Most Modern Bishops & Clergy Don’t Believe in the Devil… Kidding, Right?

Most Modern Bishops & Clergy Don’t Believe in the Devil… Kidding, Right?


Organizers of a recent exorcism conference in Rome spoke to the Telegraph Newspaper about the growing problem of demonic possession:

…Giuseppe Ferrari, from GRIS, a Catholic research group that organized the conference, said there was an ever growing need for priests to be trained to perform exorcisms because of the increasing number of lay people tempted to dabble in black magic, paganism and the occult…

About 250 priests were trained as exorcists in Italy, but many more were needed, the conference organizers claimed.

“Just in the dioceses of Rome, around a third of calls that are received are requests for the services of an exorcist,” said Fr Cesar Truqui, a priest and exorcist from Switzerland and a member of the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative Catholic order.

What was not mentioned, however, is that the Congregation for Divine Worship replaced the traditional rite of exorcism with a new one in 1999. In 2001 the famous Father Gabriele Amorth, founder and honorary president of the International Association of Exorcists was interviewed about the new rite by 30 Days magazine.

In the interview Fr. Amorth stated, “A Rite so long-awaited has turned out to be a joke, an incredible cord that is tying us in knots in our work against the Devil.”

Fr. Amorth was later asked the following direct question, “Are you saying that the new Rite is useless in the struggle against the Devil?” His response:

AMORTH: Yes. Their intention was to arm us with a blunt sword. Some effective prayers were cancelled, prayers with 12 centuries of history. New ineffective prayers were written in…

In 2002, Father X, who holds an STL in Dogmatic Theology, wrote about the tragedy of the new exorcism rite in Latin Mass Magazine. He stated:

…The new ritual scandalously gives the priest a choice of two forms of exorcism, which it calls “deprecatory” and “imperative.” “Deprecatory” means a prayer to God, in this case to ask Him to deliver the demoniac. “Imperative” means a command issued to the demon in the name of God to depart. The imperative formula is a real exorcism, but the deprecatory form is not an exorcism at all. A prayer is a request to God; an exorcism is a command to a demon. The so-called “deprecatory exorcism” is simply a petitionary prayer to God. It is not an exorcism. (If it is an exorcism, then the final petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “deliver us from evil,” would also be an exorcism!)

As with the so-called “exorcism” in the modern Rite of Baptism, simply placing the sub-heading Exorcism does not make what follows an exorcism. What is extremely worrying is that, according to the new rubrics, the deprecatory form must always be used, but the second form, the imperative, is an optional extra. What lies behind this change? The same denigration of the priesthood described above. It is a true Protestantization: the reduction of the ordained priest to the level of the common priesthood. It is the fruit of embarrassment about the visible priesthood. It is the mentality that is at work when a priest says at the end of Mass: “May Almighty God bless us….” When a priest does that, he is losing his identity, and is uncomfortable about the fact that he is different, and that he can confer blessings…

…Dishonest is the use of the word instauratum (restored) in the subheading of the title page: the new exorcism ritual is in no way a restoration. It is a fabrication. The Latin should have read fabricatum or innovatum or maybe concoctum!…

Although use of the old rite can be permitted, this permission is predictably at the mercy of the Bishop:

According to the president of the International Association of Exorcists, Father Gabriele Amorth (30 Days, no. 6, 2001), when the new rite was ready, Cardinals Ratzinger and Medina sought to add a provision in its introduction authorizing the use of the previous rite. This move of theirs was rejected, so Cardinal Medina issued a separate notification that an exorcist can use the old rite if his bishop asks the Congregation for Divine Worship, who will “gladly provide the requested permission” (Notitiae, vol. 35, 1999).

Whether Summorum Pontificum included the right of every priest to use the old rite of exorcism is not clear. What is clear, however, is the attitude of most modern bishops towards exorcism. As Fr. Amorth explained:

We have a clergy and an Episcopate who no longer believe in the Devil , in exorcism, in the exceptional evil the Devil can instill, or even in the power that Jesus bestowed to cast out demons…We have entire Episcopates trying to counter exorcism. We have countries completely devoid of exorcists, such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. This is a shameful shortfall.

