Priest’s Open Letter To UK Bishops…

Father David Marsden SCJ has kindly granted permission for us to publish his powerful Open Letter to the Bishops of the UK on the subject of seminary formation…
Father was forced to resign from St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth  and, two years on, he has now been fired from St. Mary’s College, Oscott (Birmingham, England).  Read on to find out why…

Dear Bishops,

Like countless faithful Catholics around the world, I am sure many of you have been shocked and sickened by the recent scandals committed by the former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Further suffering is being inflicted by the silence of other cardinals and bishops who knew about his behavior and said nothing — and indeed continue to say nothing. In light of the explosive report by Archbishop Viganò, it becomes even more apparent that the homosexual cabal operating in the Catholic Church exists at the very highest level and even incriminates Pope Francis himself.

I hope and pray that the action of the Holy Spirit is now beginning to purify the hierarchy by exposing the evil committed by homosexual clergy around the world. I feel it is my duty to now inform you and faithful Catholics that the homosexual collective within the hierarchy which enabled McCarrick to function in an unobstructed manner is still alive and well today in the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Towards the end of May 2018, I was dismissed from my post as formation tutor at St. Mary’s College, Oscott by the rector, Canon David Oakley. The reason for this was that I recommended that an openly gay seminarian discontinue the program of formation. Clearly, as an openly gay man, there was no hope of him being ordained. David Oakely informed me that his bishop was “adamant” that his student was staying in formation and that this was not how he and a number of bishops interpreted the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

In light of the McCarrick scandal and the Viganò report, it has become very clear that cardinals, bishops and senior clergy from around the world are still openly dissenting against the Church’s teaching that prohibits the entrance into seminary formation of men with a homosexual orientation. This is the root cause of the most pressing scandal of our times. In fact, it is destroying the priesthood from within.

Apparently, the policy in Oscott appears to be if a candidate is not “acting out” his homosexual tendencies at the moment or behaving in an inappropriately “camp” way, then he is free to follow the formation program and move towards holy orders. The rector will not dismiss a candidate from the seminary who admits to being “gay” out of fear that his bishop will not agree with his decision. The problem, therefore, quietly continues.

This approach is clearly ignoring the Church’s teaching on this vital issue, yet for some strange reason, bishops are still not being made accountable for disregarding this important instruction. Whilst the teaching is clear, the practice in so many dioceses is deeply compromised. Can I make a huge plea that something be done about this widespread abuse?

I can also state that two of the spiritual directors in the seminary are very compromised on the issue of homosexuality — one individual admitting to me his own gender identity is very confused and the other openly stated that homosexual priests are a good idea as they are better able to minister effectively to homosexual Catholics! Neither would adhere to Church’s teaching and acknowledge that a key part of their role as spiritual contained the “duty to dissuade (a homosexual person) in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.”

I am writing to you all with a petition to act and take the necessary steps to reform the three remaining seminaries in England. The orthodox and heterosexual seminarians deserve a seminary free from a gay subculture and free from academic and formation staff who are homosexual themselves.

For the sake of brevity, I will summarise my findings from the year I spent working in the seminary:

1. The problem begins at St. Luke’s Institute in Manchester where a number of seminarians are asked to undergo a psychological assessment as part of the selection policy. The director of the institute, Fr. Gerard Fieldhouse-Byrne, has some very strange views on homosexuality himself and seems happy to admit homosexual men into the formation program. This is a problem that the bishop of Salford needs to address.

2. Canon David Oakley is prepared to admit homosexual men into his seminary and will not dismiss them unless their public conduct becomes unsavory. He is a compromised and cowardly man who is not prepared to make a stand and disagree with the bishops on the issue of homosexuality.

3. A number of bishops from England and Wales are happy to admit seminarians who are openly gay into the formation program and proceed towards ordination. The bishop of Menevia is one such example.

4. One of the spiritual directors at Oscott Seminary has admitted to being sexually attracted to young men. It is highly inappropriate that such an individual hold such a post. The rector is aware of this fact but seems unable to confront this individual. He even noted that the friends who accompany this individual for holidays each year are also homosexual. Another of the spiritual directors in the seminary thinks that homosexual priests are a great idea as they can minister to the gay Catholic community.

