First published on


I’ve been kicked out. Dumped. Given the boot. Ditched. Stabbed in the back. Whatever. By Dom Michael, Abbot of Bolton Abbey, Co Kildare.


Not, I hasten to add, because of something I did or did not do. But because … the Abbot of Mount Melleray, Co Waterford was – How shall I say? – XXXXXXX the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX of a XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX in the XXXX XXXXXXX of the XXXXXXXXXX of his XXX XXXXXXXXX

How logical is that? Let alone, fair or even – Dare I say it? – Christian.


Vocations are dangerously low. Religious orders are desperate for new members. But I’ve just been thrown out of Mount Mellery, which once famously included a Buddhist monk as a member of its community. The fact, he was called Rai Doh, Japanese for I love cleaning floors, may or may not have been a factor in making him an honorary Cistercian monk in the first place.

But the fact remains. I’ve been kicked out. Dumped. Given the boot. Ditched. Stabbed in the back. Whatever. By the holy, very reverend Dom Michael, Abbot of Bolton Abbey, Co Kildare.

Sufficient to the day is the evil in it,” says The Imitation. Trouble is I didn’t expect the evil to be created in the monastery itself. What’s more, never in a million years did I expect that I would be the one to suffer because of it. Especially at the hands of a holy, very reverend Abbot.

Not, I hasten to add, because of something I did or did not do. But because of what the Abbot did.

How logical is that? Let alone, fair or even – Dare I say it? – Christian.

What makes it worse, is that for over 60-years, I have been trying to become a Cistercian monk. And I’m still trying.

I first discovered Thomas Merton, the world’s most famous Cistercian monk, when I was 16-years-old. I had just left school. I got a job as a reporter on a local newspaper in South London called The Merton and Morden News. The first morning I was there, the lady chief reporter said to me, “You’re useless to me unless you know something about Merton and Morden. Go to the local library. Read everything you can about the area.”

I went to the local library. I went to the filing cabinets. Remember filing cabinets? I flicked through the cards until I came to Merton. Not Merton and Morden. But Merton, Thomas – Autobiography. Elected Silence. I got the book and spent all day reading it. I was hooked. I wanted to become a Cistercian monk. Like Thomas Merton.

The following morning, I went back to the office. The lady chief reporter asked me if I had read everything about Merton. “Yes,” I told her. “Fascinating. Like to read more.” She sent me back to the library. I spent the rest of the day reading and re-reading the book. I was convinced. Silence. Solitude. Simplicity. Prayer. It was what I wanted.

I didn’t come from a particularly religious family. But I always wanted to be a priest. At 11/12-years old when other altar boys were going off to the junior seminary, I wanted to go with them. My father had just died. The priests told me, No. Stay at home and look after your mother. I did as the priests said. At 16 when other altar boys were going off to the senior seminary, I wanted to go with them. The priests said, No. Go out to work. Earn some money. Help support your mother. I did as the priests said.

Reading Thomas Merton changed everything. During weekends and holidays, I would hitchhike to Cistercian monasteries all over the country. When I first went to Mount St Bernard, the big Cistercian monastery in England, they wouldn’t let me in. Even to the guesthouse. They said I was too young. Instead, I spent the week living in the telephone box in the lane outside, going in and out to all the services.

I bought all the Thomas Merton books as they were published. I not only read and studied the books, I read and studied all the books Merton kept referring to. The Salesians taught me the basics. How to read, write and make wooden toothbrush holders. Merton introduced me to the world. This one and the next.

As I got older and travelled the world – I’ve been to over 200 countries. Most of them, many times over – I visited and stayed in monasteries whenever I had the chance. Gethsemani. Merton’s monastery in Kentucky. Solesmes, the famous Benedictine monastery in France. Abbaye de Keur Moussa, just outside Dakar, Senegal. I even drove 4,000 kms from Paris to Tammanrasset in the middle of the Sahara to visit the hermitage of the ex-Trappist monk, Charles de Foucauld.

Three years ago, I was suddenly free. No relatives. No ties. Nothing. What to do? Spend the rest of my life whooping it up with the saddle sniffers at the St Tropez Polo Club? Drag out my days in a penthouse suite at the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin? Instead I thought I’d try once again to become a Cistercian monk. Spend the rest of my life in silence and solitude, praying, as Cassian says, with “ruthless self-disciplined determination without ceasing in preparation for that first direct encounter with God.”

It wasn’t easy. I had been staying at Mount Melleray Abbey off and on for over 30-years. I’ve spent some of the happiest days of my life there. But it took a year of near constant letter writing and e-mails before I even got a reply. I went and spent a month with them for, what they called, monastic experience. It took almost another year of also near non-stop letter-writing and e-mails before I got another reply. I drove over 600 miles there and back in two days from Eastbourne in the south of England to Mount Melleray for a brief 15-20 minute meeting with the Abbot. But it was worth it. He said, Yes. You can come and join the community. Again, it took almost another year to agree the date. The Abbot, obviously, had other things on his mind. XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

Finally, last May, after over 60-years of turmoil, I joined the community. I did as the Good Lord says. I sold everything I had and gave everything I could to the poor. Most of the stuff they gave back to me saying it wasn’t the right size, shape, colour etc. I even lost a fortune unscrambling book contracts in various countries because the Abbot lectured me – Oh. The irony – on the purity of monastic life and told me to do so. Which I did because, as I get further and further up the queue outside the cemetery gates, I wanted to spend the rest of my life there, and still do

But it was not to be. In a brief, icy, totally non-Christian 10-15 minute meeting, I was kicked out. Thrown out. Booted out. Dumped. Fired. Made Redundant. Told to pack my bags and go. Not because, again I hasten to add, of anything I did or did not do. Everybody there says I’ve been no trouble. I’ve fitted in very well. I counted as a member of the community. Especially on Monday mornings when I counted the Sunday collections. Largely, I think, because of my knowledge of foreign coins. But that’s not all. I performed all my monastic duties. I swept floors. I did the washing up. I emptied the rubbish. I even got the Prodigal Son job and looked after their two enormous pigs for them. In hail. In snow. In rain. Even in the occasional day of sunshine. I only wish now that I had been more prodigal and deserved the honour.

But I’m being kicked out because the Abbot was – How shall I say? – XXXXXXX the XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX of a XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX in the XXXX XXXXXXX of the XXXXXXXXXX of his XXX XXXXXXXXX

The logic seems to be:

 – The Abbot was xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xx x XXXXX xxxxxarian in the xxx xxxxxxxxxx of his XXX xxxxxxxxx



 – The Abbot resigns. Is whisked away. In secret. Into the sun. In Australia. Where, no doubt, he will indulge his interest in things down under. But he still remains a priest. He even had time to up-date his CV on LinkedIn, which describes itself as “an American business and employment orientated online service for professional networking and career development”, where, incidentally, he says he has two jobs. Although why a religious, an Abbot, even a resigned ex-Abbot should feel he needs to be listed on such an on-line web-site, let alone claim he has two jobs, I have no idea.

– Biddlecombe is dumped. Rejected. Thrown out. In the cold. In Ireland. With nothing. Not even one job.

No. I don’t understand it either. All I know is I met Dom Michael just once. He was straight to the point. Brutal. Ruthless. Because the Abbot has resigned, the community is now too weak to support me. I’ve got to go.

But why should I be the one to suffer? I wasn’t the one XXXXXX XXXXXXXX with XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX in the XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX.

I pleaded. I explained. I kept saying.

He didn’t bat an eyelid. He was ice cold. Skeletal. I kept asking him, How can you possibly, as St Paul says, strengthen a community by making it weaker still? Surely, if you don’t let people in, with or without formation, you’re never going to increase the numbers.

But he kept repeating. Coldly. The community is too weak to support me. But, I kept telling him, I haven’t had any support since I’ve been here? Why do I suddenly need support now?

Formation, he said. Formation.

But, I told him, I know about Formation. I wrote a book about Formation and about every book Thomas Merton ever read during his own Formation. But the previous Abbot told me not to publish it. I did as the Abbot said.

He still said NO.

In desperation, I contacted the big boss of all Cistercian monks worldwide, Dom Eamon Fitzgerald, who used to be Abbot of Mount Melleray and his successor, Dom Bernardus Peeters, who used to be Abbot of Tilburg in the Netherlands. Both of whom I’ve met. Both of whom I’ve spoken to in the past. They didn’t want to know. They didn’t even both to acknowledge my e-mails.

I haven’t come close to kicking in a stained glass window. Yet. Nearly did, when I heard that the ex-Abbot was telling people he was bored sitting in the sunshine in Australia with nothing to do and wanted his post sent on to him EXPRESS.

“You’ll be alright, Dom Michael said. You’ll find something.”

I was always taught that the Church exists to help people “know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next.” Not kick them out in the street because of something they didn’t do.

Now, if you will excuse me, I’m off to Japan to become a Buddhist monk. It seems it’s the only way I can get into Mount Melleray. Even if it means spending the rest of my life cleaning floors.

Thomas Merton must be turning in his grave.

Peter Biddlecombe has published over 20 books including 11 travel books covering more than 200 countries he has visited. Most of them, many times over. He is now busy completing the final chapters of his autobiography, My Struggle to Follow Thomas Merton: 60 years of Turmoil.


Peter strikes me as an interesting man. Maybe eccentric- but such people are always interesting and never boring.

Are not a lot of monks eccentric?

I think he could have been dealt with in a much more compassionate way at Melleray.

But currently the Irish Cistercians are adrift without an engine.

The answer is to close the monasteries at Portglenone, Mellifont, Moone and Roscrea and have a viable community at Melleray.

Your views, comments and opinions

Send them to us

Catholic Rejects

Send them to them:

Are you a Catholic Reject?

Have you been kicked out of a religious order, of a church organisation, of whatever?

Tell us about it.

You deserve to be heard.

Send your story to



Phonsie, I hope you are cured in Lourdes 🙏




The Catholic Church has admitted that the former President of St Patrick’s College Maynooth, Monsignor Micheál Ledwith, made a private settlement with a minor who claimed he had sexually abused him.


Dr Ledwith subsequently resigned with a substantial top-up to his pension and is now teaching in California. He has consistently denied the allegation and a subsequent one by a former student at the college.

The retirement of Dr Ledwith from the Presidency of Maynooth in June 1994 was a surprise. He had served for nine years, had written the history of the College, and was about to lead its bicentennial celebrations.

Within months, RTÉ News told a college spokesman we had been informed an allegation of abuse had been made against the former President, but this was flatly dismissed as a reason for his departure.

But now the current President of the College, Monsignor Dermot Farrell, and the Bishops who act as trustees, have issued a statement which tells a fuller story.

The statement says that prior to his retirement, an allegation pertaining to sexual abuse of a minor was made against Monsignor Ledwith. He was informed of the allegation and denied it strenuously.

His Bishop – Brendan Comiskey – told both the Gardaí and relevant Health Board.


The college trustees began a process of investigation but about a year later their former President made a private legal settlement with the claimant without admitting any liability. This settlement included a confidentiality clause.

The college says that neither it nor the Church were involved in any way and had nothing whatsoever to do with this agreement, but that the confidentiality clause impeded its investigations because the vital evidence of the complainant would not be available.

Nevertheless, the trustees continued to pursue the investigation process.

And ultimately in 1996 Monsignor Ledwith resigned from the personal professorship on the basis that he receive an appropriate pension.He got a pension top-up of about £100,000.

Later, the trustees were informed of another allegation of abuse by solicitors on behalf of a former student of the college between 1992 and 1994. Monsignor Ledwith vehemently denied it saying he was not even in the country at the time of the alleged abuse.

Since his retirement, Monsignor Ledwith has lived mostly in the USA where he now teaches in California’s Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment.


Here Ledwith talks about the time Jesus spent in India and Egypt?


I believe that the bishops and Farrell knew a lot more about the Ledwith affair than they have ever admitted.

And Ledwith was Farrell’s cousin!

It was also contended that the bishops gave Ledwith 300,000 not 100,000.

EAMON CASEY was involved – on Ledwith’s side.

The Maynooth Dean at the time – Fr   Gerard Mc Ginnity was very badly treated by Casey and by O’Fiaich because he was the whistle blower and Ledwith was in line for a mitre.

Fatrell’s Ossory mitre was a reward for handling the Ledwith cock up.

Dublin was a further reward.




Archbishop helped jail senior garda officer by reporting him for incestuous abuse of sister

Victim kept her brother’s sex attacks secret for more than 30 years as she feared she would not be believed.

An archbishop alerted Garda headquarters in 2012 about the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by a senior garda against his sister, sparking a major internal investigation and the detective’s forced retirement.

Last week, the former detective was jailed for four years for multiple sex attacks including unlawful carnal knowledge of his younger sister in the 1970s when the victim was just 15.

It is also understood the retired garda was the lead investigator into a major sexual abuse case in the capital at the height of his career, as well as involvement in numerous other rape and sexual assault investigations.

Informed sources confirmed to the Sunday Independent that an archbishop, who is now retired, became aware of the alleged sexual abuse of the victim in the case and felt “compelled” to contact high ranking members of An Garda Síochána.


Diarmuid Martin had many failings – chief among them being his very bad relationship with Dublin priests.

We will more later on this blog of the awful state of the fiman es Dermo left behind him.

Farrell has been sent into Dublin to sort out the financial mess.

Farrell has not been sent into Dublin to lead people to Jesus – but to lead the diocese to financial betterment.


One thing Diarmuid made a GREAT BIG SUCCESS OF was the handling of sexual abuse within Dublin

He gave the Garda and the Courts the documents and files auld Des O’Connell was hiding from them.

He also dealt with all the ages brought before him and was very good with victims and survivors.

Farrell believes the TREASURES of the church are its buildings, monies and investments.

Diarmuid treated the victims of abuse as TREASURES.

A Pastors primary role is not finance.

It is the care of souls.

Diarmuid was a better pastor than Farrell is.

Farrell is a better accountant than Diarmuid was.

You do not need to be in Holy Orders to be an accountant.

The following quote applies rather well to Farrell:

He went out to do good AND he did well!!




My dear brother bishop Thomas,

Recently, I have received information from a devout individual about Silverstream Priory and its aberrant founder, Dom Mark Kirby. The credibility of this individual cannot be disputed because the individual has been a benefactor to the community since its establishment. During a recent visit to Silverstream – my source made enquiries into the whereabouts of Dom Kirby.

The individual was told that Dom Kirby had taken a twelve month leave of absence from Silverstream Priory. Is this true or was the individual told a blatant lie by a monk of Silverstream?

So, the purpose of the present is to enquire into the location of Dom Kirby and to unpack the competing narratives that surround his departure from the Priory.

Because Silverstream Priory is an institute of diocesan right – canonical responsibly for the Priory and its members is the sole responsibility of the Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath. And that is you, Bishop Deenihan. It is, of course, a heavy burden for a Cork-born bishop.

It has not been denied that Dom Kirby left Silverstream Priory WITHOUT permission and that he went to the Netherlands accompanied by two novices. It is understood that he may have been present at the Benedictine convent in Tegelen, Limburg in the south-east of Holland. So, my brother bishop, which narrative about the departure from Silverstream is correct? Did Dom Kirby flee or did he request a leave of absence? Are you prepared to tell us where Dom Mark Kirby is resident at the moment? If not; why not?

Did Dom Kirby submit a written petition to you his Ordinary to take a leave of absence from Silverstream Priory for a period of twelve months? If so, did you approve his request in writing? Have you rendered a Decree granting Dom Kirby permission to reside outside Silverstream for the said period of twelve months in accordance with the statutes of Silverstream? Did you consult with the Dom Elijah (the prior of Silverstream with a known addiction to gay pornography) about Dom Kirby’s petition? If so; what was his view?


If, Dom Kirby has fled Silverstream without permission — has a warning being issued ordering him to return to the Priory? If he does not return — are you as the Ordinary of Silverstream Priory minded to begin the process to have Dom Kirby laicised for disobedience?

If you granted permission to Dom Kirby to reside outside the Priory for a period of twelve months the following questions naturally follow.

Did you as the Ordinary grant Dom Kirby a Letter of Good Standing? Is Dom Kirby permitted to present himself as a priest? Is Dom Kirby permitted to publicly celebrate the Eucharist outside Silverstream Priory? Does Dom Kirby have permission to hear confessions? Is Dom Kirby permitted to wear his monastic habit?

I have several priest sources in the Diocese of Meath. One priest was emphatic that Dom Mark Kirby was incardinated into the Diocese of Meath by Decree from the Diocese of Tulsa, by your predecessor in office, Bishop Michael Smith. Is this true?

If so, Dom Kirby remains your responsibility even if he is not listed as a priest of the Diocese of Meath on the Directory on the website, because, I am told a Priory of diocesan right cannot incardinate clerics. And if Dom Kirby gets up to “mischief” the fact he is not listed on the diocesan directory will not save the Diocese of Meath from liability from any tortious act that Kirby may commit.

When it came to the decision-making about Dom Kirby and his leave of absence, did you consult your go to canonist, Abbot Brendan Coffey of Glenstal? This is the same Abbot Coffey who decided to appoint the disgraced Abbot Richard Purcell (with his proclivity to visit houses of gay ill-repute in Dublin) to the visitation of Silverstream that you ordered because of Purcell’s purported knowledge of monastic finances, so I am told by another one of your priests in Meath.

But a canon lawyer tells me that Abbot Brendan’s knowledge of canon law is weak and that he really should stick to liturgy the subject of his PhD. He also tells me that Abbot Brendan is not particularly well-liked as Abbot of Glenstal and that community regret electing him and that it is possible he will be a one-term abbot.

In light of the known allegations that have been made about Dom Kirby, have you my brother Bishop Thomas, alerted the Ordinary where Dom Kirby is currently residing to apprise him in writing of these allegations? Has the ordinary responded and is he content for Dom Kirby to be resident within his canonical territory?

As we journey towards to the great feast of Pentecost may the Holy Spirit inspire you, now and always.

Your brother bishop,



Dom Elijah Carroll, OSB, Prior of Silverstream Priory.
Abbot Brendan Coffey, OSB, Abbot of Glenstal Abbey.



“Dear Bishop Pat, I am a serving priest in an Irish diocese and I also happen to be HIV +. My bishop was told of my status by a former lady friend in whom I had stupidly confided. At a time in my life I was sexually active with two priests and a lay man. The priest who infected me is now deceased I have not been sexually active for many years and made a general confession while on retreat at a monastery. Incidentally, another monk at that monastery tried to seduce me during that retreat and I fully resisted him.

My bishop called me in and was very aggressive with me during the interview and has used my status to control and bully me. I am not strong enough to stand up to him. I also like being a priest and do not want to be dismissed.

I know five other priests who are also HIV + and they live in fear of their bishops finding out. I just wanted people to know of this problem in the priesthood and the lack of kindness we receive even when have confessed, been forgiven and living a life of continence. Thank you for all you do to let people that we priests have all the same problems others do”.

My Dear Brother Priest,

Thank you for your email. I personally know six priests who are HIV + and still in ministry. Its far from being a small problem in the Irish RCC.

Most of the affected I know have not told their bishop about their status. There is no need for Bishops to know the private details of priest’s health.

It is against Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The judge in Belfast contravened that article when he publicly announced my status.

I did consult the N. Ireland Human Rights body but was some says late in submitting a complaint.

But the N. I Chief Justice circulated instructions to all the judges.

Any priest having problems with his bishop in this area, or any area should consult a solicitor.

Any priest who needs a good solicitor can contact me for information on solicitors who are not afraid of taking on the RCC hierarchy.

This Blog has friends in the legal profession North and South.





If DERMOT LEDWITH FARRELL is forcing sick priests to consult an archdiocesan medic – it raises very serious questions about human rights and medical privilege and privacy!

If he is forcing priests to be medically assessed with an obligatory HIV test it is a reach of human rights and medical privilege.

An unknown, but not tiny, number of Dublin priests are HIV+.

There is absolutely no reason why DLF would be entitled to that private information.

It’s simply none of his business!


Medical Privilege/Clerical Confidentiality.says:
May 26, 2022 at 11:00 am

In light of the comments made by “AB’ House” at 08:04 if it is true that Archbishop Farrell will not accept the professional recommendations of independent clinical professionals that is a very serious situation for the priests of the Archdiocese of Dublin.

It would be incredibly STUPID for any priest to agree to be assessed by a doctor/psychologist/psychiatrist CHOSEN by the Archdiocese of Dublin or any other diocese for that matter without the following safeguards.

It would behove any priest who is requested by his Ordinary to undertake any kind of evaluation to have a written undertaking that the consultation will be subject to medical privilege between the cleric and the medical/clinical professional.

This undertaking should be confirmed in writing by the diocesan solicitor on behalf the Ordinary. Of course, the Ordinary will refuse to give such an undertaking via his solicitor because he will be bound in law. However, compromise is always advisable; the cleric should settle for an agreement where the Ordinary signs a document recognising the existence of the medical privilege. Within any document that signed it should be acknowledged by all parties that the “findings” of the consultation are to remain confidential at all times.

The document should explicitly acknowledge that any report produced cannot be released to the Ordinary under any circumstances without the written and witnessed consent of the cleric. It is appropriate to remind readers that when the reputation of a priest is at stake — Canon Law for certain juridical acts — requires the attestation of a priest notary. If the matter is potentially going to be contentious — then the priest should insist upon the involvement of a legal professional.
The cleric needs to navigate the difficult balance between threats from his Ordinary that failure to undertake the assessment could constitute disobedience with the adage that obedience is owed to the Ordinary in everything that is lawful and just.

And the “chosen” medical/clinical professional must further confirm in writing that the consultation and the report that emanate from same will remain at all times confidential and subject to clinical confidentiality, unless the cleric gives written consent for the report to be shared with the Ordinary. In heels is totally unacceptable.

If the cleric does not take positive steps to protect his good name and reputation he is (potentially) in the most naïve manner imaginable facilitating and providing potentially justification for Farrell to suspend/remove his faculties by a Decree. Because it would be foolish to think that Archbishop Farrell would act at any time in the best interests of any cleric in a contentious matter

And if the matter is sufficiently serious (a delict) the medical evidence obtained (with the consent of the cleric) if it is not subject to privilege can be utilised/weaponised in an administrative/judicial penal process. In the United States, priests that are not economically productive their lack of productivity to preserve the patrimony of the diocese has been used as a justification for laicisation.

I completely agree with his final observation that Farrell is only interested in money.

When PADDY WALSH came after me in D& in 1998, I refused to communicate with him except through my solicitor.

That sent Walsh around the bend and I hot no letters afterwards.

Priests – if DLF or any other bishop pursues you find a good Protestant or Humanist solicitor and hide behind his shirt

He can make a lot of trouble for your bishop.



Yesterday, I was contacted by one of my Dublin informants about the forthcoming clergy changes that have been proposed by Archbishop Farrell for the priests of the Archdiocese of Dublin.

A list of the proposed changes has been circulated. But I am told the list is embargoed. In a tactic known within Whitehall, my sources tell me that some of the lists have been subtly modified in order to identify “leakers” to this blog.

My informant noted that no parishes were suppressed. And, in a sign of the times I observe that in several cases individual priests have been appointed the parish priest of two parishes.

None of this comes as a surprise. It is only a matter of time before amalgamation of parishes within the Archdiocese of Dublin commences. On the blog today, I am predicting in the next two to five years that Archbishop Farrell will have no choice but to commence a programme of parish amalgamation that has been implemented in the United States.

I suspect that what will drive the amalgamations — if the rumours are true that the Dominicans want to pull out of the running of several Dublin parishes.

This would be in keeping with other religious orders who have handed back parishes to the archdiocese with the most recent being the Carmelites on Berkley Road.


With respect to the forthcoming changes my sources further tell me that there has been a lot of resistance to the proposed moves because all is not well within the Archdiocese of Dublin.

I was told that some priests were deeply resistant to being moved. And, I was further told that some clerics have submitted doctors’ letters to Archbishop Farrell as justification for their refusal to move parishes because to do so would be detrimental to their mental health.


However, I am unable to ascertain if these letters were successful or not. It is quite a cunning move and it may have significantly reduced Farrell’s room for manoeuvre much to his considerable frustration.

However, it is the case that if there were more priests available this would allow Farrell to firmly place his own stamp within the archdiocese. Instead, it looks like he is going to preside over the slow decline of the archdiocese

Archbishop Farrell will have to submit his resignation when he turns seventy-five in about 7.5 years. I am led to believe that Archbishop Farrell has ordained men to the priesthood for religious congregations but, I do wonder before he retires will he ordain even one mote priest for service within the Archdiocese of Dublin?

Speaking of priestly ordinations, my informant is wondering is Archbishop Farrell contemplating ordaining Deacon Byrne to the presbyteral order? I understand that Deacon Byrne is living rent-free in a presbytery in Dublin?

But, it would appear that Deacon Byrne pursuing qualifications in counselling and psychotherapy. It is rumoured that the process of laicisation has begun for Deacon Byrne. Perhaps, when that is completed, will the then Mr. Byrne set up a business providing counselling services to the ever-diminishing remnant of clergy ministering within the Archdiocese of Dublin. Stranger things have happened!


Is Fr John Gates, Magherafelt ill?




Survivors and Advocates Blast Archbishop for His Refusal to Disclose Dozens of Predator Priests

By Jennifer Stein June 10, 2021

“Nearly every other California diocese has released an official list of known abusive clergy. It’s time to name your predators,” say advocates

California Catholic officials attempted but failed to stop survivors’ lawsuits

Jeff Anderson & Associates will:

  • Disclose that a California bishop recently lost his bid to block child abuse survivors from filing civil lawsuits.
  • Reveal a mobile billboard challenging San Francisco’s Archbishop on his handling of pedophile priests.
  • Call on San Francisco church officials to publicly release the names, photos, and whereabouts of all credibly accused clerics, and all California bishops to let survivors ‘have their day in court’ and launch no more legal maneuvers against such survivors and their lawsuits.
  • A Spanish-speaking attorney will translate.

Noted for his staunch conservatism, obstinacy in the face of survivors’ pleas for acknowledgment and accountability, and general clericalism, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone has firmly resisted publicly releasing an official list of clergy known to be credibly accused of child sexual abuse. Because of Archbishop Cordileone’s unwillingness to provide transparency, a digital mobile billboard will be at the event imploring Archbishop Cordileone to release the names of all credibly accused clergy in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

The vast majority of US bishops have posted on church websites the names of and often some details about proven, admitted, and credibly accused predatory clerics. 

Unfortunately, the Archdiocese of San Francisco is one of sixteen Catholic Dioceses in the United States and two in California, yet to publish a list of credibly accused clergy. Many consider this long-overdue step to be the bare minimum church officials should do to protect the vulnerable and heal the wounded.

“As long as the names of known perpetrators are kept secret, the children of San Francisco remain in immediate peril,” said attorney and advocate Jeff Anderson. “Every day he chooses secrecy over accountability runs the risk of another child suffering the same horrors and shame as those carried by hundreds of adult survivors today.

Unwilling to wait for the Archbishop to take up the mantle of accountability, Jeff Anderson & Associates released their own report based on publicly available information in 2018. The report listed more than 200 accused clergy across the three dioceses of the Bay Area: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

In January 2021, California Roman Catholic Bishops filed motions in southern and northern superior courts asking judges to rule the California Child Victims Act (AB 218) as unconstitutional. In April 2021, Alameda Superior Court Judge Winifred Y. Smith ruled that the California Child Victims Act was not only constitutional but provided a detailed 51-page opinion explaining her analysis of the law. This allowed survivors to bring actions to uncover the Bishop’s secrets.


To campaign for the unborn child and to cover up for child shagging priests is ABJECT HYPROCISY and an UNADULTERATED EVIL.

I semi-apologise for my terms but nothing else would express the utter anger and revulsion I have for Cordileone and his fellow RC Mafia mobsters.

I’ve always had a problem with people calling other people “scum” – but that is indeed a suitable term for these inhuman Christ Betraying Degenerates.

Over the years I’ve realised that the RCC is an axis of evil 😈 pretending to be good.

Ordinary PPs and curates as not as directly evil as the upper hierarchy is.

But they must realise that they are willing supporters of this evil empire.

They are just like ISIS supporters sending money to ISIS.

They do not pull the trigger but they help put the bullet in the magazine.

Every priest who operates on behalf of the RCC is complicit in child abuse cover up.

Every person who gives and money to the RCC is complicit in child abuse cover up.

It’s just like abortion.

With all this knowledge now in the public arena – anyone who supports the RCC in anyway is an accomplice to child abuse and child abuse cover up criminality.




When my mother was dying I was getting ready to leave the hospital before midnight to go home to sleep to be rested to be with her early next morning.

The charge nurse asked me not to leave just for a while.

Just after midnight two young female doctors entered my mother’s cubicle with a syringe full of a medication.

After they had left the charge nurse called us in and we were with my mother while she passed away peacefully

Three weeks earlier my mother had had a stroke which destroyed he ability to swallow either liquids of solids.

She was perfectly conscious for most of that three weeks and we had aotnof quality time with her – talking abd listening, etc.

I was aware that she was being given morphine.

Morphine is a great drug in the right setting.

But it has side effects – like weakening the heart.

So I realised that that night she died she had received her final dose of morphine – and probably a high dose.

But I did not object.

My mother would never have had any quality of life and I glad to see her going to God without pain or distress.


Was my mother’s three weeks of morphine not really a slow and compassionate form of euthanasia?

Personally, as a Christian a priest and a bishop I would have the IDEAL of going on the whole journey of my death with the Lord at my side – and join my suffering and death with His suffering and death on the Cross.

Will I have the faith and courage to do that?

I hope so.

But I cannot be certain.


What about other people who do not want to face a suffering and painful death?

Especially those who do share our Christian faith.

Should they be allowed to avail of a more up front euthanasia?

Personally, I believe that should be allowed to them.

I know that there are dangers in this area.

The danger of sick people being made to feel they are a burden on others.

The danger of greedy and unprincipled relatives and others putting pressure on the dying person- so that they can benefit from the estate.

Even the danger of overly zealous doctors putting pressure on the dying.

The danger of a “creeping euthanasia” – stretching from the dying elderly to the disabled, the depressed etc.

And so a state allowed euthanasia would need to gave the strictest possible laws and regulations built around it.

Maybe even involving judicial control?

Jesus does not need each of us to undergo a crucifying death.

He underwent that for all of us.

I think we must discuss this topic with intelligence, logic, compassion and lack of hysteria.

And in the end it is a decision for for the politicians guided by the wishes and votes of the electorate.




To the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress Nancy Pelosi

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on the Church in the Modem World, Gaudium et spes, reiterated the Church’s ancient and consistent teaching that “from the first moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (n. 51). Christians have, indeed, always upheld the dignity of human life in every stage, especially the most vulnerable, beginning with life in the womb. His Holiness, Pope Francis, in keeping with his predecessors, has likewise been quite clear and emphatic in teaching on the dignity of human life in the womb.

This fundamental moral truth has consequences for Catholics in how they live their lives, especially those entrusted with promoting and protecting the public good of society. Pope St. John Paul II was also quite consistent in upholding this constant teaching of the Church, and frequently reminded us that “those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them” (cf. Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life [November 24, 2002], n. 4, §1). A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons “are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (Code of Canon Law, can. 915).

With regard to the application of these principles to Catholics in political life, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to the U.S. bishops in 2004 explaining the approach to be taken:

“… when a person‘s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect … ,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ‘the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.’”

In striving to follow this direction, I am grateful to you for the time you have given me in the past to speak about these matters. Unfortunately, I have not received such an accommodation to my many requests to speak with you again since you vowed to codify the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in federal law following upon passage of Texas Senate Bill 8 last September. That is why I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion “rights” or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

As you have not publically repudiated your position on abortion, and continue to refer to your Catholic faith in justifying your position and to receive Holy Communion, that time has now come. Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be “concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publicly repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.


Cordileone was placed on three years’ probation and ordered to pay a fine. He also will have to attend a Mothers Against Drunk Driving victim-impact panel and a three-month first conviction program through the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

After his arrest, he issued a statement saying he was stopped when driving his mother home after having dinner at the home of some friends. He said his blood-alcohol level was over the 0.08 percent limit for California drivers.

Court records show it measured 0.11 percent within three hours of the stop.

Cordileone apologized for his “error in judgment” and asked for forgiveness from his family, friends and co-workers at the Diocese of Oakland and Archdiocese of San Francisco.


I have never refused anyone Holy Communion in my 46 years as a priest.

As a sinner myself, how can I refuse Holy Communion to another sinner.

We can, as Catholics, objectively condemn the action of abortion as a mortal or grave sin.

We cannot judge the subjective moral guilt of any particular individual.

That is God’s job.

Cordileone is himself a PUBLIC SINNER.

He drank and drove and put many people’s lives at risk.

His story of the young man in the car changed.

He was once a young friend, then a seminarian, and now a foreign priest.

Cordileone is just another RC episcopal hypocrite.