Irish Bishops Embarrassingly Weak…

Irish Bishops Embarrassingly Weak…

Below is the statement issued by the Irish Bishops ahead of the referendum in May on same-sex marriage.  It is truly cringeworthy stuff.  Editorial comment has been inserted, briefly, to highlight some of the key weaknesses.

‘Marriage is important – Reflect before you change it’ – Statement of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference 10 March 2015  referendum

Within weeks the people of Ireland will be asked to vote in a referendum that will change the meaning of marriage in the Constitution of Ireland.

Marriage is of fundamental importance for children, mothers and fathers, and society – all of us need to reflect deeply before changing it.  We ask the people of Ireland to consider very carefully the profound implications which this constitutional amendment would have on the family environment and on our understanding of parenthood.
Ed: we “ask” the people of Ireland to “consider carefully”… ?  Shouldn’t that be “we warn the people of Ireland of the consequences, both here and in eternity, of voting  for this immoral legislation?

We respect the views of people who think differently to us (Ed: do we?  I don’t)  trusting that our sincerely held views, grounded in faith, will also be heard and respected.
Ed: it’s not “our views” that matter.  It’s God’s moral law that the Irish Government seeks to overturn. That’s a heck of a lot more important than any human viewpoint.

We come to this debate believing that the union of a man and a woman in marriage, open to the procreation of children, is a gift from God who created us ‘male and female’.  Reason also points to the truth about human sexuality that makes the relationship between a man and a woman unique.  Mothers and fathers bring different, yet complementary gifts and strengths into a child’s life.

We cannot support* an amendment to the Constitution which redefines marriage and effectively places the union of two men, or two women, on a par with the marriage relationship between a husband and wife which is open to the procreation of children.
* Ed: nor may any Catholic support this amendment to the Constitution, without incurring the wrath of God – you forgot that bit, Bishops.

We are concerned that, should the amendment be passed, it will become increasingly difficult to speak any longer in public about marriage as being between a man and a woman.  What will we be expected to teach children in school about marriage?  Will those who sincerely continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman be forced to act against their conscience?  Can a way be found to protect the civil rights of gay people without undermining the fundamental meaning of marriage as commonly understood across cultures, faiths and down the ages?
Ed: yet again we find this fundamental error, of accepting the legitimacy of homosexual behaviour, in the first place, instead of condemning it as unnatural and gravely sinful. They leave themselves open to the obvious criticism that they are objecting only to the use of the M word – call it something else, not marriage, and we’re fine with it. What a ridiculous and ignorant position to hold.

Already, in The Children and Family Relationships Bill, it is proposed to remove mention of mothers and fathers from a whole raft of previous legislation.
Ed: and precisely where is the episcopal outrage at this proposal?

We encourage everyone to think about these issues and to vote on May 22nd.
Ed: excuse me?  You “encourage” the souls in your care to “think about these issues” and to vote… eh… how? on May 22nd? What’s to think about? There’s only one way for any Catholic to vote – isn’t there?  Why not say so? What is WRONG with you men? Are you faithless? Cowards? What then?

The effects of this proposed amendment will be far-reaching for this and for future generations.
Ed: the effects of this proposed amendment will be far reaching in eternity!  Or don’t you believe that?

We say to all voters: Marriage is important – Reflect before you change it.
Ed:  unbelievable.  What the Irish Bishops SHOULD be saying to all voters is: do NOT change the Constitution on marriage and if you vote to do so, be prepared to, literally, take the heat in eternity.  Afraid this would be counter productive? You forget about the grace of God and anyway, that’s not your concern. Your duty is to proclaim the truth, to warn of the consequences of defying God’s law, and then be at peace. How you can sleep at night having published such a wimpish statement on such a crucial issue, is a mystery to beat any Mystery of Faith.

We invite people of faith to bring this decision to prayer.  In the coming weeks, and particularly in May, the month of Mary, we call for prayer for Marriage and the Family.  END.
Ed: O, give it a rest. Throwing in a mention of prayer at the end, doesn’t fool anyone of even average intelligence.  It’s a very true saying that when the Faith goes, the Morals quickly follow.  We’ve known for a long time now that the Bishops of Ireland, like the Bishops of the UK have long since lost the Catholic Faith if ever they truly held to it. 

In conclusion…

Catholics of Ireland – there is only ONE way for you to vote in the forthcoming referendum on same-sex “marriage” and you have a duty to cast that vote – NO! NO! NO!  

Comments invited…

Comments (100)

  • Followthetruth

    Here is an Alternative Statement:

    ‘Marriage is Essential – Reflect before you Change It’.

    An Alternative Statement.

    17 March, 2015.

    Within weeks the people of Ireland will be asked to vote in a Referendum that will change the meaning of Marriage in the Constitution of Ireland.

    To understand the extreme gravity of the Voter’s decision in this matter we must consider what Marriage is in God’s creative plan for humanity. It is at the very centre of that plan. God created us male and female and in this way He gave us Marriage with its Fidelity, Indissolubility and Openness to Life, as being the ordinary way that we can come to the perfection in the school of love that this world is meant to be. When we die one could say that God will ask us just one question: “Have you learned how to love?” The perfect answer, in terms of Marriage, will be: “Yes, because you gave me my spouse and have been with us”.

    We know that in Marriage there are trials and tribulations that spring from the law of sin in our very bones, as St. Paul teaches us. But we must also remember that there is another who wants to destroy that plan of God and that is the Devil himself. He will stop at nothing in attempting to do that and in a world that has rejected God and turned to secularism the signs of his ‘success’ are evident – witness divorce, artificial contraception and, God help us, abortion.

    Voting ‘Yes’ to change the Constitution is making oneself an accomplice of the Devil in rejecting God’s loving plan for oneself and for others. Since the effects of such a vote are far-reaching – even into eternity – it would be a very grave act such that if done deliberately in the full knowledge of God’s plan for Marriage and Family and with full consent it would result in the committing of a mortal sin on the part of the Voter.

    The consequences in this life must also be considered. Certain implications are already clear, for instance, the tendency to use terms such as ‘partners’ or ‘number one’ and ‘number two’ rather than ‘husband and wife’ would become mandatory. The usage of the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ would be very restricted in civil matters. ‘Gender ideology’ which is the very suicide of the notion of God making man in His image – and thus making him male and female, would be advanced more vigorously. There would be implications in the education of the future generations of the nation, such as: The inability to instruct them concerning the truths of Marriage and Family according to the teachings of our Faith would be evident.

    So we say: The present Constitutional statement on Marriage is essential: Reflect before you might think of changing it. Reflect concerning what your Vote will mean for your Marriage, your Family, your Country and above all what your Vote will mean for your Eternal Life.

    Let us pray and fast asking the Lord to give us the strength of his Dying and Rising to go against the thinking of the times and to vote to maintain His plan for our happiness and the happiness of our fellow-citizens both now and forever.

    March 22, 2015 at 3:48 pm
    • Fidelis

      Follow the truth,

      I like your alternative letter but, with respect, I think it is still too polite. the way things are right now, we need clear speaking from the bishops and they need to use their muscle, their authority as bishops, otherwise the media and the faithful won’t pay any attention. The very least they should be doing is warning Catholics who vote for this evil legislation that they cannot go to Holy Communion and the same goes for the politicians.

      March 22, 2015 at 10:05 pm
      • Spiritus

        I agree with you Fidelis about stating from the altar that those voting for evil legisation should not approach for Holy Communion, but I think that Follow the Truth’s letter, although polite, is a heck of a lot better than the one actually issued by the Irish Bishops.

        March 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm
  • Peter The Rock

    It is odd to compare me to someone, and then deny access to their posts.

    Editor: well, here’s one of the posts that I’ve not published and it will help you to understand why we don’t keep on indefinitely publishing from troll types – put simply it is because they can be (in this case CS) very clever at posting half-truths and mixing them in with downright fabrications. Here’s an example:

    CS wrote:

    As one of the things I challenged most often, with a full quote from, and an attribution to, The Daily Mail, was a claim that Pope Francis forced Pope Benedict to assume the title Pope emeritus, and wear Papal garb, was completely untrue your claim I “contradict(ed) other bloggers (as you did MM) without providing a linked source to provide evidence, is clearly untrue, as is the suggestion I engaged in personal remarks, when you, and every post following your post above, have engaged in personal attacks on me, and refused to publish posts that discredit your own claims, then I am happy to leave God to judge you.

    Editor: now that lengthy sentence is a classic example of half-truths mixed with downright fabrication, Peter The Rock. For starters, The Daily Mail is hardly a recognised and objective source on Vatican matters, but even letting that go, because he did, at least provide (he says – I can’t remember) a source to back up his claim that Pope Benedict was NOT forced by Pope Francis to take the title Pope Emeritus etc. Now, I do not recall anyone making a dogmatic statement claiming that Pope Francis DID – there may have been some speculation but had I noticed that, I would have pointed out that the whole problem with Pope Benedict’s scandalous abandonment of duty is that nobody really KNOWS what happened, where the title came from, why he decided to wear the papal white etc. So, that’s no. 1. CS has an ability, that can only be described as masterful, to build up straw men, create false dichotomies, turn confusion into chaos etc. In the same way, CS claims that we make personal remarks about him – that’s how he interprets out pointing out that he is not engaging seriously in debate, has his own agenda, ignores evidence that calls his agenda (defending Modernism) into question and is behaving like a troll. He really does test the patience of us all. I’ve seen the way people interact on other blogs, and believe me, there’s nothing here that any normal person would regard out of order given the disgracefully blatant way CS has set about disrupting our discussions. None of us would stick around a website where we disagreed with just about everything written on it. Would you, Peter The Rock?

    CS concludes…

    However, I do wonder how you can receive Holy Communion on any day you publish attacks on The Pope, The Church, and such falsehoods I do not know, but a “Traditionalism” divorced from Tradition, and Holy Scripture, and bordering on schism probably allows it.

    And that, Peter The Rock, illustrates what I’ve just said. We follow the traditional teaching of the Church on EVERYTHING including the prohibition on judging the souls of others, and CS considers us to be “bordering on schism” for so doing. I mean, do you get it now, PTR? Do you? CS is not a serious debater and I am deleting his posts without even considering posting them, because either he has twisted what others (including myself) have said, has attacked authentic doctrine, such as the teaching of the Church on the papacy, preferring instead to treat each individual pope post-Vatican II as an idol who cannot be questioned (and that should trouble YOU Peter The Rock, with a username like that!) but above all, because all of this and more has been pointed out to him time after time after time and I just don’t have any more time and even less patience to deal with his attempts to disrupt our blog any more. You remind me of him a little, PTR, but if I’m wrong, you’ll soon prove yourself to be a serious debater who understands the truth about the current crisis in the Church and won’t try to defend the indefensible. Then, PTR, I’ll apologise for confusing you with one of our (most faithful, I have to admit) trolls.

    Now, be assured, PTR that I have made the decision NEVER to publish anything submitted by CS again. I’ve given him loads of chances. Now his posts are routinely deleted. I really don’t have time to devote to his attention seeking behaviour. But my warnings have fallen on deaf ears. He just hasn’t been able to get it. Well, let’s hope he gets this: you’re not going to be published on this blog. End of. Goodbye.

    And if you decide to stick around PTR, do NOT behave in the same troll like fashion as CS, or you will end up suffering the same fate. That, I promise you, is a promise.

    God bless.

    March 22, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    • Peter The Rock

      On the point CS made about The Pope Emeritus:

      On the original thread on March 15th at 9.20 a.m. Athanasius claims Benedict was forced by Francis to become Pope Emeritus, and says it , again, at 2.09 on March 18th by claiming Cardinal Ratzinger went along with it.

      And Margaret Mary thanks him for that information on March 16th.

      Thus, at least three times a false claim is made, and yet to dismiss CS you deny that is so. (Editor: that is a flagrant falsehood. I did not deny any such thing.)

      In terms of sources, anyone can check The Vatican website for dates. The use of The Title, and choice of clothes, was announced on February 26th, and Pope Benedict ceased to be Pope at 8.00 p.m. on February 28th. Pope Francis wasn’t elected until 13th March.

      The claim by CS is hardly a “straw man”, or a false dichotomy, as you say in order to dismiss him as a troll.

      I fear for my own future here is that is the level of scholarship, honesty, and open discussion on this blog, but I guess that suggests some use truth as a “straw man” to defeat foes.

      Editor: this is the very same mixture of half-truths and downright fabrications that I explained to you previously won’t find favour here. If any of our bloggers stated as fact, anything about Pope Benedict’s choice of the daft Emeritus Pope title or papal dress, without providing clear evidence, then they were wrong, because nobody seems to actually know who suggested what and when. I’ve tried in the past to unearth this information and there is just no mention of who is behind that awful title. If either Athanasius or MM have a source to prove the source of that title, I’d be very interested indeed to have sight of it. Interesting, though, that you, like your pal CS, make a big deal about the date of the election of Pope Francis, taking that as definitive proof that Papa Francis had nothing to do with it, but how do you know that all of the conclave cardinals were not asked to submit suggestions about the “outgoing” pontiff’s new title and dress? Pope Benedict is on record saying that he wanted to be known simply as Father Benedict, but took the advice of “others” and settled on Pope Emeritus or Emeritus Pope or whatever daft title it is. So, nobody really knows the details of the choice of title and dress, but being wrong about that is no big deal – what REALLY matters is the fact that Pope Benedict took the cowardly way out by resigning, not his title or dress which – shocking as it is that he accepted the novelty of coining a new title and wearing the papal dress – are matters of lesser immediate importance. That said, the damage to the papacy in the future is incalculable, as we can now see from Pope Francis’ own stated liking for papal resignations. I don’t approve at all, although in his case, I’ll be glad – very glad – to make an exception.

      Now, you are right to fear for your future here. If you think for one second that I’m going to switch from writing reams in response to the ignorant CS to writing reams in response to the equally ignorant (and highly supportive of CS) PTR, then you can think again. If your next post continues in the same vein, if you are not contributing to our debate in a meaningful way, your post will be deleted immediately. I’m a very busy gal and I really could use the time much more fruitfully that I’ve spent explaining the obvious to you, so please take the hint. There are lots of blogs out there where you can attack the Church, her doctrine, the traditional Faith and this blog, and get metaphorically patted on the metaphorical back for it. Your reference to “foes” at the end of your post confirms that you are not here for the right reasons. We are enemies, you and I. You and Catholic Truth (in every sense of the word). So, be warned. You are definitely NOT going to be taking up any more of my time; blog meaningfully, therefore, or say “Goodbye!”

      FINAL WORD… your latest post in moderation is not going to be released. This thread is about the Irish Bishops and you are not getting away with submitting posts that having nothing to do with the topic – on any thread. Now, you have shown that you are in bad faith. Please go away. We really cannot help you.

      March 22, 2015 at 5:25 pm
      • Athanasius


        The Vatican report of 26th February you refer to said that the abdicating Pope would be called either “His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus” or “Roman Pontiff Emeritus”. There was no final decision at that time. However, the former title was eventually settled on by Pope Francis fairly soon after his election.

        What is eminently clear from all the media reports of the time is that Benedict was having one or other of these grand invented titles thrust upon him by the Vatican against his personal wishes.

        The truth of this was confirmed in a December, 2014 article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper, which reported that Benedict said during a recent visit he’d have preferred to be addressed as “Padre Benedetto” but was too tired to push that through. So, “Padre Benedetto” did not want the innovative and confusing title others thrust upon him. That’s the point!

        March 22, 2015 at 7:53 pm
      • editor


        That’s really interesting – any chance you can post the link to that Frankfurter article? I tried to find it just now but although there are references to that paper, I can’t find the December 2014 article and would just love to be able to quote it. There’s no end of references to the title being forced upon him by “others” but nailing those “others” and also the “when” of it, is hard work!

        Help 😀

        March 22, 2015 at 8:40 pm
      • Athanasius


        This is the link I followed for the report.

        March 23, 2015 at 9:26 pm
    • Frankier


      I am 100

      March 22, 2015 at 9:54 pm
      • Frankier


        I’ll need to be quick here before you take a fit.

        I meant to say that I support you 100 per cent re. CS but couldn’t find the wee per cent symbol on my keyboard, pressing the submit button by mistake.

        To set the record right , I have only just turned 99.

        March 22, 2015 at 10:01 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        LOL ! You must be a stand-up comic for your day job?!

        March 23, 2015 at 7:21 pm
      • editor

        No wonder you’re so wise, Frankier. I bet you don’t look it, though.. I meant you don’t look 100, not that you don’t look “wise”…

        March 24, 2015 at 12:54 pm
  • Petrus

    What the bishops should have said is this.

    Good people of Ireland,

    It is with dismay that we find the Faith of Our Fathers once again being undermined by our polticians. These faithless men and women are not content on thrusting the murder of the unborn upon our nation, but now they ask you, the people, to redefine the nature of Marriage.

    Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church which was instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It does not belong to the State and the State has no authority to redefine Marriage. Indeed, no earthly body could ever redefine it.

    This crusade to allow homosexuals to marry is completely diabolical. The first end of Marriage is procreation. Homosexuals cannot ever procreate and cannot have sexual intercourse, therefore it defies nature and the law of God to suggest that they could ever marry. Homosexual acts are always mortally sinful and contribute nothing to society.

    Therefore, it is a grave duty for all Catholics to reject this diabolical rebellion against God’s law under the pain of excommunication. Those who vote in favour of homosexual “marriage” may not receive Holy Communion.

    March 22, 2015 at 6:06 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      Bravo! What a fantastic letter that would have been instead of the weak statement issued by the Irish Bishops. Well said!

      March 22, 2015 at 6:20 pm
  • Frankier


    Unfortunately they do have sexual intercourse. That’s why they are a danger.

    March 22, 2015 at 9:35 pm
    • Fidelis


      They use the part of the body where the waste products gather, for pseudo-sexual behaviour. Please do not accredit them with the real thing. If that were the case, then they would be quite right to demand marriage.

      March 22, 2015 at 10:02 pm
      • Frankier


        While I take your point, the fact is intercourse is communication between people. If a sexual organ is used then I would argue that it can be described as sexual intercourse.

        if someone who was raped by a person of the same sex claimed that it wasn’t sexual intercourse then I would probably listen but there were plenty of priests accused of having sexual intercourse with male children.

        March 22, 2015 at 11:13 pm
  • Frankier

    Maybe the Bishops’ message should have consisted of “Vote for gay marriage and you are automatically excommunicated.”

    That would have made sure they read it all.

    March 22, 2015 at 9:40 pm
    • Fidelis


      I agree, that would make them all sit up.

      March 22, 2015 at 10:05 pm
  • Christina

    Frankier, I agree with Fidelis that sodomy is wrongly defined as sexual intercourse for the simple reason that the anus is not a sex organ, so, as only one sex organ is involved the activity is not properly defined as any kind of intercourse. And I’d hope the bishops would NOT use the word ‘gay’ even in that context. I hate this use of a once beautiful little word to disguise a hideous evil.

    March 23, 2015 at 1:00 am
  • Peter The Rock


    You responded to Athanasius and his reference to a german publication on the topic of “Pope emeritus”, and yet you have deleted my further reply. Logically, your reply alone makes it “on topic”, and it can’t be off topic, anyway, if it is a reply to something someone else has written that you leave on site.

    Further, you have allowed a comment by Petrus suggesting, I am a member of the LGBT Community to stay online, and yet you resolutely deny that bullying, and snide comments, and personal comments are published and are permitted.

    Odd that! Honesty is not that difficult to live for a committed Catholic.

    Editor: that does it. You are really a clown. You seem to think that, like you, I have nothing else on my mind but this blog. Your reply about the German publication was rude and added nothing to the debate, not that I owe you any explanation. And Petrus can be forgiven for thinking you may be homosexual because you sure know how to jump to the defence of that behaviour which no right thinking human being, never mind a Catholic, would dream of doing. Similarly, I’ve just deleted your post twisting the issue of collecting for CAFOD. Now, I am sick of you and since you are not going to go away I am now removing you from the moderation box and putting you into the blacklist box. That way I don’t see any more of your stupid posts. Do not waste time signing up with new identities because the next new blogger to appear defending PTR or CS will immediately be blacklisted. Life is too short for your baloney. Now, I have said it nicely and I have given you plenty of hints. Here’s the strongest one yet: GO AWAY!

    March 23, 2015 at 9:34 am
  • gabriel syme

    if only the Irish Bishops could have been so resolute in their defence of marriage, as they were in their criticism of lay people who show them up by taking a lead on the matter:

    This from the Archbishop of Dublin:

    I do however feel obliged to say that I have received in recent time correspondence from people who support a “no” vote in the referendum in which the language used is not just intemperate but obnoxious, insulting and, unchristian in regard to gay and lesbian people. If people use such language to support a position they feel is Christian, then all I can say is that they have forgotten something essential about the Christian message.

    Ignoring the fact that “gay” and “lesbian” are meaningless terms designed to gloss over perversion, he does more to support homosexual activists here, than he does to support marriage.

    If he really felt people had used unacceptable language, he could have taken that up privately with the individuals involved, rather than cast the pro-marriage campaign in a poor light and give ammunition to its opponents.

    March 23, 2015 at 12:57 pm
    • Molly Malone

      Gabriel Syme,

      Your post is fantastic, and you have completely pulled the rug with your final comment. For the Archbishop of Dublin to choose to cast the pro-marriage campaign in a bad light because of letters he got from individuals, proves he is a charlatan.

      March 23, 2015 at 1:41 pm
      • Tom

        The Archbishop is making a valid point. “Intemperate but obnoxious, insulting and, unchristian ” and hinders a good cause, and does not assist it.

        Overall, The Letter under discussion is a model of how a truly humble Church addresses a nation distrustful of some clergy. Further, sadly, as Church attendance is not what it was, The Bishops need to enlist the support of moderate people not often in the pews, if ever.

        In other words the letter hears the cry of the wounded, and enlists the support of a moderate constituency which it needs to engage if the vote is to be won.

        March 23, 2015 at 5:03 pm
      • editor


        You are contradicting yourself. If the Bishops’ rationale for treading softly, softly over homosexual marriage is to not alienate people, and keep them in the pews, then why call the few who write to him (and we know it’s always a few, and always the practising Catholics) nasty names?

        Doesn’t make sense.

        March 23, 2015 at 6:37 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Gabriel Syme,

      i notice he doesn’t give any examples of “intemperate, obnoxious, insulting and unchristian language” – we’re just expected to take his word for it !

      I refuse to believe that the kind of people who would write to the Archbishop to express concerns about same sex marriage, would write in any ways but with respect.

      I suspect that some may have called homosexual activity by its proper name as Pope John Paul II said we have to do when he wrote about abortion “Now more than ever we must call things by their proper name” and I have no doubt he’d say the same now about same sex marriage. I can imagine the Archbishop of Dublin finding that unacceptable (e.g. if anyone referred to sodomy) but that’s because he has sold his soul to the world and is actually de facto supporting this new legislation. If he could write so strongly and without providing evidence about the Catholics who wrote to him from the NO side of the debate, then he would do the same about the YES side if he disagreed with them. I think he’s so far gone that he really either supports it or just doesn’t care, doesn’t think it’s any big deal. Whatever it is, he’s a disgrace.

      March 23, 2015 at 7:13 pm
  • Therese


    I agree with Molly. Excellent post.

    March 23, 2015 at 5:21 pm
  • Leo

    “We are witnessing a great movement of apostasy being organised in every country for the establishment of a one-world Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy; neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions.” Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

    “Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most certainly avenge those insults”. – Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas

    I suspect there may be one or two readers who aren’t exactly overcome with sympathy or constant concern over the state of the Church and Society in Ireland. Fair enough. To be honest, I’d be struggling a bit to make any case for those outside the Irish gene pool breaking out the Kleenex.

    The point that should be of interest to every Catholic, everywhere is that Ireland offers about as damning an exhibition as it is possible to get of the utter devastation caused by novus ordoism, and the conciliar abandonment of the fight for the Social Kingship of Christ. At this stage, the Church in Ireland is virtually bled out. The subject of this thread offers scandalous evidence.

    “They will be fooled by evil spirits and by teachings that come from demons.” – 1 Timothy 4:1

    This latest toe-curlingly embarrassing addition to the litany of national scandals comes at little surprise, with the abandonment of the unborn still fresh in the memory. Truth be told, the bishops left in the helicopters from the roof top a long time ago. I’m not quite sure if the word shameful or shameless applies to the Irish Episcopal Conference. This statement just reeks of craven, pansified, milksop modernist, pre-emptive capitulation before hissing, screeching Big Sodomy. God help us. What an affront to the glorious memory of the martyr Bishops, Oliver Plunkett and Dermot O’Hurley.

    The gravely scandalous omissions hardly need to be spelt out for anybody with any sort of familiarity with the natural, let alone Divine law. It is beyond all debate that, like everywhere else, the Irish bishops have enthusiastically implemented and enforced the conciliar, novus ordo “counter-syllabus” and “cult of Man”, razed the bastions, and endorsed the “attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789” as Cardinal Ratzinger notoriously put it in Principles of Catholic Theology (pp. 381-382).

    Conscious, deliberate, stubborn failure to uphold the Social Kingship of Christ over the last five decades, from the highest echelons of the Church down, have brought us to the current pathetic, whimpering pleas for “mutual respect”. What opposition there is to the perversion agenda appears to centre on calls for “freedom of conscience”. Retreat behind appeals to the mercy of the kingdom of satan’s forces became only a matter of time once the shepherds universally and obstinately refused to uphold the Church’s constant teaching that “there is no power but from God” (Romans 13:1). As Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed” (Inimica Vis).

    “We must all the more loudly proclaim His Kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm His rights”. – Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas

    How difficult would it be for any faithful Bishop, in Ireland or elsewhere, to respond to the hissing threats of lucifer’s secular agents with the following words from the same encyclical:

    “When once men recognize both in private and public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessing of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”

    Then the restoration will have begun.

    Comments on this subject would hardly be complete without mention of the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. The fact that His Grace manages to regularly give offence to pious ears, as shown on this blog previously, doesn’t ever lessen the scandal.

    I know virtually nothing of the Archbishop or his views, that isn’t in the public domain. Judgement of souls, mind, and motives belongs of course to God alone, and the sacred office of a Bishop commands due respect. That said, the scandal isn’t in doubt. It is pretty obvious from the public evidence that his Grace is fully on message with Pope Francis’ revolution.

    Here’s a link containing a report of an address he gave a few days ago. Get ready to be scandalised.

    “‘There can be an ethic of equality which is an ethic of recognising and respecting difference,’ he said.

    “Dr Martin suggested that a pluralist society can be creative in finding ways in which people of same-sex orientation have their rights and their loving and caring relationships recognised and cherished in a culture of difference.

    “‘I am not saying that gay and lesbian people, are unloving or that their love is somehow deficient compared to others, I am talking about a uniqueness in the male-female relationship,’ he said.”

    The Archbishop was, surprise, surprise, Ireland’s representative at part one of the infamous Synod of Sodom last October. He subsequently admitted to voting yes to everything contained in the diabolical interim relatio, the document that Bishop Athanasius Schneider referred to as “representing the neo pagan philosophy”. Remember, one of the paragraphs that Archbishop Martin granted his approval to spoke of “accepting and valuing their (homosexuals) sexual orientation”.

    Archbishop Martin, is nothing if not consistent. He gave grave scandal in February of last year in an interview with the Irish state broadcaster, RTE, when he stated that:

    “I believe that there are ways in which, civil registrations for example, in which gay and lesbian people can have their rights respected and legally protected.”

    “There can be ways in which gay people can celebrate their togetherness, their love for one another, but it isn’t marriage,” he added. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that a civil partnership is somewhat of less value than marriage.”

    Neither in that interview nor in one with the Irish Independent on the following day, did Archbishop Martin make mention of the Church’s teaching on sodomy. Instead he said, “Anybody who doesn’t show love towards gay and lesbian people is insulting God. They are not just homophobic if they do that — they are actually Godophobic because God loves every one of those people.”

    In the RTÉ interview, Archbishop Martin was willing to entertain the idea of ‘homophobia’ in the Catholic Church. “People in the Catholic Church may be homophobic,” he said. “Certainly the teaching of the Catholic Church could be used in a homophobic way.”

    Archbishop Martin, and all other Irish bishops would be well advised to dwell on the words of Pope Saint Pius X In his 1906 Encyclical Pieni l’animo, in which he voice to his reverential fear about the grave responsibility before God that the pastoral duties of his office demanded:

    “With our soul full of fear for the strict account we shall have to give one day to the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, with regard to the flock entrusted to us by Him, we pass our days in continued anxiety to preserve the faithful, as far as possible, from the most pernicious evils by which human society is at present afflicted.”

    March 23, 2015 at 9:40 pm
    • Tom

      Most of the issues that have caused problems in Ireland are historical and date pack to pre-1960. That is, historical cases of child abuse (mental, physical, and sexual), excessive clericalism, but some are modern: materialism and excessive wealth.

      March 24, 2015 at 5:43 am
      • editor


        Materialism and excessive wealth are issues in society and of course Catholics were as bad as everyone else in seeking these and making gods of them. However, the issues in the Church causing concern are the same issues we have over here, resulting from the various “reforms” foisted upon Christ’s Spotless Bride, the Church, which the great St Frances de Sales said was in no need of reform. Only you and I, the members are in need of reform through confession of our sins and a determination not to sin again.

        As for the child abuse – that’s not to be used to excuse the Bishops’ weakness and compliance in the passing into law of evil legislation. The sins of those priests and laity who abused children are a separate matter and not the topic of this thread. So please do not take us off at a tangent about that. I have quoted many times on this blog, Archbishop Martin’s admission on BBC Newsnight that the level of abuse we have witnessed in recent years, began in the 60’s, but – as I say – that is not the topic of this thread and we don’t want to be side-tracked. Thank you. Indeed, the cover up etc of such behaviour is but MORE evidence that the Bishops have lost the Catholic Faith – if ever they truly held to it, which I, personally, doubt.

        March 24, 2015 at 10:14 am
    • Summa


      One question.

      Where do you get the time?


      March 24, 2015 at 10:51 am
      • editor


        I’m so glad you wrote that because it gives me the opportunity to nail the lie that it is only those with plenty of time on their hands who defend the Faith on this (or any other) blog. I appreciate that there are two ways to interpret your question and when you read my next paragraph, the second (WOW! where do you get the time?) will undoubtedly be the sense, you will say (I hope!) in which you ask the question, but most people who speak to me about blogging, insist they just don’t have the time and ask what are all these people doing that they can spend “so much time” on the blog? I smile. These visitors to our blog (that’s how they know about the contributors!) usually spend the rest of their time with me filling me in with the latest shenanigans on Eastenders or Coronation Street.

        Leo won’t tell you all that he has on his plate right now and I don’t have his permission to do so in any detail, but suffice to say that, as well as holding down a full time job, studying for various qualifications and caring for a sick relative, Leo is very active in the pro-life movement and I can say (without fear of contraception!) that if there is any group actively educating the population of Ireland about the danger of redefining marriage to allow same sex unions right now, then Leo will be out there leafleting/explaining with them. He fairly regularly emails me to apologise for not blogging enough but I always send him away with a ticking off. The impossible I expect most of the time but I’m not totally unreasonable 😀

        Perhaps a much better question would be, what are all the so called concerned Catholics who never pen a sentence here, doing with their time ? I mean, it doesn’t take long to write a few comments. It’s possible to spend a morning grocery shopping, choosing and processing an order for a new carpet, to keep three appointments, fill up the car with petrol and take it through the car wash, while still contributing to a blog. Which reminds me, I’m just back from grocery shopping, choosing and processing an order for a new carpet, keeping three appointments, filling up the car with petrol and taking it through the car wash – so now it’s time to eat! 😀

        March 24, 2015 at 12:51 pm
      • Summa

        Dear Editor. My post, a model of brevity, was not a model of clarity. Apologies. To be quite clear, I take my bunnet off to Leo and all of you who run this apostolate with your joint effort. Well done.

        March 25, 2015 at 1:11 am
  • TLM

    It’s not just the Bishops in Ireland or in the UK that have lost their faith. We in the Western world are in the same exact position. Scary is the glaring conclusion that Bishops world wide are in a state of which I refer to as…………..DIABOLICAL INSANITY.

    March 23, 2015 at 11:09 pm
  • Tom


    Some replies to you, and others. have gone offline. I am not sure why.

    Editor: Why? Because you are Common Sense and Peter The Rock back under a new guise. You are clearly unaware of the fact that your posts are easily identifiable – especially that last one where you remarked that I had corrected you – i.e. Peter The Rock! We’re done going round in circles with you. You are now going into the blacklist box so do not waste time replying to this – I won’t see it. Bye.

    March 24, 2015 at 2:29 pm
  • shane

    We have been here before. The distinguished Maynooth theologian Mgr Francis Cremin wrote a stunning critique in a national newspaper of the Irish bishops’ pathetic statements on the legalisation of contraception back in the 1970s. I reposted it here:

    Most of what he wrote applies equally to the above statement.

    March 24, 2015 at 6:12 pm
  • Leo

    The Invasion of the Modernists has been marked by truly universal devastation. The faith of previous generations, culture, social, political, or economic climate have made no difference. The mustard gas has blown everywhere.

    I’ve pointed out Ireland’s almost unparalleled position as an example of novus ordo destruction. Deniers might care to consider that a middle aged lifetime ago, throughout most of the island, anyone getting on public transport, or entering any shop, office, sports ground, or even public house was virtually guaranteed to be surrounded by people who had been to Mass the previous Sunday (and most likely since), went to Confession regularly, and were familiar with age old Catholic devotions, as well as having a firm grounding in the Faith. That might not seem a very scientific observation, but there is all the anecdotal evidence anyone could require. In very, very few parts of the world was the Faith such an unmistakable part of the weft and weave of society and daily life.

    Don’t get me wrong. Original sin has always had the same effect here as anywhere else. But please can we have no more novus ordo excuses about materialism, secularism, the media, etc. And anyway, what are they but representations of the devil, the flesh and the world with which faithful, well instructed Catholics were ever engaged in spiritual combat. The media and international finance weren’t conducting sacrilegious liturgies, destroying religious and priestly formation, and spreading puke modernist theology in every direction. At least not directly.

    We’ve had cult of Man, cult of Man, never ending, God forsaken cult of Man, for five decades. Conciliar deniers can’t then decide that they are not going to accept the bill. Sorry, wriggling is not permitted on this one.

    What is really startling is the speed at which the fire spread. Remember the Oath Against Modernism was binned in 1968. And no one in Ireland can say there were no warnings.

    I’ve posted the following word for word several times before, but it surely bears repetition. If I’m not very much mistaken, Shane, who has posted above, is due all the credit for providing us with this evidence of modernist destruction in Ireland. Thanks Shane.

    The attached article from the extremely informative Lux Occulta website contains the views Monsignor Patrick Francis Cremin, Professor of Moral Theology and Canon Law at St. Patricks Seminary Maynooth, given in 1978.

    I doubt it would be possible to find a more reliable witness. No doubt the calamity warned of by Monsignor Cremin mirrored the Modernists’ plan of attack everywhere else.

    Every word of the article is worth reading. Here’s a sample:

    “The faithful, who are disposed to think right are bewildered because of the absence of confirmation of their religious views”.

    “There has been what rather incredibly appears to be a permitted policy of drift and of anarchy or absence of rule”.

    “Seminarians are not receiving the full essential formation for which they came to Maynooth College, even though they are not only willing but anxious to receive it.”

    “Is it perhaps, that the Bishops who did perceive the early ailments and the progressive sickness of our seminary, and those who had the will and the courage to remedy them, were just not able to prevail against those, maybe only one or two, who gave a bad lead and were supported by others?”

    That last sentence really sums everything up. What more confirmation does anyone require of diabolical disorientation?

    Everyone should read the linked article at the end of called, “Anonymous Seminarians Criticise Maynooth”, which shows the heretical fruits of Modernist infiltration. I’m sure it reflects the virtually universal situation.

    The late Hamish Fraser had actually shone the torch on the Modernists in a detailed article in Approaches magazine six years before that.

    My eye was caught by the following:

    “Clerics who knowingly teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine that has been condemned by the Holy See or a General Council, even though not as heretical, are to be suspended from preaching, hearing of confession, and any office of teaching.”- Canon 2317, 1917 Code.

    I wonder how implementation has gone there?

    Here’s a few words from Hamish Fraser himself, in 1973 remember:

    “The Bishops’ failure to deal with unorthodoxy in the Pontifical University of Maynooth is nothing short of a national scandal. The situation became so serious that a year or so ago a group of senior professors found themselves bound in conscience to draw up a document protesting to the Hierarchy about the state of affairs within the University. Copies were sent every Bishop in the country.” (pp 31-32)

    Every Catholic family in the country has been paying the price ever since for the dereliction of episcopal duty.

    March 25, 2015 at 1:05 am
    • shane

      Thanks Leo, glad you’ve found it a useful resource. We’re paying a bitter price for our bishops not listening to Hamish Fraser and Mgr Cremin.

      March 25, 2015 at 1:14 am
  • Leo

    In these days of diabolically possessed revolt against the Kingship of Christ throughout what used to be termed the “Civilised World”, and the accompanying persecution conducted by the secularist, sexualist commissars, the minions of lucifer, the following really excellent article from the late Anthony Fraser, should make salutary reading for anyone still in an apathetic stupor.

    The link is courtesy of another robust defender of the Faith, The Eye-witness blog.

    There is plenty I could pick out for quoting, but hopefully the following will encourage people to devote a few very well spent minutes to reading this really excellent article.

    “The Henry the Eighths of this world and the LGBT lobby are not content to indulge in sinful behaviour. They want us to admit that it is not a sin: that their behaviour is natural. They don’t want anyone to disturb their improperly formed consciences even through silent dissent. They want to abuse our consciences. They want us to lie to satisfy their erroneous consciences. But as Solzhenitsyn warned us in From Under the Rubble(3): ‘ DO NOT LIE! DO NOT TAKE PART IN THE LIE! DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIE! … and then he explains ‘What does it mean, not to lie? It doesn’t mean going around preaching the truth at the top of your voice (perish the thought!). It doesn’t even mean muttering what you think in an undertone. It simply means: not saying what you don’t think, and that includes not whispering, not opening your mouth, not raising your hand, not casting your vote, not feigning a smile, not lending your presence, not standing up and not cheering.’ (4)

    As the above DOJ document indicates, ‘not saying what you don’t think’ is not an option: it is tantamount to silence – a silence which the high priests of secular humanism will not tolerate no less than would Stalin, Henry VIII, or Herodius.”

    March 25, 2015 at 1:08 am
  • Summa

    Leo, as I said above to your Paymaster 😉 I seriously consider your work and that of others on this blog to be indispensable. I look at my own schedule and I struggle to do my station in life! Well done.

    March 25, 2015 at 1:13 am
    • Leo

      Thank you very much, Summa.

      All of us here owe a huge debt of gratitude to those gone before us who guarded the pearl of great price in the catacombs. That was the real “indispensable” bit. The scary thought for me, though, is what future generations will be saying about these very days that we are living through. What answer are we going to give when asked to account for what was handed to us? More than a bit scarey, that.

      March 25, 2015 at 2:39 pm
  • Leo

    “Bitter price” indeed, Shane.

    That price is being paid to the “third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5).The warnings of Hamish Fraser and Monsignor Cremin have obviously been treated with contempt up to recent times.

    One needs only think of the blasphemous scandal of one senior so-called “theologian” in Maynooth whose “explanation” of the Last Supper was that since Our Lord was to be crucified the next day, he decided to hold a sort of goodbye party for his friends. Truly, utterly, mind bogglingly diabolical. What’s more that notorious individual was reportedly close to being made a bishop on two occasions, almost by acclamation of the clergy of a particular diocese. Corrections very welcome, but I heard the first part, with my very own ears, coming from another senior member of faculty at Maynooth.