5. The archbishop of Birmingham and the archbishop of Westminster have both been informed of these issues and seem to prefer to ignore them. Why do we continue to have such passive and feeble-hearted clerics in such high places of leadership in the Church? Why are they afraid to speak out on topics such as homosexuality in the clergy and the toxic gender ideology sweeping through our schools?

These are not only facts but shocking allegations against the present life of the seminary in Birmingham. Action needs to be taken to address the homosexual culture in the Church’s hierarchy. Scandals like those of Theodore McCarrick and Cardinal Keith O’Brien are just waiting to happen. The normal, heterosexual students in Oscott demand that the homosexual clique in the seminary be dismissed and that the homosexual or bisexual staff members be dismissed also.

I was fired from the college for striving to uphold the Church’s teaching on homosexuality which is a grave injustice to me personally. It is extraordinary to think that I was asked by the rector to make a public oath of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church at the beginning of the academic year. It is my fidelity to that oath that has cost me my job and deprived the seminarians of the only qualified formator in the seminary.

In the summer of 2016, I was forced to resign from St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth because they were ordaining openly homosexual men to the priesthood, and two years later I have been fired from St. Mary’s College, Oscott for stating that homosexual men are not to be admitted to seminary formation and priesthood.

We are surely living through dark times for the Catholic Church. Are there any good bishops left who are brave enough to begin the wholesale reform of the priesthood that is so badly needed?

With every blessing in Christ,

Father David Marsden, S.C.J.
Former Formation Tutor

Comment:

Catholic Truth warmly commends Father Marsden for his excellent letter to the Bishops.  We pray that some, at least, actively respond to it.

What do you think… will any Bishops (even one) – pay heed?  

Preaching “Hate Speech”…

Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions…Answered,

Preaching “Hate Speech” is the first of our Catholic Conversation videos which will be posted from time to time, with commentary on a variety of topics, presented in interview format.  In the above video, Patricia McKeever, Editor is interviewed.     

Evil in Vatican: “Disorientation, Chaos & Scandal Marks Francis’ Pontificate”

Pope Francis

VATICAN, May 2, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — A Vatican conference has wrapped up featuring controversial pop-star Katy Perry speaking on transcendental meditation, disgraced Lettergate monsignor Dario Viganò delivering a talk on “Fake News,” and a “meditating eye” charm bangle given as a gift to select participants…

On day three of the Vatican conference, Perry joined a discussion on “Impacting Children’s Health Through Meditation Globally” with her mentor, Bob Roth, CEO of the David Lynch Foundation. Roth is also the mentor to Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Oz on Transcendental Meditation…

“For Katy Perry to speak about Transcendental Meditation from the same seat used by the Pope during major Church meetings is symbolic of the chaos, disorientation and scandal that marks this pontificate,” a source close to the Vatican told LifeSiteNews. “It would be one thing to have her presence moderated by a Church leader, but to have the podium given over to celebrity TM proponents with no Church voice to counter them is unconscionable.”

The source added: “It’s tragically emblematic of today’s culture: when the Church chooses to be absent, the world steps in to fill the vacuum.” [emphasis added]

 Read rest of the article here – and don’t miss the paragraphs headed “I Kissed a Girl”, Fighting the Nuns, Katy, Cannibalism and the Occult and Funding Planned Parenthood…

Comment:

Laughably, Lifesitenews adds:  An official in the Pontifical Council for Culture told LifeSitenews the plan was for the guests promoting transcendental meditation to be able to air their ideas which would then be “robustly challenged” — an exercise, he said, that would educate Catholic participants attending the Conference about the nature of some of the current challenges to the Faith in healthcare settings.” 

Like, er, who would know how to begin to challenge these New Age ideas when Catholics have been encouraged to involve themselves in them for years now. Adverts for Yoga classes are not uncommon on parish notice boards, and Catholic schools don’t teach the most basic doctrine, let alone the niceties of occultism. No surprise then, that the report continues… Drum roll….

Despite these aims, the ideas were not robustly challenged during or after the panel discussion.   

Now, there’s a surprise – not! 

Update:

See video and thread on Catholic Devotions…

Confronting The “Gay” Priest Problem…

From The Catholic Thing

Recently, a priest who was prominent in the pastoral care of those with sex addictions received his fifteen minutes of fame when he revealed to his congregation at a Sunday Mass and to the National Catholic Reporter that he was “gay.” According to news reports, his self-congratulation was met with thunderous applause. In a television interview, he proclaimed there is “nothing wrong with being gay.”

The game plan of a gay priest “coming out” was quite predictable and is politically effective. In revealing his homosexuality, the Midwestern priest was careful to assemble a string of ambiguous assertions that cannot be immediately assailed on grounds of orthodoxy, but when bundled together are morally subversive. Here is the template:
Claim that sexual transparency is a matter of personal integrity.

Remind the public that you are a Catholic priest in good standing.
Proudly proclaim that you are “gay.”

Cultivate the adulation of your congregation by claiming victim status and the freedom that comes from such an honest revelation.

As a pre-emptive strike against disciplinary actions by ecclesiastical authorities claim that your self-revelation is truly courageous.

Feign humility and presume you have become a necessary role model for others.
Remind us that you and all gays (and members of the alphabet soup of sexual perversion) are created in the image of God (implying our sinful neglect).

Commit to celibacy (i.e., not to marry), but carefully avoid the term “Christian chastity.”
Each of these assertions, standing alone, would likely withstand ecclesiastical censure. But when woven together, the gay agenda promoting the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the Church comes into a clear focus.

The priest’s bishop also responded according to a predictable contemporary ecclesiastical template: “We support [the priest] in his own personal journey and telling his story of coming to understand and live with his sexual orientation. As the Church teaches, those with same-sex attraction must be treated with understanding and compassion.”

The bishop probably succeeded in preventing a media firestorm. He also effectively allowed the priest to rise in stature as a gay freedom fighter. The studied moral ambiguity of the clerical gay activist proved to be an effective political buzz saw. The full and beautiful teachings of Christ on human sexuality, however, were further undermined.

Faithful and orthodox Catholics are at a political disadvantage in our gay-friendly culture. We realize that same-sex inclinations – as with all seriously sinful inclinations – cause great suffering and, unrestrained, can become a true slavery that endangers others including adolescents and even young children. But our opposition to the gay agenda is often crudely characterized as hateful and unreasonable. So a brief sketch of natural law in Catholic sexual morality may be helpful. Click here to read the rest of this article by Rev Jerry J. Pokorsky

Comment:

The standards for entry to seminaries would at one time have automatically excluded candidates such as the above priest, and ought still to do so today.  The strict criteria for acceptance of candidates in Catholic seminaries must be restored as a matter of the utmost urgency – yesterday is almost too late… Yes?  No?

Francis: The “Gay”- Friendly Pope…

Does [Pope Francis] Lead us to Gay Church?
BY Jean-Pierre Dickès, 8/14/17
[http://medias-catholique.info/bergoglio-nous-mene-t-il-a-leglise-gay/9160]
[Excellent Google Translation]

The case began with the famous “Who am I to judge? ” about homosexuality. The curious reflection of a pope whose role is precisely to transmit the spiritual and moral heritage of the Church. Teaching itself dating back to the sixth commandment given by God to Moses. The justification of this practical relativism was the famous word “mercy” aimed at validating “concrete situations” in order to “accompany and integrate”. Things could have stopped there. Now we find ourselves faced with a new form of ethics which was to materialize by an avalanche of precise facts which ultimately lead to a new Church which can be called homosexual; It is a veritable apocalyptic avalanche aimed at transforming the Church and subjecting it to gender, the necessary passage of transhumanism, this ideology wanting to create a new man. It is a frontal and programmed attack against the natural order willed by God in his creation.

