…suffer little children; when you come unto me.

I often rant and rave at the stupidity of allowing two million (and counting) Muslims into this crowded set of small islands. I honestly call them the true ‘Fifth Column’ because that is what they are. They do not assimilate, nor do they integrate; they stand alone, insular and defiant; because they know that their ‘effing allah will succeed. All they have to do is breed, and they shall, eventually, overcome.

But it is, unfortunately, not the first time that a Religion has taken power in either a whole country, or region of a country. Not overtly, that would have been instantly detected, and crushed; but slowly, insidiously, and totally, using one means of power alone, and that is the fear of eternal damnation if its needs and demands are not met. I commenced writing about Islam, but the religion of whom I write now is an older one, namely Roman Catholicism. OoL readers might think that I engage in hyperbole; but fear not: I can prove every word, every sentence which I write.

The Country is of course, the island of Ireland. Split into the Republic and the British Province of  Northern Ireland, the insidiously deadly purpose of the Church, which was to govern and rule, was implicit in every Law, every provincial Council, every Parish bulletin issued or debated within the Republic. The Bishops’ word was akin to Law, the rule was achieved with an iron fist encased within a silken glove, and the Parish Priest was taken and accepted as the Speaker of the True Gospel, and what they said, what they demanded, was given and achieved unstintingly. Their power was slightly diluted within Northern Ireland, because the Protestant Anglicans, together with the Orange Order, ruled the roost in Belfast; but there were hundreds of small Catholic churches in the province: and where there was a Catholic Priest, there was a man whose word was Law, whose demand was that there be children, and more children, from every marriage; for the idea of contraception and worse; abortion: was anathema to Rome, and of course Dublin. Add to that the unspoken tribute paid to the IRA, whose very existence was both accepted and acknowledged in the Dublin Hierarchy, and you have what was a reality, the rule of the Word backed up by the rule of the Gun.

I do not write of the Governments imposed by Great Britain, which ended when Partition was declared and the island was split in two; nor do I write of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, which has governed since Independence was declared. I write of the ‘Invisible Government’, which, to all intents and purposes, was the real ‘Government’. I write of the Bishops, of the Parish Priest, whose very word was akin to Law; and of the enormous bureaucracy and wealth of the Catholic Church, which told people what they should read, or write, or even to think and to behave, in and out of wedlock; all according to the traditions and rites of the Roman Catholic Church. Of a ‘Government’ which routinely connived at the issue of passports and travel documents so that small children, the illegitimate sons and daughters of usually illiterate and certainly ill-educated young women who had committed the grave ‘sin’ of having sex outside of marriage, and therefore had borne the very ‘Spawn of Satan’ could be routinely packaged, and sent off to America as they had literally been sold by the convents and homes where they had been born, in false and fake adoptions to ‘good Catholic Families’ in the United States.

I watched the documentary by Martin Sixsmith entitled ‘Ireland’s Lost Babies’, which attempted to discover the routes by which literally thousands of babies and tiny children were routinely trafficked, mainly but not exclusively, to widespread dioceses in the United States, and ‘adopted’ for a large ‘donation’ to that same Church, by Catholic families. I place the word ‘adopted’ in inverted commas, because, in most cases, the convents and homes were neither authorised to act as adoption agencies, nor did they question or otherwise check out the suitability of the prospective family units; the only two questions asked was whether the family were ‘practicing Catholic’, and the second question was whether the donation would be cash or cheque? Meanwhile, the mothers, now forever deprived of their children after ‘signing away’ their rights to hold that child ever again, were forced to work as slave labour in the Magdalene laundries which made another wonderful profit for that same, beneficent, Catholic Church.

I also watched the fantastic film ‘Philomena’, which was the source for the Sixsmith documentary. Yes, it was a fictionalised account of one of these ‘fallen women’ who, after fifty years of grief and trauma, found the courage to speak of the illegitimate son she had given life to, and to attempt, with Martin Sixsmith’s help, to trace her son in America. She, played by the remarkable Judi Dench, had attempted many times to gain knowledge from the convent where she had lived and slaved. The story went from Sixsmith, played by Steve Coogan, being a cynical unbeliever of Philomena’s story,  to both actually tracing the adoptive parents and finding that that small boy had become a successful lawyer who advised Presidents. They also discovered that Philomena’s son was dead, as he had succumbed to the ravages of AIDs, because he was a homosexual. But the saddest piece of the film was to follow, because the journalist and the grieving mother discovered that her son’s lover had actually taken her son’s remains back to Ireland, and he was buried at the back of the convent where he was born. There were some remarkably funny moments in that film, but the one piece which shall stay with me for a great many days was when Philomena confronts the aged nun who had not only sent her child away, but also had routinely denied the very fact that the convent knew anything about her son at all. Philomena asks why she had been denied her son, and the old nun shrieked that ‘her child was the result of the grave sin of ‘carnal incontinence’, and what was done; was done! That, although just a few seconds of a feature fiction film, says it all as far as this commentator is concerned. The Church had ordained that the girls had sinned, they would be punished, and the children, property of the Church, were disposed of as was seen fit. The film may have been made to tell a story, and hopefully make a profit, but it also carried a message, that the Church hasn’t even begun to apologise to those it had routinely abused, betrayed and lied to, and that message grows louder by the day!

New to me, mainly because I am unable to travel to cinemas because I am needed at home, was the viewing of the award-winning movie Spotlight  (on Amazon Prime) which gave a merciless dissection of the iron grip which the ‘eminent’ Cardinal Law held, by means both legal and extra-legal; over the treatment of the victims of sexual abuse carried out by priests within the Boston diocese, and the manner in which those same priests were protected, nourished and passed around the Diocese like knights and rooks on a life-sized chessboard; but in a game of chess where the only losers were the boy and girl victims of these cassocked predators, penetrated and/or sodomized by those same ‘Men of God’; and the winner was always the bloody Catholic Church, along with the Boston diocese. The Diocese KNEW of the abuse, KNEW of the lies, the fabrications and the deceit, and did ‘eff all about it, because the ‘Good Name of the Diocese’ might be besmirched.

The final frames of the movie say it all.

  • There were 249 priests and brothers publicly accused of sexual abuse in Boston diocese.
  • Well over 1000 survivors in Boston alone.
  • In December 2002, Cardinal Law resigned; but was reassigned to the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, one of the most prominent churches in Rome.
  • Major abuse scandals have surfaced from Brazil to New Zealand, From England to Canada, from Australia to Ireland.

If this is what one has to expect from a Religion which professes love, peace and charity; may God, if there is a God, help us if they ever put their minds to revelling in their dispassionate License to deprave and terrorise!

12 comments for “…suffer little children; when you come unto me.

  1. Bob H
    October 3, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    The Roman Catholic church is a demonic kingdom with a king sitting on the throne of the caesars.

    It has virtually nothing to do with Christianity but is based on the paganism of Rome masquerading as Christian.

  2. The Jannie
    October 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    To quote an old cliche – “Power corrupts . . . .”

  3. Mudplugger
    October 3, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    The Roman Catholic Church is simply a successful multi-national corporate, one with a billion ‘customers’, vast capital & revenues and one of the flattest management structures anywhere – just four levels: priest, bishop, cardinal, pope – beat that M&S and Shell !

    It knows whence its revenues come, it needs to continue generating vast numbers of poor and under-educated folk, the type of folk who will fall for the myths, and who will then give what little they have to its coffers, content that, in the promised after-life, all will be perfect. So just keep them breeding, keep them poor, keep them ignorant and the bells in the Vatican will still chime as regularly as the collecting-plates in their ‘shops’ do.

    It knows how to control costs – keep the clergy single, then you don’t need to support their families too, and you can shift them around the business at will whenever any hints of exposure start again. Company pension scheme ? Forget that, just wall the old ones up in some remote seminary until they die.

    Let’s face it, it’s a great business model and it’s survived for two thousand years, so they must be doing something right. But then the Mafia is a pretty good business model too….

    • Ed P
      October 3, 2016 at 10:47 pm

      It’s also very good at indoctrinating children with obscene levels of guilt, so they have no joy in their lives. My (now deceased) wife struggled unsuccessfully for years against the evil embedded deep in her mind by these “soul thugs”. She could not enjoy anything spontaneous with freedom. Her mother and brother are still controlled by priests. My (obviously biased) view of RC is unrepeatable here, but suffice it to say I equate their methods with those of the 3rd Reich. But islam’s worse.

  4. Judd
    October 4, 2016 at 9:21 am

    I make no comment on the subject of this post.

    Just wish to point out that making postins or comments isn’t going to have any dangerous repercussions for an author.
    Whereas making a similar post or comments about the religion of peace tolerance and all welcoming diversity wouldn’t exactly be wise for continued liberty nor safe for life and limb.

    That is all

  5. October 4, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    All this criticism of Catholics. It must be an oddity that I have spent seventy odd years a Catholic and never was made to feel guilty. Rather to feel grateful. I am well aware of my weaknesses and sins, and those of my fellows. And a very small proportion of fellows they are.

    As for the Irish or the Italians or Americans or whathaveyou, the bishops and the priests and the nuns, all of whom are fair game for the bigots, the behaviours spoken of are to be deplored but…. do we judge a religion by the people who do not live in its spirit or should we better judge by those who do.

    Meanwhile, despite the calumnies and the often well deserved deploring, the Church (in its members) remains in its purity to Love its neighbours and God as best they can. We are frail humans. It remains the largest Charity in the world. Few other religions (try now to name some) have made hospitals and Universities, cared for the aged and the new-born. Perhaps not well enough by some standards not finally prescribed, but in every age better and better and without competition. In every western country there are Catholic schools and hospitals. In Oz, for instance, the health and educations systems would collapse if the Catholics pulled out of providing. And that is down to ordinary Catholics in the Parishes, putting their few bucks on the plate each week. Ordinary, good people, who do not need you telling them that they can do better. They know that already.

    The Catholics of Ireland can be criticised. As can anyone. But the mention of the Protestants being a positively limiting force is risable. It was the State-Enforced Protestantism that wrecked the Soul of Britain, sacked its villages and town churches, destroyed its traditions and feasts, eradicated an entire History, confiscated the meagre chattels of ordinary British / English Catholics, sending not a few to the gallows and the stake, the ax-man and the guts-cutters. The Irish held out against great heretical odds.

    Well the deliberate destruction of Faith is finally revealing what is left, and you carp about Islam being able to take over so easily. What did you expect? It is a very long wave that sweeps over history. Wreck the Christian Faith, the Gift of Christ, and His old enemy is invited in. Christ or Anti-Christ. Take your pick. Oh, you have. You kick Christianity when it is down after 400 years of Protestant thuggery.

    • Mudplugger
      October 4, 2016 at 4:38 pm

      Much of which simply goes to indicate how successful the RC’s tactics are on the ground, even with some educated and intelligent people, in support of the organisation’s overall strategy.

      If you believe the RC’s involvement in education is in any way philanthropic, you really need to look beneath the surface – what organisation wouldn’t want largely unfettered access to millions of malleable young minds to manipulate for future revenue ? If the brain-washed parents won’t do it, then the RC school will – if they both do it, what chance do those kids have of ever forming an objective view ? No religion should be allowed any part in education – if mature adults decide to follow any sky-pixie, then that’s their decision, but it’s a form of child-abuse to apply such acquired influence on immature minds.

      • Ed P
        October 4, 2016 at 7:08 pm

        Hear hear!

        I’m in favour of allowing private schools to educate within a broader framework than state-funded ones, so those parents who wish to have their offspring indoctrinated should have the freedom to do so, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or whatever. But ALL state-funded schools should be secular, as are most in France.

