by Alexander Slavsky  •  •  May 4, 2018

State Police [but not Church officials!] in Ireland investigating the sacrilege

KILDORRERY, Ireland ( – The latest scandal to rock the Irish Church involves the desecration of a church by a priest engaging in gay sex on the high altar.

The recent incident happened in St. Bartholomew’s Church in Kildorrery, Ireland. Images obtained by Church Militant show a man dressed as a priest caught engaging in oral sex and other sexual activity with another man laid across the altar in the church.

Anthony Murphy, director of Lumen Fidei Institute, a Catholic lay association in Ireland, told Church Militant, “A profane and wicked attack has taken place and I am surprised the bishop has not closed this church for the investigation to take place especially as there is a possibility that the church will need to be reconsecrated.”

“Dressing as a priest and committing acts of grave depravity on a consecrated altar indicate satanic motivation,” Deacon Nick Donnelly, former website director of EWTN-Great Britain, explained to Church Militant. “It is a vile attack against Our Lord, Holy Mother Church and the sacred priesthood.”

The church is in a wealthy area and is open all day, with parishioners coming and going, thus some conclude either the men enjoyed taking risks and snuck in during its open hours; or otherwise they are staff with ready access to the church and came in after hours.

The diocese has asked Garda (Ireland’s police force) to investigate, while refusing to comment on the specifics of the case in view of “the criminal nature of the alleged incident.” The investigation will look into the accuracy of the photos along with the church where the sacrilege occurred.

A source close to the situation told Church Militant he is asking Bp. William Crean of Cloyne to investigate whether the man disguised in clerical garb is a priest. Suspicions revolve around Fr. Michael Lomasney, whose resignation was accepted by Crean last year owing to revelations of alcoholism.

It is alleged that the image involving oral sex was posted on a gay dating app. Two young men, 18 and 19, claim they met this priest through the hook-up site and the priest took them to St. Bartholomew’s for sex.

The allegation, however, remains anonymous and has not yet been verified.

Murphy of Lumen Fidei stressed the connection between the sacrilege and the upcoming abortion referendum, which “highlights the level of satanic activity in Ireland at this time and reveals the urgent need for reparation, penance and prayer.”

“I am extremely disappointed that the Bishops of Ireland have not been more active in leading the faithful in this area and encouraging a spiritual campaign of prayer and sacrifice against the dark forces which now encircle Ireland,” said Murphy. “Our land is in desperate need for courageous bishops to prophetically teach the moral truths of the Church without fear of favour and until they do the evil will continue to spread.”

And Donnelly told Church Militant, “The men who have degraded themselves through these acts of sacrilege have committed a mortal sin, and are in danger of Hell if they die unrepentant.”

The diocese of Cloyne declined to say if the church will be reconsecrated following the act of sacrilege, as required by canon law.

Donnelly insisted, “It is imperative that the altar, sanctuary and church are reconsecrated. Now that the church has been identified I hope that the bishop has arranged such a service of reconsecration.”

Get AQ Email Updates


  1. Maybe we could get an old IRA guy to knee cap both of them ! This is horrible! It deserves something horrible back,!,

  2. And Donnelly told Church Militant, “The men who have degraded themselves through these acts of sacrilege have committed a mortal sin, and are in danger of Hell if they die unrepentant.”
    We shouldn’t have married deacons in the Catholic Church.
    That said, Nick is a good man, and means well.
    And *that* said, still, that trace of Novus Ordo wishy-washiness always rears its effeminate head in even the best Novus Ordites.
    These perverts are NOT in danger of Hell if they die unrepentant.
    They WILL *definitely* go to hell if they die unrepentant.
    If one does not repent then one does not ask forgiveness. If one does not ask forgivenes then one does not want it, and — obviously — it is completely impossible to be forgiven if one does not want forgiveness.

  3. Rod Dreher’s head is exploding. Clear the decks!

    Jansenism spawned liberal progressive modernism which opened the doors for the Lavender Mafia to use the modernist seminaries and priesthood as a meal ticket. Given Pope Frankie’s infamous “Who am I to judge?” line, it would appear that the progressive modernist heretics in control of the church bureaucracy have no intention to prevent perverts from being ordained.

    This is obviously someone who is NOT a believing or practicing Catholic but a hardened and impenitent pervert (or worse). There are worse cases involving occult and ritual perversion. Be glad you don’t know about them if you haven’t heard. Lucifer works overtime to try to get perversion and sacrilege into the seminaries and sacristies. Such individuals are likely targets and puppets of diabolical oppression, obsession, or even possession and should undergo exorcism. Satan has been loosed from his dungeon to roam the earth. Be afraid.

  4. For most of my years, yours truly paid scant notice to demonism aside from the prayers instituted by Pope Leo XIII following Mass. Then, perhaps three years ago, I came across conferences by Fr. Chad Ripperger, whom I had long admired for his writing in Latin Mass magazine. He is also a friend of one of my Trad pals, who confirmed that, in Rome, when the two encountered liberal clerics and seminarians in a ristorante or cafe, the latter fled as soon as possible.
    I strongly urge one and all to take the time to find the presentations on YouTube, especially those on exorcism and diabolical activity of other sorts. I also urge one and all to go to a website, Auxilium Christianorum, set up by Fr. R and his brother exorcists.
    Howl’s warning should not be taken lightly. 500,000 Italians reportedly are undergoing care by exorcists today. The growth of formally satanic and occult groups is exploding in the West.

  5. The disorientation and confusion of modernism (a heresy) have caused a lot of people to forget traditional, orthodox moral theology. It starts with perversion and pride, these vices lead to more serious temptation, obsession, and oppression. Someone proud enough in their heresy, hubris, apostasy, and unbelief, comes under diabolical influence. The reason why the Devil enjoys tempting perverts to become fake priests is because they can do a lot of damage to many hundreds of souls, staining the Church and their parishes with grotesque and perverse scandals, turning the laity away from the Church and faith – which is exactly what has happened in recent decades.

    A homo pervert who pretends to be a Catholic priest may be able to fool his parents for a while, possibly even aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces, making sure to dress up in clerical black once or twice a year to keep the charade going. Sacrilege, scandal, and molestations do not help his soul. These are unmanly cowards who prey upon the faithful, while using the pretension of priestly office to shield their perversion and lechery. It’s a mental disorder with them and the hierarchy does them no good by enabling their fantasies in pretending to be priests.

  6. Did not the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law ( along with basic moral theology and simple common sense ) forbid Holy Orders to sodomites? As well, indications of other forms of gross male immaturity were cause for refusal. It would be helpful to learn if, why, and by whom those prohibitions either disappeared or were ignored once ( or prior to ) the hodgepodge known as the Wojtylan “code” came into being.
    Since an unjust law is no law at all, either by defect or manifest wickedness, any “negligence or statutory abandonment favoring depravity” ( my term ), would make it impossible for any sodomite, even if virginal, chaste, celebate and pious, EVER to be validly ordained.
    ( “EVER”, above, meaning in 50 AD, 1050 AD, 1550 AD, 1950 AD, 2000 AD, etc. )
    The primary argument being that every priest is ontologically superior to other men by grace of state, sharing in Christ’s especially supreme moral impeccability in every Sacrament the priest confers on sinners.
    Much more could be discussed but it seems basics need first to be addressed.

  7. It is the abomination of desolation in the Temple of God spoken of by Daniel the Prophet – no question about it.

  8. Whatever Father Kunz, Malachi Martin, and Andrew Greeley were talking about back in the day, if some of the stuff being seen and reported now was not part of Pope Leo XIII’s apocalyptic vision or the prophetic warnings of the Third Secret of Fatima, they should have been.

    You would need a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst with a specialization in abnormal psychology to sort this out. A homo pervert who has a lot of rage and hatred directed at the Church, who possibly adheres to some other non-Christian theology, atheism, or demon worship. It doesn’t have to make sense, particularly if demons (i.e., non-human entities) are directing the sacrilege. This is something FAR from the ordinary range of normal psychology.

    A pervert or deviant who seeks priestly ordination through fraud is only a priest in a legal sense, canonically. We have been through this before – if someone dressed up a chimpanzee and walked it through an ordination ceremony the chimp does NOT become a Catholic priest. It’s basically the same principle. The candidate for ordination was NOT a believing Catholic in good standing when he presented himself for ordination. Such a mentally-disturbed criminal is not a Catholic priest in any real sense, other than that the person with that name is on the payroll of the Catholic Church, pretending to be a priest for criminal purposes, dressing up as such and impersonating a priest to deceive parishioners. Such a criminal fake priest still has to be defrocked.

    Now, if the local bishop is also a limp-wristed progressive modernist heretic, you have some very serious problems on your hands. Alas, here we are in 2018 with a progressive modernist on the papal throne.

    I would start praying those Rosaries and make petitions for a new Pope who is actually a believing Catholic.

  9. We need to be careful not to fall into the age-old mistake (of Donatists and others) of thinking that, because a man is not worthy of Holy Orders, he does not validly receive them.
    The Old Code makes quite clear what the subject of the sacrament of the priesthood is:
    “Can 968 §1. Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus; licite autem, qui ad normam sacrorum canonum debitis qualitatibus, iudicio proprii Ordinarii, praeditus sit, neque ulla detineatur irregularitate aliove impedimento.”
    Literal translation: Only a baptized man *validly* receives a Holy Order, but licitly, he who is endowed, by the judgment of the proper Ordinary, with the due qualities, according to the norm of the sacred canons, and is not held back by any irregularity or other impediment.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia (art. Holy Orders) also says: “Every baptized male can validly receive ordination. ”
    Holy Orders then is validly received even if a man is in a state of mortal sin. That means that a man will be a real priest even if he is a sinner…of any kind whatsover.
    Certainly the ordination of a man in mortal sin, or lacking the “qualities” demanded by the Church, is illicit (i.e. illegal and sinful), but that doesn’t mean ordination did not happen.
    Nor can Orders be lost by subsequent sin, because, like Baptism or Confirmation, they make an indelible mark in the soul.
    It’s not pleasant to contemplate some of the consequences, some of the worst of which we see in our day; e.g. that homos like Fr. James Martin get ordained.
    It’s even less pleasant to contemplate the consequences if moral uprightness were required for validity.
    No one can know if a man is in a state of grace or not at any given moment.
    Therefore, it’s possible that any given priest, even one who is now a good one, was in a state of mortal sin when he was ordained.
    If mortal sin at the time of ordination made ordination invalid, all the subsequent sacraments that such “priest” conferred would be invalid, since his ordination was invalid.
    The problems that this would entail are obvious, and huge.

  10. Whether the individual was a validly ordained priest or not, what took place was a sacrilege and an insult to Almighty God in the person of His Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It is an outrage and a warning to us all that we shall pay for allowing such things to occur from the Pope – on down to the local bishop – to the people in charge of the Sanctuary.

  11. Catholic priest allegedly a ‘prime suspect’ as gardai probe images of sex act on church altar
    Payu Tiwari – May 6 2018
    A Catholic priest has allegedly emerged as a prime suspect in a garda probe into images showing two men engaging in sex acts on a church altar.
    The images appear to show the men engaging in sexual acts on the altar of a church in Munster.
    Yesterday, ‘independent’ bishop Pat Buckley [an Irish priest suspended for his dissident views especially on sodomy – in which he indulges – and subsequently excommunicated for his consecration as a bishop – definitely illicit and possibly invalid, because the consecrating bishop’s orders come through the Thuc line; he squats in an “oratory,” which his original diocese owns but appears to have ceded to him! – AQ Tom] revealed to The Sunday World that he has reported the images to church bosses.
    In the photograph, the men can be seen participating in a variety of different acts, both on top of, and adjacent to, the church altar.
    Bishop Buckley told The Sunday World that the images originated from a priest, not believed to be attached to the church in question, on a well known website who sent them to another web-user in a bid to solicit him for a sexual rendezvous.
    Bishop Buckley, who is publicly gay, says the issue surrounding the images does not relate to the sexuality of the men but rather to the “desecration” of a religious site in this manner.
    Both gardai and the diocese yesterday confirmed investigations are underway and the images themselves are now being subjected to forensic examination.
    A spokesperson for the diocese told the Sunday World yesterday the diocese reported the alleged incident to gardai as soon as they received the images from bishop Pat Buckley.
    “We received a report of an alleged incident at the church which if true was possibly criminal in nature,” the spokesperson said.
    “We must now wait until the gardai finish with their investigations as that takes primacy.”
    Under the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 2017 a person who, in a public place, engages in sexual intercourse is guilty of an offence liable on conviction to a sentence of up to two years in prison.
    Speaking yesterday Bishop Buckley told the Sunday World he was shocked at the idea a priest would have involved himself in acts which “clearly constitute a desecration of the altar.”
    “I have reported the images to the Catholic Church hierarchy and I am told they have now gone to the gardai,” he said.
    Bishop Buckley also questioned whether the church should not be closed pending the outcome of the investigations when it may have to be reconsecrated.
    Speaking yesterday, he confirmed the gardai have yet to contact him regarding the origin of the images, but he said he would be willing to do everything he can to help identify the perpetrators.
    “I promised the person who passed the images to me anonymity, but I think he might be willing to be interviewed,” Bishop Buckley said.
    “In that event I would be willing to travel to Dublin to take part in any meeting between this man and the gardai.”
    Bishop Buckley continued: “I believe at present, even if there is a fear an altar has been desecrated in this manner, then they should close the church where it happened so Mass will not be celebrated there until it has been reconsecrated.”

  12. There are types of biologically-male individuals who are barred from ordination due to irregularity and mental defect:

    From The Catholic Dictionary:



    “A canonical impediment, preventing one from entering the clerical state or continuing the exercise of any orders already received. Irregularities may be ex defectu in the subject, such as bodily deformities, epilepsy, insanity, or illegitimacy; or ex delicto, such as apostasy, heresy, homicide, attempted suicide, or marriage when bound by holy orders or religious vows. Ignorance of irregularities does not excuse one from them. Irregularities for the most part require papal dispensation; only in a few instances is the dispensation of a bishop sufficient.”

    Severely, mentally-disturbed, psychopathic, sociopathic, predatory, criminally-insane homosexual sex perverts are barred from ordination due to the mental defect of insanity which in canonical terms falls under “irregularity.” Since they are going to find abnormalities in the brain scans, DNA, and hormonal functioning of such perverts they are also biologically abnormal.

    Since a Catholic man presenting himself for ordination must have a functioning agent intellect (intellectus agens) capable of understanding and assenting to Catholic doctrines, individuals with mental defects CANNOT be priests and have no divine calling to the clerical state or priestly office.

    The disqualification for the clerical state by reason of the “irregularity” of mental defect is quite distinct from the Donatist controversy over priests committing mortal sins. Lacking the the fundamental form of functioning reason at the time of ordination is the issue. Any limp-wristed progressive modernist heretic bishop could ordain a gay hamster or chimpanzee if he wanted to, but that would not make them Catholic priests.

    • By your leave, I see distinctions to be made in a few things.
      “There are types of biologically-male individuals who are barred from ordination due to irregularity and mental defect”
      Certainly. However, what type of “barring” are we speaking of?
      In sacramental theological terms, there are two kinds of impediment: a legal impediment and a diriment impediment. The former makes the sacrament illicit, but does not invalidate it; it is objectively a sin to receive the sacrament when the laws of the Church are not being followed as to its conferral, but the sacrament happens anyway — that’s precisely why it’s a sin to disobey Church requirements as to its conferral. A diriment impediment invalidates the sacrament itself.
      The term ‘canonical’ is synonymous with ‘legal’. Hence a canonical impediment is a legal impediment, not a diriment impediment.
      The definition of irregularity is given as “A canonical impediment, preventing [i.e. barring] one from entering the clerical state or continuing the exercise of any orders already received.”
      Therefore, a canonical impediment is not a diriment (invalidating) impediment. Otherwise, how could it be said (in Canon 968,2): “Those who are barred by irregularity or other impediment, although it has arisen *after* ordination, and without their own fault, are prohibited to exercise the orders received.”
      You can’t be prohibited from exercising an order that wasn’t validly received, for by definition there would be no order to exercise.
      So an irregularity is a legal impediment, not an invalidating, diriment impediment.
      “Irregularities may be ex defectu in the subject, such as bodily deformities, epilepsy, insanity, or illegitimacy; or ex delicto, such as apostasy, heresy, homicide, attempted suicide, or marriage when bound by holy orders or religious vows.”
      And as far as I can see, none of these impediments would invalidate Holy Orders.
      All of those called “ex delicto” are simply a result of sin, which has already been shown to be non-invalidating.
      Of those called “ex defectu”, all can be found in a baptized male human being, which has again already been shown to be all that is required for validity.
      And of both categories it is said: “Irregularities for the most part require papal dispensation”
      But NO ONE can dispense from *invalid* orders. The conditions for validity come from the nature of the sacrament itself, as instituted by Christ, and so the Church cannot change those conditions. A dispensation is the temporary relaxation of a *legal* requirement for the *suitable* conferral of a sacrament, not an alteration of the rules for validity, for the Church has no power over those.
      As to insanity in particular, we have discussed this before. I reiterate my denial that homosexuality constitutes strict insanity. If it were so, anyone addicted to any kind of grave sin would have to be called insane…and that would include 90% of the human race. In a certain wide sense, of course, any sin can, and should, be called insane. But what we are dealing with in sin is not strictly insanity, which is fundamentally a defect of the intellect, but rather a perversion of will, which blinds the intellect to truth.
      But even if such sin-caused mental distortions constituted insanity, still, insanity would not invalidate Holy Orders, according to the fact that a valid subject is simply a baptized male human being.
      Which is supported by this statement:
      “The perpetually insane, boys in the cradle, and those who consent, being driven by grave fear, *are validly ordained*” (my emphasis: Creuzen, Epitome Juris Canonici, V.2, #243).
      It is extremely important, of course, to make this additional distinction of Creuzen: “In an *adult*, intention of receiving Orders is also required, at least habitual (i.e. which was actual and has not been revoked).”
      Notice that the necessity of this intention for validity isn’t even required of the perpetually insane or of babies.
      The thing works in a manner similar to baptism; for validity of baptism, sane adults must have at least virtual intention to receive baptism, but the insane or babies do not have to have it.
      So an adult, perpetually insane person will validly be given Holy Orders provided he has been baptised, and is biologically male.
      For sane adults, all that is required for validity is male gender, previous baptism, and the intention to receive. Being in a state of sin does not invalidate.
      Hence, to this:
      “individuals with mental defects CANNOT be priests and have no divine calling to the clerical state or priestly office.”
      It must be said: LEGALLY cannot, Yes. Have no calling, absolutely Yes.
      Cannot be *validly* ordained, No.
      Hence, to this:
      “The disqualification for the clerical state by reason of the “irregularity” of mental defect is quite distinct from the Donatist controversy over priests committing mortal sins.”
      Certainly agreed. The Donatists said that mortal sin invalidated Holy Orders. We know it doesn’t. However, neither does mental defect invalidate; it makes ordination illegal and wrong, but ordination of the perpetual mental defective happens if the subject is a baptized male human being.
      Hence, to this:
      “Any limp-wristed progressive modernist heretic bishop could ordain a gay hamster or chimpanzee if he wanted to, but that would not make them Catholic priests.”
      Of course — but the invalidating factor is that neither hamsters nor chimpanzees are male human beings; it is not that they are gay.

  13. Bingo, Howl! Much as gracias, amigo.
    NIN is correct about mortal sin by any VALID priest acting to prevent the conferral of sacramental grace ( Donatism ) but the fact that it is impossible to validly ordain a sodomite in the first place, no matter how elegantly explained away by doting superiors, stands. Any such effort is null and void, period. 👍👍👍
    Thanks, gents. Just what I was looking for.

  14. *Muchas gracias* ( May a disease yak kiss the sister of whoever invented Spellcheck! )

  15. A Catholic priest is a very specific thing which requires a divine calling and the essential deliberative and rational faculties for being able to say mass and make the rational judgments of a functioning agent intellect (intellectus agens in Thomistic and Aristotelian terminology) over moral matters, such as in Confession. That is why retards and lunatics CANNOT become priests. Any adult man who puts his peepee in another man’s rectum is morally insane and a lunatic, hence, barred from ordination and the priesthood. No legalistic formula or political policy statement of ecclesiastical politics from the Donatist era can make such lunatics Catholic priests. The code of cannon law does not cover every possible situation. Since someone who is a heretic automatically incurs latae sententiae excommunication, a criminally-insane sex pervert who intends to use the office of priesthood fraudulently to cover a life of crime while NOT believing in or assenting to the doctrines of the orthodox Catholic faith is NOT a Catholic at the time of entering into the blasphemy and sacrilege of a sacrilegious ordination. It’s like a bigamist who tries to enter into a Catholic marriage illicitly.

    Not having the faculties to be a priest is not the same as a validly-ordained Catholic who becomes a priest and then commits mortal sins. Don’t confuse legalism with ontology.

    • Again, the Catholic priesthood is indeed a divine calling, and this calling is *legally* (morally), not ontologically, required. The rational faculty is required to fulfill the duties of the priesthood. That doesn’t mean that the priesthood isn’t there when lack of rational faculty impedes its operation.
      Retards and lunatics cannot legally become priests. Ontologically they can.
      If grave and habitual mortal sin qualifies as insanity, then, again, 90% of the human race is insane.
      Babies who are baptised do not have the use of reason. Neither do the mentally retarded or the perpetually insane. Further, the infused virtue of Faith, given at baptism, is an *intellectual* virtue. Yet no one says their baptism is invalid because they are unable to know any truths of the Faith.
      As to perverts who intend to use the priesthood to cover a life of crime, if they are really and strictly insane, they are not responsible for their actions, thus cannot truly intend anything.
      If they are capable of truly knowing and intending things, they aren’t insane. Therefore they qualify as men having reason, in which case, according to Creuzen (and every other authority), the intention to receive the sacrament is an additional requirement for validity, just as adults cannot validly receive baptism without intending to, as I pointed out in my last post.
      Unfortunately, it is possible to intend to receive baptism or Holy Orders, and at the same time intend to use those sacraments to do harm after they are received. Or one can be blinded by sin, and truly believe that the harm one intends to do is not harm but good (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil). For instance, the gay crusader Fr. Martin quite likely thinks he is fighting for the “right” of gays to love and respect of others for their gayness; he quite likely truly thinks that faggery is a good thing. In other words, Fr. Martin likely doesn’t think gay sex is a crime at all.
      In any case, if he had at least virtual intention to receive Holy Orders when he was ordained, then provided all the other conditions for validity were present, he was ordained.
      Your position is effectively Donatist, because it requires moral uprightness of the subject of ordination. It requires you to say that the schismatic and/or heretic Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc., do not have any valid priests — and that they have never had them. The Church has never taught this.
      A bigamist, if he is truly married already, cannot legally (morally) enter into a Catholic marriage, but nor can he do so *validly*, for you can’t have two sacraments of marriage in your soul. Thus he is ontologically unable; the nature of marriage itself prevents it.
      But a man who is not yet ordained is not thus ontologically prevented, although if he does not have the required moral and intellectual qualities he is legally prevented.
      The whole point of my posts is to distinguish the legal requirements of ordination from the ontological ones.
      If I am not doing that, maybe you could cite some sources (arguments from authority) to show where I’m wrong. With respect, so far I don’t see that your arguments from reason really hold up against the position I’m setting forth.
      Note that I say “the position”, not my position. I have no personal stake in this. It is a manifestation of insanity (in the *wide* sense) to wish to pretend that reality can or should conform to what I want.

  16. NIN, I respect your scholarly input. I will have to ponder matters further before replying. My concern is this, that a priest is truly a spiritual father, which implies that he acts in persona Christi whenever confecting the Sacraments. Such an ontological reality further requires that he possess the natural disposition of a father, i.e., his instincts are ordered naturally in respect to procreation, even though he vows celibacy. A sodomite is definitely not so disposed and, thus, is incapable ( a detriment impediment ) of ever being validly ordained. However, as I said, I will need to consider this further.

  17. What should happen if, say, the Archbishop of Chicago (or Boston) were to ordain a criminally-insane homosexual sex pervert (who was also a heretic intending to use the office of the priesthood for fraudulent, criminal purposes in covering up his sex crimes)?
    In what sense, would such a criminally-insane sex pervert heretic be a Catholic priest in any ontological sense? A heretic would already be excommunicated, but even if he wasn’t, by participating in a sacrilegious ordination ceremony he would incur an automatic latae sententiae excommunication.

    Moreover, why wasn’t there a process in place in the seminary in Ireland to prevent such a scandal?

    The unfortunate narrative that legalistic rigorists would like to try to sell is that a completely, normal, heterosexual, baptized Catholic man suddenly becomes a crazy, criminally-insane, homosexual pervert after ordination through mere temptation and sin and that Confession and counseling make him all better. This is how the Church lost billions of dollars under Cardinal Law and other modernists.

    Also, don’t you have to know Latin to be a Catholic priest? (Introibo ad altare Dei, etc.) A priest has to know ecclesiastical Latin fairly well in order to say mass. Wouldn’t that requirement essentially bar and prohibit most of the modernist Forrest Gumps out there from being Catholic priests? In what sense is any modernist clown who does not know Latin (and, therefore, CANNOT say mass correctly) a Catholic priest? Isn’t that the first duty of a Catholic priest – to say mass correctly?

    Where do the modernists of the USCCB expect future priests to come from if Latin is not being taught properly at Catholic schools?

    • “In what sense, would such a criminally-insane sex pervert heretic be a Catholic priest in any ontological sense? ”
      IF he were a baptised male human being, intending to receive ordination, and the ordainer were a validly consecrated bishop, intending to ordain, and provided the ordinand was not *perpetually* insane, he would ontologically (really, validly) be a priest.
      It’s interesting that Creuzen does not say merely insane, but perpetually insane. This term implies a biological disturbance of the intellect, and excludes the temporary “insanity” of sin as a factor.
      Yeah, it is not fun to think that some priests are actually priests.
      But then, it’s not fun to think that Judas betrayed Christ.
      Legally, it used to be required to know Latin to be a priest, but it hasn’t always been that way. Even in modern times there have been priests who were dispensed from this.
      A bit of a digression:
      I’m sure Fr. Solanus Casey didn’t know much Latin. His lack of intellectual aptitude caused his superiors to have him made a simplex priest; unable to hear confessions or do other things requiring formal theological knowledge. He did say Mass though. He either simply read and/or memorized the texts.

  18. There is a very logical solution to this unfortunate situation which the bishop in Ireland might consider. The offending pervert modernist priest in question could always get a job teaching at Holy Cross in the theology department.

Leave a Reply