Mary, Queer Liberator

Mary, our Mother, we your Queer children call on you.

Help us to see ourselves as wholly good
and made in God’s image and likeness.

Protect us from harm so that we may
be safe from hatred and fear, especially
for our other Queer family, regardless
of color or gender identity.

Inspire our church to see the goodness
of our lives and our love, and for our allies
to advocate along with us.

Liberate us from a world that sees us as
inherently disordered and into one where
our lives and relationships are fully

And above all, convert us to your Son that
we may love with a heart like His, and
work to see God’s Reign in our midst for
all God’s people


“Mary, Queer Liberator” prayer: We your queer children call on you


The RCC and RCC fundamentalists are absolutely and totally wrong when it comes to God, Jesus, Mary, and homosexual people.

They depend upon their Bible and the literal interpretation of the Bible for their totally ludicrous, unscientific, and frankly, ignorant views.

Here are some truths:

1. The Bible is the “Word of God” but written in the words of men, many men, and we do not know the names of most of the authors.

2. In writing these “books,” these mens religious and social cultures, ignorances and prejudices, informed and absolutely influenced everything they wrote.

3. At that time, there was no intelligent understanding of the complex nature of human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.

4. All men were regarded as “straight” and having sex with any creature others than a female, was regarded as “straight” men doing sexual things with other creatures, be those creatures, dogs, hens, hedgehogs or males.

5. There was no intelligent understanding of the human brain, the complexities of the procreational process, or the complexity of human desire, human development and all the other processes that come to bear on the area of human sexual variation and diversity.

6. In writing what they wrote, they were acting out of a primitive faith and understanding of God and indeed the universe. They were like primary schoold children attempting to write a theological Ph.D.

7. But that did not mean that God did not use them. He did. But God expects us today, in the light of our greatly increased understandings, to differentiate between the theological substance of Holy Scripture and the ancient and archaic language and mindset of its understandably limited authors.

Just like if you went to a physician today, you would not expect him to base his diagnosis fully on an 18th-century medical textbook. Or if you went to a restaurant, you would not expect your meal to be cooked completely on the basis of one of Fanny Craddock’s earlier cookery books.

Taking the Bible literally on every matter is disastrous.

76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties)

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11) [Normal penalty.]

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13) [Normal penalty.]

3.       Eating fat (3:17) [That one’s “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.” All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]

4.       Eating blood (3:17) [Normal penalty]

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1) [“They will be held responsible.”]

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) [Which sounds like hearsay. At any rate, “they shall be held responsible.”]

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching “the carcass” of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or you’re a worker in a pork plant, you’re in trouble here. Normal penalty.]

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4) [Even if you don’t realize you have. Normal penalty.]

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]

11.   Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) [God will smite you.]

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) [“You will die.” May only apply to the priesthood.]

15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7) [“You will be unclean.]

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8) [“You will be unclean.”]

17.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) [“You will be unclean.”]

18.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) [“You will be unclean.”]

19.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22) [“You will be unclean.”]

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)  [“You will be unclean.” Also applies to touching their carcasses.]

22.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) [“You will be unclean.”]

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 33 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 66 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7) [The penalty for all the sexual sins in ch. 18 is that the participants are to be “cut off” from their people. Some have additional penalties mentioned below.]

26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8) [In 20:11, both are to be put to death.]

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9) [In 20:17, if you marry her, both are to be “publicly removed from their people”]

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13) [In 20:19, he will be held responsible for the dishonor.]

31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14) [In 20:20, they are held responsible for the dishonor, “they will die childless”]

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15) [In 20:12, both are to be put to death.]

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16) [In 20:21, if you marry her, “they will be childless.”]

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17) [No specific penalty given, but per 20:14 if you marry both of them, all three of you are to be “burned in fire.”]

35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, “Both of them are to be cut off from their people”]

37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20) [In 20:10, both are to be put to death.]

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) [In 20:2, the person is to be stoned to death.]

39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22) [In 20:13, both are to be put to death.]

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23) [In 20:15, both are to be killed.]

41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) [To be left for the poor.

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in yiur vineyard 19:10) [To be left for the poor.

44.   Stealing (19:11)

45.   Lying (19:11)

47.   Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)

46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)

48.   Holding back wages overnight

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)

57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave 18:20

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [No penalty given. May only apply to fruit trees planted in Israel.]

59.   Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) [No penalty, but in 20:6 they will be “cut off from their people” by God. In 20:27, they are to be stoned to death.]

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides

62.   Getting tatoos

63.   Turning your daughter to prostitution

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

66.   Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”  (19:33-34)

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) [Death, as noted.]

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

75.   Selling land permanently 25:33

76. Selling an Israelite as a slave.


I always think I would have loved Corinth and their lifestyle there. It sounded like a real libertarian place that St. Paul tried to put manners on -unsuccessfully thankfully . They only sin in Sodom/Gommorah was a failure to show hospitality..


You are welcome to Corinth. No anti-biotics, no anti-virals in those times, but almost your pick of modern STIs.
Paul is probably alluding to at least some of them in Romans: ‘… men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons (their bodies) the due penalty for their error.’ (Romans 1: 27)


Robert Nugent loves the sound of his own voice, he’d fit right in with the very bitchy, territorial and quite formidable types in parishes who would be saying mass if they got half a chance & are openly obsessed with a desire to have power over what is ultimately none of their business.


The people can be quoted to so many ends..I always think I would have loved Corinth and their lifestyle there. The orgies.. drunkenness.. licentiousness It sounded like a real libertarian place that St. Paul tried to put manners on -unsuccessfully thankfully . They only sin in Sodom/Gommorah was a failure to show hospitality..


Protect victims of church related abuse from hatred activities executed by clergy and their members.


Boundless campaign against homosexual clergy by closet homosexual hierarchy in Roman Catholic Churchsays:

The cardinals, bishops and priests who worked with Pope John Paul II were plotters, thugs, a majority of closeted homosexuals, who were homophobes in public, not to mention all those who protected paedophile priests.
“Pope Paul VI had condemned homosexuality, but it was only with the arrival of Pope John Paul II that a veritable war was waged against gays,” according to a Curia priest who worked at Pope John Paul II’s ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“Irony of history: most of the players in this boundless campaign against homosexuals were homosexual themselves”

Liked by 1 person

Irish Bishops Council for Pastoral Renewal & Faith Development
Bishop Seamus Freeman was the Chair of the Irish Bishops Council for Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development.
Was he recruiting for the Roman Catholic Church during his visits to the Pleasuredome gay sex sauna at Waterloo Bridge.


Seamus Freeman was obviously quite a “big” boy when he was putting it about. It’s been mentioned several times here.


These closeted thugs are well protected with fancy influential lawyers and judges and others paid for by Fraudulent Frankie at The Vatican and his network of international agents in every parish throughout the world.


So much of the corruption in the church right now is rooted in this historical matrix of the papacy of St. John Paul the Great — though it may take many years before people who are no longer blinded by the rock-star glitz of that image-savvy pope to recognize this.

Liked by 1 person

Bash McCarrick, and you immediately have to confront the fact that St. John Paul the Great elevated him to powerful positions — having received reports, we now know, about McCarrick’s sexual propensitiies and activities.
It’s hard to bash the gays in the church when you have people like Raymond Burke at your helm, and when your papal heroes — St. John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI — were surrounded by gobs and gobs of right-wing gay hierarchs.
Kurt Martens, a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America described the excommunication of Cardinal McCarrick as “almost revolutionary”.
Professor Martens stated “Bishops and former cardinals are no longer immune to punishment”.


Clergy & their religious are still getting away with serious matters. The RCC remains a very wealthy and influential organisation, these types contibue to be heavily involved in multiple conflicts of interest.

Liked by 1 person

It’s the corruption of pretend heterosexuality coupled with abominable treatment of queer people — all engineered by homosexual clerics posturing as heterosexual — that’s the very dark heart of the corruption within the Catholic institution. So much of the corruption — real corruption, as in Vatican financial shenanigans and policies throwing progressive priests in Latin America to murderous wolves — begins with this dark heart of the story.


Bullying happens day in and day out in CCMS schools, the weapon of choice for Catholic clergy. They bullied their way in and will bully their way through that school. Like many other clerical types, they leave a trail of destruction as they swagger through different roles. I said it before & I’ll say it again – CCMS are untouchable!


The majority of today’s Roman Catholic clergy are so far removed from the image and likeness of Christ that their form is hideous to the point of demonic unrecognizability.

Liked by 1 person

Clergy & their cohorts appear to get away with murder, vulgarity, hatred. The corruptive structure of the Roman Catholic Church enables these types to express their true selves they being a duplicitous bunch of vicious, obnoxious, nasty, mean, ugly little queens who dare to victimise gays when they are active homosexuals themselves.

Liked by 1 person

The RCC is littered with self interested bandwagon warriors who would appear to have lots of past baggage which they should deal with through a psychoanalyst rather than continually making attention seeking god squad manoeuvres.
These two faced hatemongers have completely hijacked the church & most people of integrity have voted with their feet and left them to it the main exception being those with jobs or business interests connected to the Roman Catholic Church.

Liked by 1 person

Never mix sex and religion. JP II and successors have been projecting their bad consciences on all of us. Now they claim (from their diplomatic city state status) that we’ve got to be “eucharistic”.


“And in apologising for Sheehy is Browne not also apologising for RCC teaching and saying that RCC teaching in not representative of Christianity?
And if that’s the case what is Browne doing as RCC Bishop of Kerry?”
+Ray must explain? +Ray must make a public apology to Fr. Seán or offer blessings of love for the LGBT community.
+Phonsie must explain his support for the wayward abbot. Will +Phonsie offer blessings of love for the LGBT community?


Safeguarding of young non-nationals engaging with Irish clerics and members with proven track records in covering up for wrong doing.says:

What is Bishop Phonsie Cullinan doing with all those young people on his premises?

What do these young women in particular make of Bishops Phonsie’s outspoken and well documented stance against the life saving cervical HPV Vaccine or are these young foreigners possibly unaware of the various scandals in both the Irish Roman Catholic Church and in the Irish Health Service that have cost lives of young women including Laura Brennan and Vicky Phelan amongst many others.

Many of Bishop Phonsie’s protégés appear to be young people of Irish American extraction with a rose tinted view of the Irish church and state systems.

The truth about all this in Diocese of Waterford & Lismore must be rooted out in the interests of proper transparent safeguarding.

Liked by 1 person

The devil is in the detail (in every sense).
Ray Brown rightly called out Rev Sheeby’s inaccurate interpretation of Catholic as woefully inadequate.
If Seamus cannot see that, Seamus doesn’t have much education, theologically. His almost daily trotting out of these sentiments are an attempt to convince himself that the Kerry priest was worth hearing.
Educate yourself, Seamus. Begin with a correspondence course in theology.


Or a crash course in philosophy.
The fact that a proposition is false does not mean an opposite one is true.
“It’s not raining in the north of Ireland.” doesn’t mean “It is raining in the south.”
Look exactly at what thd Kerry priest said. Could you, as a Catholic, recognise ghe teaching of your church in that?



Your example is self-evidently self-contradictory, a logical fallacy.

If it is not raining in Donegal (the ‘north of Ireland’), then it does indeed mean that the opposite propostion is also true: it is not raining either in the South of Ireland. Donegal is in the South of Ireland.


The ex-seminarian and now lapsed Catholic must have been expelled in the middle of First Philosophy.


EVERY Diocese and Religious Order on the island of Ireland needs to be investigated.
Safeguarding MUST be completely independent of the RCC.


We do know the author of Romans, Paul, and we do know, from his thoughts therein, that he conceived homosexual acts as originating in excessive lust. (Unscientific? Who can reliably say? If Darwin is correct about the evolution of species, then it follows that human behaviours, including sexual and moral ones, must have evolved, too. But which, and from what? Homosexual acts from excessive, indiscriminate lust among heterosexuals? Perhaps.)
However, it really doesn’t matter whether Paul got this wrong: the origin of these acts would not have interested him as much as the acts themselves, which he condemns as utterly sinful. In fact, he goes further than this: he says or implies that those who wilfully and habitually commit these acts, without repentance, will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, into full or any communion with God; in other words, they will damn their souls. These are extremely strong, and categorical words; they should not, therefore, be dismissed.
Arguments in favour of homosexual acts that are based on the unscientific character of the Bible are a red herring: the Bible, at no point, proclaims itself a scientific textbook, much less a definitive one. Nor would, or does, any reputable biblical scholar today. To dumb down the Bible for this reason shows a very poor appreciation of its literary composition and character, but it does show all the prejudice, anger and haste of 16th century iconoclasm.
The Bible is a combination of many genres, but never a scientific one. And this, really, doesn’t matter, because, as a morality genre, its judgements and condemnations are not circumstantially dependent, but are derived from the nature of things themselves. Thus, theft is never, from a moral point of view, examined contextually, either as a psychological or sociological phenomenon, but is judged morally for itself. It is the same with homosexual acts: they are judged morally on account of what they are, not in terms of their scientific origin, nor in terms of their social circumstances. These, ultimately, did not matter, because they could not attribute to homosexual acts their moral quality: this is intrinsically determined and derived.
It wouldn’t matter, therefore, whether the biblical authors had understood homosexuality genetically or epigenetically (or in any other way), they would yet have morally condemned homosexual acts, just as they would the act of theft had they known of the psychiatric disorder, kleptomania. They did not require scientific or existential knowledge of humanity to know, intuitively, that some behaviours were plainly just wrong.
Homosexuals today, many of them, are attempting to bend God to their preferred way of seeing their sexual behaviours by relying on, frankly, spurious and irrelevant arguments that are, at best, only quasi-biblical.
As for the Bible itself, is it really the product of men’s religious and cultural ignorance and prejudices? Did these truly inform and influence ‘everything they (the biblical authors) wrote’. An athiest would agree with this so-called ‘truth’, Pat, but you are a Christian minister, not an atheist.
Is the Bible nowhere the inspired word of God? Is it, from start to finish, merely a human project (which, Pat, you imply)? Does it nowhere express divine and absolute, universal truths? If it does, then it is scarcely a human project alone.
Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, Pat. Our faith as Christians has its historical origin in these inspired words. If you dismiss these purely as a human endeavour, you are similtaneously dismissing the supernatural reality of the historical Jesus, along with everything he taught and accomplished (including, pre-eminently, your and my redemption).


In Irish seminaries the study of scripture was referred to as a ‘pup subject’ unlike the more weighty dogmatic and systematic theology.
But scripture is the sole of theology and we feed from scripture and Eucharist.
It’s wrong to compare the writers of Genesis as primary school children as these schools were highly sophisticated and intelligent but inspired by the Holy Spieit.
The Bible is a mixture of allegory, fact. parable, poetry and so on – the wise and simple of faith understand this (Tolkiein) et al) and revere the sacred and holy text.
To revere and cherish Gods word does not make one a fundamentalist – which is no fun at all.


Any sane and reasonable person who can apply even a modicum of logic knows that the bible is man created and written according to a particular time and culture. Moral values expressed in the bible reflect the time and culture in which it was written. Much of the sexual teaching reflects a patriarchal control culture. So, it is not unreasonable for us in 20203 to apply the logic and science and knowledge of our time to interpret the bible in a way for our times. Most of us have already. The RRC, and some other Christians, stubbornly refuse to do so, and continue to implement moral and sexual teaching that is thousands of years out of date, and scientifically and factually erroneous. I suspect that they do so for exactly the same reasons that parts of the bible were written – in other words to maintain and bolster a patriarchal (and clerical hierarchical) control over everybody else. I waited long enough for the Church to move, and since it has refused to do so, I have moved myself, and now I make up my mind about what is right, wrong, good, bad. Never anymore do I listen to some pompous self-righteous cleric telling me what to do. I know if I pick up that grimy rock and look at its underside I will see stuff that is completely contrary to what they are telling me, and great hypocrisy. Remember, what you see a priest or a bishop, to ask yourself what they get up to when they think nobody is watching or listening ! You would, as we well know, be horrified.

Liked by 1 person

Anon@ 8.28: You’ve come a long way in rejecting the biblical hotchpotch.
Keep going. Perhaps your travels will bring you to seeing through and rejecting the whole religious farrago.


Personally, I do not regard the Bible as hotchpotch.

But like all ancient texts, it must be read with intelligence and an understanding of its cultural context.

I rejected “religion” a long time ago

It’s spirituality we need.


+Pat: Yes, spirituality is fine if based on belief in our mutual dependency and responsibility. But if it’s solely based on the God mythology then it begs questions.


Now Sammy. Have a care. You cannot speak categorically and definitively of God as myth, because you would then be in the same position as believers: having to prove, in your case, the non-existence of God. And this you simply cannot do.
Naughty Sammy.🙄


Anon@1:28. Absolutely correct! Nobody can absolutely prove the non existence of God.
Neither can anyone prove the non existence of those pink teapots allegedly orbiting stars in far off galaxies!


+Pat: “intelligence and cultural understanding ?”
You mean the ‘pick & mix’ bits of the bible that fit in and are acceptable…… who? …each individual, or Holy Mother Church…..or the ‘biblical experts?’
And the bits that don’t “fit in” either in the current version of the bible or writings contemporary to the accepted biblical tracts but not included: what about them?
Y’know my head spins with trying to understand the biblical contortions undertaken by followers of Christianity.


Were all men regarded as straight in biblical times? Historically, they most certainly were not.
The Greco-Roman world allowed pederasty, albeit only for a limited period in a mature male’s life. It was regared as a social rite of passage, for both parties. But, if this world knew that supposedly straight mature males were getting their ‘jollies’ from immature males (some as young as 12 or 13), then they obviously knew they weren’t straight at all, but were capable of sexually fluidity. (Tch!) It’s common sense. Today we would say that they were on the sexuality spectrum.
If some mature males persisted in pederastic relationships beyond the prescribed period (and they did), this was frowned upon by wider society. But, interestingly, the fact that such relationships did persist and that they were frowned upon proves that the Greco-Roman world knew that there were men exclusively or partly attracted to other males. Which means they knew such men (without using words we use today) were either homosexual or bisexual. In other words, they knew that it was in the nature of these men to have same-sex attraction, not as a ‘put-downable at any time’ fancy, but as an ineradicably inherent part of their nature. Paul hints at some of this in Romans.
It is unhistorical and wrong to suggest that the ancients had only a gender-binary notion of human sexuality.


Your reasoning is poor. Think again. Your comment evinces a lack of historical awareness and faulty reasoning.
Greeco-Roman acceptance of pederasty does not mean they knew these men were attracted to boys. In reacbing this conclusion, you are merely stating what you want to prove. There was no awareness then. of orientation then. It can be interpreted that while they knew of this ativity, they didn’t reject if as the bible did. In short, they tolerated it while ac ba cepting the men involved were attracted to women.


How can I put this without sounding crude or vulgar. I suppose there is only one way, and, hopefully, it will convince you that my reasoning is anything but ‘faulty’. The genitals do not lie about a person’s sexual orientation. If he is sexually aroused by males, then, logically, he is not straight: he is either homosexual or bisexual. But he is not straight.
The relationship, pederasty, between older Greco-Roman males and younger ones was, primarily, romantic in nature; this involved sex between them, with the older party’s penetrating the younger. There is nothing straight about this.


2:53 Not necessarily.
There is the well documented human behaviour of homosexual activity in prisons and other single sex places. Its practitioners are otherwise completely straight and would certainly not consider themselves drawn to their own sex.
On the Kinsey scale they might score a 1.


I agree. But this means, of course, that these males are not straight, that is, they are not sexually attracted to females exclusively.
An argument in today’s blog has the Ancient World see males only as straight. This was hardly the case when, by custom, men could form sexual relationships with teenaged boys.


You are actually confirming my argument by mentioning ‘prison gays’, but you cannot see it.
There is a bit of ‘gay’ in many men who would publicly declare themselves as straight; in other words, they are on the sexuality spectrum, not, as they suppose, at the heterosexual end of it. And, in the right circumstances, they may find themselves same-sex attracted. Again, the genitals do not lie about a person’s sexuality, though the person may very well do so.
These men are neither exclusively heterosexual nor homosexual. Which means that they are bisexual. Or, perhaps, pansexual. This is similar to bisexuality, but not quite the same.
Men, for their own reasons, will lie about to whom they are sexually attracted. There is a sexual category, ‘men who have sex with men’, because these do not want to be defined, either by themselves or by others, as gay or bisexual; if asked, these men would describe themselves as absolutely straight. But this, obviously, is a blatant lie. These men are most certainly not straight, however strongly they may declare to the contrary. Yet again, the genitals do not lie; they are the most reliable and uncompromising indicator of a person’s true sexuality.


Pat, I will take so much, but when I’ve had enough I’m like an atomic bomb – the bomb is about to explode dear


Stand with Dom Benedict Andersen & other victimised whistleblowers of Roman Catholic Church related abuse & corruptionsays:

It’s not possible for goodness, decency or caring to be in the psyche of clergy & their types as they clearly execute their vast overloads of hatred, jealousy, anger toward vulnerable victims, survivors and to the supporters that clergy & their sorts despise as it thwarts their normal modus operandi to isolate those that they target to execute further abuses.

Nothing is as it seems with these duplicitous and evil specimens.

Liked by 1 person

Will Bishop Phonsie of Waterford & Lismore, Bishop Ray Browne of Kerry, Bishop Fintan Monahan of Killaloe or Bishop Tom Deenihan of Meath be offering blessings of love for the LGBT community or will they practice what they preach and move on past their spiteful obsessions with avenging Roman Catholic Church victims, survivors and whistleblowers?


The parish priest wants for nothing, recently took delivery of a brand new car, same as every year or second year at most.

Lives alone in a large family sized house and drives a large family sized car.

Show us your “friends” and we’ll show you what you are. It certainly applies in his case and he’s not alone in that.


It is hypocritical of the Roman Catholic Church to publicly condemn gay love when there are a sizeable number of actively gay priests & volunteers at its core. The truth will set them free.

Instead their clear mission is to continue to seek new victims whilst failing to redress past victims and to destroy lives for the good of the reputation of their toxic Church and to then silently walk away without accountability or consequences.

Their wealth and connections facilitate this ongoing abuse, corruption and criminality in the Roman Catholic Church.

Liked by 1 person

Skimming the Sunday collection is widely practised among the clergy. It pays for their Sunday day restaurant meal and Monday day off. My PP became incandecent with rage because an altar server decided to do the same when bringing the bags into the sacristy. However, COVID saw a reduced collection plate and a move towards standing orders which angered him as he had to cut back on the amount he skimmed.


And you have done the research to arrive at this convlusion.
Please share the link.
If you made such a comment about religious leaders of other faiths, you’d be pursued on grounds of incitement to hatred.



(Sigh) If priests are raping children (and too many of them have), and others are prepared to cover up for them, then dipping anointed hands in collection boxes or plates is small beer by comparison.

You don’t ‘get it’, do you? Moral compromise in one area will not stop there: it will cross other boundaries, too.

Pro-tip: if you, Father, don’t want to be hated, then priests should stop dong hateful things.

Liked by 1 person

The Pillar
March 16, 2023.
“Priests who steal are often motivated by resentment, envy, and a desire to cover up for other moral lapses, new analysis has found, adding that isolation and weak oversight can contribute to the rationalization of theft through “moral licensing.” But the same analysis concluded that a relatively small number of priests have been caught stealing from parishes, and that the priesthood does not seem to attract fraudsters or financial con artists. A new scholarly article, “Exploring Embezzlement by Catholic Priests in the United States: A Content Analysis of Cases Since 1963,” documented almost 100 instances of stealing by priests, which have sometimes involved hundreds of thousands stolen.” ” The study aims to assess financial crimes committed by Catholic priests in light of what researchers call the “fraud triangle” — pressure, opportunity, and rationalization.”


4:30 Precisely. You don’t get to turning a blind eye to rape from a standing start.
Perhaps this is why they all claim not to see the warning signs of child abuse – they fail to understand how grooming works as they fail to understand every other human behaviour.
As penitents emerge from the confessional after confessing the same sin for the umpteenth time, perhaps they genuinely think they’ll never do it again.


Church pays lip service only to condemning theft and other sins, they and their cohorts do as they please and get away with it.
Birds of a feather flock together


Original sin applies equally to all. It does not give license for mud slinging at particular sections of society.
What it does is it facilitates free choice. Without original sin we would just be innocent naive creatures but as mature beings we choose between right and wrong precisely because God created original sin to enable us to have the choices required to exercise free will.


The Bible is revered by our culture – we swear on it in a court of law to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth – to lie on oath is perjury and a serious crime carrying a custodial sentence.
On a lighter note along with the complete works of Shakespeare it’s permissible on our Desert Island (Radio 4)
And it is a library of Ageless Wisdom and of course the inspired Word of God.
Now as for the intellectual suicide which is fundamentalism and an overt literal approach they are just missing out on the fun yet the historical critical method an verse too far and rob of text of its spirituality and beauty.
Origins allegorical approach has much to recommend but so does Raymond Brown.
By the way the Priestly and Yahwist school would find it amusing that Genesis 1-3 be understood literally it is clearly allegory and story and yet contains the wisdom of God if we approach it humbly (ideally on our knees)


10.08: Spirituality is what we need, you say Pat! But you have appropriated this clichéd word to justify any set of beliefs that are self satisfying, self regarding and which suit a free, independent nlmibd. All us us are spiritual but not all of us are religious or spiritually religious. I suspect yours is a pot pourri of all kinds of created beliefs to make you feel comfortable. There’s a big difference between being religiously and morally spiritual and just being “spiritual”.


I love it when people who believe a virgin conceived and belong to a church which is run from a tinpot micro state, start telling other people they’ll believe anything. 🤦


Religion commonly refers to an institution that has a set of organized practices and a structured belief system shared by and among those who are members of the institution.

Spirituality is about one’s soul and inner self. Being spiritual involves holding one’s personal set of beliefs and practices and searching for the purpose of life.



Private and individual religion and spirituality is just fine but Jesus founded a church – upon this rock I will build my church (Ekklesia) and this experience is both individual and communal – baptised into a body of believers, the church.


2:53 When you actually read that passage instead of reading your assumption into it, you will see that Jesus praises Peter’s acclamation of faith and then says those words. The church is built on faith, not Peter.
Because see how well that would have worked out. 😂


Yes Jesus spoke Aramaic his words were translated into Greek the predominant language of the ancient world – its disingenuous to suggest Jesus isn’t the founder of a church of which he nominated Peter the rock and upon which it was built.
This is a fact of history – the translators clearly distinguish between church and kingdom – Jesus is Lord of both.


Would Jesus found a church a church full of gangsters, pardophilesand paedophile protectors.


Pat at 3:28 He would according to the gangsters and paedophile protectors. They think he was like them in all ways including crime.


3.28: A very silly question. Of course Jesus wouldn’t found a church community to be specifically for the groups you mention. Hes not a madman!! But Jesus calls all of us, despite repeated sins and crimes, to full repentance. We know Jesus did not ever intend his church to be a place where evil thrives. And I’m certain that Jesus would want all of us, where and if possible, to redeem and save one another. Where egregious crimes are concerned, the full impact of civil law must apply.


7:32 He’s trying to tell you that your cult, being confined to kiddy fiddlers and their enablers, is not founded by Christ.
You will be familiar with the idea that the church of Christ is indefectible: it may well be, but it’s not found in the Roman communion.


4.19: Makes you appreciate what, Roberta? Being lesbian is common nowadays. No big deal. Nothing special. Enjoy being who you are.


2.55: Pat, you’re fantastic at trying to justify your independence. Fine but you have abandoned all traditions, customs, teachings of the Church simply to suit your interpretations which are mostly fallacious and as self serving as you condemn in others who belong to the RCC. We’re all called to build God’s kingdoms. We don’t exist in a vacuum where we do what we like which you excel at and advocate for. A recipe for religious and moral confusions. I suppose POBAL DE is beyond you!!


@3:51 Of course IF he ever existed, he’s now long gone, dead &buried!
But did he ever exist as recounted in the New Testament? And if some significant Ghandi like personality called JC did exist, how reliable is the proof that he was Almighty God, or Son of?
Bear in mind the undoubted massaging of alleged facts concerning him. We are obliged to rely on writings by his followers written long after his death, much of it from word of mouth hearsay. Other contemporary historical accounts, particularly Roman records, fail to even mention such an allegedly important individual’s activities. Yet the Jesus narrative is uncritically taken as………gospel!

Liked by 1 person

3.30: How observant of you! KINGDOM of course is what I meant. Intelligent people would have understood this. Are you being facetious???


Oh yes! Indeed I HAVE heard of them. And if YOU think their references prove Jesus’s existence and supposed miracles as sufficient evidence for his deity….. you’re easily satisfied!
They do NOT provide historical evidence on anything other than A)Tacitus referring to Nero blaming “mischievous superstitious followers of a Christus executed by Pilate in Judea” for the great fire in Rome in July 64AD.
B)PLINY describing Christans as excessively superstitious in refusing to believe in the Roman gods, and seeking advice on how to deal with them.
Hardly convincing?
No wonder I’m 🤔 sceptical!


3:22 ‘mostly fallacious’
Hasn’t it struck you that people become independent so that they can take on beliefs and practices considered mostly fallacious?
Is it possible that you’ve missed that that is the point.
And the other thing you’ll have missed is that independents don’t care about your opinion. 😂


4.09: I said Pat’s interpretations, not those of the Catholic Church, are mostly fallacious: they suit his agenda only. TRUE. Secondly, those who become independent make up their own beliefs and teachings. Pat does not in any way represent any Catholic Church’s teachings. He has made up his own belief system which he’s entitled to do – but – they are not resonant with the Catholic Church’s teachings.


Did Jesus found a church?
If so, the church of the fisherman or the church that the Emperor Constantine accepted and subsumed into the Roman Empire?
Is the subsumed Church the true church or was it subsumed by the gates of hell?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s