…The bishops are the first victims of this situation in the Catholic Church, whose belief that the Devil exists is fading. Before this new Rite came out, the German Episcopate wrote in a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger that there was no point in a new Rite in that exorcisms should no longer be performed…

…I could give you the names of so many bishops and cardinals who, on their appointment to a diocese, stripped exorcists of their faculty to perform the rite. Or there are bishops who openly say they don’t believe that these are things of the past…

The Pope continues to complain about the problem of the devil, and incidents of demonic possession are on the rise, especially in Rome. The primary reason for this surge of evil is the mass apostasy in the Church brought about the Council. The Council weakened the Church not only through its documents, but also through its implementation.

Although it took the conciliar implementers 34 years, they finally got around to destroying the last vestige of Catholic ritual and liturgical tradition in the Church’s rite of exorcism. If there is any doubt that the Council was used as a justification for destroying the rite of exorcism, one need only look at the references in the new rite’s Prefatory Decree. There the authors clearly cite the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium as the authorization for the “revision.”

May Our Lord please exorcise the Spirit of Vatican II from His Church…and fast.  Source 


Is there anyone out there who is genuinely surprised that “we have a clergy and episcopate who do not believe in the Devil”, according to Fr Amorth? And if they don’t believe in the Devil, well… what “Gospel” are they reading? There’s a letter in today’s Catholic Herald from a priest – Fr Julian Shurgold, Surrey, England – who tells us that he thought the winning song in the Eurovision Song Contest, performed by bearded drag queen. Conchita, “was a well deserved black eye for Putin, certain members of the Russian Orthodox Church and other vile, bullying Russian homophobes.” He concludes his daft letter by opining that the fact that “many leading Russians were seriously upset by Conchita…all goes to show that there may be justice in the world after all!”

Er…”homophobes”?  Justice in the world because a bearded “drag queen” won a song contest?  For the record, he thought her song was “very poor”; for the record, I think his letter is a disgrace but that’s not the point.   Just ask yourself this question: would a priest  who believes in the Devil, be using the language of the homosexual lobby to describe people who are opposed to unnatural pseudo-sexual activity? That’s one example of a clergyman who, in my opinion, appears not to believe in the Devil (maybe he’ll come on here to tell us differently – I’ll be sending him the link) and there are plenty of other examples. All in all, it seems crystal clear to the Catholic Truth Team that, given the chaos in the Church today, worldwide, for Fr Amorth to say “most modern bishops (and priests) do not believe in the Devil” is akin to saying “Christmas comes in December”.  It’s a no brainer.  Or maybe you disagree?

Comments (72)

  • greatpretender51

    This topic reminds me of the old saying, “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Well, the old boy is having a good run for the past 240 years. Not only has he convinced the world he doesn’t exist, he has also convinced a third of the Catholic clergy (according to the Book of Revelation).

    Let’s see if we can add 2+2:

    1. Pope Leo XIII has a vision of Our Lord granting the Devil’s boast, that he could destroy the Church in 100 years.
    2. The Church is heavily infiltrated by Freemasons and Communists (the political arm of Freemasonry).
    3. They boast, even before the death of Pius XII, that the Vatican is in their hands.
    4. Vatican II is convened; the draft schema are rejected by the wicked alliance and replaced by vague and useless and even heretical documents, which become the foundation for a revolution.
    5. In the middle of Vatican II, a satanic enthronement ceremony takes place, on June 29, 1963 (according to Father Malachi Martin), simultaneously in Charleston, South Carolina and by phone within the Vatican. The participants in this ceremony include high-ranking Catholic clergy.
    6. Within a few years after the conclusion of the Council, the Church has completely collapsed, thanks to Paul VI and his cultivation of the “smoke of Satan.”
    7. Among other things, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is replaced by the Unholy Avoidance of Offense to Protestants, the holy priesthood is transformed into a collection of shallow social workers, the altar is replaced by a table, the Tabernacle is moved to the side or out of sight altogether, the St. Michael Prayer is abolished, and the Rite of Exorcism is replaced. (Just to name a few low-lights of the revolution).
    8. Bella Dodd’s chilling statement from the early 1950s proves to be completely correct, namely, that “in a few years you will not recognize the Catholic Church.”

    Vatican II is clearly the work of the Devil. But, since he no longer exists, I’m perfectly willing to settle for an alternate explanation: Vatican II is the work of the Devil’s tools, whose job it is to deny his existence, and their useful idiots, whose job it is to be serviceable ignorant fools.

    May 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm
    • Theresa Rose


      Your post gets straight to the point, over what has happened and still is happening.

      There was an article in the Fatima Crusader quite some time ago about the South Georgia guidestones. A mini stonehenge, more or less saying keep the world population down to 500,000 – can’t remember if were million or billions. One world government, religion etc.

      I could not get the Fatima Crusader article, but found this one.

      May 27, 2014 at 3:19 pm
  • greatpretender51

    Here is another analysis of the New Rite of Exorcism, by Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, former president of HLI:

    May 27, 2014 at 5:00 pm
  • Joe

    Most priests I know still believe in the devil; still saythe Saint Michael prayer; still have respect for the old rite of exorcism which was an minor order on the way to ordination and remember as father amorth rightly states confession is more powerful than an exorcism which theologically a type of blessing

    May 27, 2014 at 7:03 pm
  • jobstears

    I heard on the local news this morning, that Pope Francis is denouncing in the ‘harshest way possible’ the sex abuse scandals in the Church- he says it is akin to a Satanic Black Mass, (no doubt a reference to the Black Mass supposed to have hosted). Yet, the Church is being deliberately and systematically stripped of every defense against Satan. The Pope was quoted as saying, priestly celibacy is not a dogma of the Church, it can be changed in the future. As if celibacy is to blame for the scandals. A married clergy would be fit in with the plans to further Protestantize the Church.

    So no, I’m not at all surprised that the majority of clergy do not believe in the devil or in evil. I seem to remember reading somewhere that St. John Paul II, in talking of the mercy of God said there was no one in hell.

    May 27, 2014 at 8:07 pm
    • editor


      “I seem to remember reading somewhere that St. John Paul II, in talking of the mercy of God said there was no one in hell.”

      Do you mean “St” John Paul II ? 😀

      May 28, 2014 at 12:55 am
      • jobstears

        That’s the one, Editor!!!! 😉

        May 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm
    • greatpretender51

      I read the same thing about “St.” JPII, Jobstears…in fact, that he had admitted that rather early in his career. There is also the anecdote of a meeting he had with Fr. Malachi Martin during the 1980s, during which he told Martin, “My faith is not your faith.” Charming fellow, this “saint.”

      On the subject of this alleged sainthood, I would like to propose that, in his case, “St.” should stand for “Street” rather than “Saint.”

      May 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm
      • jobstears

        GP, the ‘saint’ would be right, his faith is not the one Fr. Malachi Martin held!

        I agree, that St. should stand for street 😀

        Can you suggest any books written by Fr. Malachi Martin?

        May 28, 2014 at 2:19 pm
  • Joe

    I think you should listen to the whole interview on the plane back to Rome. The media only picked up on the questions which given the historic meeting they took place I the holy land is disgraceful. Secondly, I question that priests don’t believe u the devil – as I posted above there are many many priests still very much aware of satan and his work. More priests are comfortable in talking about deliverance in my discussions with the than exorcism as it’s an easier process to work with. In fact if you leaf through the roman ritual of the past you will find very little evidence that the exorcism prayer was rarely if ever used. Given the fact that it was a minor order that all priests had on way to ordination therefore had the capacity to do an exorcism at least In theory. Thus is not afforded to the modern priest. The other significant detail,is that priests won’t speak about it as it’s such a controversial issue. But there priests in Scotland who use this ministry at least in some form.

    May 27, 2014 at 10:35 pm
    • editor


      Your comment is very interesting. I’m curious, though, to find out why you think Father Amorth would say that most priests and bishops do not believe in the Devil if most of them do. Why would he say that? I mean, the priests I know tell me they believe in the Devil, so I agree that not all priests refuse to believe, but Father Amorth didn’t say “all priests” but “most…”

      Also, what do you think of his closing prayer “May Our Lord please exorcise the Spirit of Vatican II from His Church…and fast” Do you approve?

      May 28, 2014 at 1:01 am
  • Joe

    I think it’s unfair to say that most/all/many priests don’t believe in Satan as I’ve never seen a poll or conclusive evidence to support that theory. The fact that Father Amorth makes this assertion is pause for thought at least if not sincere concern and worry. In the last 4 years over 1500 priests have been trained in exorcism so there is sufficient interest among the clergy from what I read and hear. The more liberal the priest the less likely he is to believe in the devil: that I do believe. Also, if a priest struggles with his orientation ( and I don’t mean facing east), he is also in my experience having serious difficulty with the devil as this pervasive sickness is rooted in the demonic, this is why in exorcism fr Amorth comes against this diabolical disorder and in that context I’d very much concur with the need to rid that ” spirit” of Vatican II

    May 28, 2014 at 8:28 am
    • editor


      I can’t believe that you think there could possibly be an opinion poll of priests admitting they don’t believe in Satan. That’s not, unfortunately, how it works. If only. How easy would it be then for the faithful to guard against bad priests. No, the Devil, the Father of Lies, is too clever to achieve his unbelief in souls in that way.

      I also can’t believe that you weigh the fact of 1500 priests trained in exorcism against the widespread apostasy in the Church today, and come up with the view that Fr Amorth is thus wrong to claim that most priests and bishops don’t believe in the Devil. That there may be 1500 priests (out of how many?) who are “interested enough” to train in exorcism, is hardly proof that the majority believe in the Devil. There are priests who, following Summorum Pontificum were “interested enough” to attend courses to learn the Traditional Latin Mass. I don’t know any of them who offer a Sunday Mass. “Interested enough” doesn’t necessarily equal strong faith and conviction.

      The fact is, if most priests and bishops believed in the Devil, we wouldn’t HAVE the widespread apostasy raging in the Church today. We wouldn’t have priests featuring in the tabloid headlines with monotonous regularity, we wouldn’t have priests who preach about how to make this world a better place with equally monotonous regularity, we wouldn’t have priests and bishops keen to give adulterers Holy Communion – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We wouldn’t, in other words, have the obvious loss of faith in the supernatural (apostasy) that Our Lady came to Fatima to warn us against. Cardinal Ciappi: “The Third Secret of Fatima reveals that the apostasy in the Church begins at the top”. Clear as the proverbial bell.

      You say, rightly, that “the more liberal the priest the less likely he is to believe in the Devil” without apparently realising that the majority of clergy today ARE “liberal” (with bells on). The “conservative” through to “traditional” priests are in the self-evident minority. That’s what I hear from “conservative” priests. A lot. They feel constrained in meetings with brother priests, for example, and are often on the receiving end of barbed comments, to say the least.

      It seems crystal clear to me that the majority of the world’s clergy and bishops do not believe in God, Creator of all things, including Lucifer. It is, sadly, a fact of Catholic life today, as foretold at Quito, Fatima, Akita, among other approved apparitions, that the clergy of the 20/21st centuries have lost the Faith. Again, this is what I hear from priests themselves, although I have to admit, the bishops have refrained from sharing their thoughts with me to date 😀

      As for your reasons for concurring with Fr Amorth’s prayer of exorcism of the “spirit of Vatican II” – I’m afraid that that diabolical “spirit” is about much more than the things you list; it’s also about the new Mass, and all the other “new” things which feature in the Church in our times. Using that “spirit”, that love of novelties condemned by Pope Saint Pius X (“Far, far from our priests be the love of novelty”), the Devil has seen to it that the Faith has been undermined through to destroyed – not least in the souls of religious, priests and bishops.

      May 28, 2014 at 9:53 pm
      • mikidiki


        Might you think again and decide that perhaps you are being a smidgeon too hard on the current crop of priests and bishops? These days the clergy, in general, desire above all else friendship with, and the popular acclaim of, those of other, and even no, faiths. Ecumenism means we all worship, in love, the same God, or none, and are required to give due respect to Satanists who adore the Devil as the Master of the World; there is no concept of the Devil as the Prince of Darkness leading sinners to Hell, which, if it ever existed, became redundant when God, apparently decided, perhaps in the 1960s, that no-one was to end up there.

        Perhaps, like me, you do not appreciate that the Holy Spirit used Vatican 2 to transform the Church and remodel the clergy. Indeed my Parish Priest has credited the Holy Spirit with the creation of the inspirational NO Mass, and with providing the Church with wonderful popes like Pope Francis, a beacon of holiness and humility, and a champion of social justice.

        The spectre of an evil Lucifer obviously has no place in our modern, joke sharing, happy clappy, folk singing, guitar strumming, obligatory festivals of communal prayer.

        Have I managed to soften your approach?

        May 29, 2014 at 12:31 am
      • editor


        You have, indeed, managed to open my eyes to the truth of the matter. Silly me 😯

        I do keep forgetting that we are a much more enlightened society, that our priests are all university-educated and much cleverer than the likes of St John Vianney, Patron Saint of priests, whom the Archbishop of Glasgow once famously preached was a model for priests of his day but not a model to which we would like to – or should – return.

        Yes, you’ve definitely managed to soften my approach. I must think more carefully, in future, before jumping to conclusions. I must think, think, think. And when I’ve done that, think again!

        Thank you Mikidiki!

        May 29, 2014 at 9:25 am
  • mikidiki


    Your thanks are much appreciated, but where is the pay raise one or two others have received?

    May 30, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    • editor


      The pay rise takes effect from the end of the month. Silly me for forgetting to make that clear 😀

      May 30, 2014 at 6:04 pm
  • editor

    I’ve had another email from Fr Julian Shurgold. He doesn’t miss and hit the wall, as we say up here in sunny Scotland. Brace yourselves because, as you will see, he’s not into “dialogue”. As usual, all the balderdash about and “inclusive” Church and the importance of “dialogue” and “diversity” don’t apply to us.

    Anyway, Fr Shurgold writes…

    “I was under the misapprehension that you were connected to the Catholic Truth Society as I read your original email too quickly prior to my departure. While I was away a priest-friend discovered your blog, and your connection to something called Catholic Truth. I scrolled through a few of your contributors and soon appreciated that you have little to do with Catholicism as I understand it, still less with anything related to truth. The same comment applies to your contributors who are assorted religious cranks, with whom I fear I would be unable to sustain a rational conversation. It`s not so much a priest they require as a psychiatrist! I have little to do with blogs of any description as they are merely vehicles for ignorant bigots to pedal their prejudices anonymously. In consequence after I`ve sent this email to you, you will hear nothing more from me: any of your emails will be deleted unread (as I do with all junk mail – and Catholic [sic] Truth [sic] certainly falls within that category), and I can assure you that nothing will tempt me to look at your blog again: you and your cohorts have made assertions about my beliefs for which your arrogance, ignorance and presumption is the sole evidence. Another priest-friend also examined the blog and commented how sad it is that your contributors seem to be filled with constant negativity – denying that Pope John-Paul II is a saint, for example – and a complete absence of the most basic charity. Indeed, I feel so sorry for you and your contributors in your obvious unhappiness and bitterness, that I shall offer Mass for all of you and pray that the fire of the Holy Spirit, whose festival we shall shortly celebrate, renews within your poor souls a genuine love of our Faith, rather than the twisted hatred that predominates at the moment.

    Yours sincerely,
    Fr. Julian Shurgold

    Now, in the blog introduction, I wrote the following with reference to Fr Shurgold’s use of the abusive term “homophobes” in his letter published in the Catholic Herald last week:

    “Just ask yourself this question: would a priest who believes in the Devil, be using the language of the homosexual lobby to describe people who are opposed to unnatural pseudo-sexual activity? That’s one example of a clergyman who, in my opinion, appears not to believe in the Devil (maybe he’ll come on here to tell us differently – I’ll be sending him the link) “

    I can appreciate that if he doesn’t like blogging or doesn’t feel able to participate for one reason or another, he may not accept my invitation to come on here to clarify his meaning. That’s fine. However, what I don’t understand is why he didn’t say in either of his emails to me, that (a) he did not, by using the term “homophobes”, mean to indicate his approval of homosexual activity and (b) that he did, indeed, believe in the Devil.

    There’s no use flailing around, calling us “bigots” and “arrogant” and “ignorant” and claiming that we “have made assertions about (his) beliefs” [without any evidence] without stating, unambiguously, why we are wrong.

    All the evidence – his own words in his letter to the Catholic Herald in praise of the transgender Eurovision song contest winner “Conchita” as well as his castigation of “homophobes” (those opposed to homosexual activity) – all of the evidence from his own pen, in other words, points to his beliefs about homosexuality and transgenderism being closer to Peter Tatchell’s opinion than Catholic sexual morality. Nowhere in either of his emails to me is there any hint of orthodoxy in these matters.

    And the “I don’t owe you an explanation…” attitude doesn’t wash. He DOES owe us an explanation. He’s a Catholic priest who has gone on public record using the language of the homosexual lobby, a term invented by them to quell all criticism of that immoral behaviour. Thus, we have a right to know if he thinks they’re right or the Church is right. We have a right to know if he is presenting himself publicly to his parishioners as holding one set of (Catholic) beliefs while, in fact, holding quite another set of beliefs in private. That, we’ve all got a right to know. Except Pope Francis of course, because, after all, who is he to judge?

    May 30, 2014 at 6:15 pm
    • Dr John Dowden

      Well, it just goes to show there is something in that old protestant prejudice that there nothing to beat a Roman-Catholic priest when it comes to arrogant ignorance, except perhaps when there are two of the beggars – Father Whatsit and his ‘Priest-Friend’. The pair of them have decided this is a blog for ignorant bigots and we are all of us, without exception, religious cranks, lacking in charity. According to His Holiness (and for all I know His Holiness’s Priest-Friend) the blog is ‘for ignorant bigots to pedal …’

      And at that point I stopped.

      We all make slips but a safe rule is that if one plans, charitably, to call people ‘ignorant’ it really is a good idea not to make an ignorant mistake in the same sentence.

      Now it may be my University was full of ignorant people, and they handed out DPhils to their fellow ignoramuses. I will freely confess that I doubt that Father Whatsit or Father Whatsit’s Priest-Friend have ever seen the inside of a decent college (except perhaps as a tourist) but I seem to remember being taught that solecisms are deadly to credibility and, in a controversial remark, open to rebuttal. Fort Augustus Abbey once had a boys’ boarding housemaster by the name of Julian Shergold so perhaps that didactic lesson has been forgotten.

      ‘To pedal’ is what one does on a bike, while ‘to peddle’ is what a peddler does with his wares or what, metaphorically, a person does to sell an idea. The problem is what we ignorant people call a homophone – they cannot be distinguished phonetically but they have different etymologies which show up in the written forms. Assuming of course that one has actually read the words and is not too ignorant to spot the difference.

      There are those of us, ignorant bigots may we be, who can spot a homophone or a solecism and perhaps spot a Freudian slip. Our all-knowing Father Whatsit and his Priest-Friend will, in their omniscience, understand Slavonic languages well enough to know that out in the wild east, ‘pedal’ is a slang word for a practitioner of an unmentionable custom of the Greeks. Call me ignorant if you like but I take an uncharitable view of a man (and/or his Priest-Friend) who cannot spot a homophone or tell his peddle from his pedal.

      Time perhaps to peddle a script to the BBC ‘Hello!, I am Father Julian and this is my Priest-Friend, Sandy ….’

      May 30, 2014 at 9:40 pm
  • mikidiki


    In my ‘twisted, reactionary, unsubstantiated, homophobic’ opinion I think a copy of the relevant material should be despatched to Archbishop Peter Smith for his comments and response. It is certain that if we are owed an explanation by the renegade priest, we are even more entitled to read the views of his Superior.
    And further, if His Grace ignores such a request, then a letter to the Catholic Herald may be appropriate.

    May 30, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    • editor


      I submitted a letter to the Catholic Herald last Sunday, same day I read Fr Shurgold’s letter. Will they publish it? We’ll see. It was a short as I could make it, to give them no excuses for not publishing. As I say, we’ll see. If they don’t publish it I’ll put it online here.

      As for Archbishop Smith – he’ll have read the Catholic Herald letter as well. We can take it as read that he’s opposed to “homophobia” as well. After all, Cardinal Nicholas assured the entire UK that the English bishops were supportive of Civil Partnerships. Go figure, as our USA bloggers would say.

      May 30, 2014 at 9:36 pm
  • mikidiki

    The Wikipedia blurb on Cardinal Vincent Gerard Nichols makes sad and disturbing reading for a lay Catholic. It mentions that early in his career he was influenced by Archbishop Derek Worlock (the reprobate who promoted the use of gluten free hosts); and since then he has morphed into an advocate of ‘social Catholicism”, that is one who concerns himself/herself with popular causes in pursuit of transient celebrity status.
    Your typo referring to him as Nicholas has a strong element of truth since he is indeed akin to a Father Christmas to worldly perverts. Perhaps the devil is in the detail!

    May 30, 2014 at 10:41 pm
    • sixupman

      An American SSPX priest with then strong Liverpool Diocesan links told me that ++Worlock repented on his deathbed.

      May 31, 2014 at 7:23 am
      • editor


        I’ve heard that too, about Archbishop Worlock’s alleged deathbed repentance. Let’s hope it’s true.

        May 31, 2014 at 8:59 am
    • editor


      Now I can’t correct my typo or readers won’t understand your post! At least you got it right – it was a typo… There is a very irritating lady who would have us believe that she lives in a croft, who accuses me of “spelling mistakes” when I am guilty of no more than the occasional typo. Since I pride myself on my spelling (as well as being slim, glam, etc – you know the drill by now) that drives me crazy. Speling misteaks? Me? Moi?

      May 31, 2014 at 8:59 am
      • crofterlady

        Is that me you’re referring to? Also, I don’t claim to live on a croft, I just like the name!

        May 31, 2014 at 4:15 pm
      • editor


        One and the same. Who else? 😀

        The reference to living on a croft was a wee bit of poetic licence-cum-clue 😀

        May 31, 2014 at 7:30 pm
      • crofterlady

        Glad to hear it as I am a city gal 🙂

        June 1, 2014 at 12:06 am
  • editor

    For your information, folks, below is the letter I submitted to the Catholic Herald last Sunday, in response to Fr Shurgold’s letter. I won’t see the paper until tomorrow, so don’t know if it’s been published or not.

    Dear Sir,

    Fr Julian Shurgold is likely to think that I have a much too “serious, humourless and overly pious view of the world” (Letter, May 23) but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why any Catholic, let alone a priest, would use the term “homophobe”, which is an invention of the homosexual lobbyists, designed to quell all criticism of their unnatural pseudo-sexual behaviour.

    Perhaps he’d like to enlighten us? END.

    May 31, 2014 at 10:49 pm
  • editor

    Father Shurgold has written to me again, as follows:

    Contrary to what I said in my last email I feel obliged to contact you once more to inform you that I`ve allocated Friday, 27th. June as the day when I shall offer Mass for you and your bloggers. It was the first available date I looked at and, by a wonderful coincidence, it is the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to which I have a particular affection and devotion. The love of Christ for humanity, expressed by his Sacred Heart, refuted the vile heresy of Jansenism and still combats hatred and divisiveness in the Church today. So I pray that the grace of the Sacrament, celebrated on that day in particular, may serve to mellow the hardened hearts of you and your bloggers. As you`ve sent emails to this address you obviously know the website of this parish, so the Mass (‘Priest`s Intention’) will appear, all being well, when the new parish bulletin is uploaded on the website at the end of the previous week. Yours sincerely, Fr. Julian Shurgold



    Thank you for your kind thought, although I suspect that you will be celebrating the new Mass and not the TLM, which saddens me a lot.

    Contrary to your remarks, our hearts are not hardened in the way you mean. You appear to be unaware of the nature of the crisis in the Church and the scandal caused by priests and bishops who are actually part of the diabolical disorientation prophesied by Our Lady at Fatima. You have said nothing at all to reassure us that you are not supportive of homosexual activity and your quote from Cardinal Schonborn appears to affirm that you see nothing wrong with people who describe themselves as “transgender”. In short, you wish to be as tolerant as possible of evil in the world while castigating Catholics like ourselves who are guilty of the crime of adhering to what Catholics have always believed and rejecting errors and heresies, according to the exhortations of the great saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church. For that, we are castigated and regarded as people in need of Masses and special prayers, as if to exorcise the truth from our souls.

    I know that my comments (and those of others on the blog) have been hard-hitting. That’s not because we are either hard-hearted or insensitive to your feelings. However, it is not true charity to be indulgent towards priests like yourself who are adding to the confusion of ordinary lay people in the throes of this horrendous crisis. It’s very serious indeed, Father, for a priest to speak sympathetically of “transgenderism” and to use the term “homophobes” which was coined by homosexual activists for the express purpose of “bad-mouthing” critics, so that all criticism and objective discussion on the subject of the grave sin of homosexuality, traditionally counted among the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, is stifled.

    I appreciate your prayers for us on 27th June…

    I think I can safely assure you of the prayers of all of our bloggers and my own prayers, for what they are worth. Kind regards. Patricia

    I suggest we leave comments on this matter there, and pray for Fr Shurgold.

    I didn’t see the gentleman who supplies me with the Sunday newspapers today, so don’t know if my letter is published in the Catholic Herald. Presume not. Today, I’m definitely a “glass half empty” gal 😀

    June 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm
  • Therese

    Sorry Editor, I must take issue with you,and then retire, whimpering, behind the sofa.

    I do not agree that the comments on this blog have been “hard hitting”. Not nearly hard enough. Fr “Shergar” (I love it) should hang his head in shame (yes, it’s an old-fashioned word – not used much now, except by bigots like myself). Only problem is, to feel shame, one must know what sin is, and accept that one has transgressed. Not feeling this from Fr Shurgold.

    I will be asking my priest to offer Holy Mass for Fr Shurgold to ask God’s forgiveness of his error and bad example and recall him to his duty to defend the Faith and be a true messenger of God.

    June 1, 2014 at 9:31 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      If I may say so with respect, I don’t think it is a good idea to make a play on someone’s name. That really is not necessary and especially when it’s someone who already thinks the bloggers here are bigots etc.

      I actually agree that the comments here are not hard hitting enough, but I think it’s important to be hard hitting about the topic and not the person. That’s always been how I’ve understood the main rules of this blog.

      I do think the introduction was quite hard hitting about Fr Shurgold, as it said clearly enough that any priest who uses “homophobe” is not likely to believe in the devil.

      Anyway, it is very charitable of you to have a Mass offered for Fr Shurgold – maybe Catholic Truth should begin a rosary crusade for him as well.

      June 1, 2014 at 10:32 pm
    • editor


      You are perfectly entitled to your opinion so no need to hide behind the sofa. I’ll only find you anyway!

      And maybe, as you (and Margaret Mary) think, the comments are not as hard-hitting as we’d like. I would, however, point out that to be “hard-hitting” they need not be personal. I think that the bloggers here have stayed on the topic of the devil and addressed the example of Father Shurgold’s letter in the Catholic Herald in appropriate terms. From the emails he has sent me, I think HE certainly considers the comments about his letter on this thread to be pretty hard-hitting.

      I notice that Margaret Mary has commented on your “play” on Father’s name and she is spot on in that regard. I think it’s always a mistake to make personal remarks in any debate, beyond innocent banter, and it is a particular weakness of blogging that people tend to do that. Having suffered at Primary School from bullies making a play on my own surname, which, unfortunately for me (though fun for them) rhymed with a popular playground game, I really think it’s unhelpful to do that sort of thing. Stick to the topic, is the key to success on this blog.

      In case he’s given up on us all, as the proverbial lost cause, I will email Fr Shurgold to let him know of your charitable decision to have Holy Mass offered for him. I’ll copy and paste your concluding sentence and just hope that he remembers where he put the smelling salts… 😀

      Don’t fall out with me now, Therese, about the “personal remarks/play on names” – just remember… I mean well 😀

      June 2, 2014 at 12:08 am
  • Therese

    Dear Editor

    I forgive you!

    June 3, 2014 at 10:30 am
    • editor


      Phew! That’s a relief! I thought you might quote Groucho Marx at me along the lines “[s]he may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. [S]he really is an idiot.” 😀

      June 3, 2014 at 11:16 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: