Modern Family Life: Ever Wondered How Many Brothers & Sisters You Have?

Modern Family Life: Ever Wondered How Many Brothers & Sisters You Have?

I think we’d all agree that the consequences of the much lauded “sexual liberation” of recent decades has yet to be assessed in its full impact. As one mother said to me a couple of years ago, when the time comes that almost every family finds itself nursing an AIDS sufferer, or a family member with some other sexually transmitted disease, people just might begin to realise that the “sexual liberation” of the Swinging Sixties era is not all it was cracked up to be.

The truth of this was brought home to me recently when a couple of friends contacted me, in shock, to tell me about another consequence of the “do as you please” immorality prevalent in our times. One friend from days of yore was stunned to discover that one of her several siblings was, in fact, the product of an affair between her mother and another man. The child was adopted into the family, thanks to the forgiving, although devastated, husband, father of my friend.

Another friend spoke of being stunned on discovering that he has a sister of whom he knew nothing until a few days ago – this time because of an affair between his father and another woman.

This, I believe, is a snapshot of what lies in store for many families in the years ahead. Illicit affairs, and casual intimacy, with offspring who may never know the identity of their fathers, with siblings all over the place unknown to one another – or about whom they only learn in adulthood. And the more commonplace these situations become, the less they will shock. Relativism into nihilism: we’ve fast moved from thinking that things are only wrong in relation to certain other factors, to not knowing right from wrong at all.

 Am I alone in lamenting this dreadful state of (literally) affairs?

And just as I’ve been hearing these “family secrets”, I’ve also been hearing from parents who are worried about the Scottish Government’s proposals to allocate a State Guardian to every child. Think about it. The same politicians who have created, either directly or by their complicity, the current moral chaos around us, want to have the final say in how children are raised by their parents. Crazy.  All ideas on what parents can do to stop this latest political interference in family life, welcome.

Talk to me.

Comments (92)

  • Petrus

    Without a doubt these situations are a result of abandoning God’s law. A lot of people claim that the laws of God made explicit through the teaching of the Church is a “killjoy” for demanding that all sexual activities be within marriage and open to the transmission of life, but one only has to look at the broken families to see that the Church demands this in order to protect us. Catholic marriage works. I wish people would stop thinking they know better than God.

    August 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
    • Jacinta


      You are right. Without a doubt people have abandoned God and they call the Church “a killjoy” as if human beings in the Church made up the rules about marriage and family life. I completely agree with you.

      Reading that post, I think things are getting much worse. It is unbelievable that people can suddenly discover a brother or a sister that they didn’t know even existed. How are young people to know right from wrong if that is the example set by their parents?

      It is becoming very clear that only the Consecration of Russia will put things right in the world and the Church. I pray that Pope Francis comes to see that very soon.

      About the Scottish Government planning a State Guardian for every child – I hope parents protest against this. If Cardinal O’Brien was right to call sex education a form of “child abuse” it can’t be right for the people who push the sex-ed to be appointing guardians for children. They already have guardians – their parents. I do hope Catholic parents refuse to allow their children to be exposed to this government interference.

      We must pray hard to Our Lady of Fatima.

      August 19, 2013 at 10:45 pm
  • crossraguel

    This is an inevitable consequence of society rejecting God in favour of self-satisfaction, unbridled humanism. Unquestionably a child conceived out of wedlock or as a consequence of adultery is deeply troubling, however of greater dismay is the certainty that many others will have been brutally murdered in the womb, a diabolical fall deeper into serious sin emergent from the initial occasion of sin and deferring the difficult but relatively modest human penance to the immortal peril of the soul(s). The culture of death indeed.

    Recent attacks on marriage will only advance what has been a progressive deterioration of the state of society since at least the sixties, its most basic building block having been hammered on from all angles. Perhaps Catholics have been more insulated from this than average, but the debauchery of many wealthy types has been well in evidence too in the workless benefits underclass, in the absence of any adverse societal consequences. Whereas generation 1 and 2 of this fractured living may have had the stability of parents/grandparents to call upon in extremis, increasingly there is no such rudder or safety net to reference and like vestiges of Christianity, is now not even a distant recollection for the younger generations – they literally have no family as we know it – a devastating success of the dictatorship of relativism and its socialist ethos.

    August 19, 2013 at 10:54 pm
  • Margaret Mary

    The Michael Voris video today is about God and Hell and reading this post I think society is going to Hell in a handcart. As Petrus said “without a doubt these situations are a result of abandoning God’s law”. The logical consequence of abandoning God’s law is Hell. This short film spells it out very well, because it shows how this leads to hating God and actually choosing Hell. The only thing that I find a little puzzling is that if being in Hell is what these souls want and they wouldn’t be happy in God’s presence, which is what Michael Voris says, then wouldn’t Hell be a place of actual happiness for them? I tend to think that it is the regret they experience on seeing God and rejecting him is what causes them pain as well as the physical torments.

    August 20, 2013 at 8:45 am
  • Margaret Mary

    I meant to say that my heart goes out to the people mentioned in the post who discovered “illegitimate” brothers and sisters. However, as well as the shock, there might have been some kind of excitement at having a new brother or sister?

    August 20, 2013 at 8:48 am
  • gabriel syme

    I echo what Petrus said. Modern secular people have lost any semblence of a proper understanding of human sexuality and its responsible practice.

    The Catholic Church is the only institution which has a proper, mature and realistic approach to human sexuality. Secular society has a simple “do as you please” approach, one which leads to lives being blighted by disease, or unwanted lives being destroyed in the womb. (of course, the protestants prefer to stay out of it, preferring to be left alone to their coffee mornings and tombola).

    Recently, the US Government Centre for Disease Control forecast that – at current infection rates – >50% of US homosexual men will have HIV in approx 30 years. This is already the case in San Francisco – an epicentre of sodomy – and it will eventually be the case in the UK and all western societies, wherever perversion is tolerated.

    Additionally, there have been several news articles recently (from liberal-left sources, such as the Guardian) demanding that attitudes to HIV change – indeed “must” change.

    Its quite clear that the way ahead holds a massively increased prevalence of HIV and that the powers-that-be and opinion formers, already know that the much vaunted condoms will NOT stop this sceneario playing out over the coming decades.

    Hence their tactic is simply to pretend HIV is not a problem anymore, instead of admitting that their entire approach to sexuality is wrong.

    But attitudes to HIV shouldnt change. After all, HIV has not changed. It is still an incurable disease, sufferers still require aggressive daily medication to stay alive* and it still shortens the lives of those who contract it.

    (* Archbishop Tartaglia was heavily criticised recently for linking the early death of a homosexual man (David Cairns, an MP) with his sexuality. Mr Cairns homosexual friend vaguely claimed he died from “pancreatitis” – however acute pancreatitis is a side effect of the strong anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV. And statistics show that homosexuality and HIV go together like bread and jam. If Cairns didnt catch HIV via his disordered sexuality, the only other possibility behind his pancreatitis is that he was a severe alcoholic.)

    Homosexuals no longer consider HIV a problem, because modern medicine can prolong the lives of sufferers to a duration approximating that of a normal life (though homosexual men still live for, on average, 20 years less than heterosexual men). However, this is an exceptionally selfish attitude, because it costs society £20 – 30,000 per annum to treat a single HIV patient. So, it IS a big problem.

    The worst thing about the irresponsible approaches to sexuality is that they can never admit they are wrong. Anyone can make a mistake, so if society said this “do as you please” thing is doing more harm than good, then that would be progress.

    However, it seems people prefer fantasy and escapism, rather than facing the effects of their lifestyles. That homosexual people prefer to talk about “marriage” (an absurdity) or Russian laws shows this – its all just a smoke-screen to obscure the fact that their misusing their bodies is causing them to be gradually consumed by incurable disease.

    If it wasnt so tragic, it would be funny.

    Its also ridiculous that people claim the Church is “obsessed by sex” whenever it advocates a common sense, realistic approach to the matter. Secular society is saturated in sex and sexual imagery, yet they cannot see the wood for the trees.

    August 20, 2013 at 10:19 am
  • WurdeSmythe

    At age 24 I received a phone call from a woman I’d never met before asking me to attend her wedding. “Have we met?” I asked. “I’m your sister,” she said. I’d heard that there was such a person, but there had been no contact. Our mutual father (whom I also had never met) had passed away, and the future bride was keen to have a full family (however one defines it) at the ceremony.

    To Margaret Mary’s question, “there might have been some kind of excitement at having a new brother or sister” I can say that in my case it was not so: the whole matter was perplexing and upsetting – though I could see a case being made that my perception was affected by the way we were introduced, which was not ideal.

    Even so, mine was a strange (though not uncommon) situation: one spends his life operating a certain set of assumptions in the way he thinks of himself, his family, and the world around him; to have all that abruptly turned upside-down is a big shock.

    I was able to make the wedding – curiosity got the better of me. It was only the first wedding, alas: by age 30 she was on her fifth marriage; ten years on from that she’s single, can’t figure out men, and loathes children. He who has ears to hear…

    August 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm
  • Margaret Mary


    What an amazing story. I can well understand the curiosity you felt, as I’d have been the same. I tend to think I would be very excited if I found I had another brother or sister, but then you don’t know. As you say, it must be a big shock to have your world suddenly turned upside down.

    Another thing struck me reading your post at the end. Maybe your influence will help your sister to see the errors of her ways? That might be all part of the good that will come out of these terrible situations.

    August 20, 2013 at 2:17 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    I never knew my father, he left before I was born. Before he met my mother, he had already divorced from his first wife and had a girl with her. He originally divorced because of an affair he had. After he left, my mum took him to court to recover child maintenance because he denied paternity. She won obviously: DNA doesn’t lie.

    My mother had a child before me, my older brother, who I grew up knowing. His father left my mother before he was born. After having me she married a divorced man with three of his own children, my step-siblings. My mother went on to have two children with him, my younger brother and sister (who I also grew up knowing).

    I tracked my father down and saw him for the first time in 2009, when I was 19. To do this I first had to contact his employer. His boss must have persuaded him to meet me. He met with me in a cafe in South Manchester and told me that he currently lived with a partner and had two young children with her, a boy and a girl in Staffordshire. We spoke for about an hour before he left.

    A couple of weeks later I managed to contact my father’s sister, my aunt. I went to visit her and saw her for the first time at her home in Greater Manchester. She told me that apart from the two young children and partner in Staffordshire which he told me about, he also had an ex wife and three teenage boys in Southport Lancashire (which he didn’t tell me about).

    So in the space of two weeks I found out about five siblings by other mothers which I hadn’t previously known about. My aunt also gave me the contact information for his ex-wife. I phoned her up. Her boys knew about me, probably because my father moved in with her before or shortly after I was born. His first child with her was conceived a month after I was born.

    I didn’t contact his current partner. That would have been traumatic for her.

    Because I now had the address, I did however go to visit the older half-sister I already knew about. She lived in South Manchester and we had never met. I turned up, explained myself to the step-father who answered the door. I met her. I asked her if she had ever heard about me and she said no.

    So in total, father has seven children by four different woman, which we know of.

    My father is a lapsed Catholic. He went to Manchester’s best Catholic boy’s grammar school and according to his sister, a one point wanted to become a priest.

    My step father is a lapsed Catholic as well.

    August 20, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Forgot to mention, he used to work abroad, wink wink.

      August 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    • Josephine

      Miles Immaculatae,

      I found your post absorbing. I hope you don’t mind if I ask this and if you don’t feel able to answer it in such a public forum I will not mind but do you feel that you have suffered any lasting mental (bad) effects from your situation?

      I ask this because for a young person what you describe must have had a devastating impact.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:32 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Obvously I wouldn’t want to give too much away for the sake of my reputation, I don’t want people thinking I’m an unstable wreck!

        I think I am fairly normal, but yes, I have experienced bad consequences, but only those that would naturally be expected. Certainly nothing that can’t be overcome. My mother came from a traditional nuclear family and she experienced a lot of cruelty. Which I didn’t really experience (or not much more than could be expected from the average step-father).

        I was never in care, and I don’t have any criminal convictions. So I haven’t had it as bad as some people I know. Also, like other persons I know I have been declared completely sane by mental health professionals!

        I am very sceptical about step families. I just don’t think they work.

        August 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm
  • editor

    Miles Immaculatae,

    I know it’s a bit naughty to make jokes about this but, well, you just might find you get to enjoy holidays all over the world, for the price of a plane ticket!

    August 20, 2013 at 5:42 pm
  • editor

    The following comment was submitted by Arkenaten earlier – I accidentally permanently deleted it, but this is what she wrote:

    Amazing! We can put a man on the moon, yet millions of babies die of Malaria. A bus load of Egyptian Police are hit by a rocket fired by an Islamic extremist.And you consider the moral fibre of humanity is linked to sex outside marriage or extra-marital affairs? Odd…..

    Note: Arkenaten is a professed atheist. Thus, we do not expect her to hold the same views as we do. What we DO expect, however, is that she meets with a measured and good humoured, albeit robust response. If this does not come naturally to you, and/or you don’t have the necessary communication skills, don’t respond, please and thank you.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm
    • Petrus


      Of course babies dying of Malaria is tragic. Similarly, of course we deplore the acts of terrorists. However, these things don’t detract from the seriousness of broken families.

      I think the hurt caused by sex outside marriage or extra marital affairs is enough to tell us these things are wrong. When marriage is abandoned in favour of “alternative” lifestyles it only leads to a trail of devastation.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:18 pm
  • Jacinta


    I can understand why you think like that. If people see the things reported in the news that you mention, millions dying of Malaria, bombs killing policemen in Egypt, etc. then it must seem strange to meet people who think the loose morality of recent years is all that important, especially if you don’t even believe in God.

    However, it is obviously an important issue. Look at the Irish couple who met and felt attracted to each other, eventually wanted to marry. Then they discovered they were brother and sister. That has all kinds of implications. Multiply that sort of situation across society and we find that we don’t know who is related to who and I think it is a very serious situation.

    I’d be interested to know what you think your feelings would be if you found you had another brother or sister that you didn’t know about, if you thought you were living in a home with a mum and dad who loved each other and had brought a few children into the world, all a happy enough family – then discovered, out of the blue, that one of your parents had another child with someone else. Your whole security would be threatened, don’t you agree?

    Also, it sends a signal to the children of the marriage that “these things happen” and so they become de-sensitized, so that infidelity and adultery are no big deal any more. All sorts of questions to do with personal identity arise. I think the problem of drugs and alcohol abuse is maybe linked to these issues. Young people don’t know who they are any more, or what is right and what is wrong, if even their own parents or other close relatives have affairs and are unfaithful to their marriage and family commitment.

    Do you really not think that is important, especially since it’s not a one-off we are talking about, but a pattern across society? Can you see any serious ramifications that would cause you to be concerned even a little bit? I’d really be interested in your views on this. To be honest, I would have thought that this was one time when atheists and religious people could agree, about the damage to society due to family breakdown.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:15 pm
  • Petrus


    I don’t quite understand your logic. Yes, those things you mention are tragic, but they don’t detract from the seriousness of bizarre family situations.

    The trail of devastation caused by sex outside marriage/extra marital affairs speaks for itself. When you depart from sex within a marriage you descend into a world of selfishness and hurt. I have never seen a sexual relationship outside marriage that didn’t lead to hurt. Never.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:22 pm
  • Prionsais

    Comment removed

    Editor writes:


    I approved Arkenaten’s comment and released it from moderation. I have instructed those who either do not possess the patience (or who lack the necessary communication skills) to respond in a good humoured way, not to respond. I am therefore not at all pleased to find that you have ignored that instruction, and, despite not having responded to any other post on the thread, now respond in a nasty way to Arkenaten. I am unimpressed and given the notable lack of responses from you overall on this blog, I am inclined to think you are being a troublemaker. Please prove me wrong.

    You can begin by not responding to any posts on any topic on this blog, unless you do so in a spirit of Catholic charity. It is not for you to decide the disposition of anyone’s soul. If I release Arkenaten’s posts for publication, then they are considered suitable for discussion. Nobody is obliged to respond to her but anyone who has not read or who will not accept our blogging policy, is instructed NOT to respond. Put simply, if you don’t like the rules here, blog somewhere else.

    Thank you.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:23 pm
  • WurdeSmythe

    I believe the key to grasping Arkenaten’s point is to recognize his underlying assumption: to wit, that sexual misconduct is no big deal. Grave interior faults don’t seem to interest him so much as dramatic things that are easy to visualize like rockets (whether for travel or demolition) and babies with malaria. I suppose if there were more people who made others suffer for their personal lapses in self-control (e.g. Henry VIII) the point raised by Editor might be an easier notion to grasp. Then again, STDs and AIDS, quick divorce, teenage pregnancy, rampant infidelity and the attendant depression, alcoholism and drug use, and suicide do seem to have at least a plausible chance of being recognized as visible bad outcomes, even in a permissive age like ours. No?

    August 20, 2013 at 11:13 pm
    • editor


      Excellent points. I do believe that the drug and alcohol abuse problems are widely recognised as having their roots in social deprivation, but, unfortunately, sexual promiscuity is not often acknowledged as part of that deprivation, by the powers-that-be. There’s too much money and ideology invested in the sex-education and related trades, for the Government and affiliated agencies to “fess up” and start again.

      Still, there are people, including atheists in my experience, who are concerned at the breakdown in “relationships” – the inability, it seems, of just about anyone to make a long-term (let alone a lifelong) commitment to another person.

      By the way, for the record, Arkenaten is a “she” – a mother of two, apparently.

      August 21, 2013 at 12:27 am
  • Theresa Rose


    I agree with what Jacinta and Petrus say, though I can understand why you think as you do. Yes, many children do die of malaria. Islamic terrorists do kill by bombings or any other means and the tragedy knows no bounds.

    Extra marital affairs or sex outside marriage does have consequences and the effects can cause all sorts of problems. Was it Jacinta who said of the couple who were considering marriage only to discover they were brother and sister. What would be the possibility if any children born from that union having physical defects?
    Who is to say that such a thing could not happen?

    There are those who discover siblings, half brothers or sisters they never knew they had. Sometimes I wonder if people can distinguish between love and lust.

    This is a link of Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) encyclical on sexual matters. It is quite long, but I wonder what you make of it.

    Out of curiosity I had googled to find when the last man/men actually landed on the moon. It was December 1972. Now was Apollo 15 or Apollo 17? Forty one years ago, that’s nearly as old as I am.

    August 20, 2013 at 11:26 pm
  • editor

    Theresa Rose

    “Forty one years ago, that’s nearly as old as I am.”

    You wish!

    August 21, 2013 at 12:13 am
  • Yorkshire Rose

    STERALIZATION – is it ever justified? Recently on the news there has been mention of a ‘mentally deficient’ young man having fathered a child with an equally ‘mentally deficient’ young woman. One of the families want the man steralized so that it can’t happen again.

    I do know of another family with a girl who is ‘mentally deficient’ and she has been impregnated twice by two different men – neither of whom are around – and her widowed Father (now in his 70’s) is having to cope!

    Apparently, these people with mental problems are VERY PROMISCOUS by nature, and nowadays all the Mental Homes are closed. So, what to do with them? I know the Church is against steralization, but in these cases, surely it would be for the best.

    August 21, 2013 at 12:23 am
    • editor

      Yorkshire Rose

      I’m interested that you chose this thread for your question, which is really more suited to the General Discussion thread. Since there’s a certain comic element, we’ll let it stand, although I think any relationship to this topic is tenuous, to say the least.

      August 21, 2013 at 12:30 am
      • Yorkshire Rose

        Yes, I do see your point. However, sexual promiscuity has been mentioned, and the terrible problems that it causes. Well, with ESN people (as they used to be called), promiscuity is commonplace. I have this from an old-fashioned Matron who knew her stuff. So, what on earth can be done about it.

        Nowadays, anyone with mental problems – whether they be illnesses or inherent defects – are supposed to remain in ‘the community’. Mental Homes are all closed and when the parents of such people become elderly they simply cannot cope. If these persons cannot be put into some kind of care home and segregated, then steralization may be the only solution. They are unlikely to become responsible parents, able to work and provide for any offspring, so what is to be done?

        August 21, 2013 at 12:44 am
      • Josephine

        Yorkshire Rose,

        That’s eugenics. If it is allowed to sterilize mentally ill people, why not other groups of people. The British statistics for teenage pregnancies is very high – at one time highest in Europe (not sure if that is still the case).

        That’s a dangerous road to go down. Something else should be done to help the mentally ill if they are promiscuous. Lots of people are promiscuous so that’s not a reason to sterilize. I doubt very much if the Church would allow it on moral grounds. If it’s wrong to contracept it’s surely wrong for everyone including the mentally impaired.

        August 21, 2013 at 8:37 am
      • editor

        Exactly, Josephine. If sterilization is not immoral, not an evil in itself, then it can be used to prevent pregnancy in other groups – teenagers would be a prime target!

        Listen. If the Scottish Government thinks intelligent parents require a State Guardian to “protect” their children, let them come up with a scheme to help the mentally impaired to learn how to control themselves, build good relationships and marry if they choose. I’ve not had time to check, but what’s the bet that the mentally disabled, like the kids in primary school (and even nursery) are subject to the “sex-education” programmes which lead to promiscuity in the first place? I’m sure promiscuity isn’t an integral part of mental impairment.

        Yorkshire Rose, beware of the propagandist news reports on this (as on everything else).

        My gut reaction is that this cannot be right. If there’s a sound Catholic moral theologian out there who says the Church teaches otherwise, I will stand corrected, albeit open-mouthed.

        After all, there’s clearly been something wrong in the mental processes of the parents we’ve heard about on this thread who thought little, if anything, of indulging in affairs and producing offspring as a result. Should THEY have been sterilized? Where does “society” (usually individual judges in courts) draw the line?

        August 21, 2013 at 9:03 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      It reminds me of those American eugenicists who went around the country forcibly sterilising those who were deemed undesirable, for example people with mental health problems.

      After World War II and the terror Naziism the Americans dropped their pro-eugenic stance and pretended it never happened.

      August 21, 2013 at 1:42 pm
  • Yorkshire Rose

    Well, I don’t disagree with any of those comments. As mentioned, however, an old-fashioned Matron who worked with these people in the early days of the NHS did say that they tend to be very promiscuous. I daresay they are given sex-ed info and expected to use contraception. Well, without supervision and care, they often forget to take their own medication, so that’s not going to work.

    Proper care homes with dedicated staff would cost a fortune, and that’s not going to happen nowadays. Just look at elderly care at present – one scandal after another – and hospitals as well. Religious community care would be the best answer, but is that likely?

    August 21, 2013 at 11:59 am
    • Josephine

      If the attitude of society to promiscuity changed to being right thinking, then all these side issues would fall into place. People with learning disabilities or Special Needs as they’re now called, are only mimicking what they see is acceptable for everyone else. Why should they be different?

      August 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm
  • Prionsais


    Thanks for your response. I can assure you I won’t bother you again. I have accepted your
    magazine in my house totally against my family’s wishes so I will make them happy now also.
    It’s a bit of a joke a sanction from someone like you who jumps down the throat of anyone who has an opinion of their own. By the way, sorry Arkenaten.

    Ed: I’m going to release this post for this reason: it is typical of those who throw their toys out of the pram when they don’t get away with breaking the rules. Why you take our newsletter written by “someone like me” (whom you clearly disdain and do not respect, as evidenced by your contempt for my requests not to respond to Arkenaten if you cannot do so courteously) is a mystery in the first place. If you don’t want to receive the newsletter, email me and I’ll remove your name from our list.

    But before you disappear into the sunset, just answer me this question. What would YOU do if you were administrator of this Catholic blog and several bloggers persistently ignored your polite requests to not engage with a blogger whom THEY (you) themselves regard as a “troll”. Tell me – what would YOU do? Cos I’m fresh out of ideas. I do not want nastiness on this blog and for that crime I am castigated. Too bad. I had to close down this blog once before due to nastiness from Catholics towards atheists and I won’t do so again. I’d sooner do without the kind of Catholics who are so free with their opinion that every soul is precious blah blah until they come across a soul whom they decide is beyond redemption, too much hard work. Gimme a break. The Catholic Truth team does not want to have people on here being nasty to atheists or anyone else. Different if individuals choose to ignore them – no problem with that, just don’t tell me when you think it’s time for me to blacklist them. I will make that decision if and when I choose to do so. The very idea that an atheist would be subjected to the kind of nastiness I’ve witnessed here, is unthinkable. Now, if you wish to blog and offer your thoughts on the topics, go ahead. Just don’t lurk in the shadows awaiting an opportunity to cause trouble. If I’ve misinterpreted your position, take it as read that I apologise. But there’s only one way to prove me wrong, and throwing your rattle out of the pram is not that way. Try telling the administrator of any other blog out there, Catholic or not, how to run his blog and see what kind of response you get. I can hear the screams already..

    August 21, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    • Petrus


      I couldn’t agree more. Charity is very important on the blog and nastiness cannot produce good fruits.

      August 21, 2013 at 6:03 pm
      • Prionsais

        Have you actually read what I am being accused of? No, I thought not so please don’ t make any wild judgements. These accusations against me are liable to the extreme and I am certainly not going to lie down to them.
        This is not a wee quiet priest whom you are all discussing now.

        Ed: Prionsais,

        I don’t actually understand your post – I don’t recall accusing you of anything and I don’t see us “discussing any wee quiet priest now” (are there any “wee quiet priests”?!)

        However, allow me to apologise for offending you in any way, which is never my intention. I’d appreciate now if we could let this matter drop, so as not to pile up comments on the blog which are really only meant as a criticism of my unworthy self – feel free to do that by email. In the meantime, you are welcome to participate in our discussions. Thank you & God bless.

        August 22, 2013 at 11:00 am
  • scottish priest

    It’s not OK to sterilize anyone.

    August 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    • editor

      Scottish Priest,

      How judgmental ! I’m shocked !

      August 21, 2013 at 7:39 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: