Secularocrats Undermine Priest Process

A priest was driving along and became upset when he ran over a frog. He stopped and was surprised to find the frog alive. Taking it home he revived the frog with a warm bath and some fly soup. Then the frog was tired so he popped it into bed. The frog needed a kiss to get off to sleep so the priest delivered a small peck on the cheek. In an instant the frog transformed into an eleven year old boy.

And that your honour is the case for the defence.

Some explanations like that of the priest and the frog just don’t ring plausible. This has probably drawn more attention to the Pomeroy Parish Porn show than it merits. Alright, few would envy Martin McVeigh caught in the predicament in which he has found himself. Who wants their personal thoughts exposed? That’s why he wanted his kept private, for fear of embarrassment or accusatory declamation from the Pharisees and exclusion by them from the temple. It’s also why privacy is valued in our society although legitimate arguments about where the boundaries should be will always feature in our discourse on the matter.

Martin McVeigh accidentally subjected some devout god fearing parishioners to the work of the devil. People having sex; how awful. Even worse they were adults. And to add terror to horror they were of the same sex, and they were doing it freely of their own consent. A crime surely of epic proportions, a transgression so abominable that there is that can be but one just punishment. Burn the queer forever and ever amen.

And for that very reason that was something that just had to be reported to the police.  Nobody would be sworn to secrecy, that apparently being a policy exclusive to children who are forced to have sex against their will with priests and then sworn to secrecy after it.  And in good conscience Sean the Silencer broke his vow of omerta and went to the civil authorities. The police for their part being more progressive than the Church – on its own hardly a claim to any radical property -  opted to see it as something other than a crime.

The thought must have struck some as to why it has not been suggested that Mr McVeigh might have been the unwitting victim of secularocrats working to the old heathen agenda and seeking to destabilise and undermine the priest process. The work of courageous and imaginative clergy in building the process would be undermined by rejectionists and traitors to the Church were the attempt successful.

Secularocrats surreptitiously sabotaged the memory stick of Mr McVeigh with a virus that showed things about sex, something nobody but fornicators (that lustful lot responsible for the creation of children) would have any interest in. The objective was to have his standing questioned within the parish of Pomeroy. Having done the deed they then devilishly whispered in Mr McVeigh’s ear ‘destroy it Martin.’ Weak sinner that he is he could not withstand temptation and decommissioned the offending memory stick. Then the secularocrats broke into the house and stole the lap top that had been used for the PowerPoint presentation before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had time to carry out a proper investigation within the strict and venerable codes of canon law which would expose the conspiracy for what it was.

Secularocrats are cute and wily. Had children been abused their strategy would have been very different. There would have been no need to burgle the house so soon to destroy the evidence. They could have waited until after the 2016 anniversary of the Easter Rising, it normally taking the CDF about a decade to investigate abuses against children. But with Satanic stealth they moved quickly just to cause problems for Mother Church and have people suspect, surely without any foundation,  that it might be more about protecting its power and reputation rather than children.

You may laugh and require a bit of divine intervention to help you believe it but it is an explanation at least as plausible as the one we are currently hearing.

A word of advice for Mr McVeigh. If he is indeed a viewer of gay porn, something he is quite entitled to be, he would do well to remember the old advice to ‘live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip.’ It removes in one clean stroke any worry about what might be on your memory stick and pre-empts a public defence absolutely no one but the credulous are buying into.


  1. Personally i'm CERTAIN the above defence was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It was in the bible in the gospel according to John.

  2. Is that an original joke, Anthony? I don't see quotation marks or a source! Just wondering.

  3. its an old joke John. That's why its in italics

    this is the source

    But I am sure there are many of them

  4. AM,

    'its an old joke John. That's why its in italics'

    Okay, I thought I'd seen it before, and didn't notice the Italics. In fact I thought I saw it on this Blog before.

  5. I stated that this was a possibilty that he could have been setup in a previous post about Father Mc Veigh. But, I do like the defence, maybe Boston College will jump at that chance of using it for future reference Because most of those involved with the Belfast Project Subpoena's are DICKS.

  6. John,

    I think I heard it before rather than read it. I went looking it on the web for this article and it came up first time. I don't recall it being on this blog but it might have been

  7. A bishop seeking frogs.

    More news showing the homosexual link to clerical abuse of children.

  8. I don't think it was a Fr Ted job. I think he simply got something mixed up while arranging his presentation. He is guilty of stupidity if nothing else. But where is the 'lost/stolen' laptop. All the other PC's where examined and found to be clean from porn. But a lappy went AWOL

    here about lost laptop

    The plot thickens..

  9. Just read that one in five catholics are attending mass on Sundays, I couldnt believe that, THAT MANY.

  10. He screwed up :-) bigtime but could have handled it with more inventiveness. Why did he not come back into the room and intro himself as follows: Hi there again Now then, was not that an eyeful! Father Fudgepacker is now going to give u information on safe sex.. You know he could have weaved it into something more positive. Methinks he be as guilty as sin itself but there is always a possibility he was set up... the unholy communion preparations went arse up literally,

  11. I think the disappearing laptop was a bit to obvious now if it was me I,d have burnt down the church and the parochial house, maybe half of Pomeroy just for good measure and blamed it all on commie homos.he would now be in line for Bradys job.

  12. Good luck to the girls, but sure they are doing their thing and they are just right,

  13. It is so sad to see these misguided individuals in your last link, Anthony.

    It is no more possible for two women to marry than it is for a woman to become a priest.

    Marriage was instituted to be fruitful, producing the next generation.

    A deliberately sterile union that can serve no such purpose may be a lot of things, but it will never be marriage.

    It is rather the testimony of a decaying, selfish society that has lost its way.

  14. Maybe the laptop was stolen by the fukn queeeeers!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. John,

    ‘More news showing the homosexual link to clerical abuse of children.’

    Another prince of the Church. It is so commonplace these days it is like hearing it is raining

  16. "‘More news showing the homosexual link to clerical abuse of children.’"

    'Another prince of the Church. It is so commonplace these days it is like hearing it is raining'

    More a queen than a prince, but yes 'gay clergy' are commonplace. A sad indictment of an apostate clergy. That is why Vatican II and the Novus Ordo clergy must be resisted.

  17. John,

    It is sad for you buyt not for me nor the people who married.
    ‘It is no more possible for two women to marry than it is for a woman to become a priest.’

    But they just did.

    Bigotry stops women becoming priests.

    ‘A deliberately sterile union ... will never be marriage.’

    Only women of childbearing age allowed to marry then? Who is going to listen to some crusty old bishop spouting that?

    They think it is marriage, I think it is marriage, society thinks it is marriage and you don’t. But we don’t share your religious opinion and you are free not to marry. We don't make you marry and you don't stop us marrying. Seems the reasonable thing to do

  18. ‘More a queen than a prince...’

    At least humour is still alive and kicking.