    It is widely known in Ireland, that about five years ago, five seminarians were “constructively dismissed” from Maynooth for wanting to kneel during Mass. There have been plenty more enforced departures.

    Certain professors actually denied the dogma of Transubstantiation. Seminarians have been taught that the Mass is a mere “memorial” of an historical event, and a simple “gathering” of the “community” (we’ve discussed the theology of Bugnini’s fabrication at length on this blog). Those who objected have either been sidelined or shown the door.

    Devotions such as the Rosary were frowned upon. I have spoken to two former seminarians, now in their mid-thirties, who left for fear of losing their faith. One told me of how, along with another seminarian, he used to have to “sneak” into the chapel in order to ring the bells for the Angelus.

    The other told me of a retreat, given by a foreign visiting priest. At lunch one day in the refectory, this priest actually said the prayers of consecration over the salad that was served.

    Diabolical is the only word.

    March 25, 2015 at 2:10 pm
  • Leo

    “Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot: they have changed my delightful portion into a desolate wilderness.” – Jeremias 12:10

    Asked by a Catholic if it were permissible to speak evil of heretics, Saint Francis de Sales replied:
    “Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard.”

    “If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigour, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we must meet him.”

    The national shame is virtually unimaginable. Compare this bit of poisonous pansy puke novus ordoism from the heretical ACP with the letter signed by the 500 hundred priests in England and Wales.

    “They concluded: ‘We look forward to a debate that will be characterised by freedom of speech and respectful listening so that the best result for the Irish people might be reached’ and said that their priests had a particular responsibility to ‘not to direct their parishioners to vote Yes or No.’”

    These utterly scandalous, hazardous, priests, as well Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, and all Irish bishops would benefit from reading the words of Saint Augustine, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Peter Damian, and Saint Catherine of Siena on this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. I know. The usual modernist falsehoods about “development of doctrine” and “charity” are predictably and unashamedly wheeled out in the defence of perversion.

    Well, those words of the Saints and Doctors might not qualify for the novus ordo pastoral stamp of approval, but would surely help drag at least one soul out of the abyss of mortal sin. What value can be put on that? How hard exactly is it for pastors to tell souls that if they persist in mortal sin, and the sin of sodomy is most definitely a mortal sin, then they will go to Hell for all eternity. How exactly is it “charitable” to withhold that pastoral warning?

    “No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God….. Such passion for undue forms borders on madness. This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones, makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything. Furthermore, the will, being agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason, but furour…. Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than anyone else, because this is the worst sin that there is.” (St. Bernardine of Siena, Predica XXXIX, in Le prediche volgari (Milan: Rizzoli, 1936), pp. 869ff., 915, in F. Bernadei, op. cit., pp. 11f)

    March 25, 2015 at 9:48 pm
  • Leo

    It’s no harm to follow up previous posts concerning the Modernist destruction in Maynooth seminary and its logical consequence in the heretical ACP’s brazen cavorting with the enemies of Christ, with what might be seen as the third part in some conciliar diabolical disorientation horror trilogy.

    If anyone is in any doubt about the dangers and effects of novus ordo carbon monoxide poisoning, please read the following bibliography issued to parish pastoral councils under the banner of Pastoral Renewal and Family Ministry. I can think of plenty of words, but renewal is not one that springs to mind here. Naïve hopes that it might have disappeared since previous posts were lamentably unfounded. Some day…

    The following, which I have posted several times previously, was taken from a link on the website of the diocese of Armagh but is, or certainly was, referenced in a Manual for parish councils everywhere in Ireland, obtainable in Veritas Books which is owned, I believe, by the Irish Bishops.

    Here is a reminder once more of some of the material deemed fit to “renew” the Church in Ireland. Quite a collection. God in Heaven, help us. “Stones instead of bread” doesn’t begin to describe this.

    Byrne, Lavinia. Women at the Altar. The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church. Liturgical Press, 1994. Explores the problem caused when God calls women to priesthood, while the Catholic Church formally teaches that only men can be ordained.

    Chittister, Joan. Women, Ministry and Church. Paulist Press 1983. A series of reflective essays on the roles and problems of modern women in the ministries of the Church.

    *Groome, Thomas H. Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry: the Way of Shared Praxis. Harper SanFrancisco, 1991

    *McBrien, Richard P. Ministry: A Theological, Pastoral Handbook. Harper and Row, 1987. For those in ministry, those contemplating it and for those who recruit people for ministry. Practical guidelines.

    Schillebeeckx, Edward. The Church with a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry. Crossroad, 1985.

    Kung, Hans.The Church. Sheed & Ward, 1967

    McBrien, Richard P. Catholicism – study edition. Winston Press, 1981

    Rahner, Karl. Theological Dictionary. Seabury, 1965 Sheed & Ward, 1967

    Boff, Leonardo. Ecclesiogenesis. Orbis Books, 1997

    Like I say, quite a collection. And they’re only some of the names I recognised. Truly, it’s a wonder there is any faith in Ireland.

    I don’t expect many Irish Catholics suffering from the apostasy inducing effects of modernist indoctrination have ever read, or even heard of, Pope Saint Pius X’s prophetic 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Just read the opening paragraphs to see how a true saint guards the flock entrusted to him:

    “…the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ…”

    March 28, 2015 at 3:20 pm
  • Michaela


    It’s not just Irish Catholics who will never have even heard of Pascendi, let alone read it, I’ve never met a Catholic who had heard of it and never met a priest who has read it! Think about that!

    Their ignorance won’t be any defence, though, because ignorance is no defence in the ordinary secular law so it won’t be a defence to be ignorant of God’s law either.

    March 28, 2015 at 4:31 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: