Last weekend, Donal Mc Keown published a collection of waffle called BE PART OF GOD’S AMAZING DREAM.
People like Mc Keown always come up with grand titles that attempt (unsuccessfully) to portray DISASTER as A GREAT FUTURE.
The more serious the situation the more absurd their titles get.
The RCC in Ireland is in meltdown due to the Irish people discovering that Mc Keown & Co are just a crowd of shisters and gangsters.
The Irish people have, at last, copped on to the fact that the RCC is a mafia wholly concerned with its own survival and the bolstering of its assets and monies.
God has no RCC dream for Ireland.
If God has dreams, he Irish RCC and globally have been and is the stuff ofthe Almighty’s nightmares.
Sexual abuse, cover-up, abuse, etc etc.
DONAL THE WAFFLER’S STATISTICS
“The diocese of Down and Connor currently has 86 parishes and 146 churches ministered to by around 84 priests in active ministry.
Only seven priests in the Diocese are aged under 40 years of age. In just over 10 years the number of priests in active ministry will be almost half what it is today.
Within 15 years, and for the first time in the history of the Diocese, we will have more retired priests than priests in active ministry.
Twenty years from now, we forecast there will only be approximately 24 priests available for our current 86 parishes.
In undertaking this journey, it is clear that we urgently need to move from a Church where ministry and leadership was exercised primarily by priests and religious to one where all the baptised take up the call to minister and to lead.
The history of our island also reminds us that it is precisely when we have vibrant communities of lay leadership in faith, missionary and evangelising, that vocations to the priesthood and religious life are nourished and sustained.
Some of the challenges ahead. In this time of transition, leading to rebirth and renewal, there are certainly challenges to be faced. It will be necessary to adapt how our priests are supported, how parishes are structured, how liturgical services are celebrated, and how all the lay faithful can work together in the service of God and each other.
Change will be inevitable in order to meet the ever changing sacramental and pastoral needs of parishioners.
The statistical realities convey the urgency of this challenge, but also the many opportunities for new approaches to leadership and ministry. It is clear, therefore, that we must urgently become that vibrant, missionary and evangelising Church in which all the gifts of all the baptised are engaged.
The alternative is to ask our priests to continue to manage workloads and demands that are unreasonable and not sustainable, with the consequent impact on their welfare and well-being. The approach to ministry and leadership we have been used to for many years, simply has to change. “
I think that it is VERY GOOD NEWS that the RCC is in trouble and has fewer and fewer priests.
Ireland needs rid of the RCC.
And those of us who desire to have and exercise FAITH can find new, authentic, non corrupt and Gospel based ways of loving God and eachother.
These days, we are celebrating the 100 th anniversary of the British colonialists leaving Ireland.
Perhaps we are also beginning to see the back of those others who colonised Ireland – those of the Roman Church variety?
The physically disabled prioress of a Catholic convent in Texas is hitting back at a bishop’s allegation that she committed adultery with a priest, after she filed a $1 million lawsuit accusing the bishop of acting in an ‘unholy’ and ‘pure evil’ manner.
‘She’s never had sex with a priest,’ Gerlach’s attorney Michael Bobo told DailyMail.com in a phone interview this week. ‘I can absolutely, categorically deny that she’s ever had sex with a priest, and she’s never admitted to any such thing.’
Bobo suggested that there might be more to Olson’s recent threats to shut down Gerlach’s monastery than meet the eye, noting that the property in Arlington is owned by the Discalced Carmelite Nuns religious order rather than the diocese.
‘He could arguably have the monastery shut down, and then that piece of property, which is worth about $22 million, could become part of the diocese,’ the attorney said.
Diocese spokesman Pat Svacina denied Bobo’s claims in a statement to DailyMail.com, saying: ‘His accusations are false and unsupported.’
Gerlach, 45, has severe chronic health issues and is confined to a wheelchair, and has lived in religious seclusion at the all-female monastery for the past 25 years, her attorney said.
She was still under the influence of fentanyl from a surgical procedure when Olson entered the convent to grill her as part of his investigation, she said in a sworn affidavit. The lawsuit does not describe the nature of Olson’s purported investigation.
In response to the suit, the Diocese of Fort Worth issued a statement sharing allegations that Gerlach had ‘committed sins against the Sixth Commandment and violated her vow of chastity with a priest’ from outside the diocese.
The statement said that Olson was conducting a ‘ecclesiastical investigation into the report of the grave misconduct’ under church rules, also known as canon law.
In the Catholic Church, the Sixth Commandment is ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ and forbids sex outside of marriage. Catholic priests and nuns are forbidden to marry and take vows of celibate chastity.
In a court filing viewed by DailyMail.com, the diocese asked for the suit to be dismissed and alleged that Gerlach ‘has admitted to violating her vow of chastity, with a priest’.
Bobo slammed that assertion as false, saying that Gerlach has not made such an admission, and that she does not even know the specific allegation against her.
‘We don’t even know what the allegation is, and we’ve asked,’ said Bobo, adding that he had repeatedly asked the diocese: ‘Tell me what you think she did. What is the crime or the sin you think she committed? What led you to that belief?’
What do you think?
The silencing of women and orders.
The coercive control and abuse of power over women, making them unsafe in their own home environment.
No mention of priest’s name, concern or interest in his identity in breaking his vow of celibacy. No witness or evidence, admission while under influence of highly sedating medication. Non-consensual statement.
Yet victim-survivors are not believed when they say they have been sexually abused and have full competency, and not medicated.
When a priest admits to transgressions they are shielded and kept out of court or media – the mighty double standard and hypocrisy of the RCC.
Features: No protection order. Home invasion. Slander. Bullying, harassment, and intimidation. Victimization. Overriding freedom of her choice and control.
Exploitation and violation of patient rights while in recovery.
Unable to give informed consent to be interviewed at time info extracted – temporary mental incapacity due to medical treatment and drugs known to affect cognitive function and capacity.
Invalid just like a written will would be considered, if later found to be signed in this temporary incapacitated state.
Controlling freedom of movement and of association, activities, access and use of communication devices and preventing ability to conduct business, access to health care and primary support for the necessaries of life. Denying religious freedom.
Forced confinement, imposing restrictions, violating right to privacy and upholding of personal dignity. Persecution. Persecution. Boundary violations by bishop.
Deprivation of liberties.
The madness of men in RCC.
No comment from the Archbishop or Vatican.
Let your readers decide.
WH IN OWN WORDS
Quiet observer – not Catholic or religious, learning so much through your blog…
WH makes very good points.
Is it the silencing of women’s orders, coercive control, exploitation, deprivation of liberty, ormisogyny?
We know RCC bishoos and clergy are capable of it all and more.
SPRINGFIELD — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield has announced a settlement with a Chicopee man who said he was raped as a child in the 1960s by the late Bishop Christopher J. Weldon and two other priests.
The monetary aspect of the settlement will remain confidential, the man’s attorney has said.
The resolution follows two years of contentious litigation with the man, identified only as “John Doe” in public court filings. The case was headed to trial this month in Hampden Superior Court before the parties signaled a settlement was near.
The Most Rev. William D. Byrne, bishop of the Springfield diocese, issued a lengthy statement on the settlement this morning.
“We as a church must continue to do more for survivors, and we must do it in a quicker and more sensitive fashion. I commend John Doe for his courage in coming forward in this matter and by his persistence highlighting areas we must improve. We will,” the statement reads, in part.
The abuse survivor came forward to the diocese’s review board that assesses allegations of clergy abuse with allegations that Weldon and two other late priests gang raped him repeatedly when he was an altar boy of about age 9. His lawsuit also alleges the diocese tried to cover up the accusations aimed at Weldon to protect his legacy.
Larry Parnass, former Berkshire Eagle managing editor for innovation, went public with the story in 2019. He is now executive editor for The Republican.
An independent investigation ensued and found the survivor’s allegations “unequivocally credible.”
Byrne’s statement on the settlement also says the diocese withdraws any statements made to the contrary.
“Mr. Doe’s allegations were determined to be credible, therefore, any public statement made on behalf of the diocese in May or June of 2019 that is inconsistent with that is withdrawn. We apologize to Mr. Doe for any harm those statements caused. We regret that interaction with the diocese and civil litigation, often the last stop in trying to resolve these cases, can leave survivors feeling revictimized,” the statement continued.
An attorney for Doe issued a statement in response to a request for comment largely highlighting the Catholic church’s persistent failures with regard to victims of clergy abuse.
“The fact that Mr. Doe was forced to pursue litigation in the face of the report prepared by retired Judge Peter A. Velis, confirms the Church’s continuing failure, despite protestations to the contrary, to accept responsibility for the atrocities committed,” Springfield lawyer Nancy Frankel Pelletier said. “It is Mr. Doe’s hope that Bishop Byrne’s statement will be heeded, and that no other survivor will be revictimized for speaking their truth.”
Another horrific story of a little 9 year old boy being gang raped by a Catholic bishop and two Carholic priests in the 1960s.
And it has taken the victim 60 years to get recognitionand believed.
THE RCC FOUGHT THIS VICTIM RIGHT TO THE BITTER END.
A sexual assault cansometimes happen instantly, without premeditation.
When a bishop and two priests gang rape a little boy, it is both premeditatedand planned and carried out co-operatively.
This act was a thoroughly demonic act.
And the bishop, and presumably the priests, continued in office and made a mockery of Jesus Christ and every religious act they performed.
And to those who say abuse is a post Vatican II problem – when this rape took place that Bishop and priests were celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass – the so called MASS OF THE AGES – or in this case the MASS OF THE RAPISTS!
That Bishop was born in 1905 and became a bishop in the 50s – a full decade before Vatican II.
And God knows how many more such gang rapes were never reported.
When the eremitic monk and reformer Peter Damian cast his critical gaze upon the Catholic Church of the mid-eleventh century, he encountered a panorama of corruption that would have appeared daunting even to the most hardened observer of the modern ecclesiastical scene. The “household of God” was in a catastrophic state of moral disorder, admitting of no easy remedy. The crisis of the period, and Damian’s heroic response, offers much of historical value to us as we confront our own explosion of clerical vice and doctrinal infidelity.
The Church of Damian’s time had been rocked by almost two centuries of political and social chaos, and the doctrinal ignorance, scandalous personal behavior, and petty venality of the clergy had reached intolerable levels. Bishops and priests were involved in every kind of immorality, publicly living with concubines or illicit wives, or furtively engaging in homosexual practices. Many had purchased their ordinations and the lucrative benefices that accompanied them, and spent their free time in scandalous secular amusements. An outraged laity was beginning to rise up against ecclesiastical authority, sometimes in riotous outbursts of violence that threatened the civil order.
The pinnacle of the crisis was reached in the year 1032 with the election of Pope Benedict IX, a raucous and libertine youth of no more than twenty-two years of age, and the latest and worst in a long succession of compromised popes who served wealthy and powerful secular patrons. Mercifully, few details of Benedict’s personal behavior have been preserved in historical accounts, but the pope’s “vile and contemptible life,” his “rapine, murders, and other nefarious deeds,” and his “depraved and perverse acts,” in the words of the future Pope Victor III, were widely known in his day.
However, by 1049 a new generation of reformers was on the rise, beginning with the pontificate of Pope St. Leo IX, and running through the pontificate of Hildebrand (St. Gregory VII), in 1073. Peter Damian, who was famous for his life of austerity and penance, would act as the principal theorist of the counter-revolutionaries against the Church’s corrupt establishment. Damian provided the rhetorical firepower for their reform projects, publishing a constant stream of open letters that often took on the dimension of pamphlets or small books on every conceivable theological and disciplinary controversy. When it was necessary, he showed up in person to confront corrupt actors and to stand them down – including the Holy Roman Emperor himself.
In many ways the crisis of Damian’s day seems foreign to our own; thankfully, we seem not to be suffering from a plague of illicit clerical marriages, nor do we find ourselves in a crisis of nepotism and simony, even if such problems continue to exist in isolation. However, much of St. Peter Damian’s eleventh century reform struggle seems strikingly relevant to the modern situation of the Church, offering us an incisive and useful critique of sexual immorality and laxism among the clergy, as well as an inspiring example of a reformer of immense personal integrity, whose courage never seemed to waver, even in the darkest of moments.
A devastating analysis of a crisis
Most relevant to our own age is Damian’s famous Liber Gomorrhianus, or “Book of Gomorrah,” a long letter in the form of a libellus addressed to Pope St. Leo IX sometime between 1049 and 1054. The book, which is written against an epidemic of sodomy “raging like a cruel beast within the sheepfold of Christ” has deep resonance with us today, and offers many insights into the contemporary crisis in the priesthood.
Damian’s opening words almost seem addressed to the contemporary Church, as he warns the pope that the “cancer of sodomitic impurity” is threatening the integrity of the clergy itself, and urges him to act with all speed, adding that “unless the force of the Apostolic See opposes it as quickly as possible, there is no doubt that when it finally wishes for the unbridled evil to be restrained, it may not be able to halt the fury of its advance.”
One of the most important elements offered to the modern reader by Damian’s work is his understanding of “sodomy” not merely as a sexual perversion involving two people of the same sex, but rather a continuum of sins that progressively depart from the nature of the sexual act. This continuum begins with acts such as contraception and self-abuse, which then ranges to various acts involving accomplices, each more unnatural and shameful than the other. It is significant to note that in Damian’s eyes, the majority of Catholics today are practicing a form of “sodomy,” one that may easily lead to worse perversions. This insight may offer a useful explanation for the pervasive indifference to homosexual behavior among modern Catholics – most of them are engaged in behavior that is fundamentally similar.
SEXUAL PERVERSION AND PROMOTIIN WITHIN THE CHURCH.
Damian is also concerned with a phenomenon that has become disturbingly familiar for us: the tendency of those involved in sexual perversion to seek promotion and advancement in the Church, and to recruit others into their lifestyle. “Why, I ask, O damnable sodomites, do you seek after the height of ecclesiastical dignity with such burning ambition?” writes Damian. “Why do you seek with such longing to snare the people of God in the web of your perdition? Does it not suffice for you that you cast your very selves off the high precipice of villainy, unless you also involve others in the danger of your fall?”
Much of the saint’s critique is focused on the existence of falsified penal canons in the penitential manuals of his day, which often allowed clerics guilty of sodomy to do brief and light penances for their offenses and to easily continue in their destructive vices. Damian urged the discarding of such canons, holding that the worst offenders should be removed permanently from the priesthood, and that all those guilty any grade of sodomy should be required to do the much longer and more difficult penances established by the episcopal synods of the first millennium. Such penances involved many years of gradual restoration to full communion with the Church.
The saint holds that such measures are necessary to impress upon the guilty the severity of their offense, arguing that as long as the “carnal man . . . does not fear losing his honorable state by his indiscreet discretion, he is also inclined to take up new vices and to remain longer in those he has taken up with impunity, so that, so to speak, as long as he is not struck where it hurts more severely, he lies serenely in that pigsty of filthy obscenity in which he first fell.”
In a rebuke against the 11th century equivalent of covering up scandals of sexual misbehavior, Damian blames lax ecclesiastical superiors for their “silence” with regard to clerical sodomy, and regards them as sharing in the guilt of those under their authority. “Undoubtedly, those who turn a blind eye to the sins of their subjects that they are obligated to correct, also grant to their subjects a license to sin through their ill-considered silence,” writes Damian, later adding that he would rather be persecuted than to fail to speak out: “Indeed, I prefer to be thrown innocent into a well with Joseph, who accused his brothers of the worst of crimes to their father, than to be punished by the retribution of divine fury with [the high priest] Eli, who saw the evil of his children and was silent.”
One penitential canon approvingly quoted by Damian directly addresses the case of a cleric guilty of child sex abuse, that is, he who “persecutes adolescents or children, or who is caught in a kiss or other occasion of indecency.” Such a cleric was to be “publicly beaten and lose his tonsure, and having been disgracefully shaved, his face is to be smeared with spittle, and he is to be bound in iron chains, worn down with six months of imprisonment, and three days every week to fast on barley bread until sundown.” Following this he was to be “separated in his room for another six months in the custody of a spiritual senior” and should “always walk under the guard of two spiritual brothers, never again soliciting sexual intercourse from youth by perverse speech or counsel.”
Although Damian cited St. Basil as his source for this canon, his unreliable penitential manuals had deceived him. Its true author seems to have been St. Fructuosus of Braga, who had applied it to his monks in the seventh century. The canon had then passed into the penitential literature and later the attribution to Fructuosus had been dropped. Finally, in later manuals it began to be erroneously attributed to Basil. The penalty of confinement in a monastery for clerical offenders would later be extended by the Third Lateran Council to all clergy caught in acts of sodomy, a measure that now seems to have totally disappeared from the Church’s practice.
The canonical penances of ancient councils are no longer in effect under current ecclesiastical law, but the problem of moral indifferentism and disciplinary laxism has obvious relevance for our own context, in which homosexual tendencies in the clergy are often ignored or dismissed, and homosexual unions are increasingly treated as morally legitimate. How can it be doubted that the current sex abuse crisis would have been avoided if Church authorities had applied St. Fructuosus’ canon, or something like it, to the guilty?
For Damian, the issue of homosexuality within the clergy is deeply related to the dignity of the priesthood, and in particular the sacrifice of the Mass, which he sees as defiled by the offending priest, who is “unworthy” of offering the sacrifice, asking if such a priest “is barely permitted to enter the church to pray with others, how is it that he can approach the altar of the Lord to intercede for others?” The incompatibility of such behavior with the dignity of the sacrifice of the Mass offers a useful explanation for the modern correlation between liturgical abuse and an effeminate clergy indifferent to the moral demands of the gospel.
The notion of “homosexuality” as a deep-rooted psychological tendency wouldn’t come into existence for another seven centuries, but Damian’s work offers a profound analysis both of the irrationality of same-sex attraction and the devastating psychological and spiritual effects of homosexual practice. The saint expresses a deep concern for the spiritual welfare of those involved in such behavior, and offers them encouragement in the struggle to extricate themselves from it.
For Damian, the practitioner of homosexual sodomy suffers from a fundamental disorientation regarding the natural complementarity of the sexes. “What do you seek in a man, that you are unable to find in yourself—what difference of sexes, what diverse features of members, what softness, what tenderness of carnal allurement, what pleasantness of a smooth face?” he asks the homosexual, adding , “whatever you do not find in yourself, you seek in vain in another body.”
Damian tells us that the practitioner of the vice is tormented spiritually and even physically. “His flesh burns with the fury of lust, his frigid mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion,” he writes. “Chaos now rages hellishly in the heart of the unhappy man while he is vexed by as many worries as he is tortured, as it were, by the torments of punishment.” However, far from dismissing or dehumanizing those who appease such urges, Damian insists that they are redeemable and implores them not to give up hope. He expresses grief over the “noble soul, made in the image and likeness of God and united with the most precious blood of Christ,” and adds, “You who hear Christ the reviver, why do you despair of your own resuscitation? Hear it from his own mouth: ‘He that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live.’” He assures his reader that he may extricate himself from his captivity to sin through faith and penance, and rise to greater spiritual heights than ever before.
Praise from Pope St. Leo IX
It is safe to say that, as wretched as the situation of the Church was in his own day, Damian could hardly have conceived of the possibility of a revisionist movement that would seek openly to vitiate the historic Christian doctrine on the immorality of sodomy, or to treat homosexual unions as “analogous” to marriage, as Cardinal Walter Kasper does in his most recent book, The Message of Amoris Laetitia: A Fraternal Discussion. Damian’s work is therefore devoid of any explicit response to the tenets of modern LGBT ideology and to the clerics who defend it. However, the saint’s critique of sodomy in the Book of Gomorrah has been perceived as such a threat to the revisionist project that scholars seeking to legitimize homosexual behavior in a Christian context have argued against its credibility for decades, most notably the historian John Boswell.
Such scholars have latched on to an erroneous narrative that originated in the early twentieth century, which claimed that Pope St. Leo IX in some way rejected Damian’s recommendations, either by reducing Damian’s suggested penalties for sodomy or even by repudiating the Book of Gomorrah altogether and distancing himself from Damian personally. As I show in my preface to my translation of the Book of Gomorrah, this “rejection thesis” is not only baseless, but contradicts the clear text of Leo’s own letter to Damian, as well as the pontiff’s official acts in response to Damian’s book.
SODOMY = EXCOMMUNICATION
Leo praised the Book of Gomorrah and Peter Damian personally in soaring terms, expressing his desire that it be “known with certitude by all that everything that this little book contains has been pleasing to our judgment, being as opposed to diabolical fire as is water,” and predicting Damian’s future reward in heaven. The pope then decreed a more rigorous scheme of penalties for those guilty of sodomy than Damian had asked for. He also approved a canon decreeing excommunication for those guilty of sodomy at a synod at Rheims, during one of his reform tours in Europe. Revisionists have sought to counter these facts by claiming a different letter by Damian to Leo mentioning tension between them is really about the Book of Gomorrah, although the letter makes no reference to the book.
In short, Leo’s unreserved and enthusiastic endorsement of the Book of Gomorrah cannot be reasonably questioned, a fact conceded in the recent scholarship of William McCready, professor emeritus of history at Queen’s University and author of Odiosa sanctitas: St. Peter Damian, Simony, and Reform (2011). In Europe, scholars seem generally to be unaware of this Anglophone controversy, and have found little reason to question Leo’s support for Damian’s cause.
However, St. Peter Damian’s brilliant analysis of the crisis of his day and his recommendations for firm discipline in the face of the moral corruption of the clergy appear to have succumbed to the more devastating effects of oblivion and disuse, as casualties of the historical amnesia of our age. A remedy, perhaps, may be found in Damian’s closing prayer, addressed to Pope Leo:
May almighty God grant, O most reverend father, that in the time of your apostolate the monster of this vice may utterly perish, and the condition of the prostrate Church might everywhere be restored in accordance with the laws of its youth.
(This essay was originally published on September 27, 2018.)
St Peter Damian certainly gi es us an awful lot to think about with regard the state of the RCCtoday.
However, we must read what he had to say in the context of the progress in science, psychology, and medicine –especially in the areas of human sexuality.
Homosexuality, per se,is NOT a sinful or DISORDERED, as the RCC teaches. It is a perfectly normal human sexual orientation.
Obviously, some homosexual acts are immoral and even criminal – homosexual rape, homosexual assaultetc – as in the case of Fr Tyndall of the Irish Army.
HOMOSEXUAL LOVE v HOMOSEXUAL VICE
I draw a massive distinction between a priest falling in love with another human being and being intimate with them and priests involved in promiscuous vice in multiple partnerships, orgies and gay saunas.
Of course, the celibacy promise applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual priests.
Gay priests do not get to bypass the celibacy rule just because they are gay.
If you take a celibacy promise you either stick to it or you don’t.
If you don’t , is it not hypocritical to stay in and take all the benefits of the priesthood but not observe the obligations?
Hypocrites make very bad priests.
Priests involved in homosexual vice have absolutely no place in the priesthood.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
It is clear to me from the Scriptures that Jesus gathered a group of individuals around him – the TWELVE, the SEVENTY. a group of WOMEN.
The Twelve and the Seventy were sent out to BAPTISE and make DISCIPLES of all nations.
So, people were “set aside” from the “general population” to do certain things at the command of Jesus.
The Twelve did establish Christian communities in various places and it is clear that in these communities, “elders” and / or “overseers” were either appointed or emerged.
In the very early Church, we see the emergence of “overseers” (episcopi), “elders,” and very clearly, deacons.
These “offices” became more necessary as the community grew and various heresies emerged there was need to have “authorities” to refute them and maintain the faith
At this stage, the early Churchwasoperating in response to the commands of Jesus:
1. To go out and baptise and evangelise.
2. To celebrate the Eucharist in memory of him.
3. To serve all – as communicated to the apostles with the washing of feet.
While these commands were for all , they did necessitate the intimate involvement, work, and guidance of the emerging overseers, elders, and deacons.
It was in this context that the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate evolved.
To me, that evolution was perfectly authentic and according to the mind, command spirit of Jesus.
For priesthood, I think the rot set in when, under Constantine, the Christian religion became the state religion, and bishops and priests took on a civic authority as well as religious or spiritual authority.
That continued to develop into bishops in the early and late middle ages, becoming political rulers and land holders, etc.
The development of the Papacy was another unhelpful development, with the bishop of Rome becoming the emperor of the West.
I do not think that the priesthood per se is the problem.
The problem lies in what men did to the priesthood – turning it from servant-hood into an elite “ruling” caste and class.
For us Christians, the challenge is to discover urgent and real ways to make our modern church like the early church.
Can that be done?
But vested interests like ROME and its episcopal and priest elites will oppose that tooth and nail.
The way forward may be small groups of Christiansmeeting in each others homes as “disciples”?
All of us need to distinguish between the ESSENTIALS and the ACCIDENTALS.
We need to throw away the “dirty water” but keep the “baby.”
Am army sergeant who was told to pretend he was gay by a defence forces chaplain who then sexually assaulted him has been commended for his “courage” by the Defence Forces.
Fr David Tyndall was convicted at Dublin District Court last week of sexually assaulting his then colleague on January 16, 2015, at Cathal Brugha Barracks in Rathmines in Dublin.
The 58-year-old served as a Defence Forces Chaplain from 2008 to 2021 before being removed from the role over the incident.
On Friday, Fr Tyndall received a three-month suspended sentence under Section 2 of the Sex Offenders Act after he pleaded guilty to kissing and touching Sergeant Noel Brennan.
Waiving his right to anonymity, Sgt Brennan told the Irish Examiner the priest asked him to pretend he was gay, in order to get an annulment of his marriage.
Mr Brennan said: “I still have nightmares over what he did to me, and I have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
“This was a man I thought I knew,” said Mr Brennan “He had married me and my former wife.
“I went to him for help, and he just lunged at me out of nowhere after asking me to pretend I’m gay, which he said would get me an annulment. I told him there was no way I was going to say that.
“I can still see his bloodshot eyes and the froth on both sides of his mouth when he attacked me.
“He was like a man possessed. I was afraid I’d have to submit to him; he was a former rugby coach, and he was bigger and stronger than me.”
DUBLIN ARCHDIOCESAN DIRECTORY
How stupid of Fr Tyndall to act like this.
He assaulted and totally offended a young soldier whose marriage to a womanhe had celebrated.
Tyndall assaulted the young soldier who went to him for help.
The priest told the young soldier to pretend he was gay to get an annulment
I’m afraid Tyndall has proven himself unfit for ministry and needs to seek another job.
Diocese of Meath Clerical Appointments, May 2023.
The following appointments will take effect Saturday, July 1st 2023.
Fr. Ray Kelly, PP Oldcastle to be AP, Kilcormac, Rahan and Eglish parishes, resident in KIlcormac.
Kelly did not want to leave Oldcastle where he has been for 17 years.
But Tom Deenihan insisted.
He will not be PP in Kilcormac.
He will be a kind of curateroving between three parishes in Co. Offaly.
Is this his “Swan song”?
Fr. Padraig McMahon, PP Athboy to be Adm, Ballivor and Kildalkey, in addition. Fr. Mark Mohan, PP Ballivor and Kildalkey to be PP, Oldcastle. Fr. Ciaran Clarke, CC, Ashbourne to be CC, Ballivor and Kildalkey. Fr. Conor Magee, CC Multyfarnham to be PP, Multyfarnham. Fr. Ciprian Solomon, CC, St. Mary’s, Drogheda to be CC, Mornington. Fr. Derek Ryan, CssR, to be CC, Holy Family, Drogheda and CC, Saint Mary’s, Drogheda. Fr. Brendan O’Rourke, IVE, CC Holy Family, Drogheda to be CC, Ashbourne. Fr. Stephen Kennedy, IVE, CC Holy Family, Drogheda to be CC, Ashbourne. Fr. Joseph Apust, CC, Mornington to return to Minna Diocese. Fr. Emmanuel Ibitoye CC, Mornington (Minna Diocese) to be AP, Saint Mary’s, Drogheda.
Diocesan Appointments 2023
18 May 2023
Raphoe Diocese clergy appointments May 2023.
Very Rev Cathal Ó Fearraí, PP, VF, Kilbarron to retire.
Very Rev Patrick Dunne, PP, Kilmacrenan to be PP, Kilbarron (Ballyshannon) effective 24th June
Very Rev Michael McKeever, PP, VG, Gartan and Termon to be in addition PP, Kilmacrenan
Rev Martin Chambers, Chaplain Letterkenny University Hospital to be CC, Kilmacrenan and Termon, resident in Termon.
Rev Francis Ferry, CC, Mountcharles, & Drimarone to be Chaplain, Letterkenny University Hospital.
Very Rev Seamus Dagens to be AP, Mountcharles & Drimarone.
Appointments effective 10th June unless stated otherwise.
A blog reader suggested that the clerical collar has become the symbol of abuse and corruption 😞
I agree that many, many bishops and priests have greatly tarnished the image and reputation of the priesthood – and indeed the clerical collar.
I have been verbally abused on the streets of Dublin for wearing my collar. I was followed by a group of university students calling me “Paedo Priest.”
It has never happened to me in Belfast or Northern Ireland.
I will let readers answer the question today: “Is the clerical collar now a symbol of abuse and corruption?”
WHY I WEAR THE COLLAR
I wear the collar for two very clear reasons
1. As a WITNESS to the existence of Faith and Jesus.
2. As an INVITATIONto anyone and everyone to approach me if they want to or need to.
And, I do not at all mind being a lightening conductor for those who need to express hurt andangerat what the Church has done to so many victims.
CAN I SHARE A STORY?
I had arranged to meet a Dublinpriest for lunch at Buswells Hotel in Dublin.
He was there first and dressed in mufti and was angry that I was wearing a collar – he thought it would draw attention to us.
After lunch, he offered to walk me back to my car on Stephens Green.
As we walked up Grafton Street, a young man approached me and asked me if I was a priest.
I told him I was.
He told me that he was a university student from France and was also diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and that he had left his medication at home in France that morning and was now beginning to feel very unwell. He thought that with me being a priest, I might be willing to help him.
I put him in my car and drove him to a hospital A&E and stayed with him until they called a psychiatrist and sorted him with his medication.
I dropped him off at the hostel he was staying in and gave him my contact details in case he needed any more assistance.
The following day, my Dublin priest friend called me and asked me not to say, “I told you so.” And he did say that he had gotten the message.
A collar or vestments do not make the priest.
But symbols do talkmaybe more than ever. In this very secular world, signs of the overlooked sacredhave their place?
(Ouest-France) – Father Pierre de Maillard, from the traditionalist Christian community Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), is appearing before the Court of Assizes in the Vendée, at La Roche-sur-Yon. There are 27 victims, some of them still minors, who accuse him of rape and sexual assault between 1995 and 2020.
In order to accommodate more than 50 plaintiffs, they once considered relocating the trial to a hotel for more space. It is finally taking place in court at La Roche-sur-Yon (Vendée), in the Court of Assizes, where Fr. Pierre de Maillard, 57 years old, will appear from Monday, May 22, to Thursday, June 2, 2023.
In nine days of hearings, the court will have to determine whether or not he is guilty of the charges against him: rapes and sexual assaults, especially on minors, aggravated by abuse of the authority conferred by his role as a cleric, as well as corruption of minors.
Twenty-seven plaintiffs, currently 14–40 years of age, claim that these events took place between 1995 and 2020, “mostly in the Vendée,” according to public prosecutor Emmanuelle Lepissier.
An Investigation Conducted From the Vendée
It is in an SSPX priory in Bocage in the Vendée, at Saint-Germain-de-Prinçay, that Pierre de Maillard was assigned since 2010, when the first complaint was lodged with law enforcement in Herbiers, on July 9, 2020.
A second complaint followed on July 11. The investigation was then entrusted to the research brigade in La Roche-sur-Yon, which identified 19 victims at first.
The accused was even confronted, but no one went to see the authorities.
Meanwhile, “isolated” by the Society in a priory in the south of France, at Montgardin (Haute-Alpes), Pierre de Maillard was placed under arrest on Oct. 12, 2020, then indicted and imprisoned.
During the course of the investigation, a total of 27 victims reported the events in the Vendée — in the priory of Saint-Germain-de-Prinçay and in children’s homes — but also in Ain, Gironde, Charente-Maritime and Yvelines, according to the assignments and relocations of the priest.
In Belgium and in the east of France, where Pierre de Maillard also worked, the investigations did not reveal anything. The priest faces up to 20 years in prison. Contacted by Ouest-France, Bernard Maillard, attorney for the accused, did not wish to comment.
Some Victims Question the Responsibility of Other Actors
The oldest claims date back to 1995, two years after the ordination of Pierre de Maillard, in 1993.
“Throughout this trial, what will interest the court, the victims and their relatives, is how this could have gone on for 25 years, without anyone putting a stop to it,” said Lionel Béthune de Moro, attorney for 24 victims, along with his colleague, Hugues de Lacost Lareymondie.
“Some victims are critical of what they have suffered, and question the responsibility of other individuals, private or public,” Bethune de Moro explained.
He represents three victims, “who were concerned not to be represented by attorneys for the Society,” de Lacost Lareymondie having represented the SSPX in previous trials.
“The victims were silent, as they often are in this type of case. Suddenly, someone decided to speak,” relates de Lacoste Lareymondie. According to our information, it was within a brotherhood of victims that the silence was broken.
“But almost from the beginning, there have been people, private and public, who knew the facts. The accused was even confronted, but no one went to see the authorities,” clarifies Béthune de Moro
The breakaway Latin Mass group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has been involved in a child sexual abuse scandal for decades.
And they have mishandledthe abuse in exactly the same way as the RCC – covering up and moving paedo priests from one place to another.
This challenges the LIE spread by the Latin Mass BRIGADE that sexual abuse is the result of Vatican II.
Paedophilia has been a problem in the RCC since at least the 11 th century
Paedophilia will always exist.
Its how we handle it and what we doaboutit that matters.
A Belfast priest has faced online criticism after hitting out at those who present their children for sacraments but don’t donate to the church.
During a service last weekend, Fr Martin Magill of St John’s on the Falls Road said it was not fair for those who don’t regularly attend Mass to bring their kids for sacraments and then neglect donating to the parish.
Addressing the church’s webcam during the service, he began his homily by calling on its volunteers to “share out their responsibility”, as it was not “fair” that “more and more being asked of those who already volunteer”.
He went on to address those watching the service through the webcam.
“That’s you, the parents who bring your children for baptism, we certainly welcome you.
“Some of you leave a donation which goes to parish funds and some of you don’t.
hink about this, you are taking advantage of other people’s generosity, that’s not fair.
“When I am talking to you, when you bring your children for baptism, you take on the responsibility to pass on the faith to them.
“Simply sending them to a Catholic school and the next time you turn up is for their first confession isn’t meeting that responsibility, at some stage we need to talk about cheap grace.
“Have a look at first communion. We had three classes here on a Sunday. How many of you have been back since?
“Let me address this. I have heard afterwards some parents or some of those who were here used the word ‘disgrace’ when we took up the parish collections.
“Let me say, if we didn’t take up those collections, there wouldn’t be a St John’s church for you to attend for first holy communion.”
Following his sermon, which was broadcast on St John’s Facebook page, many took to social media to express their anger at Fr Magill’s comments.
I agree with Fr Magill’s sentiments.
No one can charge for sacraments. That’s SIMONY!
But let’s be practical. Church buildings cost money to run – lighting, heating, cleaning, maintenanceetc
These things are often paid for by faithful parishioners paying their £5. £10 or £20 per week into their parish
Why should someone, or parents, who never darken the Church door for years and contribute nothing think that they can use the building andits services for nothing?
If they or their families are using facilities, they should contribute.
Especially when they are splashing out big money on things like dresses, suits, hairdressing, limos, restaurant meals, photography, etc.
None of these things would be happening if it were not for the original baptism, confirmation, or wedding.
It’s as if people want to pay for all the accidentals but not for the basis event.
The Bible addresses this issue
1 Timothy 5:18
“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”
When I started celebrating weddings 30 years ago, I left the offering to people’sgenerosity and sense of goodness and justice.
I was utterly shocked by people’s lack of generosity and lack of thoughtfulness.
They would give me an envelope with a Fiver in it – and then spend a £1000 on a helicopter.
Of course, if people are poor, it’s very different.
I’ve taken nothing from such people and paid for a wedding meal for them
But if people are spending £ 30,000 to £50,000 on a wedding and a honeymoon, I will not take a Fiver or it’s equivalent from them.
I‘m more than happy tobe a servant.
But not a doormat.
I have bills too – electricity, gas, lighting, heating, maintenance, cleaning, and so forth.
Well done, + Pat, on your 25 years as a bishop. And even more years as a priest.
I was ordained some 30 + years ago, and I am now in the process of retiring early.
Lucky, I guess, that I have options and am able to set down ministry in my early 60s.
Why ? Well, you know, at a very practical level I am just tired of the ever increasing demands on me and ever increasing expectation that I simply take on more and more, and just keep going on and on.
All this is from a bishop and diocese that just wants to keep the show on the road and these days has little respect or care for the priests who do the work.
However, more significantly, I have grown and developed over the years and now find myself out of step with so many significant things that the RC Church stands by and teaches.
The Gospel values still stand strong for me, but the institutional Church offends me these days – everything from the clerically dominated hierarchical system of decision making and governance (I’ve already hinted at the distain and arrogance of the bishop and diocese to its priests), to the toxic and damaging clerical culture that leads so many of my brothers in to dysfunction and unhappiness, and a good number of them in to criminality as we have seen in such egregious abuse (and please don’t tell me that this has nothing to do with the way priests are trained, live, function, and fail !).
GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION
Not to mention the hurtful burden of having to carry these sins myself as someone who is a priest of the Church and thereby guilty by association.
I add also the dolt headed intransigence of the Church to seriously consider the role of women in ministry, especially when it is clear that young men are studiously avoiding the priesthood recognising that it is not a way as currently lived in the RC Church to happiness, fulfilment, or even to effective and holy service.
And this especially resulting in people like me having to do more and more.
So, why not ordain women, giving them rightful respect for their undoubted gifts and calling ? Why should I plough myself into the ground when the Church will not help itself ?
CHURCH REJECTING PEOPLE
After many years of ministry, I have found myself required to hold so many people at bay from full inclusion in to the life of the Church, especially the sacraments – so often through difficulties in relationships and marriages. I’m tired of being the gatekeeper who bars the way, and even though I have always been as flexible and compassionate as I can be, there is only so much that I can do.
OUTDATED AND DISCREDITED THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
And why do I have to continue to peddle a long outdated and discredited theology of sexuality, which is clearly wrong and hurtful and offensive to so many and keeps them at arm’s length ? So, even though Francis is perhaps making some way forward in some of these areas, it is too late for me and I am hanging up my hat.
Life will be good and positive for me in the future, and I look forward to it.
OTHER PEIESTS TRAPPED INSIDE THE CHURCH
I fear for my brothers who do not have any options but to stay and find themselves subject to episcopal diktats, given even more parishes to run, and have to tacitly support Church policies, thinking and even theology that is clearly wrong and damaging.
I feel some sense of abandonment leaving them to it, but after much time and thinking, I know that I have to prioritise my health and wellbeing right now. I’ve tried hard enough and long enough, but enough is now, and now I am offski !
BISHOP PISSED OFF
The Bishop is pissed off because it presents him with a problem, but he has not the slightest sense of care for me. I’m just a problem for him because I’m puling up stumps.
I’m one sense it is very sad when a priest has to walk away disillusioned.
But, on the other hand, there is so much about the RCC to disillusion people and, indeed priests.
This man is:
1. Tired of ever increasing demands and unrealistic expectations.
One can see how such demands and expectations can be exhaustingand soul destroying.
2. He has experienced his bishop as uncaring.
This very weekpriest, I dealt with a priest who was ill andin need of personal and practical medical support, and his bishop, when told, did not want to know.
I brought the priest for his medical procedure, stayed with him overnight , brought him to his postoperative check up, and left him home again.
More and more, RCC bishops are neglecting their sick and older priests.
3. Our priest correspondent is tired of the whole hierarchical and clerical club that leads to dysfunction, addiction, and sometimes, crime.
4. Our priest feels GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION.
If you stay in an abusive and corruption church and clerical cabal, then you are guilty by association – especially if you don’t publicly express your horror and rejection of what’s going on.
RCC priests, whether they like it or not, are public representatives of a thoroughly evil institution.
If you take their pay and benefits you are compromised. Simple!
5. Our priest is tired of being the gatekeeper – of an organisation that rejects various groups of people because of who they are and who they love – rejection that runs contrary to the Gospel and spirit of Jesus Christ.
6. Our priest is tired of being a propagator of outdated and discredited theology.
7. Finally, our priest feels compassion for the many priests trapped in the RCC and not having the means to escape.
ME – 47 YEARS IN……..
Looking back, I think that people like Cahal Daly, unintentionally, did me a great favour.
They maliciously and savagely slashed the ecclesiastical umbilical cord that attached me to the RCC creature.
And while that was, at the time, painful, distressing, and confusing,it was a great blessing in disguise – and leaves me at 71, still a very content and practising catholic (small c), priest and bishop – with no desire or need to “get out” of faith or priesthood.
Andthat’s precisely because I am free of hierarchy, clericalism, and institutional asphyxiation.
In other words, I have “The Freedom of the Sons and Daughters of God.“