“The real story in Rathgar isn’t Commane but Paul Taylor and his live in Master of Music Frank O’Donnell. 

Late night parties and disturbances in the presbytery and neighbours complaining. 

Commane and two female staff went to Drumcondra. 


Taylor locked the staff members out of their office and got rid of Commane.

The PPC complained and Taylor disbanded it. 

Farrell moved Taylor into next parish Beechwood.


The two staff members were never let back in.  Taylor tore Rathgar apart. 

How long before Beechwood realise”.


I made contact with Fathers Taylor and Commane to get a response to what was written above. Neither replied.




An Armagh priest has sent me a copy of Eamon Martin’s latest letter to priests.

He is reminding.priests to update their wills and lodge a copy of their wills in the archbishop’s House.

Conveniently he is supplying priests with a Will Template.

He is remind priests that they themselves are responsible for the cost of their funeral, their grave, their headstone and any after funeral booze up 😀

In the past, in many dioceses paid for priest’s funeral. Those days seem gone.

I would imagine a goodly number of Armagh priests would not want Amy Martin reading their will and finding out what money property and possessions might have?

Some priests may have family money?

Others will have things left to them in wills by parishioners.

There will be some priests who have paid themselves extra out of parish monies over the years and decades.

As my father used to say: “Every priest christens his own child first”.






Paul Taylor, a long time pet of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, was removed from Rathgar after only two years and sent to the less elegant parish of Beechwood Avenue. We don’t know if his closeness to Diarmuid Martin was a factor.


Michael Commane, a Dominican priest who has been “parish chaplain” in Rathgar for 10 years has been abruptly send back to his religious order.

The archbishop Dermot Farrell, asked Commane’s superior Fr John Harris to take him back as the diocese no longer required his services – in spite of the priest shortage in Dublin!


Farrell acted under Canon 682 of Canon Law which states that a religious priest with a diocesan appointment can be removed either by the bishop or his religious superior.

The whole scrap started when Paul Taylor sacked two lay parish workers and dismissed the parish Council.

Why Taylor took these executive decisions is currently unclear.

There was a row about disputed minutes of the parish council meeting.

Farrell had previously set up a diocesan mediation procedure which did not work.

The process shows that Dermot Farrell is capable of tough and quick action when required.

**** The Blog is interested in hearing from Dublin priests and parishioners on this matter.




I include this video as Robert is asking similar questions. Robert has no association with me or The Oratory and our views would be very different on many things.

Many Catholic bishops and priests, including in Ireland, no longer publicly teach the core beliefs of Catholicism as expressed in the Catholic Catechism.

1. Do they not believe in the teachings of the Catechism?

2. Are they trying to be seen as “kool” by not expressing those teachings?

Personally, I am not committed to the Catechism, its teachings and style – and that is one of the big reasons I am where I – estranged from the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood.

But if you are a fully paid up member of the hierarchy and priesthood – and are making a living out of that position – surely you must teach the teachings?

And if you don’t, are you not just cynical and hypocritical?

Can you imagine a middle or upper line manager of the Shell oil company being tolerated if he promoted the oil and petrol of BP and not Shell.

He would be gone in seconds.

And yet Catholic bishops and priests regularly fail to privately and publicly uphold Catholic teachings and yet they are allowed to keep their jobs and take their pay and benefits.

Catholic bishops and priests are called upon to teach things like:

1. Sex outside marriage and outside of the context of being open to procreation are mortal sins.

2. Not going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is a mortal sin.

3. Abortion, or assisting in an abortion is a mortal sin and incurs automatic excommunication.

4. Homosexual acts are mortal sins.

5. Artificial contraception is a mortal sin.

6. Euthanasia or assisting in euthanasia are mortal sins.

7. A priest breaking his vow of chastity or breaking his promise of celibacy is committing a mortal sin.

When I first learned the Catechism the difference between mortal and venial sin was stressed. A venial sin caused your relationship with God to be undermined. A mortal sin broke off your relationship with God.

To die in mortal sin, without going to Confession, led you to Hell.

Are these “truths” I learned from the age of 4 no longer valid?

And if not why have we not been told they are no longer valid?

And if they are still valid why are our bishops and priests telling us so?

Why are they not preaching about them anymore?

Why, for instance do the Irish hierarchy and priesthood not wage a moral war against abortion and euthanasia?

Sure, it would make them highly unpopular. But Jesus was not popular for teaching His truths.

It would shrink the size of the Irish Catholic Church. So what? It’s supposed to be the small yeast in the big loaf.

Maybe Christ is calling on Irish bishops, priests and lay Catholics to be His “anawim”.

Anawim is the plural form of an Old Testament Hebrew word which is variously translated as “poor”, “afflicted”, “humble”, or “meek”. It is the Anawim, “the lost and the forgotten ones”, to whom Jesus refers in his beautiful beatitudes on The Sermon on the Mount. “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”, and “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”. ( Mt5:3,5) What a revolutionary thought: God loves everyone!”

Why are Irish bishops and priests afraid to be hated because of Christ”?



Dear Bishop Konderla,

In light of further information I have received since posting my blog article of (January 25, 2022), I have some additional and legitimate questions about the relationship between Silverstream Priory, a community of diocesan right subject to the jurisdiction of Bishop Thomas Deenihan, Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath and the Diocese of Tulsa.

According to the website, Charity Navigator, within your canonical territory there exists an entity called “The Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle Foundation” (IRS EIN number 46-3574386), headquartered in the small town of Mounds, Oklahoma. The Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, and donations to same are tax-deductible.

An internet search reveals that Mounds, in Creek County, Oklahoma, is located just south of the City of Tulsa; the address given on online charity websites is “20315 S HIGHWAY 75, Mounds OK 74047-4908”. Is this town located within the geographical boundaries of your diocese?

The Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle Foundation exists according to its self-description on the Form 990: “TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR SILVERSTREAM PRIORY AND THE BENEDICTINE MONKS OF STAMULLEN, COUNTY MEATH, IRELAND”.

The aforesaid website gives this charitable entity an overall finance and accountability score of 85/100, which is “passing”. The missing fifteen (15) points are deducted due to the following negative issues: lack of a conflict of interest policy, lack of a document retention and destruction policy, and lack of a whistleblower policy. Moreover, last tax return filed with the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) was all the way back in 2019; it would appear, therefore, that the Foundation is rather behind in making reports of its financial activities to the American government.

Bishop Konderla, I hasten to add that I have no background in accounting, however, utilising and relying upon basic arithmetic it would appear from even the most cursory review of the accounts that are freely available on-line that the The Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle Foundation has funnelled a total of US$ 1,239,693 to Silverstream Priory in Ireland.

According to its 2019 tax return, the officers of the Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle Foundation are as follows:


The first two names, Bishop Konderla, are most certainly known to you. The President of the Foundation, Mr. Daniel Pickett, is a permanent Deacon of the Diocese of Tulsa, currently assigned by you to the Church of St. John Before the Latin Gate in Bartlesville. The Chairman of the Foundation, Mr. Greg Stice, is also a permanent Deacon of the Diocese of Tulsa, currently assigned by you to the Church of the Sacred Heart in Sapulpa with additional responsibilities within the “Office of Deacon Formation”.

Do you find it appropriate, Bishop Konderla, for two (2) permanent deacons of the Diocese of Tulsa to be so inextricably linked with the financing of a religious community in Ireland that has been mired in sexual and financial scandal?

May I remind you that a former priest of the Diocese of Tulsa, Dom Mark Kirby has been credibly accused of sexual and financial misconduct in the Republic of Ireland. Dom Kirby was subject to an investigation by the Irish Police Force for over a year and the force considered the allegations to be sufficiently serious to refer the matter to the Irish State Prosecutor, the Director of Public Prosecutions.

At the time of this writing, I have been unable to ascertain the reasons why Dom Kirby was not prosecuted. However, it is not unreasonable to speculate that it may-be attributable to the known ill-health of Dom Kirby. But, I emphasise that the fact it was investigated for so long would appear that the allegations made against Dom Kirby were sufficiently credible. It is noteworthy that Dom Kirby is telling benefactors that he is a priest in good standing, however, there was no reference to that reality on the website of the Diocese of Meath. And, the on-going silence of Bishop Deenihan about Dom Kirby’s canonical standing is troubling and surprising.

By the present, I wish to make it unequivocally clear that I am not suggesting there is any misconduct or wrong-doing on the part of the two (2) deacons named within the present. I would respectfully suggest they may-be guilty of naïveté in their devotion to Dom Kirby, a man who purportedly hears our Blessed Lord speaking to him from the Tabernacle. In fact, he has published a whole book to what he has “heard” from our Lord.

In any event, it would behove the Diocese of Tulsa to investigate this matter, because I am minded to bring this matter to the Revenue Commissioners of Ireland to ask them to conduct an independent audit of this financial connection. I am sure you would welcome a transparent and independent investigation into this arrangement. It may well be the case that everything is above board, however, in light of what is known about Silverstream Priory and Kirby’s nefarious past; one cannot be too careful.

Of course, I would not be so presumptuous to give any bishop directions about how to run his diocese. Nonetheless, it would be perhaps prudent for the Diocese of Tulsa to insist that the two permanent deacons mentioned to resign from the running of the entity and for them to have no further involvement with Silverstream Priory, and to be warned in writing of canonical penalties for non-compliance.

Bishop Konderla, I can assure you there is more scandal to come from Dom Kirby’s past, and I am sure that in light of my previous correspondence – the Diocese of Tulsa may wish to minimise its exposure to the collateral damage that is coming down the road.

With an assurance of ongoing prayerful best wishes,

  • Pat Buckley


Bishop Thomas Deenihan.




Yesterday, the Cistercians commemorated the Feast of their Founders: St. Robert of Molesme, St. Alberic, and St. Stephen Harding; the latter being an Englishman who is reputed to have been born in Dorset.

In light of the indefatigable (and at times exhausting efforts) of this blog a scandal festering at the heart of the Cistercians — the duplicitous life of Dom Richard Purcell is no longer occult.

And, having being exposed, Dom Purcell, finally did the decent thing by presenting his resignation as the Abbot of Mount Melleray Abbey, which providentially was accepted by the Abbot General, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald, OCSO with the consent of his council.

The history of monasticism shows periods of great fervour and followed by periods of decline.

This is nothing new. But, there have always been men and women who have generously responded to the call of the Lord to follow the monastic life. And, this will continue well in the future when we are all dead and buried, however, it is not unreasonable to presume that in the future monastic communities will be smaller; but hopefully there will be more authentic.

And, for the avoidance of any and all doubt the synchronistic expression of monasticism to be found at Silverstream Priory is not an example of what I am referring to in this blog

Another perennial theme within monasticism has been sexual misconduct within monasteries.

But, this is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic expression of monasticism; it is also an issue within Orthodox monasticism. The monastic tradition within Buddhism has also seen its share of sexual misconduct and financial scandals.

However, these scandals tend to be covered-up and do not attract media coverage. This is not surprising due to the nature of sin, and the reality of the human condition. Monasticism only makes sense when it is informed by an eschatological reality. Otherwise, it is an exercise in futility.

Today, the Cistercians invite everyone to be spiritually united with them in prayer.

The Cistercians are rightly praying for an increase in vocations and the renewal of their way of life.

They have composed a beautiful prayer that expresses this profound sentiment. I invite all the readers of my blog to prayerfully offer it for the renewal of the Cistercians across the globe; for the successful consolidation of the Irish Cistercian houses at Mount Melleray Abbey, and for the renewal of monasticism more generally in the Church. Mount Melleray Abbey is a place very close to my heart. It was a place I visited when I was a seminarian in Waterford; it remains a place that is very close to my heart.

I also spent a lot of time as a seminarian and young priest in Mellifont Abbey at Collon in Louth.

Authentic Cistercians everywhere have my esteem and respect.




Ref: Dom Mark Kirby, OSB, formally a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa; now a priest of the Diocese of Meath.

Dear Bishop Konderla,​

I am in receipt of the letter dated January 21, 2022 from Señor González, the erstwhile vicar general of the Diocese of Tulsa, to which I now hasten to reply. In fact, the reply from the Diocese of Tulsa stands in the stark contrast to the on-going silence from the Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath, a certain Thomas Deenihan to the known matter of Dom Mark Kirby’s misconduct within his diocese.


And, these evidence-based allegations pertaining to Dom Mark Kirby were repeatedly brought to the attention of Tom Deenihan. But, by virtue of his failure to apply the dictates of Canon Law, Tom Deenihan, is now dragging the Diocese of Tulsa into this saga. However, that does not excuse the misconduct of Dom Mark Kirby, while a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa and further misconduct as a priest of the Diocese of Meath.


It is noteworthy that Señor González that holds a MDiv from St. Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana; a STL (Sacred Theology Licentiate) and STD (Sacred Theology Doctorate) in Spiritual Theology from the Pontifical Institute of Spirituality “Teresianum”.[1] But, it is salutary to highlight that Señor González does not hold a pontifical degree in Canon Law. Unfortunately, the letter from Señor González begets more questions than answers, and, these further questions are set out, hereinafter.​

In his letter of reply it is conspicuous and I would submit unconscionable that Señor González does not answer any of the reasonable or proportionate questions that I posed within my initial correspondence with the Diocese of Tulsa. Moreover, I now wish to put you, Bishop Konderla, some additional questions, and I trust you will be forthcoming with answers. And, by the present, I respectfully suggest that it is wholly incorrect for Señor González to state that “there is no present canonical concern that involves the Diocese of Tulsa”.​

Did your predecessor in office, Bishop Edward James Slattery, by a Decree, erect the Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle, in accordance with Canon 312 within the Diocese of Tulsa with the view that the experimental institute (in the future) gaining the status of a monastery of Diocesan Right? Did Bishop Slattery sign a Decree to this effect on August 4, 2009? Does the Diocese of Tulsa now formally deny that this monastery was canonically erected within the diocese by the aforesaid Bishop Slattery?​

For the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that: a) the Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle was canonically erected by Bishop Edward James Slattery; b) the said “monastery” was located within the Diocese of Tulsa, and, c) at the time Dom Mark Kirby was subject to the canonical jurisdiction of your predecessor, the said Bishop Edward James Slattery, by virtue of Dom Mark Kirby’s incardination as a priest of the diocese.​

In my possession is irrefutable evidence that establishes that Dom Mark Kirby OSB, was incardinated as a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa. Does the Diocese of Tulsa formally deny that Dom Mark Kirby was incardinated as a priest within the aforesaid diocese?​

I have knowledge of sexual misconduct involving Dom Mark Kirby involving a former aspirant to the religious life within the so-called Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle. This so-called “monastery” was physically located within the canonical territory of the Diocese of Tulsa.​

As previously stated, I have knowledge of sexual misconduct that took place in the abovesaid monastery. Moreover, these allegations are personally known (as I stated in my first correspondence to this diocese) to a Benedictine religious superior; they are further known to a monsignor who is Washington DC-based. Hence, I am not repeating unfounded allegations. Thus, I would respectfully submit that the actions of Dom Mark Kirby should be a source of legitimate concern for this Diocese of Tulsa and by extension the Irish-based, Diocese of Meath.​

Therefore, one does not need to be an attorney to recognise that the Diocese of Tulsa is vicariously liable for the actions of its clergy. And, it is important I bring to your attention that the allegations that are known to me and time-barred by the twelve (12) year statutory bar in the state of Oklahoma.​

It is salutary to highlight that these allegations/disputed acts took place before Dom Mark Kirby became incardinated as a priest of the Diocese of Meath during the episcopal tenure of Bishop Michael Smith. Presumably, Bishop Edward James Slattery gave Dom Mark Kirby a letter of good standing to permit him become incardinated as a priest of the Diocese of Meath; because, according to my sources (three (3) priests within the Diocese of Meath, its then Ordinary, Bishop Smith, did not incardinate Dom Kirby into his diocese, ad experimentum. ​

I have been contacted by a former religious confrere of Dom Kirby, who suggested to me that Dom Mark Kirby was removed by a Decree of the Holy See and incardinated into the Diocese of Tulsa with the expressed approbation of Bishop Edward James Slattery. Is this true? If you are not willing to answer the question, I am content to write to the Abbot General of the Cistercians of the Common Observance, Dom Mauro-Giuseppe Lepori, O.Cist, to ascertain the reason(s) why Dom Kirby left the Cistercians!​

To be clear, I am asserting that I have credible knowledge of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Dom Mark Kirby during his time as the religious superior of heat experimental foundation that were subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the then Bishop of Tulsa, Edmund Slattery.​

Bishop Konderla, in light of the fact that Señor González sent me a letter that in effect a supercilious and dismissive reply that did not answer any of the substantive and legitimate questions that were posed in my initial correspondence — it is difficult to take seriously his observation that the “Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa & Eastern Oklahoma take seriously all allegations of abuse and stands ready to work with competent civil and canonical authorities to address any issue”. Did you personally review and approve the letter of reply? And, was the text of the letter approved by Tom Deenihan, Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath?

It is unfortunate that the Diocese of Tulsa has been dragged into this shambles, however, this can be attributed to the lamentable and demonstrable failures of Tom Deenihan. In his capacity as the office-holder of Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath; he has consistently and contumaciously failed to undertake his pastoral responsibilities. May I respectfully apprise you that Tom Deenihan appointed a Trappist Abbot to conduct a visitation of Silverstream Priory, the then Dom Richard Purcell, OCSO. The said Dom Purcell was known to be a frequent visitor to gay houses of ill-repute in a manner not dissimilar to the now disgraced Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill; hence, he was the “ideal” candidate to “investigate” Dom Kirby, because birds of a feather flock together.

If the Diocese of Tulsa is serious about these allegations of sexual misconduct that I can substantiate; you, Bishop Konderla will provide written answers to my previous questions. Then, the potential complainant can take credence that his complaint will be taken seriously by the Diocese of Tulsa. It is not guaranteed he will come forward, however, the defensive and supercilious reply from Señor González was certainly not positive or encouraging. ​

Because, I believe transparency is good for the church I will place this letter on my blog. However, as I have previously stated I am known to be a man of my word and, if you request, I will keep your reply confidential.​

In any event, the scandal that is Silverstream Priory is not going to ameliorate by the inaction of Mr. Deenihan, and I would suggest that it would behove both of you to have a constructive conversation; because the longer Dom Kirby is permitted to masquerade as a priest in good standing; he will continue to be a source of scandal and derision for the Irish Church.​

With an assurance of heart-felt prayers, I remain​

Sincerely yours in Christ,​

+ Pat Buckley.​


His Excellency, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.​

His Excellency, Archbishop, Jude Okolo, Apostolic Nuncio to the Republic of Ireland.​

Thomas Deenihan, Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath.

[1] Accessed: January 25, 2022.



St Sebastian by Terry Nelson

The above painting was painted for MARK KIRBY of Silverstream by his long time artist friend TERRY NELSON.

Terry Nelson is also the author of blogs called Abbey Roads and Up Your Street.

He has done a second painting of St Sebastian which, to my mind is more homoerotic.

I am not a prude and I personally have no objection to erotic art. But it should be on display sensitively. David Hockney is such an artist. Terry Nelson is a good artist.

But not in MONASTRIES.


A Meath priest has told me that Mark Kirby wanted to hang the first St Sebastian in Silverstream Monastery but was persuaded not to by the whistle blower, Dom Benedict Andersen.

Apparently, Dom Andersen told Mark Kirby that the painting was “inappropriate”.

Terry Nelson blogged recently celebrating the fact that the Gardai and Charity Commissioners were not taking any action against Kirby.

Kirby himself is writing to international friends claiming “total exoneration”.

This is not accurate.

Fr Benedict never accused Kirby of sexual assault.

He accused him of sexual harassment and grooming.

What is a fact is that Kirby has a long standing and international reputation for homoerotic behaviour.

Such a man is absolutely unsuitable to be living in a monastery with young men aged 20 to 35.

To Tom Deenihan’s great shame, he is leaving Kirby in situ and perpetuating this grave scandal.

It will all end very badly.





The above is interesting – the bishop, with the help of the priest’s family, questioning the priest’s physical and mental health.

The reference to his liver is them suggesting the priest has an alcohol or substance abuse problem.

All meant to undermine the priest and his credibility.

Those of us who have stood up to the RCC and its bishops have always been attacked at the level of our physical and mental health.

And the RCC has attempted to use family members against us.

Auld Desmond Connell invited my Mum in for tea on her own.


She told him she would only join him if I was with here.

She may have left school at 14 but she was more than able for auld Connell.

These RC gangsters are ruthless.

I hope the priest is ok and if he’s not I hope he has friends to support him.


Hi Pat,

A few of us gathered Saturday to watch the Big Jim Docherty funeral online.​

The Liturgy was beautiful thanks to the Jesuit choir. Plenty of Latin.​

The Jesuit preached very well as you’d expect from a Jesuit.

The former priest also spoke very well in his eulogy; some of us studied with him – a lovely man who is very talented and a terrible loss to the priesthood. During the eulogy amongst other things we found the following points very interesting: 1) he spoke of ‘The Angry Years’ that big Jim went through; 2) he spoke of Big Jim finally ‘accepting himself’ & 3) he spoke about big Jim walking about Glasgow with his message bag containing amongst other things the latest fragrance! All of these would back up the theme of our obituary to you about Big Jim. It just sounded like an LGBT closet man being eulogized.

The Daisy Chain were out in force:​

  • Mgr Bradley presided but can’t stand, breath and preach at the same time and is too obese to give out Communion;
  • his MC was the teacher and meal attender Mr Mark McGuire.
  • another Daisy Chain Host, Canon Anthony Gallagher, presided over the Final Commendation.

An alternative Purvey was held at a restaurant frequented by Big Jim close by to the church. Only the daisy chain members were present, it was all very camp and tearful. They reminisced about Big Jim and absolutely tore you to ribbons. They’re frightened of you & the damage the blog has done to their reputations etc.




This letter, to my mind comes from an angry cleric.

I think that the writer is on the the gay active priests who get very angry when this Blog gets near one of them or their friends.

He should have sent me his excoriating letter.

He tells me that Fr Mc Alinden was 100 times the priest I am.

Is that not for God to judge?

And he tells me I will only be a better priest if I take his advice.

He calls my £ 50 donation to the hospice “miserable”.

I’m sure the hospice would love many more £ 50 donations.

Of course this priests is above all else A COWARD.

He did not have the balls to put his mame to his letter.

He could not even come out and defend his dead friend openly.

I always put my name to EVERYTHING I write or say.


Shannon Campbell
Eddie O Donnell

Our writer is expressing how they felt when the attended the Catholic Chaplaincy at QUB.

I have never been in the building.

But in many parishes and chaplaincies the PP or the chaplain regards it as THEIR territory.

And they do not like to be questioned.

Also, many of these men surround themselves with a clique of head nodders.

It’s an oft repeated dynamic of human organisations.

Fr McGrattan was well liked in St Patrick’s Parish in Belfast when he was there.

He has since been sent for further studies.

The air in St Brigids Parish is quite “rarified” with parishioners being doctors lawyers etc.