Sometimes, in discussing sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, we forget that the sexual abuse of children is actually a global phenomenon involving people of all races, skin colours, religions and places.
We have seen sexual abuse rings involving Pakistani men in the UK.
We have seen it in the Church of England.
In fact, the vast majority of paedophiles are neither priests nor even Catholics.
There was a very active paedophile ring in Northern Ireland in the 60s and70s.
It involved very senior people in the Northern Ireland and British establishment, including Lord Louis Mountbatten, a prominent member of the British Royal Family and the “stepfather” of Prince Charles.
It also involved high ranking politicians, medics and police officers.
Child sex abuse is a very old problem.
And in the past it did not get the prominence it does today.
The full truth about the Northern Ireland sex ring has yet to come.out.
Even the IRA and Sinn Fein has had their paedophiles.
FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE BACKGROUND.
98 replies on “THE NORTHERN IRELAND SEX ABUSE RING THAT INCLUDED LORD MOUNTBATTEN.”
Gosh, Pat! All pretty compelling, and no wonder so much stuff “disappeared” and inquiries were shut down. Frankly, it makes the RCC look like a bunch of amateurs.
No, the RCC aren’t amateurs. They have 2000 years of experience under their belt.
Pat, Kincora will never be brought to light. Too many big names. Paisley knew all about it and did NOTHING – just like Catholic bishops and their paedophile priests.
Prominent figures in the British establishment, Unionists/Loyalists and “evangelical Protestants” were availing themselves of vulnerable boys and male teenagers.
Not a whiff of homosexuality among these red blooded, “born again” and “saved” Ulster men of course. Perish the thought!
They just fancied the pants of the arses of vulnerable young lads and went back to their poor wives, after they emptied their ball sacks into teenage boys’ anal cavities.
Paul Berry comes to mind and the pervert former disgraced mayor of Newtownabbey, Mr Hogg.
There is also a super injunction, against one of Paisley’s prominent free Presbyterian ministers, who had dalliances with rent boys.
There is an important point in your comment actually, the fact that sexual orientation is not necessarily related to paedophilia. The woman telling Paisley about homosexuality made this mistake as does anyone who makes a connection between homosexual orientation and paedophilia.
At 1.07, too descriptive. Your account of sexual abuse in this respect was too in your face.
Did you get off on it?
Paisley says he wasn’t told that McGrath was a housemaster at Kincora, only that he was a practising homo. I believe him.
Think what you like about Paisley, but he was honest, like Pat Buckley. Both men had that in common: absolute integrity.
Richard Kerr suffered terribly. But I fear that he will simply be used again, this time by Fr Sean McManus, who is a notorious anglophobe and whose adult life has been devoted not to serving the interests of Protestants in Northern Ireland, but in wrenching from them their British identity and connection, and in forcing them into a so-called ‘united Ireland’, in which they would be persecuted, suppressed, and treated like second-class citizens.
I find it impossible to take a grandstanding speech on child sexual abuse from a man who remains a member of an institution that has committed such crimes against children on a far wider, (in fact, on a global) and industrial scale.
Ger Cough at it again, and once again, anonymously but the MC rhetoric is unmistakable.
Would someone please give that Northern Ireland journalist a lesson in good manners? And then a hanky so he can blow his sniffling nose.
This is old news as I heard it years ago. It’s been repeatly covered up for years.
Surprised to see pat said that SF (political wing) and ira(military wing) had paedophiles. Maybe I’m naive but I never heard of it except for Maria cahill.
Writer in 2nd video is very good author. I read one of his book on famous spy, who was gay and also alcholic named guy burgess. It was an interesting read. That spy spilled many secrets to kgb. His cover was blown in USA as Kim philby had to cover for him and also tipped him off in the process.
Anyway that author has fresh or first evidence to date that Lord mountbatten was a peado. He was kicked out of India becos of this. Mountbatten’s wife had an affair with nehru ex prime minister of India. All these liitle details left me wondering as to what’s going on in royal and political circles 🤔
“In fact, the vast majority of paedophiles are neither priests nor even Catholics.” You are beginning to sound like + Nichols, who was in the habit of saying that most sexual abuse of children took place in their own home by people to whom they were related. He liked to minimise and diminish what was happening in his own clerical clique, as if saying it was just a minor blip. We should be looking forensically and microscopically at our own back yard and at our priests and bishops in particular, rather than worrying about other constituencies. There are plenty of other people to look in to those. The fact remains that out of a Church which professes to follow Jesus Christ, so many priests and bishops have been actively involved in sexual abuse and its coverup, involving the most vulnerable amongst them, namely children, and worse still so often children who had been given in to their care. That is the thing that continues to gnaw away and undermine the credibility of the Church and its clergy and bishops. We can put up with the odd drunk, or gambler, or priest who has his fingers in the collection box. What we cannot put up with is priests and bishops who have any involvement in the matter of sexual abuse of children. My own view is that protection and coverup and minimising of these crimes still goes on – in order to protect clergy and bishops and the reputation of the institution. As the O’Loan said about the Met the other day – there is clear evidence of institutional corruption for reputational purposes. Let’s root that out, rather than worry about some arrogant toff like Mountbatten.
Excellent and honest comment thank you.
Are you disputing the truth or the statistics? Vincent Nichols does have a point. Of course we need zero tolerance of CSA from the churches. However, context is everything and taking matters out of their context a methodological fallacy. Pardophilia predates Christianity. As long as the sole focus is on clergy the danger of impunity continues in respect of the 97% of non-clerical abusers. Your view is culpably myopic. Wake up and open your mind.
Vin isn’t pushing that line because he wants the truth to be known, but precisely so that the truth can be covered up and minimised. That’s his intention all along. He is not interested in the truth. Just in saving his corrupt and sinful Church. At the expense of all else. Including innocent and vulnerable children. He should be ashamed.
At 1.18, so those who challenge the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church are just anti-churchers’ (aka, anti-clerical)? Is this the new old approach by priests like you? Take the heat off abusing priests in a church with a very long history of abuse and its cover up by demonising its critics?
You’d think you’d have learned by now that this approach only backfires on the Church.
11.24: Excellent riposte indeed to the myopic 9.07am. Many professionals have expressed the view that the focus almost solely on clerical sexual abuse and criminal behaviour gives the impression (false and misleading) that clerics are primarily the prime paedophiles. Not true. A lie which some vehemently anti churchers peddle. We must be eternally vigilant about child safeguarding at all times and in every setting. Horrendous abuse, sexual and physical has happened within homes, sadly. To tell this truth is proper and legitimate and in no way diminishes the extent of clerical abuse. Your attitude is to ignore the full reality of sexual abuse because you have an anti church agenda. All abuse is repulsive. All. Have you not read recent reports about the treatment of children with special needs, young teenagers with mental health issues being placed in adult psychiatric centres, or the many reports which highlighted the abuse of children in state care – including the tragic deaths of many teenagers? The reports were quietly whispered about and did not receive the attention or debate which they deserved. Obviously, this suits your mind set because you prefer church bashing!!! All abuse us morally repugnant and deserving of our condemnation. Do you get it, myopic fool?
Excellent point, 12.33
The comment maker at 11.24 sounds like a desperate and worried priest eager to be taken out of the limelight. One has to wonder why.
The poster at 11.24 spoke about the necessity/desirability of ‘zero tolerance of CSA from the churches.’
Which of these words do you not understand?
At 3.37, I was reading between the lines. You should try it, if it’s not too much an intellectual stretch.
“That is the thing that continues to gnaw away and undermine the credibility of the Church… and bishops.”
Anon 9:07, we saw on the video the other day of how Bishops facilitated moving evil criminals from one location to another. The Bishops put innocent people in harm’s way. People expect Bishops to act with integrity and law enforcement to deal with criminality. Bishops have undermined the credibility of the Church.
You know fine that has all changed are you becoming like the rest Anti Catholic.
Bishops will not move and clergy from one Parish to the Other the days of that are gone Thankfully.
Every Dioceses has a safeguarding team of Clergy and Lay faithful alongside Professional Staff so the above is history.
You just need to ask yourself when the Church has so many c/o and that is because the Bishops will not move the Clergy around.
I feel sorry for Fintan Monahan who would likely like to get rid of Ger and Jerry however it will come down to a Canonical Trial and the Jerry case is simple a convicted sex offender However the Ger case could see him back somewhere maybe in a hospital chaplaincy.
Times have changed more on and do not live in the past.
‘That has all changed’.
I am Roman Catholic. I am not Anti-Catholic. It is important to have conversations about what is right. The evidence was clear from the video the other day that criminals were moved around.
You are right to highlight the improvements that have been made. Clergy and parishioners are getting unfair criticism when the fault lies with the Bishops who did not act responsibly enough. Both conversations have to coexist.
We should not lose sight of forgiveness either. Evil criminals have to be expelled. Wayward clergy with harmless failings should be allowed an opportunity to atone.
11:15 The attitude that it has changed (and its associated attitude that it can’t happen here) is the most dangerous attitude in child protection, and a sure indicator that child protection training has failed to sink in.
In fact just how dangerous your attitude is can be gauged by its similarity to the attitude of the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor on 26th April 1986. And we all know the result of them thinking it couldn’t happen.
The correct attitude to have is the realistic one that it can happen here and paedophiles function in a way designed to make people think it isn’t happening.
12.37: You, sir, are in DENIAL big time about the scale of sexual abuse outside the Church institution. I have no difficulty in acknowledging the moral horror of clerical sexual, criminal abuse but since Pat chose this topic for today’s blog, let’s respond with honesty, rationality, balance and intelligence, not with your myopic stupidity. Stay with the topic of the day and inform yourself accurately by reading clinical research and documentation. TRUTH matters…
You sound apoplectic, 1.01. What gives? Did I cut too close to the bone about the sordid history of your abusing and its abuse-cover-up church?
I didn’t deny child sexual abuse outside your church. In fact, I said nothing about it all. My earlier comment was on an entirely different matter. So please don’t lecture me, or anyone else, about staying on topic.
You just can’t get your head round the fact that your church attracts more attention for its very long history of child sexual abuse not just for this fact itself, but because you hypocrites similtaneously and smugly presented yourselves to the world variously as ‘holy’, the ‘Bride of Christ’, and as the ‘one true church’.
When you go to such self-flattering lengths to tell the world lies about your true nature, don’t whine when the world ceases to laugh on discovering the sham.
MC without the handle.
Deflection attempt alert at 3.41!
anon at 9.07
I have no time for Nichols now. If i was Frankie the gaslighter, i would demand his resignation immediately on the table now. No buts or ifs just full and complete resignation.
Same can be said for Brady as well, who was shrewd and ambitious when climbing up on the ranks.
Yes deaf guy, and the fact that Frankie didn’t accept Nichols’s resignation indicates he’s not bothered about child abuse. But then we knew that, didn’t we.
In an interview with the History Extra Podcast, the author of the book: The Mountbattens: Their Lives & Loves, Andrew Lownie mentioned that it had been confirmed to him as part of his research by a “senior royal” that Lord Mountbatten was bisexual.
However, more troublingly, he further mentioned that in 1944 that the FBI opened a file on Mountbatten, because of concerns that he was unsuitable to be the Supreme Allied Commander due to his interest in “little boys”.
Lownie recounts that the FBI started to destroy the files once he began his research into this area. He further suggest that it may have been a result of a certain British embarrassment. The relevant section in the podcast can be listened to from minute: 35.25
Hughie Connolly and his Bin Masses in a LGBT Stole. 🏳️🌈👥🙏
The Mass doesn’t seem to have done you much good.
Nor the Roman Catholic Church, at 1.24.
especially seeing the Bold Hughie Connolly in a LGBT Stole on a French Beach ⛱
1.25: Magna, what utter silliness of you to attempt to hide your “identity”. What utter imbecilic behaviour! Now you can’t even understand your own comnentary. When you are called out and caught for your bizarre behaviour, lies, insults, ugliness and hate speech, you go all full of faux outrage. Stop digging deeper holes. Magna dear, your language us a give away…And we recognise you under many “anonymous” comments too!! Somehow, you have difficulty with home truths about your repeat, abusive dysfunctionality. Now, Marge, stay with the topic which Pat wrote about today.
What was that all about at 3.41?😱
Honestly, some people. Tch 😒
There’s a school of thought that Mountbatten was taken out because of his fiddling with boys from Kincora ,who were brought to him in Sligo.
Mountbatten himself was quoted as saying about him and his nymphomaniac wife, ” we spent our married life hopping in and out of other people’s beds.”
In addition, he and his wife engaged in sex with Nehru pre and post independence in India.
Another quote from Mountbatten, ” we were a happy little threesome”.
He was known as “mountbottom” in the navy.
Its unclear as to when his interest in young boys became dominant, as opposed to his frequent sex with young naval personnel,particularly in Malta.
Certainly he used the covering label of “bisexual “,rather than pederast,which I think he was.
There’s been an acceptance of bisexuality since time began, in the gentry and royalty,and it’s been accepted that upper class men frequently engage,especially in private boarding schools and the armed forces.
The queen’s uncle, the Duke of Kent,was a notoriously promiscuous bisexual. But it was always consenting adult men,as far as we know.
The problem, as pointed out by another poster, is the catastrophic link between interest in underage boys,young men,and older men as a Conflation of homosexual orientation- something which has condemned all gay men as perverts,paedoes and which has led to so much trauma for them worldwide to this day.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
A gay man does not equal an abuser.
Some abusers prefer girls, others boys.
They are abusers.
Same as some priests are abusers. Certainly not the majority.
Paedophilia and monarchy didn’t begin with Hadrian and Antinous.
I think the rot started after Adam and his missus got the boot from paradise. Incest really took off then. Well it had to, when you think about it. How else did humanity’s numbers grow? I mean it stands to reason, doesn’t it?
The book of Genesis mentions three of Adam and Eve’s children: Cain, Abel and Seth. But geneticists, by tracing the DNA patterns found in people throughout the world, have now identified lineages descended from 10 sons of a genetic Adam and 18 daughters of Eve.
According to historical calculations, it was in approximately 1,300 BC that Moses received a list of ten laws directly from God. These laws were known as the Ten Commandments and were transcribed as part of the Book of Moses, which later became part of the Bible.
Hold on there a minute at 12.49. Adam and Eve weren’t married, because there were no priests around to do the honours.
Hang on then! If God gave these two a mission to be ‘fruitful and multiply’, it means that God himself is happy with sex outside marriage.
Makes you think.
That would be ephebophillia between Hadrian and Ant, not paedophilia.
Ant wasn’t a minor; in fact, under Roman Law, he was an adult.
Fair play to ya, Haddy.
At 1.33, so God’s cool about incest Seamus? And sex outside marriage? He must have been, if your research is kosher.
God must have been the original hippie.
Incest? All that near-identical DNA swirling in our ancestors? No wonder humanity is so f****d up. No dope needed.
I don’t think original sin was the burning touch-paper, Seamus; I think it was God’s plan all along.
LOL at Seamus’s biblical ‘scholarship’.
To know as little about classical studies as MC! Pedantry, like sobriety is something he can aspire to.
Whether their relationship would or would not have been contrary to Roman law is irrelevant. That law did not apply. Hadrian was above the law in these matters.
Antinous was most likely 11 when introduced to the emperor. Classical and classic paedophilia.
6.39, most likely? So you’re guessing.
Yes, I recognise the traits of classical scholarship in you. 😁
Some might be interested to know that some Antinous devotees re-envisioned and re-established an Antinous religion open to all but particularly gay people. Sadly as I write their website appears down but hopefully this is just temporary. Here’s a link to their facebook https://www.facebook.com/antinousgayreligion/?ref=page_internal
@6:39pm Hadrian would have been aware that his power would last only as long as he had the support of the people / army. Pederasty was accepted, perhaps even regarded as normal but for the emperor to have an adult male lover was not. It would have brought problems perhaps even disaster. I think it credible that Hadrian and Antinous, however their relationship started, were growing into gay adult lovers and that they were both aware of the trouble that lay ahead if their relationship continued but Antinous died, drowned in the nile river and speculation has pondered since, exactly how it happened. I like the idea that Antinous sacrificed himself after Osiris, for the good of Hadrian and Rome. Hadrian declared Antinous a god.
2.01, I’d bet MMM has a view on this aspect of Genesis. Incest, sex outside marraige: and all approved by God himself, but not by the God usurpers in the RCC.
Who’s right, then? God? Or the RCC?
Anyone got a coin to flip?
O have a view which is that the collection of myths which make up the ‘historical’ bits of the Hebrew bible can’t conceivably have been intended to be taken literally. For example Adam simply means man and either Abel or Cain (I can’t remember which) means sibling, so they are types rather than literal historical individual people.
Good man! Tell that to Seamus.
The council fathers wanted Catholics to have more contact with scripture but put no thought into how people would understand it. Hence people read Protestant sources, often accessed through the charismatic movement or with no understanding of academic study, I wonder if Seamus realises that Archbishop Ussher was the source of his dating above. It has now got so bad I recently came across a video by a Catholic priest which mentioned the rapture!
Pat, could you
QUESTION FOR READERS:
Why did Cain have no children?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cos he wasn’t Able?
Could you expand on what you said there re Sf and ira had paedophiles.?
All that stuff about Kincora and the rest were Irish republican generated lies. Look at the political mongrels pushing that agenda now, men like Sean McManus, the veteran Brit-basher.
I wonder does he spend as much time publicly bashing the globally discredited institution he belongs to.
I haven’t heard him say one word against it.
You are repeating yourself. The second time made even less sense than the first.
3.54, I’ll tell y’, so I will, what doesn’t make sense to me: it’s Sean McManus’ getting hot under his clerical collar about a wee Protestant boy from Northern Ireland being abused by British folk when he seems to have nothing at all to say about wee Catholic boys from Ireland and elsewhere being a anally raped by his fellow priests.
Now I’m not a smart man, like Forrest Gump, so I’m not, but I can’t help wonderin’ why this holy priest is giving so much of his time and attention to a former wee Proddy boy from Northern Ireland. Its got my mental wheels a turnin’, so it has.
Do y’ think he might be usin’ that wee boy as a club to bate the British with, seein’ as he’s a longtime critic of theirs?
Very funny comments today, especially by priests continuing to try to divert attention from the church. Are they incapable of seeing that abuse by a cleric is different from abuse by, say, a teacher who isn’t a cleric!
3.39: A very unintelligent comment. How can you say or imply that abuse by a cleric is worse or different than abuse by a teacher? Abuse is abuse irrespective of the profession of the perpetrator and totally unacceptable. Pat wrote the blog for today and chose the topic. Let’s discuss this on its own merits as it is a worthwhile topic. No one is engaging in diversionary tactics. Are you afraid of TRUTHS found elsewhere?? Too close to home for you perhaps!!
You wud say that, wouldn’t you, Father at 4.29? That chile sexual abuse by a priest is no different from chile sexual abuse by a teacher?
Put yur thinkin’ cap back on there. Teachers don’t pretentiously self-aggrandise, don’t deify themselves, by proclaiming to be ‘other Christs’.
You see, to a chile, getting his bottom violated by a priest, is like Jesus doin’ that to him, cos that is how you want him to think of yiz all, isn’t it? As other Jesus-s?
If a teacher harms a chile in this way, Father, he harms his body and his mind, but you priests, being the self-exceptionalists you proclaim, go exceptionally further by destroying the boy’s spirit.
Whoever called you all ‘soul murderers’ knew what he was talkin’ about.
4.04: Barney – what a load of baloney! You are dancing on the head of a needle. Abuse is abuse is abuse. When I was abused between 13-15 years of age by a local neighbour, I felt a great shame about myself for many years until I was able to afford therapy. Your comment is totally absurd and is offensive to all the many victims/survivors of sexual abuse. My perpetrator wasn’t a cleric but the emotional, spiritual and the mental shame and guilt were horrendous. You obviously haven’t studied the psychology of abuse or have gone through any trauma which cuts you to the core of your being. Ask Bishop Pat and he’ll put you right about abuse. I have great difficulty with any person, like you, who says that my abuse by a pedarast neighbour was less traumatic because I wasn’t abused by a cleric. This is absurd, thwarted thinking. Barney, from Mars, get real. Study clinical data re: child abuse. Also, the word is “child” not “chile” which you used twice!! Repeat the dictum: Abuse is abuse is abuse and all and every abuse by whomsoever, is morally and spiritually repulsive. Go and educate yourself.
The sick explicitly sexualised posting of MC at 4.04 and pervasively, anonymously, today is revolting. Pat, can you block his drivel until he has sought and received help for his alcoholism. It doesn’t reflect well on your blog. Currently he’s not fit to participate in civilized discourse. And he hasn’t been for a long time.
5.18, if your abuser wasn’t a cleric, then how wud you know what it’s like to be buggered by one, man dear?
Y’ didn’t think of that, now did y’?
4.04: Are you for real? Are you joking? You are the classic minimiser of abuse by saying what you are saying. Such unintelligent, ignorant and uninformed commentary! What you are really saying is – abuse is not too bad if perpetrated by a non cleric. You gombeen. You are an enabler of abuse with thought processes like this.
Thank you 4:04 for gloriously replying to that fool. I would have done but yours is great 👍
With no disrespect to 5:18 yes abuse is abuse however all abuse is different. If you are abused by a parent, a teacher or a priest it is going to screw up a different area of your life.
My own abuse was by a priest but for me personally doesn’t now (30+ years later) hurt half as much as my mother not believing me, for example.
The effect of the abuse can be influenced by the role of the person in your life and the exceptionally privileged place priests are given, quite literally as an intermediary with God, indeed other Christ’s, can have a correspondingly significant impact. Obviously I am talking in general terms and this is not reflected by your own views. I imagine in a family where a child was taught to value education, being abused by a teacher and the resulting changes in performance at school would be incredibly devastating.
6.44: Now you’re an utter idiot. Stop digging holes. It is blatantly obvious that you haven’t a clue about the effects of sexual abuse or any kind of abuse. Stop minimising abuse. You are being utterly selfish in mocking any person who has been abused. You may as well say to the abused: lucky you , your abuser could have been a cleric! God forbid! If you’ve ever talked with a victim/survivor of abuse, you will truly appreciate the shame, guilt and confusion. If mockery is all you have to offer, God help you.
4.15: Read correctly what was said by 4.04: Regardless of the background of asexual predator, abuse of any kind leaves mental, emotional, spiritual and sexual trauma and deep, inner conflicts which can last for a life time. You, like the blarney barney fool at 4.04 need to study the psychology of abuse and it would serve you better to unequivocally condemn all and every abuse. To suggest or infer that sexual abuse committed by a farmer or a doctor or a teacher is less traumatic than abuse by a cleric perpetrator is utterly absurd and a baseless contention. It is also offensive to victims/survivors of sexual abuse. Come and talk with me about the sexual abuse I endured at the hands of a neighbour!
4.15: Another of Magna’s self congratulatory postings. Pat, yesterday and today, MC has posted under various pseudonyms and under anonymous. You barred him before for vulgar, offensive and hate inciting speech. He hasn’t changed. Perhaps another sojourn in the wilderness might tame the beast. Sometimes, censorship is the correct ethical and moral response to give to people like him.
5.35, what? What was that?
I have mixed feelings about this post.
This is a society problem. It is not only the RC church. We have read about the Anglicans, the JV’s and other denominations not to mention other religions which PB has mentioned above. We have read about abuse in the police forces, medical, educational establishments (not just church schools).
All abuse complaints need to be:
Immediate suspension of the alleged aggressor.
Police involvement right from the start. There are not many fictional Father Browns (amateur detectives) about.
If proved completely false prosecution of the accuser. It would not be the first time somebody has been falsely accused.
I do not see what the big problem is. Get rid of the filth out of every organisation. It is as simple as that. Organisations can then get on and do what they are supposed to do with the respect of the people they are supposed to serve.
I do hope and pray that there will be no backlash from some unmentionable factions.
It does not help that MC still rants and raves under different guises. In a previous post he mentioned that he has a hearing defect same as me and would enjoy meeting up at the ent clinic. I would simply run a mile. I would not want to listen to his hatred.
These cathbots will believe anything, including that any comments they don’t like are by Magna Carta!
Even when they’re in quite a different style from his.
Either they didn’t read the very good comment about scapegoating or…. It couldn’t possibly be yet another attempt to silence any view they don’t like, could it?
I’m amused by today’s paranoid scramble, probably by romanist priests, to attribute to me every post they consider offensive to them or to their church.
I posted one comment on today’s blog, either late last night or very early this morning, which Pat did not publish. I have not commented since.
I have noticed, however, the customary attempts by Romanists to gaslight me, yet again, by referring to ‘alcoholism’ and suchlike, in order to have Pat bar me from the blog. Romanists, historically, do not tolerate criticism well, which they now mistitle ‘hate speech’ in an attempt to have it censored. God bless our holy priests. 😂
For the record, I haven’t had even a drop of the ‘Devil’ s Buttermilk’ since 10 January this year.
What the Romanists cannot come to terms with is the fact that I’m not the only blog reader to loathe them, and the institution they serve over Christ.
If they want to find out whether comments are by Magna Carta, they can use plagiarism detection software. You don’t need to pay for it like universities do, there are free ones:https://elearningindustry.com/top-10-free-plagiarism-detection-tools-for-teachers
The truth will set you free – after showing you up for the fool you are.
Mendacious nonsense from MC.
Any form of sex abuse was/is quite devastating especially on psychological level which in turns affects overall health as well. Usually its long lasting effects on mental and soul level. I didn’t understand whats was happening to me due to lack of proper education. It dawned on me after i met psych re the effects that i didnt know in the first place, which was quite brutal leading to a full blown episode. I wasnt totally fully aware of it until after that episode. Then i sort of knew there was something wrong with me.
Firstly, it destroys on the soul level not all of it but damaged hugely (as it depends on the level of abuse). It has a huge spiritual damage effects ,for instance, i didnt want to go to mass on unconscious level when i was young without understanding why. Abuse played a huge part in this, even RCC bigwigs dont GET it now.
To them (Rcc and other abusers outside rcc as well), its all about minimizing the effects of any sexual abuse and get away with it. They have no real understanding of how it affects them (abuse victims), which was hugely and damaging at times, usually longer lasting effects on all levels starting from spiritual to mental to physical.
2nd effect is on mental and physical health and also self care for oneself as well.
3rd effect is on emotional level.
4th huge and sometimes massive struggle to overcome it which takes years. They (Rcc) can talk the talk all they want to but not walk the talk. Talk is very cheap to some bigwigs in RCC with their crocodile tears. This is why Rcc cant be trusted at all, not even one scintilla.
5. Perhaps two things might change RCC attitude to abuses is
a) , Compulsory or mandatory prison sentence if fail to report abuses to secular authorities ,
2) Dont treat them as charity status as just treat them as fully fledged organisation with no charity status and see how would that change their attitude re they have to pay taxes on all donations and be accountable for their actions.
Dont give them such a special status cos they will try to take that advantage and use it. To them ,its all about money and exercising it to the fullest effect to wield power and control.
6. Finally i understood the effects of Nuns abuses on ourselves after seeing Mother Theresa methods on the web. It was quite uncanny and very similar to nuns methods at school for deaf boys. It was an eye opener for me cos seeing it what people espcially local people who met and worked with MT and said about her. Its like a veil opening before my eyes,exposing the dark intentions of the nuns if hidden. I didnt realise that she wasn’t a saint as opposed to be. But saints arent perfect and quite human.
Powerful comment, Deaf Guy. Thank you.
8.10: I agree with you wholeheartedly with you re: Deaf Guy’s comments. I hope other commenters on here today take note of his comments and of his experience. Some are trying to minimise abuse because it wasn’t perpetrated by a cleric. How offensive to people like Deaf Guy. How ignorant.
I’m back. Did you miss me?
Pat, i believe you must remove Magna for some time again. Every couple of days the comment by him and his enemies rise to a crescendo of horrible, unacceptable, vicious personalised attacks. MC has a disjointed personality which invades your blog, like a virus. All the verbiage exchanged is tiresome and repetitive but also very ugly and dangerous.
He’s posting politely and you want him banned. If you don’t demand the two commenters below posting threats are not banned, that tells us all we need to know about you.
9.14: No abusive threats or incitement to hatred should ever be tolerated. There’s a huge difference between some of Magna’s narratives than the comments you refer to. I know the ones which I’d ban for extremism and viciousness and his name is MC…the others are humorous.
Bishop Pat, if some if the contributors tiday happened to be in a school yard, we’d have fights resulting in broken limbs, jaws, scarred eyes…..What a shower of school yard bullies have surfaced today, Magna being the prime bully under a load of pseudonyms. God bless your patience..Now, if I was in the school yard with them….one chop and they’d be dead…🤣🤣🤣🤣
8.58: Hi Lollipop: i’d join you in the karate chop with those bullies…You chop, I’ll referee. But all must be put down..😭😭😭😭😭…no more bullies.
Threats of violence.
No surprise there.
I should say that I personally disagree with Pat’s liberal comment policy. I personally wouldn’t allow about half the comments if this were my blog, but I understand he declines a number of comments every day. I shudder to think what they are like.
I do however recognise one advantage in Pat allowing through so many comments – it allows people to show their true thoughts. I have said before here that this blog allows people a glimpse into the reality of the world behind the presbytery door.
This is the point at which enraged Catholics start hollering that we don’t know they are Catholics and actually that is the real beauty of Pat’s policy.
The simple fact is that whether readers of this blog have any church background at all, what they will see, with the exception of people who obviously are not Catholic, is a bunch of Catholics screaming abuse. They will identify you as Catholics whether you do or not. If they have a church background and understand Pat’s position they will still identify you as Catholics, because who else would have an issue with Pat.
Today they will see Catholics screaming abuse at someone who has been abused and ganging up on someone who isn’t here, and comments politely when he does.
Your attempt to try to shut up Pat Buckley’s blog is a spectacular own goal and shows you up as internet bullies, precisely because Pat lets you behave badly.
Now wait for the screaming to start. I’ll never forget the day a priest was screaming abuse at Magna Carta and ended by saying he would say mass for him!
Peace be with you Anon 9:27. Your post was very one sided. You have turned a blind eye to the Anti-Catholic brigade. It’s like you have no interest in a conversation about what is right.
You have ignored that there are Roman Catholics on here who agree with, disagree with and have respect for Bishop Pat.
9.27: Interesting comnent. I believe, having observed over some time, that while Pat has a wide readership, a small fraction venture to comment. There are different people who comment: priests, ex-priests, present and past seminarians, atheists, some very disgruntled church personnel and church haters. We get glimpses into many personalities on this blog. We certainly witness some very nasty and abusive language. This blog serves as a forum for all view points but perhaps Pat needs to exercise censorship with some commenters who appear all too frequently, goading others into fight mode. We end up with horrible, unacceptable vitriol. There is no necessity for extreme commentary. Incidentally, nastiness is not the sole preserve of clerics!! Many non clerics on this blog are masters at nastiness. I don’t think any person, priest or not, would ever succeed in silencing Pat! I would actually believe that while many, many priests read this blog, only a handful contribute to it. We are beaten down irrespective of what we say. We’re both damned and condemned.
No doubt ‘father’ you respond by saying that abuse is a problem in society when people mention clerical sexual abuse.
Literally the same approach you take to your co-religionists screaming abuse at MC.
If you genuinely think nobody will listen to you, you wouldn’t keep coming back. Yet you and your co-religionists do keep coming back and moaning about supposed anti-catholicism. It makes no sense at all unless you come here to try to control the conversation and if you can’t do that, piss all over the blog so that by making it look bad you can make out it’s other people.
Of you really think what you say in your comment you wouldn’t come here. But I suspect you typed it with at least a mental reservation didn’t you, ‘father’.
10.08: Think you had a few too many drinks with this rather incoherent comment!! NO – “Father” never says that abuse is a societal problem when asked about clerical abuse. Why would I do that? I am not afraid of the Truth.
9.12: Have you no sense of humour at Lollipop Josie and Miss Nancy Moon? Makes a change from the other stuff that’s scary…we need a laugh too!! 😁🤣😃😂🤣😅😂…
Classic move to make out your comment is a joke. Actually it is ABUSE.
10.01: Stop being so stupid. Nothing abusive whatsoever. Humour is good…get it!