* We have already forgotten the famous text known as Relatio of mid-term at the synod on the family in 2014. It had been massively rejected in a resounding way. “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we able to welcome these people, by guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities? … Can our communities be able to provide this, accept and value their sexual orientation without compromising the Catholic doctrine on family and marriage? “It is therefore a question of “valuing sexual orientation” in this case sodomy. It was indeed [Pope Francis] who wanted to insert this abominable text in the final document of the synod.

* At the beginning of his pontificate, [Pope Francis] named a notorious homosexual, Mgr. Battista Ricca, as prelate of his own papal house and at the head of the Vatican bank.

* The famous “Who am I to judge” referred to an active homosexual for whom it is undoubtedly demonstrated that he was involved in many sodomite relationships, including a young man with whom he was caught in a blocked elevator.

* In an interview with America magazine in September 2013, Pope [Francis] laughed at the very idea of ​​disapproving homosexual conduct: “One person once asked me provocatively if I had approved of homosexuality. I answered with another question, “Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he support the existence of that person with love or refuse and condemn this person? ”

* [Pope Francis] has since made a great show by meeting personally and physically embracing an assortment of homosexuals and transgenders, even accepting the “marriage” of a woman claiming to be a man who “married” another woman.

* The Pope ostensibly embraced the hand and concelebrated the Mass with a Don Michele de Paolis, a notorious pro-homosexual militant priest and animator of a gay site. This is a public sacrilege. Then [Pope Francis] invited him to dinner. At the moment of the priest’s departure he had an ambiguous sentence: “Everything is possible!”  A warning quickly forgotten by all. And yet …

* [Pope Francis] refused to rule against the legalization of “homosexual unions,” “gay marriages,” or even “gay adoption” in Italy, Ireland, the United States and Malta. His excuse was that “the Pope does not place himself in the concrete policy of a country.”  But he is the first to defend immigration and to invest in the issue of “climate change.”  Eminently political issues.

* One of the rare and frank episcopal opponents of the emerging “Gay Church” is Charles Chaput, appointed Archbishop by Pope Benedict XVI. During the synod of which he was a member, he had presented guidelines prohibiting the giving of Holy Communion to same-sex couples or remarried divorcees. In the hierarchical order, being archbishop of Philadelphia, he should have been named cardinal. From consistory to consistory, [Pope Francis] challenged him. Bishop Chaput was strongly criticized by Father Thomas Rosica, attaché of the Vatican Press Office during the Synod. This priest is nicknamed the “attack dog” of the LGBT.

* The Jesuit James Martin, is a fervent defender of the gay priesthood and a fortiori unions of this nature. Normally he should have been “crossed” by the Pope. On the contrary, [Pope Francis] appointed him consultant of the Secretariat of Social Communications of the Vatican. He is the author of a book entitled “Building a Bridge”. This bridge must connect the Church to the LGBT. The teaching of the catechism is rejected; Sodomy can not be a sin. It is God who created homosexuals, so their morals can not be condemned.

* Cardinal Walter Kasper, is an arch-progressive German prelate. He headed the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. He is the favorite theologian of [Pope Francis]. He defended the legalization of homo marriage in Ireland. For him, if the majority of the people agree with laws of this nature, it is legitimate to “recognize their rights”. In other words, it is the people who define what is true and good. The Church must align with the politically correct. Curious approach. Jesus told us that “you are in the world, but you are not of the world” (John 17: 14-18).

* Another case is that of the well-named Cardinal Reinhard Marx. Concerning “gay marriage” he said: “The Christian position is one thing. It is another thing to ask if I can respect all the laws on Christian moral concepts. Anyone who does not understand that one does not automatically lead to the other, has not understood the very essence of modern society “. A convoluted way to say that the Church does not have to defend its morality in the face of the present world.

* Cardinal Christoph Schönborn was the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said, “We can and must respect the decision to form a same-sex union, [and] look for ways in civil law to protect their lives with the laws to ensure such protection.” However, he is considered a conservative. He was the one who carried the project of Amoris Laetitia on the question of remarried divorcees. The Pope considers him a “great theologian.” Who presented in his own cathedral of Vienna a gay couple who had adopted a child of black race. This couple has ordered a three-year-old girl in South Africa.

* With Bishop Vincenzo Paglia we reach the height. According to the newspaper La Croix on 17 June, he was charged with criminal conspiracy, obstructing the investigation, fraud against the town of Narni (Umbria, central Italy), misuse of credit and misappropriation Of funds. The accusation is carried by the prosecutor of Terni, Elisabetta Massini. Notwithstanding this situation, [Pope Francis] placed him at the head of the Academy for Life and the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. He has exploded these two institutions by introducing supporters of euthanasia and abortion. He wears sunglasses whose frame is rainbow LGBT. But above all he made a gigantic fresco of “homoerotic” inspiration in the choir of his cathedral in Terni. Pushing vice up to represent itself with the episcopal cap. This fresco was made by a notorious homosexual artist.

* The American Cardinal Blase Cupich, is an LGBT actively supported by [Pope Francis]; He announced that he was for the reception of Holy Communion by “homosexual couples;” this during his installation as archbishop of Chicago. It is based on the pretext of the “inviolable conscience.” We are in full Protestantism. For him, heterosexual adulteresses can also communicate.

* Another case is that of Cardinal Dolan. His archdiocese is full of homosexual priests. A professional player named Michael Sam publicly revealed his homosexuality in 2014. The Archbishop said on national television: “Good for him. I would have no sense of judgment on him. God bless him … The same Bible that tells us that we teach the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Well done!” For Saint Patrick, the Irish are traditionally a parade, a kind of folk parade. Dolan was named “Grand Marshall” of this parade despite the presence of a group of “gay pride” with its banners.

* Cardinal Joseph Tobin, named Cardinal by [Pope Francis] and head of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey (New York suburb), gave his blessing in July to a gay pilgrimage that ended with a Sacrilegious Mass at the Cathedral. One of the militant homosexuals who participated in the demonstration called the cardinal’s blessing a “miracle.” The New York Times greeted the event with the title: “As the Church changes, a cardinal welcomes gays; They embrace a “miracle.” Tobin is a very active supporter of Father Martin named above. The same is true of Bishop Robert McElroy, Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego. This bishop is one of the recruits of the expanding corps of gay shock troops that [Pope Francis] settles in the key dioceses; He praised Martin’s book and proclaimed beyond the teaching of the catechism that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” He believes that homosexuals can communicate.

* We will not return to the case of Bishop Cocopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In what is surely only the tip of a very large iceberg, his private secretary Luigi Capozzi, was arrested amidst a homosexual orgy whose participants were drugged. Capozzi completely “shot” was hospitalized by the gendarmerie. When one looks at Saint Peter of Rome, one sees a building on the left, seat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was here that these great deeds unfolded. Capozzi at the request of his boss was proposed to the episcopate.

The characteristic of all these prelates is that they were promoted by [Pope Francis] with the exception of course of Bishop Chaput. There are, of course, others like Bishop Robert Barron, an American theologian who denounces the Church for condemning homosexuality.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that [Pope Francis] is preparing the advent of the Gay Church at full speed. Notably by eliminating the most conservative elements opposing him in one way or another.   Jean-Pierre Dickès

Comment

As readers will note, I’ve had to change “Bergoglio” to [Pope Francis] umpteen times in the above article.  It strikes me that those who insist on using the Pope’s family surname, not only show lack of respect for the papal office but they minimise the gravity of what this Pope is saying and doing.  If only it were “Bergoglio” saying and doing all these awful things, that would be bad enough – bad enough that any Catholic would promote homosexuality – but not as grave as these words and actions falling from the lips of a reigning pope.  Why can’t Catholics, who are rightly outraged at Pope Francis, see that they are letting him off the hook by minimising the damage he is doing to the Church as pontiff… Who cares about “Bergoglio”? 

Anyway, comments invited.  Do you agree with the author that Pope Francis is “preparing the advent of the ‘Gay  Church’ at full speed” or is there another explanation for the facts detailed in the above article?  But please – it was irritating enough having to keep deleting “Bergoglio” and typing [Pope Francis] in the article, do not make extra work for me by using the Pope’s family surname in your comments.  Please and thank you!  

Archbishop: If an unmarried teacher became pregnant, might be quite exciting for the children (and he’s not kidding)

Yesterday, the Guardian posted this tawdry little attempt to attack Catholic education.

The author, Peter Wilby, makes no attempt whatsoever to hide his utter contempt for the Church. Although he seems unable to find a viable target for his spite, despite his very best efforts.

Indeed, the interviewee, Archbishop Malcolm McMahon (right) is quoted in the interview as saying:

“You do this for a living, do you? You ask questions based on inaccurate information?”

The evident hauteur is all the more amusing as it appears to completely go over Wilby’s head.

The other thing clear from the interview is that Archbishop McMahon does not put forward any valid arguments, reasons, or explanation against Wilby’s line of questioning. Of course there are excellent answers to his questions, but the Archbishop seems to either be ignorant of them, or above communicating them to a journalist. Of course it would not be beyond the ken of Guardian journalists to edit the interview in a way which shows the worst of what was said, but it is still hugely disappointing that an opportunity to engage with the culture is so obviously missed. Net result? Readers of the Guardian will no doubt be further confirmed in their prejudice, Catholic schools and education are further marginalised and seen as isolationist and in need of “modernising”.

Wilby does his level best to stir the lefty hatred:

though discrimination has long been outlawed, the church hierarchy now feels threatened by an increasingly secular society. They defend their schools fiercely.

Oh were only that the truth Peter!

A new document from the Catholic Education Service (CES) shows just how wrong Wilby is in this regard. The hierarchy is in full capitulation to secular society! It is in full appeasement mode! It is DESPERATE to shed any vestige of Catholic truth and seeks only to be accepted.

This atrocious document actually uses papal tweets as a source whilst completely failing to state Catholic teaching on sexuality in order to provide an appropriate context. Surely the document ought to be empowering Catholic teachers to stick to the Catechism rather than pandering to LGBT as a poor oppressed victim group?

All bullying should be zero tolerance so why do we need to pay special attention to particular minority groups? Why single out sexual orientation over poverty, weight, political or religious views or even how cool any individual is perceived to be? Surely a Catholic approach, emphasis individuality and equal dignity deals with these issues in a catechetical way?

What can possibly motivate this direction if it is not pandering to the PC brigade and signalling a full abandonment of Catholic principles?

Please read the document. I’m furious. It’s Stonewall propaganda with a Catholic label on it. It is utter tripe.

Most essentially, I feel that our hierarchy don’t really believe what they stand for. They almost seem shocked when we, the laity, hold to Christ’s teachings or express concern at their next radical step towards appeasement and secularisation. They are constantly on the move, desperately seeking the glory of acceptance from the establishment.

Is it mere coincidence how this document from our bishops appears to mirror this document from the Church of England, three years ago?

Many of us regularly express concern that the Catholic establishment seem to want to follow down the same road as the Anglican Church, despite the fact that, by their own admission, that road is only leading them to assured self-destruction. This document from the CES really does nothing to abate such concerns!

One thing seems abundantly clear: the comments made by Dame Louise Casey last autumn before the select committee about homophobic Catholic schools must be driving this. I would suggest that the CES are bending over backwards to appease and accommodate DfE policy in order to secure the abolition of the 50% cap on admissions for new schools. As long as any new Catholic school is a full vehicle of the state to “queer” the next generation, then Whitehall will be happy and keep the money flowing.

From my experience in education as a parent and a foundation governor, I think most Catholic schools (head teachers and governors) consider that, as 90% of their funding comes from the state, they have no alternative had better do what the state says. My experience is that they have very little idea what Catholic education is or should be, and so it isn’t capitulating much to just keep your head down and do your best to accommodate the secular agenda. As for independents, most of their income comes from fee paying secularists and secularised Catholics so they conform in the hope of not losing their income base

This document certainly convinces me of one thing:

The CES is utterly unfit for purpose.   Source

Comment:

With the above report coming to my attention hot on the heels of this report of the Head Teacher in a pretend Catholic school in Falkirk apologising for offending the “LGBT +++++++++  community” it is becoming clearer by the nano-second that “Catholic schools” are a joke. I can’t wait for the day when cowardly Heads like the Falkirk guy are summarily sacked, and the entire hierarchy of the UK forced to resign and spend the rest of their lives in prayer and penance.  And I kid you not when I say that, in my considered opinion, a bishop with Bishop McMahon’s views is a danger to the young: take a look at that headline again, check out his acceptance of sex education in schools – and feel free to tell me if you disagree…

For the record, I’ve just emailed the Head of St Mungo’s, in Falkirk, to alert him to this discussion, and I have also sent the link to Archbishop McMahon, with a not remotely deferential message.  

Glasgow: time for Archbishop Targaglia to share office with a Co-Adjutor Bishop?

Archbishop Tartaglia

Archbishop Tartaglia

Angry parishioners were told to “go to confession” after they raised objections to their new priest accused of “unwanted harassment” during a drunken homosexual incident.

Father Paul Milarvie was accused of trying to “constrain” a male guest at his parish house in 2010, just months after he returned to Scotland.  That led to an investigation by the Archdiocese of Glasgow.

Milarvie was later allowed to keep his parish and dragged the church into a row over homosexuality after the incident was classed as “totally unworthy of a priest”.

The complaint against Milarvie alleged he invited a man to dinner at his parish house and an incident, which is disputed, occurred.

Milarvie apologised to the man, who agreed to return for a second dinner. It was during this evening he claimed he was subjected to unwanted harassment.

After an investigation, Archbishop Mario Conti later said there had been no crime committed and claimed there had been “consensual” activity, rather than an unwelcome approach by Milarvie.  [Emphasis added]

He said allowing for the “morally reprehensible over-indulgence” in drink, Milarvie’s actions had been “voluntary and totally unworthy behaviour on the part of a priest”.

Now churchgoers at St Mary’s chapel in Duntocher, near Glasgow, are up in arms over the proposed move by Milarvie to their parish.

One, who asked not to be named, said: “Parishioners are outraged and disgusted at his dark secrets. Meetings are being held to discuss the way forward.

“This priest is not wanted or welcomed. It’s a disgrace after the way he’s behaved and this dreadful issue has been swept under carpet by past and present church authorities. No one is listening to the people who pay for the upkeep of the church.”

The parishioner claims they emailed and phoned Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, a friend of Milarvie, but were ignored.

He added: “People are utterly appalled. We have contacted Archbishop Tartaglia and have been met with a disgraceful attitude.

“The priest we spoke to said we should ‘go to confession’ and that Milarvie was ‘forgiven’.

“We said that wasn’t good enough and that we’re very concerned he’ll do this again. He said, ‘We don’t know if he’ll do it again but we hope not’. Disgraceful.

“People deserve to know the truth. We want this priest out. Not only of our parish but of the priesthood.”

The case, which came to light in 2012 after the church spoke out against SNP plans to legalise same-sex marriage, prompted accusations the church was confused in its attitude to homosexuality.

Milarvie, 51, was vice-rector of the Pontifical Scots College in Rome from 2001 to 2005 and rector from 2005 to 2009. He is currently the parish priest for St Flannan’s in Kirkintilloch, near Glasgow.

The Record approached both Milarvie and the Catholic Church for comment.  Source  

Comment

Click here to read the response of Archbishop Tartaglia to the scandal reported by us in our current,  January newsletter and then vote in our poll below.  It seems clear that, his health concerns together with his failure to act in the face of scandals involving his priests, Archbishop Tartaglia is not fit for office. A bishop with equal authority to himself, who is not tainted by scandal and who will deal fairly and transparently with the legitimate concerns of the faithful, would go a long way to restoring confidence in the Archdiocese of Glasgow.  I can’t see how anyone could disagree with that solution to a very dysfunctional archdiocese.  After all, part of the problem may be due to the Archbishop’s poor health, so in charity, the Vatican ought to do all that is possible to lighten his load.  What do you think?