Bishops of Baal

Every day the starving poor
Crowded around Bishop Hatto's door;
For he had a plentiful last-year's store,
And all the neighbourhood could tell
His granaries were furnished well.

At last Bishop Hatto appointed a day
To quiet the poor without delay:
He bade them to his great barn repair,
And they should have food for winter there.

Rejoiced such tidings good to hear,
The poor folk flocked from far and near;
The great barn was full as it could hold
Of women and children, and young and old.

Then, when he saw it could hold no more,
Bishop Hatto, he made fast the door;
And while for mercy on Christ they call,
He set fire to the barn and burned them all.
-    Robert Southey



This old poem which I recited at primary school has stayed in my memory from childhood. I don’t know if the recognition of the human capacity for evil burned it into my consciousness. It certainly made me aware from a young age that when it came to the most malevolent of human behaviour bishops would be to the fore with the worst of them.

What stance should Irish society take towards the Catholic Church? The same as a dog would to a lamp post.  Respect is won, deference forced. There is no reason for society to hold this institution in higher esteem than it would any other private members club. There are many private clubs with an infinitely better record than the scandal soaked Church.

Over the decades names like McQuaid, McNamara, Ryan and Connell, have all registered as godfathers in this salacious enterprise that is the Catholic Church in Ireland. We are now aware of the rampant criminality that took place on their watch. Today under the leadership of Cardinal Sean Brady, in terms of child protection, the Church can hardly claim to be fit for purpose. Children will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of priestly power and arrogance. In an inverted moral universe the reputation and social standing of bishops are considered more important than the protection of society’s young.

The exasperation of many priests towards the arrogant bishops is clear from the words of Tony Flannery. An official with the Association of Catholic Priests, he states:

We of the Association of Catholic Priests are almost a year in existence, and have over 500 members, but our efforts at having any worthwhile discussion or dialogue with the Irish bishops has been frustrated. They meet us, but ignore the points we bring up; we write to them and get a reply four months later that is patronising in the extreme. All of this is happening at a time when the church is going through the worst crisis at least since the Reformation.

The status of the bishop brigands long depended on their ability to continue fostering a mistaken societal belief that they presided over an institution of integrity rather than one that enabled an institutionalised rape network to function. Like many men of god who demand respect they really crave submission. Now with the remorseless exposure in the media and the public revulsion culminating in the Dail declaration of intent by Enda Kenny to extirpate Church sexual criminality, the bishops have fallen from their lofty perch and in the words of Colm Kenny ‘cut sad and unconvincing figures now as they trot out yet more pathetic regrets instead of root and branch reform of the power structures of their church.’

So contemptible of the world we live in, but enamoured to the power within it, they are incorrigible when it comes to not merely stating but acting out the obvious; which is simply that the protection of children is infinitely more important than Vatican directed protocol. In their warped moral landscape they think rape is less sinful than scandal. They will always move quickly to protect the Church from scandal but not to protect children from clerical abuse.

The bishops of Baal are not without their defenders eager to take the legs from under anyone approaching the Vatican goal line: demented Catholics will blame the Jews, gays, communists, Peter Tatchell, Michel Foucault, anyone other than those most culpable.  That dementia is spreading to the extent that a thinking Catholic element is now hilariously blaming the ‘atheist ayatollahs’ in the Irish Labour Party.

Tom Doyle, the US Dominican priest and professor of Canon Law, in castigating the behaviour of Irish clerics, undermines this stratagem which aims to bamboozle society into thinking that Mother Church is fine, just a few of her delinquent offspring running about; and after all, boys will be boys.  Doyle refers specifically to ‘the victims of the Catholic Church, the largest, most powerful and most deeply entrenched pillar of Irish society.’

At the centre of the sleaze sit the bishops. Niall Muldoon, director of Children At Risk in Ireland, sums them up:

We have seen that Bishop Brendan Comiskey covered up child sexual abuse in his diocese through the 1990s; that Archbishop Desmond Connell covered up in his dioceses in the 1980s and the 1990s; that Bishop John Magee covered up in Cloyne through the 1990s and 2000s, right up until his retirement in 2009.

Muldoon proceeds to ask ‘how can any parent feel safe again in allowing their child to interact within such an organisation?

The short answer is they can’t. A better answer is Bishops out.

84 comments:

  1. Maybe the RC cathedrals and churches are destined to be like the pyramids, monuments of curiosity but of no practical use.

    AM
    thats some photo of yerself...u trying to scare the kids ???

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elect David Norris, (apologist for underage male rape), as president.
    Lower the age of consent to Tatchell's nine-years; hey presto problem solved!
    Both of these 'men' are on record as believing under age sex can be acceptable.
    Both routinely defend anyone accused of it.
    Good paedophilia, bad paedophilia; hypocricy is not limited to Catholic bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those in the association of catholic priests who claim that they are being ignorned by the hierarchy should grasp the nettle,show some balls (not literally we,ve had enough of that from priests)and follow Martin Luther,s lead and nail their complaints on Bradys door and go get a real job /life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John McGirr-

    Senator david norris supported his
    bed partner who was convicted of the statutury rape of a 15 year old
    palestinian schoolboy-

    Senator norris wrote to the israeli
    authorities in 1997 appealing for the rapest's clemency- vote norris to ask for the child rapest's to be set free- thats some campaign slogan-

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree Mickeyboy Norris,s partner must fell well at home here among the rapists clergy, I,d put something up his arse that he wouldnt like,those auld hand grenades are leathal when the pin is pulled,

    ReplyDelete
  6. Marty,

    do you reckon the bishops are set to back Norris then? Election slogan could be:

    Back David Norris
    He'll get kids for us

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anthony I reckon their slogan would be "you should bend over backwards for Norris and the church"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marty,

    I think the Bishop of Bendover is saying mass in Belgium this week

    ReplyDelete
  9. You could always get that paedo poet Cáthal O Searcaigh to wite a suitable poem for the occasion of his installation as paedo president.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mackers,
    what sort of school taught poems like that? Sounds more like one of Marty's homegrown creations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marty, Martin Luther is the man who said "Reason is the devil's harlot, who can do nought but slander and harm whatever god says and does." Not a great example either.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nuala,

    it is a pretty famous Children's poem. We learned it at St Colman's. He got eaten by rats in the end

    'They have whetted their teeth against the stones

    And now they pick the Bishop's bones

    They gnawed the flesh from every limb

    For they were sent to do judgment on him!'

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mackers,
    Contary to popular belief I think we may have been a bit more refined over in the West.
    Thankfully we never delved into anything deeper than 'baa baa blacksheep'

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nuala,

    another thing we did from primary school that had a lasting effect on me was Animal Farm

    ReplyDelete
  15. AM
    Animal farm at primary school? Excellent teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jim,

    the political significance was not taught to us. It was told more as a fairy tale. I was 20 when I read it again. It had alwsys stuck in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  17. David Norris merely appealed for clemency for his former lover Ezra Nawi and provided a character reference for him. Furthermore, Nawi did not forcibly rape a child; he began a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy in 1992, and when the boy's parents dicovered it, they called the police. Of course, what Nawi did was wrong and he deserved to be punished for it, but is he as guilty as those who coerce or manipulate prepubescent children into having sexual relations? I think Norris has said that he does not condone Nawi's actions, so he is merely guilty of trying to secure leniency for his friend and former lover. I don't think he should have done this because I think it was an abuse of his position as a senator, though many other Irish politicians have done this much or worse. Also, if it is true that he suggested in 2002 that there should be no age of consent, then he ought to be condemned for that; I think he has since reconsidered this view, however. In any case, I would imagine his campaign is finished. Then again, Gerry Adams was elected to the Dail...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fionnuala,

    'what sort of school taught poems like that?'

    The poem is called "God's Judgement on a Wicked Bishop."

    Hence the need to change the title.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Alfie,

    Norris is just a smokescreen to draw attention away from the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 'Norris is just a smokescreen to draw attention away from the Church.'

    For those who oppose child rape, incest and paedophilia he is no smokescreen.

    For those whose opposition is not the above, but purely hatred of the Catholic Church, then yes, he is a smokescreen!

    ReplyDelete
  21. John,

    As far as I know, Tatchell never said that the age of consent should be nine years of age, though he did claim that friends of his had pleaurable sexual encounters with adults when they were underage, some of them as young as nine. This could well be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that any sexual activity between a prepubescent child and an adult is dangerous, abusive and wrong. Furthermore, I think that sexual activity by postpubescent teenagers should be amongst themselves, though they ought to be encouraged to refrain from full sexual relationships until their late teens; even then, caution should be emphasised.

    In any case, it is unfair to tar Peter Tatchell with the same brush as abusive priests or their bishops. Tatchell never advocated bullying a teenage boy into having sex, or holding a boy down and raping him. Nor did he conceal such an act from the police. He is not the real villain here.

    Don't you ever wonder, John, why the most conservative institution in the most conservative country in Western Europe was responsible for such horrendous abuse of juveniles? How can you blame liberalism for this in a country that did not throw off the shackles of conservative Catholicism until the 1990s?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ Fionnuala yeah i am with u on that one! Wot a poem! We only ever got toned down stuff & tons of saints stories (eyes gouged out for the Lord and so on always impressed me saint lucy i think it was - mum said all serious to me as a kid that saint lucy was a good patron saint for poor eyesight I had her as me confirmation saint cos i wore glasses lolz)

    @ Anthony you left the best bit out Yes! i looked it up as didnt know the poem The rats scoffed the bishop to nought ahaha Have freakin nightmares with that one!Especially love how the rats sharpened their fangs on stones before the kill hahahaha Wot a poem! Perfect revenge for the terror wrought on others...
    NB The rats attack the evil Bishop as follows:
    'Down on his knees the Bishop fell,
    And faster and faster his beads did he tell,
    As louder and louder drawing near
    The gnawing of their teeth he could hear.
    And in at the windows and in at the door,
    And through the walls helter-skelter they pour,
    And down from the ceiling and up through the floor,
    From the right and the left, from behind and before,
    From within and without, from above and below,
    And all at once to the Bishop they go.
    They have whetted their teeth against the stones,
    And now they pick the Bishop's bones:
    They gnaw'd the flesh from every limb,
    For they were sent to do judgment on him!'

    @ John McGirr u gotta admit it be a cracking good poem of revenge! Problem is in realville the two legged rats in the Vatican are still trying to hold up the bastion of infallibility & unaccountability. All pedo's r sick gut curdling types John Catholic or otherwise... It just so happens tho the focus is on pandemic abuse of kids by Catholic clergy. And until it is dealt with adequately to ensure kids r safe the fight goes on. For me i trust no religious person and have not since a young child. My bullshit detector goes into overload around religious types particularly Catholic clergy... Sad but true. It be called self preservation.

    @ larry ahaha re the foto Anthony looks like a Sage in it!

    ReplyDelete
  23. SMH

    I wouldn't climb into his garden to get my ball back!!

    Alfie

    good points raised. Norris' bum-chum was not a teenager mucking about. Norris is pension age ++ so I'm making a guestimate his bum chum was an 'older' person too. The case smacks of grooming and/or paedophilia oriented abuse.

    Perhaps those opposed to Norris are aware of his private 'tastes' which the ordinary public are not??
    Dread to think what his presidency would be all about.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have been thinking about the David Norris controversy today. I do have sympathy for the man, for he tried to help someone he loved. But, in doing so, he used his position as a member of the Seanad in an attempt to influence the decision of a court. That is an abuse of his office. Just because other politicians have made similar representations to courts on behalf of their constituents and gotten away with it does not make this practice right. Influence peddling ought to be stamped out, but it will not end as long as politicians are not punished for it. The honourable thing for David Norris to do now is to pull out of the presidential race and resign his Seanad seat.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Larry,

    "bum-chum"

    I often wondered whether it should be acceptable to use offensive language about gays, different races and the disabled. Strangely enough, I am one of the worst culprits for making outrageous remarks. I have made jokes about gays, blacks, Asians, Jews, Protestants, the mentally ill, ugly people - you name it. I have always intended them to be heavily ironic, much like my constant mock-boasting about the magnetic effect I have on women despite my well-known hopeless record with them. At times, I have regretted some of the nastier things I have said, even though I didn't really mean them. I wonder though: what would remain of comedy if every category of people were off-limits? And why should it be acceptable to poke fun at some people but not others?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alfie,

    ‘How can you blame liberalism for this in a country that did not throw off the shackles of conservative Catholicism until the 1990s?’

    The liberal agenda has always been with some in the Church. They took it over completely in the mid sixties. The fact that you don’t hear a word from them against such obscenities as ‘Gay Pride’ shows to what an extent the Catholic hierarchy as abandoned its purpose.

    Once homosexuality is accepted it is only quibbling over the age of consent. Normal men, if blinded by lust want younger and younger victims. Why would homosexuals not look for younger victims? Particularly as the older they are the greater chance there is that they will be wracked with disease. Hence the fairy poet O’Searcaigh and the male rape apologist Norris, or Wilde’s escapades.

    SMH,

    ‘All pedo's r sick gut curdling types John Catholic or otherwise...’

    Absolutely.

    ‘It just so happens tho the focus is on pandemic abuse of kids by Catholic clergy.’

    No problem with focusing on the guilty few. To use such abuse to try to destroy the Catholic Church is just plain dishonest and totally contrary to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Alfie

    just something dirty and sordid about elderly men screwing teenage boys whilst their alter ego's project an image of sophistication.

    Heard on 'talk radio' tonight a woman who was at a dinner with Norris say he was discussing how the ancient Greeks were big advocates of homosexual sex with young boys. Regardless of his guests discomfort he continued to discuss the merits of the practice.
    Who the fuck wants that in Phoenix park??

    Watching betrayal of trust on RTE just now, it seems to me Ireland has had quite enough slimeballs hiding behing 'authority' and priviledge.

    no tipping of the cap here for the likes of Norris and his 'bum-chums' the dirty little men.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Alfie,

    I never much thought about the Norris issues. He was hardly a subject of conversation although his name came up here a few times but it always looked as if it was for purposes of deflection or out of a hatred of gay people.

    Nawi sailed the wrong side of the wind in his choice of partner. There was no option but to prosecute him. Statutory rape is not a charge I ever felt had much merit. I have long thought it blurred the consent/coercion distinction which I think is important to maintain. Statuory rape can be applied against a 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend or vice versa. I feel that is questionable. Rape in my view should refer specifically to coercion. Some other charge should be applied when consent is involved. I think something can be borrowed from the murder/manslaughter distinction. Gravity seems to be diluted when the term rape is loosely applied.

    'what Nawi did was wrong and he deserved to be punished for it, but is he as guilty as those who coerce or manipulate prepubescent children into having sexual relations?'

    I can't see how he is. But the same would apply to a priest who starts a relationship with a 15 year old where there is no manipulation or coercion. The priest would be wrong but seriousness would have to be on a calibrated scale.

    'Norris has said that he does not condone Nawi's actions, so he is
    merely guilty of trying to secure leniency for his friend and former
    lover. I don't think he should have done this because I think it was an abuse of his position as a senator.'

    He described Nawi's action as disgraceful. You seem to make a good argument here. And the logic of it has worked its way though in his decision today to stand down. Although I would liked to have seen how the electorate would have dealt with it.

    But Norris does not compare to those clerics who have performed rape or covered it up. Outside of the usual bigoted circles of Iris devotees that sort of comparison is not being made. I suppose many who balk at condemning the Church really dislke him because he is gay. He has seriously profiled the gay community in Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
  29. SaintMary?
    maybe they spared us the hard core stuff and just concentrated on the sugar and spice.

    ReplyDelete
  30. John,

    "The liberal agenda has always been with some in the Church."

    This is true to a certain extent, but why do you think that a central pillar of the liberal agenda is having sex with minors?

    "They took it over completely in the mid sixties."

    Yet contraceptives, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce and abortion all remained prohibited by the church. These liberals certainly did a piss-poor job of taking over.

    "The fact that you don’t hear a word from them against such obscenities as ‘Gay Pride’ shows to what an extent the Catholic hierarchy as abandoned its purpose."

    But they had plenty to say against the divorce and abortion referendums of the 80s and 90s. And let's not forget their opposition to the legalisation of contraception in the 1970s or their recent salvos against civil partnership.

    "Once homosexuality is accepted it is only quibbling over the age of consent."

    The same could be said about sex in general.

    "Normal men, if blinded by lust want younger and younger victims."

    I don't accept this. I have found teenage girls attractive, some of them probably below the age of consent, but I don't try to seduce them, and I certainly don't pursue younger and younger girls. I imagine that that is the same for most straight men.

    "Why would homosexuals not look for younger victims?"

    For the same reasons most straight men don't.

    "Particularly as the older they are the greater chance there is that they will be wracked with disease."

    Since the advent of safe sex, even promiscuous men (gay or straight) can remain healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. look on the bright side, Noris may have sunk any hope of Adams running for the house in phoenix park. Liam would be wonderful ammo for the other campaigns, not to mention the odd mother of ten.

    Be interesting to see the amount of dirt dug up on the other candidates now.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Alfie,

    ‘…why do you think that a central pillar of the liberal agenda is having sex with minors?’

    I don’t. But their agenda breaks down the moral barriers which then can have this as a symptom.

    Yet contraceptives, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce and abortion all remained prohibited by the church.

    But most people in the Church compromised on all these issues.

    “"Normal men, if blinded by lust want younger and younger victims."”

    ‘I don't accept this. I have found teenage girls attractive, some of them probably below the age of consent, but I don't try to seduce them, and I certainly don't pursue younger and younger girls. I imagine that that is the same for most straight men.’

    For ‘normal’ you might say ‘straight’. I would point to the words ‘if blinded by lust’ implying that it is not normal or healthy, but rather fuelled by the pornographic industry. I am not implying that most men do this, only some.

    “"Why would homosexuals not look for younger victims?"”

    ‘For the same reasons most straight men don't.’

    Even a small percentage of moral deviants adds up to large numbers.

    ‘Since the advent of safe sex, even promiscuous men (gay or straight) can remain healthy.’

    By its nature, homosexual activities are likely to rupture any prophylactic.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Norris at the least fronted up (he ultimately had no choice but did front up which is more than the Vatican can muster) Visually strikes me as someone who would be at ease in a gimp mask. Just another glitch stooge in the rootin' tootin' world of politics... yawn
    Excuse length but educational stance for the 'pope of pensive quill' hehe
    @ John McGirr you are usually so wrong imo but you have brought to the fore some truths in your comments as well as a heap of stuff i skim past... I think alot of people do not have gay friends and such hence may have some lurid notion all gay people engage in out there deviant, sexual practices from which springs the myth that they are potential or actualised pedo's. It is that assumption that is incorrect, deadly (at times literally) in it's impact societally and ramps up gay bashing and homophobic myths/responses from religious sectors in societies.
    UYB ='s up yer bum sex is what it is but it never defines who a person is holistic mode. It is simply their sexual orientation/choice or some call it fetish/pecadillo etc ad infinitum. Myself I see the same relationship dynamics emotional social etc in gay relationships (homosexual/lesbian/bi) as in hetero. There is however enormous pressure on a homosexual or lesbian to not come out and to stay in the closet despite all the liberal blather and such.
    Gay and transgender have the highest suicide stats... NB I would like to advise you John that many of what you consider straight upright (godly) citizens are actually bi or closet gay... Ask any sex worker... And a gander as always at the Vatican antics including a diverse range of established religions tells much too...
    I worked for number of years in preventative measures healthcare in redlite area. The sexworkers loved telling me about their clients... The ones that is who were deemed the upright pillars of hetero community ahaha They revelled in my shouts of “the Bastard hypocrites” re their customers NB Nothing i mean nothing is what it seems but societies just want to pretend there is this hugely upright moral type of person en masse out there but all humans are flawed, diverse and that is life.

    Once you grasp the extent of these moral and spiritual values games you see life and so on for what it really is. One big play of hypocrisy and projections.
    I have never pretended to gay friends that i think anal sex is a good way to do it. Always said it be where feces lives & a risk of ruptured bowel etc BUT you do realise that straights engage in UYB sex in hetero relationships. Also oral sex heteros engage in too. Or do you realise any of that? I personally have always felt that gay sex ain't entirely the natural number some militant gays insist it is... But never been an issue with friends who are gay and yeah they know my beliefs like i know theirs. Ex Catholic i am but I follow the teachings of the Christ (seek to is more accurate statement) hence have me own convictions what is right HOWEVER to superimpose these convictions with venom and hate and deluded self righteousness on another human being is NEVER spirituality or noble. It is simply HATE.
    Additonal thought: There are many older males in Ireland who still retain the belief Hell awaits them for masturbating... This conditioning via a RC doctrine has caused mental health issues... insidious, imploded kind.. and that be the tip of the iceberg of RC doctrine impact. Your percieved hate of Catholicism per se in comment responses from diverse individuals here is more tied up with the misinterpreting input via comments on the devastation the RC doctrines have wrought including the abuse of minors worldwide. End. PS’ It be a Sodom and a Gommorah but what do you care? Ain’t nobody there would want to marry your sister’ from a bob Dylan song i love those lines.

    ReplyDelete
  34. SMH,

    Did you ever read Robert Heinlein? He once made a very useful observation: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” Great quote. Thought you might like it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John,

    "By its nature, homosexual activities are likely to rupture any prophylactic."

    How do you know?!?

    Seriously though, it would seem that condoms are more likely to rupture during anal sex than vaginal sex, but this does not mean ruptures during anal sex are likely. They are not.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AM,

    “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

    You can sulk, ignore me, and insult me to your heart's content. I know you are attempting to oust me from your Blog and that is your perrogative.

    However you will have to ban me in that case because I don't run because of childish moody insults or being sent to Coventry.

    You like to dish it out but go into a sissy fit if anyone sees the emperor has no clothes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. SMH

    'Once you grasp the extent of these moral and spiritual values games you see life and so on for what it really is. One big play of hypocrisy and projections'.

    Seems to apply to politics per say. Civil 'serpents' run the country whilst TD's, MLAs and MPs keep themselves busy bleeding it dry.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Alfie,

    '"By its nature, homosexual activities are likely to rupture any prophylactic."''

    'How do you know?!?'

    Seems I don't know if your next comments are true!

    'Seriously though, it would seem that condoms are more likely to rupture during anal sex than vaginal sex, but this does not mean ruptures during anal sex are likely. They are not.'

    How do YOU know?

    But given that you concede they are more likely to rupture there than in normal use, then there is a more significant danger.

    From ancient times to now homosexuals have striven to have younger partners. This is to be distinguished from the real paedophilia which is extremely rare, particularly among the clergy. The two are often blurred and both should be absolutely condemned.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Larry,

    'Maybe the RC cathedrals and churches are destined to be like the pyramids, monuments of curiosity but of no practical use.'

    I suppose like a golf course, if it has a use it will stay around. Some people want religion, others want sport, yet others gay bars or lap dancing clubs. Society should allow for this along with cinemas, swimming pools and whatever else people induge in to amuse themselves. I would be very opposed to discriminating against people on the grounds of their religion. I just favour not allowing them to practice their religion on others or discriminating against others on the grounds of their own religious belief.

    My kids are not easy to scare!

    Marty,

    The Association of Catholic Priests must realise that if they do not get rid of Brady et al their professions of radicalism will soon sound hollow.

    ReplyDelete
  40. John,

    "How do YOU know?"

    I forgot to mention that I'm actually a pimp for a pair of bisexual Swedish call-girls.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Alfie,

    Tatchell, Norris, the Jews, Communists, gays, atheist ayatollahs of the Labour Party are all distractions to throw out of focus the issue at hand. Needless to say it doesn't work, largely because it is the traditional fallback position of those with their hands in the cookie jars. Admittedly, I rarely come across material about Tatchell or Norris and don't have any deep understanding of their views on these matters. But it seems you always give a balanced assessment of where things are at with them against a more skewed appreciation.

    'In any case, it is unfair to tar Peter Tatchell with the same brush as abusive priests or their bishops. Tatchell never advocated bullying a teenage boy into having sex, or holding a boy down and raping him. Nor did he conceal such an act from the police. He is not the real villain here.'

    All but the demented will assent to that. In the absence of any alternative evidence I must agree with you. I think we will see a lowering of the consent age as time moves on. That would seem to be the trend. Society will democratically set the age and we may have reservations about it. The Church will be ignored. In our age who is going to listen to a ‘male gerontocracy’ stipulating that consent only comes upon marriage? Especially when it comes from people who don't practice what they preach.

    'why the most conservative institution in the most conservative country in Western Europe was responsible for such horrendous abuse of juveniles?'

    Because it could. Power and no sense of morality. Why would a paedophile not be attracted to the Church? It must have looked like the pederast equivalent of a brothel where the advantage was in not having to pay for sex. An abuser could go for years, even when detected, safe in the knowledge that the abuse would be covered up and then he could be moved to another parish or country and start all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 'Tatchell, Norris, the Jews, Communists, gays, atheist ayatollahs of the Labour Party are all distractions to throw out of focus the issue at hand.'

    Anecdotally the biggest percentage of paedophiles are those sporting beards, aka 'beardophiles'!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jim,

    Religion does not like reason.

    SMH,

    Bishop Hatto was a great poem. Years later, lying in jail reading James Herbert books about rats I would always associate the poem with the books.

    Gouging out eyes for the Lord. I suppose it is not as bad as burning people for the same guy. Strange that the Lord put ears back on the sides of heads. Whose example were these men of god following?

    I probably did leave the best bit out. Revenge is always sweet.

    'It just so happens tho the focus is on pandemic abuse of kids by Catholic clergy.'

    I think this is true. It is good that it should be although nothing should slip under the radar. But I can think of no other body so well organised that has raped and abused so systematically and implemented the cover up on a global basis. And despite all its promises to reform it has failed to deliver. I think this is why a lot of Catholic clergy welcomed the Enda Kenny intervention. Not only do they know and disapprove of what their colleagues were doing but they also know of the Vatican cover up.

    'My bullshit detector goes into overload around religious types particularly Catholic clergy.'

    Mine too. But it also goes off with the televangelists and mullahs and freaky religious door knockers. There are of course intellectually engaging believers who I can listen to but not the dung crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Larry,

    ‘thats some photo of yerself...u trying to scare the kids ???’

    Reminds me of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, beckoning the rats and then the boys and girls.


    S?MH

    ‘There are many older males in Ireland who still retain the belief Hell awaits them for masturbating... .’

    That is what the Sacrament of Penance is for.

    I agree that the best part of the poem is the last verse.

    “They have whetted their teeth against the stones,
    And now they pick the Bishop's bones:
    They gnaw'd the flesh from every limb,
    For they were sent to do judgment on him!”

    This brings the title of the poem, "God's Judgement on a Wicked Bishop" into focus and reminds us of the justice of God seeking out those who have offended Him and harmed his little ones.

    The rats are reminiscent of those charmed by the Pied Piper of Hamelin, who was to go on to spirit away all the boys and girls. Creepy stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Alfie,

    'I have been thinking about the David Norris controversy today. I do have sympathy for the man, for he tried to help someone he loved.'

    I can accept that. People will do things for family/ people they love that they do not extend to others. It does not mean they approve of the action of the person they make allowances for.

    'But, in doing so, he used his position as a member of the Seanad in an attempt to influence the decision of a court. That is an abuse of his office.'

    I think this is the crux of the issue.

    'The honourable thing for David Norris to do now is to pull out of the presidential race and resign his Seanad seat.'

    He must read you on the Quill!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Alfie,

    'I often wondered whether it should be acceptable to use offensive language about gays, different races and the disabled. Strangely enough, I am one of the worst culprits for making outrageous remarks.'

    There was somebody once said there are no racist jokes, just racists who tell jokes. I think that is a device for protecting humour from the politically correct. I love jokes no matter how offensive the punch line. I love the way a joke is structured, the twist and the deflating of the sacred in all spheres. We need to be able to laugh at ourselves and perhaps just as importantly be able to understand why others might laugh at us.

    I think we can see from this blog that there is a value in allowing unfettered expression. The dafter an idea the more it invites ridicule. When people come on and rant against whatever and use language like 'abominations' or ‘traitors’ they draw scorn. If they were suppressed in their choice of language they might draw sympathy. If you call a mass goer a child molester because he asks for more evidence or a gay an abomination then readers are going to find you wacky and simply pay you little heed.

    'I wonder though: what would remain of comedy if every category of people were off-limits?'

    A very dull world and a licence for every censor to claim offence followed by obliteration of humour.

    ReplyDelete
  47. SMH

    'Norris at the least fronted up.'

    Much better than covering up.

    I think it has now been well established that the Church as an institution poses a threat to children. Gays as a body do not. If there was a global body of gays functioning like the Church, enabling child abuse, then it should be moved against and its operation shut down. Priests riding each other is ok by me. It is their business and there is no harm done. It is when they try to extend their sexual preferences to children that the real harm is done. Bishop Casey was lambasted for doing one of the most natural things in the world – he had sex with a partner of his choice, a woman. I often wonder had he been raping children would there have been half the concern within the Church?

    UYB as you refer to it and point out so well is not specifically gay. There is probably a lot of variation in gay sex as there is in non gay sex.

    'I worked for number of years in preventative measures healthcare in
    redlite area. The sexworkers loved telling me about their clients...
    The ones that is who were deemed the upright pillars of hetero
    community ahaha They revelled in my shouts of “the Bastard hypocrites” re their customers.'

    No doubt clergy amongst them.

    'all humans are flawed, diverse and that is life.'

    So true. You could respect a church that openly said it was an average body whose members like any private club pursue certain interests and pleasures not always approved by the club. It is the pretence that they hold some sort of moral high ground that causes problems for them or that their judgment is infallible. There is none with the perfect moral blueprint. Religion pretends to have one but even the adherents don't buy into it. How many Catholics do you think really believe sex before marriage is wrong?

    'HOWEVER to superimpose these convictions with venom and hate
    and deluded self righteousness on another human being is NEVER
    spirituality or noble. It is simply HATE.'

    That’s how I find a lot of the religious. Hitting the nail on the head for sure. I can understand a person having strange beliefs. I think they should be able to practice their beliefs on themselves. Why they insist on wanting to practice their religion on others is what bothers. 'You will behave according to what I believe or else ... and you will go to hell.' Standard bullying.

    'There are many older males in Ireland who still retain the belief Hell awaits them for masturbating.'

    I don't know whether to laugh at them or feel sorry for them. If my kids were capable of such stupidity I think I would bear some responsibility for their condition. What sort of twisted mind would threaten the violence of hell to anyone for chicken choking?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Larry,

    'just something dirty and sordid about elderly men screwing teenage boys.'

    Any more so than them screwing teenage girls?

    'Heard on 'talk radio' tonight a woman who was at a dinner with Norris say he was discussing how the ancient Greeks were big advocates of homosexual sex with young boys.'

    Some were. Foucault discusses it. These topics should be drawn into the open and discussed rather than be left to the margins. Not always sure the dinner table is the place to do it.

    'Who the fuck wants that in Phoenix Park?'

    Would you prefer Dana?!!!

    'Watching betrayal of trust on RTE just now, it seems to me Ireland has had quite enough slimeballs hiding behind 'authority' and privilege.'

    A really discerning drama. How they covered up, delayed, avoided, moved him on.

    'no tipping of the cap here for the likes of Norris and his 'bum-chums' - the dirty little men.'

    But it would be the same had he 'dick chicks'. Whether people choose 'bum chums' or 'dick chicks' is no concern of ours.

    Norris may have views we disagree with but so does everybody else. If he behaved like a bishop I would like to see him go the way of a bishop. I would not have voted him but for other reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ‘You could respect a church that openly said it was an average body whose members like any private club pursue certain interests and pleasures not always approved by the club.’

    That is a paedophile charter. No wonder so many of these new priests wear beards to cover up their effeminacy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "'just something dirty and sordid about elderly men screwing teenage boys.'"

    'Any more so than them screwing teenage girls?'

    If you really don't see anything wrong with elderly men scewing teenage boys, then you are an arch-hypocrite.

    That is precisely what 90% of clerical abuse cases are.

    How you can defend rape and abuse by some but not by others astonishes me!

    ReplyDelete
  51. mackers

    i saw in Thailand whilst teaching there 70+80 yr old American men walkin through hotel lobby's with teenage girls. Absolutely disgusting. I put Norris' bumchum in the same category. Sordid, manipulative and disgraceful. Pitty their families at home if they are aware of it, shameful.

    But unlike bishops and priests they have the backbone to be open about it.

    Dana?? other end of the spectrum. Why would we wish either her or Norris in the 'park'? perhaps they should be forced to act as joint presidents, a 'couple' for Ireland, and do a big brother show 24/7 for their term.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Larry,

    'just something dirty and sordid about elderly men screwing teenage boys'

    but I was thinking of Ruud Gullit going out with Estelle Cryuff who he later married. She was a teenager at the time (19) he started dating her, still a teenager. He was twice her age I think. Both were consenting adults. The same with Sam Taylor Wood who got pregnant by her 19 year old partner. He was still a teenager. When does this become illegal/immoral as distinct from contravening social conventions. As they say people with rings in their ears laugh at people with rings in their noses.

    My point would be that the 70 year olds you seen with teenage girls would be no better or worse if they were seen with teenage boys. If the teenager is below the age of consent then there is a serious ethical and legal problem that must be addressed. If they are above the age of consent then they are breaking no laws and are just violating our own views and expectations. Yet we have to allow them the right to choose. The alternative is to ban such relationships.

    Where do these 70 year olds find the energy? That baffles me.

    'I put Norris' bumchum in the same category. Sordid, manipulative and disgraceful.'

    Any adult at it with those beneath the age of consent can face the consequences of their actions. It would be abominable if the 'bum chum' was to be trafficked off to another town where he could do the same thing again and his victim silenced so that other pre-consent teens could not be alerted. He faced the courts.

    As I keep saying if priests want to ride priests they are free to do so. When they move out of the consent sphere that is when the issues start.

    'But unlike bishops and priests they have the backbone to be open about it.'

    Or the brassneck.

    Dana would be a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John,

    You call Anthony an arch-hypocrite, but you ignore much of what he has written about sexual activity between adults and minors. For instance:

    Alfie:What Nawi did was wrong and he deserved to be punished for it, but is he as guilty as those who coerce or manipulate prepubescent children into having sexual relations?

    AM:I can't see how he is. But the same would apply to a priest who starts a relationship with a 15 year old where there is no manipulation or coercion. The priest would be wrong but seriousness would have to be on a calibrated scale.

    While I would still condemn their actions, I would have more sympathy for clerical sex offenders if they had had consensual relationships with older teenagers. In reality, though, most of these men manipulated and deceived reluctant youths into having sexual relations. Manipulation and deceit are mentioned by virtually every victim who comes forward. For example, many victims were told by their abusers that, in God's eyes, it was more moral to have sex with a priest than it was to masturbate. Boys who were very reluctant to engage in same-sex activity with a priest were told that sex between men and boys was just a rite of passage, "part of becoming a man."

    To me, this would count as sexual abuse or sexual harassment, and ought to be prosecuted even if the victim was over the age of consent. Let's say a naive 21-year-old woman in 1950s Ireland confesses to a priest that she is having "impure" thoughts. The priest tells her the only way to rid herself of them is to peform oral sex on him. She is reluctant, but she has been reared to believe that a priest would never commit a sin, so she agrees. I would argue that she is a victim of abuse and that the priest ought to be prosecuted. The same goes for a teacher, a doctor or a police officer who abuses his position in a similar manner.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Incidentally, I was talking to a friend recently (who would be a few years younger than I) about sexual abuse and the age of consent. He remarked that many of his friends had crossed the age-of-consent line and were "statutory rapists", as he jokingly put it. All of the girls involved were about 16 years old at the time and the young men were in their early twenties. It's funny: instinctively, I find the behaviour of these lads far less distasteful than Ezra Nawi's, even though I have seen no evidence that Nawi's illicit homosexual relationship was any less consensual than the heterosexual ones my friend was telling me about. Unless Nawi employed deceit or manipulation, then, logically, there is no difference. Perhaps I am the arch-hypocrite John seeks!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Alfie,

    'You call Anthony an arch-hypocrite, but you ignore much of what he has written about sexual activity between adults and minors.'

    I find he is not consistent on this or many other issues.

    My words were;
    'IF you really don't see anything wrong with elderly men screwing teenage boys, THEN you are an arch-hypocrite.'

    Either sex with elderly men and teenagers is okay or it is wrong. To imply it is only wrong if the abuser/rapist is wearing a Roman collar is bizarre.

    Of course if he doesn't think that it is okay, then my 'IF' and 'THEN' do not apply. I can't see of any other interpretation of his words.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Larry,

    ‘look on the bright side, Norris may have sunk any hope of Adams running for the house in phoenix park. Liam would be wonderful ammo for the other campaigns, not to mention the odd mother of ten.’

    Great point. The former bishop of West Belfast!

    ReplyDelete
  57. John,

    "Either sex with elderly men and teenagers is okay or it is wrong. To imply it is only wrong if the abuser/rapist is wearing a Roman collar is bizarre."

    I find your allegation bizarre given what Anthony said in reply to your accusing him of defending Oscar Wilde:

    AM: "If Wilde chose somewhere other than the priesthood for the pursuit of his activities he is no less guilty than those who join the priesthood to do so. ... [N]o adult is free to sexually pursue a person beneath the age of consent."

    I think you're being unreasonable, John. Yes, you have received a fair bit of criticism and derision on the PQ, but is that a good enough reason for making the groundless allegation that Anthony supports adult-child sex as long as a priest is not involved? I find it troubling that you would do this, especially since you yourself were wrongly accused by some on this blog of being an apologist for abusive clerics.

    ReplyDelete
  58. mackers

    setting aside the legal age issue, it becomes a matter of choice, preference and/or taste.

    teenage girls or boys 'dating' old men who should be wishing for a happy death is distasteful in my eyes. Without wanting to open up a can of worms, I do wonder if money might be a large factor in these 'relationships'.

    i'm broke which is probably why im not tormented by nubile youths wanting my bod'. cant be anything to do with my age, i'm only a wee 48 young-thing! Or perhaps my lack of years and wrinkles leave me undesireable to todays youth?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Alfie,

    In the light of what I quoted from him I don’t think my post (based on an implication derived from a hypothetical) was unreasonable, nor even entirely different from what I raised on numerous occasions when talking of ‘good paedophilia, bad paedophilia’.

    Even the words you quote above are not definitive. ‘No adult is free to sexually pursue a person beneath the age of consent’ does not mean that the age of consent might not be lowered to make them free. I believe AM is on record several times of calling for this age to be lowered.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “Anthony supports adult-child sex as long as a priest is not involved”. I would rather say that he does not feel the same level of indignation towards non-clerics. To some extent I agree with him as I agree that clerical sexual abuse is significantly more pernicious than that of others. But I blame those priests who were involved and anyone else who has abused. AM seems to find it easy to blame all clerics, guilty or not, and then makes excuses for the likes of David Norris, Cáthal O’Searcaigh et al.

    It is easy to change the particular to the universal and say that because some priests are abusers, therefore all priests are abusers. That makes as much sense as to say that because some bearded men are paedophiles, all bearded men are paedophiles.

    In the final analysis, ALL who have abused should be treated with the same severity whether bearded, non-bearded, clerical or non-clerical. So to clarify, I do not believe that AM favours any form of paedophilia and to the extent that what I have said could imply that, I unreservedly retract it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. John

    an awful lot of clergy are guilty of doing nothing when it was an open secret in parishes which priests were raping helpless kiddies.

    The fact the RC church is refusing to alter its attitude and response to these clerical rapists in any meaningful or sincere way, even today, is just downright sick+evil.

    sleazy oul fellas targetting very young sex partners is dirty. But its not rape, just dirty, or kinky if you're mackers, depends on your standpoint.

    A very old woman came on to me recently, I was quite intimidated. The careworker put her to bed and saved me!

    ReplyDelete
  61. John,

    "In the light of what I quoted from him I don’t think my post (based on an implication derived from a hypothetical) was unreasonable..."

    I think this is the exchange to which you are referring:

    Larry: "just something dirty and sordid about elderly men screwing teenage boys."

    AM: "Any more so than them screwing teenage girls?"

    To me, Anthony is condoning neither; he is just saying that neither one is more "dirty and sordid" than the other. I agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Larry,

    "sleazy oul fellas targetting very young sex partners is dirty. But its not rape, just dirty, or kinky if you're mackers, depends on your standpoint."

    Genius!

    "A very old woman came on to me recently, I was quite intimidated. The careworker put her to bed and saved me!"

    Given my atrocious success rate with the ladies, I may well have been tempted in that situation. Just close yours eyes and think of Natalie Portman!!!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Alfie

    I'm afraid to close my eyes during sex for fear of seeing mackers...
    urgh!!! trauma. Imagine him in a dog collar.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I,ve just adopted a black kid, I,ve called him Google,might as well ,the poor fucker is going to spend the rest of his life getting searched....every night I crush a pill for my nan and put it in her food, she doesnt like taking tablets bless her and it feels a bit sneaky,but I,d never forgive myself if I got her pregant...what do we want?..a cure for touretts...when do we want it?...fucker.....I fancied a takeaway last night,so I phoned Kings China Buffet.the guy answered and said "herro I,m Wan King the cook" I said "no worries mate,wash yer hands and I,ll call back later"...The 100m final at the 2012 olympics will be just like anyother Friday night in London,you,ll hear a gunshot followed by 8 blackmen legging it...bloke has a parrot but gets sick of it saying "I,m from Poleglass and I,m hard as fuck"so he puts an eagle in its cage,next morning he finds the eagle dead,and the parrot says" I,m from Poleglass and I,m hard as fuck"so the bloke puts a fighting cock in the cage,next morning he finds the cock dead and the parrot with no feathers,as he looks in the cage the parrot says"had to take me coat of for that fucker"..

    ReplyDelete
  65. Alfie,

    I don’t buy into the perspective that the Church has been taken over by liberals. I would say that since 1978 it has been heavily conservative. But conservative in the sense of not being overly eager to be seen standing with the likes of Franco et al as they did prior to Vatican 2. There was an interesting defence of Ratzinger a week or two ago in the Irish Times in which it was stated that he marched to the beat of a different drum from democratic society because he regarded himself as leader of a very strict orthodox faith. I am going on memory and may have represented it somewhat as I don’t have the piece at hand. But I think that is close enough to it.

    ‘‘ they had plenty to say against the divorce and abortion referendums
    of the 80s and 90s. And let's not forget their opposition to the
    legalisation of contraception in the 1970s or their recent salvos
    against civil partnership.’

    I think that sums up how reactionary rather than liberal they really are.

    ‘I certainly don't pursue younger and younger girls. I imagine that
    that is the same for most straight men.’

    I agree. The opposite is true I imagine for only a minority of people either gay or straight.

    None of this remotely resembles the problem identified by the Cloyne report as ‘extensive clerical predation.’ Where there is any other form of extensive predation it must be dealt with. If gay groups are targeting people outside the consent bracket they must face the full rigour of society’s sanctions. What would be the point in halting the Church rape cartel only to give a licence to another rape cartel?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Bishops of Baal

    Alfie

    I don’t think you are the arch hypocrite. I think what you do is wrestle with the issues in their complexity and tread the tensions that they throw up. These things are rarely straightforward. What attitude do we hold towards a man who has sex with a person one day short of their birthday that would bring them over the consent barrier? It would be hard to get all high and mighty and not get anything towards the man who did it on the actual birthday. All we could genuinely do is adopt a legalistic posture but hardly an ethical one.

    You have no need to bat for me. I am as indifferent as indifference can be to anything that John McGirr says. His ideas are so far removed from what is logical that they fail to register any interest one way or the other. I chuckle at the squirming but only in passing. Which is a pity because I used to enjoy his input. But once someone tells you that sticking nails in wafers is the worst crime imaginable, the dimmer switch goes on until they fade from view whether they are there or not. We check his stuff for libel (like everybody else’s) and move on to whoever is next in line.

    ‘ She is reluctant, but she has been reared to believe that a priest would never commit a sin, so she agrees. I would argue that she is a victim of abuse and
    that the priest ought to be prosecuted. The same goes for a teacher, a doctor or a police officer who abuses his position in a similar manner.’

    On top of that we must ask if there is any other institution raping and covering up on a global scale – World Health Organisation, Interpol, Council for Global Education. If there is then is should be brought to book.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Alfie the only thing the church is liberal with is vaseline.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Farewell to the Quill,

    It was when you decided that it is good to thrust nails through the Eucharist that I lost all respect for you. Your angry ranting atheism seems modelled on the fundamentalism that you claim to oppose. As Paul Kurtz, (a prominent atheist), says: ‘Angry atheism does not work.’ His wish was for ‘this dogmatic attitude (which) holds that this and only this is true and that anyone who deviates from it is a fool’ only belittles your case.

    Your atheism is just too vicious and uncaring. Whatever the faults of religion in Ireland or elsewhere, your hatred is beyond the limits of decency.

    You speak of logic. I suggest you could learn from St Thomas Aquinas. He took the strongest arguments that his opponents could muster, formulated as well as they could be and then dealt with them one by one to arrive at truth.

    You make caricatures of your opponents, build straw men, and burn them over and over, a repetition of atheist hatred that consumes you obsessively and in the end is just nauseating.

    Slán.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Don't understand the clergy going through all that education, philosophy, religion etc and put it to use in the protection of child rapists. Using it to excuse the 'blind eye' of a massive wealthy empire. Actually not only a blind eye, but active protection and facilitation.

    Anyone who can't see that is a stranger to the truth. What a total waste of an education. Sacrelidge.

    All those old men with all that 'learnedness' and pure interests and EVIL prevails. There is no christianity in the Vatican, only criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Larry,

    they crucified the last Christian

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bet them auld lions had indegestion for months or at least a bad dose of the shits, Get the feeling John will be back resurrected under the name Tomás de Torquemada inquisitor general,

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anthony,

    "You have no need to bat for me. I am as indifferent as indifference can be to anything that John McGirr says."

    I appreciate what you are saying. Indeed, my beliefs are closer to yours than to John's on most things, but I like John and consider him a friend. Nevertheless, it bothered me that he chose to smear you, especially since he had been smeared in the same way by others on the Quill. I do hope he reconsiders leaving the blog as I have learned a lot from discussing various issues with him.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ John McGirr I think u r daft to leave and it is a pity you are but your call... It is the learning curve here and u give it out and you get it back THEN you have to learn to digest what u may consider indigestible Chew it over - what is real what is not... NB Being challenged pulls up stuff one can easily avoid looking at. I think u have been given uncensored voice (we all have) and such but suggest got too highly sensitised to the challenges u got back... All the best though John there was good craic here too in the discussions. I don't give a toss what individuals say re God for or against as I believe so strong on me own but i will always examine what they are saying... Fire back my thoughts/convictions if want to. That's all that is required... I think the rats are sharpening their fangs on the stones for the vatican honchos John. Let them! I hope they crunch the lot to bits In the next life revenge on the evil will be worse. Everything matters and God sees all. I keep thinking about that poem It fascinated me. Slan John McGirr

    ReplyDelete
  74. SMH,

    Entirely up to John McGirr what he does. He left of his own volition. He was not banned. He did say he would never leave and just after that he left. If he comes back he is free to do so. Same rules or lack or lack of them apply to all of us. This is not an atheist site but it operates with the secular ethos that people do not have a right not to be offended. He was given an absolutely uncensored voice even when he used it to smear and stretch accuracy. And if you recall he first came to this site demanding that his faith not be criticised. He was defending the CDF censorship of an Irish priest who happened to comment that gays were not the abomination that religion often depicted them as. He got free rein to express his views. I think in the end the more he had to stretch to defend or explain those views the more frustrated he became. At root he had difficulty tolerating people not sharing his religious opinion which came out when I was indifferent to PZ Myers action with the wafer. That he should concern himself with my indifference is one of the problems with religion – it cannot abide by not having its view accepted. It abhors being treated as just another opinion. And yet, there was so much we learned from him. He brought a quality to the blog which the recent plummet does nothing to detract from.

    ‘I keep thinking about that poem, it fascinated me.’

    Bishop Hatto is a great poem. I am so glad you liked it.

    Marty,

    ‘Get the feeling John will be back resurrected under the name Tomás de Torquemada inquisitor general.’

    His own choice. It is probably frustrating for many of them that they can’t burn their detractors at the stake or stretch them on the rack. And yet they tell us about their ‘love.’

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yip Anthony their love is beating the love of Jesus into you just before they light the bbq with the likes of you or me on it,well that was their way in the good old days now they just bugger us to death

    ReplyDelete
  76. Alfie,

    Smearing is what they do. The Scientology movement may have moved it up to a state of the art bracket but they all do it. Any system of thought that produces the category ‘heretic’ can only but do it. It is a fascistic ‘our teaching cannot be wrong’ mentality. And when you add infallibility into the mix then ...

    ‘I do hope he reconsiders leaving the blog as I have learned a lot from discussing various issues with him.’

    It is his choice. It cannot be denied that we did learn from him although I am not sure he learned from us or wanted to. Religious minds are often closed minds. I think he flailed and faltered when he could not persuade us. But how could he convince us that men are infallible or that people rise from the dead? These things fly in the face of science and experience and therefore will need a lot more than assertion to overcome experientially grounded scepticism. He was free to argue his corner and no barriers were put in his way. If he can’t deal with the hard knocks then perhaps the best thing is to leave the school.

    Larry,

    I think money has to play a part in those get togethers. These girls may just be sex workers escorting these old cardinals!!

    Marty,

    a bishop might bugger us - die you heretic.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Think John just had a bad week or something. Maybe a lunar mood swing. He should dust himself down and return.

    People have been called 'toilets' and warned to stay out of counties on this blog.

    It's only print. No one is getting hurt. It's a great forum for expressing alternative views to those 'permitted' by the media and GFA, and for stirring the pot of debate.

    John spat his dummy out of the pram. When he gets it back he'll return.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Larry,

    have to fess up to sort of missing him but we can do little about it. It can be a school of hard knocks, we give and we take. Pointless shouting 'foul' each time you feel the legs go from beneath you.

    ReplyDelete
  79. don't know much about legs, mine never grew!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anthony, marty, fionnuala etc hi, There r little sample images of V.O.V. Vomit on the Vatican under construction i put up (just click on my name/should take u thru to latest entry on me blog) I am so busy no time to finish the monstrous cathartic outpouring! Hope to complete it next week in all it's vomitus, sans artistic merit glory. PS now then John McGirr that was not too bad on the eyeballs was it! it just be the truth in ones face... one voice but telling many individuals stories...

    ReplyDelete
  81. SMH,

    good job. I am now a follower of your blog. Didn't realise you had one

    ReplyDelete
  82. SMH hi hon good luck with your masterpiece hon mind you I,ve been struggling to see any carrots,and hon as everyone knows it aint real if it doesnt have carrots,you could set them in the eye socket of the skull to give a demon look .sort of the kind a drunken priest gives a child .

    ReplyDelete