        • Mudplugger
          October 4, 2016 at 9:24 pm

          If irresponsible parents so keenly wish to have their child indoctrinated (i.e. abused), then that should be a private family matter, not taking part of any schooling system, state or private, undertaken outside school hours, off school premises and entirely at the parents’ cost (or the delighted indoctrinators’ cost).

          This is what happens in much of the ‘religion of peace’, where innocent kids are sent to madrassas for indoctrination, usually on Saturdays or after school, where they spend many wasted hours rocking backwards and forwards learning to recite their scriptures by heart.

          But these madrassas are completely unregulated, in fact most of them don’t officially exist, so those running them have free rein with what they do with their temporary charges – you can imagine the rest.

          However, some are ‘above the radar’ because there’s a neat little fiddle available – if the ‘teacher’ lives at the same place, then the whole building may be regarded as a ‘place of worship’ and, as such, can claim exemption from Council Tax. So, not only are we allowing innocent kids to be abused in unregulated places by unqualified ‘teachers’, we’re also subsidising this abuse through our taxes.
          As with all religion, it’s pernicious in so many ways.

      • October 5, 2016 at 1:02 am

        Religious education is child abuse? What about making the little scrotes brush their teeth? I suppose that’s abuse too.

  6. Ted Treen
    October 4, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    I’m with Voltaire:- “Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer”

    This statement by Voltaire was so famous that Flaubert included it in his Dictionnaire des idées refuse, and it is still frequently quoted today. But where does it first appear? And what precisely did Voltaire mean when he wrote it? Does it imply, as most of Voltaire’s parrots seems to suppose, that God is a fictitious being, created for the comfort of the human race?
    In its original form, the statement first appeared in a verse epistle from 1768, addressed to the anonymous author of a controversial work, The Three Impostors. According to Voltaire, this was a virulently atheistic text that denied the existence of a divine being. He found that this was an extremely dangerous work since it put into question a notion that was very useful for society: the idea that criminals would be punished in the afterlife. Thus, even when policing was insufficient, there was a strong deterrent against crime.

    In this poem, Voltaire develops in a general way the idea that the existence of God (or the belief therein) helps establish social order. He then goes on to boast of his own role in eliminating prejudice and injustice in the eighteenth century. In its final sections, the poem turns to personal satire, as Voltaire attacks some of his favorite enemies.

    As such, the text shows many of Voltaire’s complexities, both in his philosophy and in his personality. Although he attacked the abuses of the Catholic Church throughout his life, he also spoke as a defender of religion on many occasions. If he is today often portrayed as a radical opponent of all religious sentiment, this is largely the result of accusations from his opponents and nineteenth-century polemical exchange.

    • Mudplugger
      October 5, 2016 at 8:56 am

      In its time, Voltaire’s analysis was good – when dealing with a largely illiterate and rural population, prone to misbehaviours of all kinds, yet with no effective state apparatus of control, the ‘carrots & sticks’ provided by any religion’s myths and mantras enabled key aspects of basic social order to be inculcated into many of the people’s daily lives.

      Different religions emphasised different aspects of social order which they wanted to achieve in their areas of control, whether opposition to extra-marital relations, prohibitions on certain foodstuffs or compulsory washing before attending services in support of public health etc. – they all had an underlying social order objective.

      Once their populations became wealthier and more educated, most of those issues could be better handled by competent governments, which then started to put the local religions at risk of seeming obsolete.

      Given the vast wealth, position and powers accumulated by all major religions (e.g. 26 seats for unelected CofE Bishops in Parliament), they have had to re-invent themselves to survive, so whether that’s Islam pursuing a global caliphate, Judaism expanding its malign influence in Western governments or Catholicism encouraging irresponsible over-breeding, they’re all just mechanisms to aid the continuity of position and power – nothing whatsoever to do with scripture, faith, altruism, philanthropy etc, it’s just raw, naked, power over people, which they will seek to maintain at all costs. Some seem happy to make it easier for them.

Comments are closed.