorts of interesting things, even in lockdown. My horizons and my friendships have been widened immensely. And I’m the happiest I’ve been for decades. A huge, oppressive weight was lifted from me when I retired myself, and notwithstanding all of the opprobrium and moral blackmail I received from the bishop and some priests, I am really glad I took the step. For those for whom I was nothing more than a priest, they have largely had difficulty readjusting to this new person and don’t keep in touch; for those who were real friends and loved and liked me for who I am, they are still around and a great comfort and support. I see the next 10 or 20 years of life as something to explore, enjoy and be excited about, without the now seemingly silly and irrelevant baggage of priestly life and some Church teaching. I am immensely impressed when the Church teaches about social justice, the poor, equality, the dignity of each individual, and the abuse of power and authority, and I love the theology of seamless life that it upholds from the womb to the grave. But, for the rest, well, I largely have tuned out. I find that people essentially are good and order their lives to suit their situations and try to do their best. So, I’m reluctant to be part of any culture that thinks it has the right to make judgement on people. Why am I telling you all this ? I suppose because the subject of today’s blog is about one of those areas where, by and large, I think the Church should have the sense just to shut up and let people get on with ordering their lives and sexuality and relationships without the Church poking its nose in. It was because of that, and much more, that I decided it was time to retire. What joy ! And no, I don’t miss celebrating Mass and popping souls from purgatory in to heaven and bringing salvation to the world, and being Alter Christus, and being ontologically different. What nonsense ! I’ll leave that to others. Now, what’s for supper this evening, and what bottle of wine shall I enjoy !

Like

Thank you RP for your very interesting informative comment. Well done you!
I found it ……..well just typical when you mentioned the negative responses of your bishop and clerical colleagues when you opted out of “the clerical club.” You immediately represented a perceived threat so those fine religious people then showed their true colours, …..and indeed the shallowness of their supposed beliefs.
Thank you again for your honesty.
MMM

Like

7.37: MMM – this retired priest hasn’t retired out of the clerical club. How can you say this when he told us he is still listed in the diocessn directory. As such he still enjoys all privileges, perks and a SALARY. Nothing honest about this fraud. I am surprised you don’t discern the hypocrisy. He retired – if true – because he had financial security. There’s nothing remotely virtuous, honest or commendable about his “decision”! You commend his courage because his criticisms of the church resonate with your perceptions. Thank God I still encounter many decent, genuine and committed clergy, some who are in their mid 80’s and feel glad to help out. These are the ones with honour, courage and dignity and who deserve our gratitude, not the sneering 70 year old retired cynic cutting through his rib eye steak…

Like

He has not opted of the clerical state.
He is like the rest semi retired or c/o diocesan offices.
They still get paid but hopefully the New Archbishop will cut it to 50%.
A sponger on the laity not the diocese as it is laity that pay.
He would be ashamed of himself as some of the money he takes could buy cold meat for the homeless never mind steak.
This RP is likely supplying sick notes to his dioceses.

Like

6:27pm
Thank God you retired, you did the right thing, you sound an nightmare you should have done it years ago. The way you speak of The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass and The Holy Souls in Purgatory I do not believe you ever had a vocation, or in fact believed anything. We are well rid of you.

Like

7.47: The contempt of this “retired” guy is astounding. I believe these comments are a wind up but grossly cynical. I truly hope you are not the SHAM your profile as described would suggest. Money is now your “god”. Enjoy it without the class act cynicism.

Like

And you believe in the Holy Souls in Purgatory, do you, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and all it entails ? You need to get a grip on reality, Father. The Church would probably be better off without you, and keep the ‘retired’ priest who seems to have a more realistic, balanced, and sane sense of what is important. Remind me, do you still trade perpetual indulgences ??!!

Like

6.27

I shan’t deny my detestation of Roman Catholic priesthood and its theological irrationale, but I was warming to you, Father, unexpectedly, and indeed surprisingly, since I never thought a Catholic priest sensitive to personal conscience. But then, I learned that your objections to these matters remained publicly unspoken, and therefore untested, throughout your ministry.

You are like the fellow in the parable who refused to take risks with the coinage entrusted to his care by a harsh master and who buried rather than invest it; for you, I reserve my strongest condemnation. You knew that certain things were wrong, even harmful, about Roman Catholic priesthood, and yet, you played safe by remaining silent. Had you been sufficiently stirred morally to protest openly, you would undoubtedly have been emotionally crucified by your fellow ‘men of God’ (as was Pat Buckley, when he bucked the clerical trend of the time); but sure, wasn’t Jesus, too, when he did the same? And like Jesus, your apparent defeat here would have been a glorious moral victory.

At least, it would…had you risked all to gain everything.

Like

8.24
‘…..your apparent defeat here….’ Huh!

It’s clear you haven’t a clue about what a parable is or how it works. If you think it’s something to be applied by you to other posters, especially to call them out and, at the same time, to let yourself off the hook as a person of virtue, you’ve wandered into the fables of Aesop by mistake. Stay there!

Like

Just listening to RTE news…RTE authorities will publish an apology for its offensive sketch re: God as a rapist, on New Year’s Eve which they concluded was a breach of their own ethical standards and guidelines. Despite your efforts to sneer, ridicule and mock at any objector of the offensive piece, you must feel an utter hypicrite and gombeen. You tried to suggest it was only Cathboths (to use your ignorant pejorative term) who objected, the more than over 5,000 complaints were from Christians of all denominations, from The Muslim and Jewish communities and some non religious individuals. You of course, not being a decent “christian” thought it was fine and acceptable to refer to God as a rapist, knowing that the belittling of the heinous crime of rape is morally reprehensible. Pat, act like an adult. The apology will be printed soon and the item will be removed from the RTE player. Rightly so!

Like

Catholic and Protestant unionists of Northern Ireland take note: the morally, socially, and intellectually backward statelet, the Republic of Ireland, remains deferentially under the heel of the Roman Catholic Church.

Like

‘Catholic unionists in the north of the country?’ All five of them, four of whom are not practising, and the other one lapsed.

Like

6.27: While I would share much of your insights and admire you for the decision you made re: retirement, I believe that if you didn’t have financial security in your life, you would still be in full time ministry. It seems you made the decision on that certainty. The other reasons you give are the daily ups and downs of priestly ministry – the realisation that much of our theological, moral and canonical teachings are a “baggage” too much; that the present crisis of identity for the Church and priesthood is troubling and challenging for all priests; that we can be emotionally and spiritually crippled by clericalism; that being relevant in the 21st century is problematic; that we can become all too cynical about power, authority, the presbyterate and very unkind to one another; that we can become isolated all too easily,(due to a lack of meaningful relationships which are nourishing); that no one in leadership really cares; that we cannot be creative and imaginative every time there’s a crisis of trust; that we din’t live up to expectations of parishioners or the idealism of priesthood ; that we do “break down” but do not share the truth with anyone. These and other factors make me think seriously almost every day, yet, I struggle on. This doesn’t make me any better than those who retire or leave but I think your concluding sentiments are very insulting to the many colleagues with whom you worked. In the very flawed system in which priests work and which you understand, a word of kindness, appreciation and encouragement would have made your thoughts more sincere and commendable. To some extent, by your own admission, you are being dishonest, primarily with yourself. You no longer minister, are glad you don’t say mass any more, are cynical and sneering, yet you are listed in your diocesan directory, therefore receive a SALARY!! Don’t you think this is rank hypocrisy? Your bishop is easily fooled by your “collar” or you are simply poking fun! Either way, enjoy your steak an poivre and bottle of Valpolicella! Better than the piss you drank as a young priest. And don’t choke on your sneering cynicism…that would be a sad, sad ending to your illustrious career! .

Like

8.29: Great response. I think we have found the true definition of a “priestly fraud” in the retired priest at 6.27. Best to ignore the auld fart. Sad and pathetic admissions from him about himself. A more inglorious life he couldn’t describe!

Like

8:29:
I’m pleased to see that the retired priest corrected your assertions.
It certainly seems obvious to me, and others I’m sure, that the comments at Sour Grapes and Lisburn Les are spot on with respect to you. The retired priest shouldn’t have had to correct you at all. But then, so many of your ilk really need to be spoon-fed.

The quality of clergy, was never very high.
For they knew they could rely on,….the wizard in the Sky

Like

@8:29 – your outrage at my situation is undermined by the fact that you premise it on what you believe is the fact that I take a diocesan salary. Well, I don’t. Nothing. No salary, No stipend. No clergy fraternal fund grant (which I paid in to for decades). Nothing. No housing. No heating / lighting allowance. I support myself totally. So there. So, am I still a hypocrite in your eyes ? You seem to agree with me that the reasons I retired are very much your thoughts. Only I decided not to struggle on. I think you’d rather like to do the same if you could ?

Like

While I “can get” the retired priest, I think he’s cynical to say the least. Saying Mass for a deceased person is not about popping a soul into Purgatory. It’s about bringing comfort to the family, giving remembrance to the departed. And yes, we get a stipend for it. But, I make it very clear, and always have, that if the stipend is too much for someone, then I do not want it. To me it means nothing without prayer. And I really do mean that. In any case, the younger people don’t understand the idea of giving stipends. But I will still say Mass for them. “Retired priest” says he has plenty of money. Well good for him (send a few notes my way). I just hope he remembers he is a Christian before he’s a priest. God will want to know what he’s done with his wealth. Retired priests around here do a lot for many people. I always have great respect for them. And they have many stories to tell. The best stories 😁

Like

Shit, what a load of sour grapes by – evidently – clergy, just because a priest is honest about his retirement and deciding to live a life that is different to that which most of them are stuck in themselves. Good for him that he is able to do so. I think he makes it clear that he is completely financially independent so all the outrage at him taking a diocesan salary is just not true, as far as I can read. I bet that the majority of the priests criticising him are just jealous and would desperately love to have the freedom and ability to do what he has done. But, they are stuck. Poor things. I doubt very much that their high handed outrage has to do with being faithful to what they claim, but rather as much to do with feeling frustrated at being stuck with no way out. Sour grapes, as I say.

Like

Nail on the head SG.
Seems they respond like this on having it brought home that they are:
Stuck with no way out, and dependent on the bishop’s whims.
Confronted with the reality that, as the retired priest acknowledged, many of them are
” ….uncomfortable with moral and theological matters…..so much that the church goes on about, ………is just silly and unsustainable ”
Sure that’s enough to make anyone sour.

Like

I think the retired priest usually Circa £15 pounds for each Mass said, now if there is no half ‘decent’ pension coming in then that is totally understandable. But if you are getting over £400 a month, I think saying the odd Mass without taking the fee is a kind gesture.
Petrol is not cheap and we all have bills to pay – and there is nothing wrong with the odd bottle of ‘nice’ wine, as long as we don’t drink it all to ourselves… x
—-
However, priests using the ‘parish’ debit card to go for £100 pound personal meals and buying Alexia wireless plug adapters, at £35 a pop (for every mains outlet in the house), so they can turn every lamp or electrical item on-or-off, via voice command–and from the comfort of their armchair, while enjoying the full Sky TV package which costs over £100 a month, is, quite frankly, extracting the urine. No? Yes!
If you have a ‘posh’ parish with over £150k in the ‘black,’ however, everything is payed for by donations, in addition to, then what are we doing to benefit the wider community?
Do we get the odd bag-or-two and shopping round to the Sisters who feed our homeless?
Do we have an open table meal on a Sunday in the hall for Anybody, including the local homeless, addicts and the ‘working’ girls from Shield Road?
… At this Open table, do we create an atmosphere of normal ‘family life’ where we are all one, at table, and where we can feel we are bringing the Gospel into action, even — in the words of Father Fitz at St. Michael’s: “This Sunday lunch we do, people, is Our small and clumsy way of bringing the Gospel into action.”
… To which I reply: “There’s nothing small or clumsy about bringing the Gospel into action, Fitzy!”
We all need to live, pay the bills – but we don’t need to build up treasures on earth — we need to build up treasures in heaven!
—-
Love, man, where’s the love? Spread the love x

Like

Leave a comment