Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Irish Bishop Resigns His Post

March 24th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

The Associated Press is reporting that Bishop John Magee of Ireland has resigned his post as a result of the shuffling of pedophile priests in his diocese. This is hopefully the first of many pedophile-protecting bishops who will do the honorable thing and resign. I’m speaking of bishops all across the spectrum, whether traditional or progressive. If a bishop has protected pedophiles, they should resign their positions as soon as possible so that healing may begin. The Church’s image has been tarnished by the child abusers and their guardians. Too many children have suffered because of this.

Three other resignations from Irish bishops may be accepted soon by Pope Benedict.



7 Responses to “Irish Bishop Resigns His Post”

  1. Anonymous says:

    "If a bishop has protected pedophiles, they should resign their positions as soon as possible so that healing may begin."

    That includes the Bishop of Rome.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Bishop Clark thinks that we forgot, that he also protected pedophiles, instead of our children.

    Many children in our diocese who were sexually abused are now adults and they are suffering with alcohol abuse, drug abuse and mental illness. Most people don't realize the devastating effect that sexual abuse has on children.

    Radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry said it best: the only place for a pedophile, is in a incinerator. Sorry to say it, but if it was up to me, the bishops who protected the pedophiles would also go to the incinerator.

    I don't know how Bishop Clark can look at himself in the mirror, when he shaves his face in the morning.

    Send a copy of this to Bishop Clark at

  3. Gen says:

    The pope did not "protect" pedophiles. I sincerely hope that whoever left that asinine comment isn't stupid enough to read, as the absolute truth, the liberal rag called "The New York Times."

  4. Dr. K says:

    "That includes the Bishop of Rome."

    Couple of things in that article:
    1) Why didn't the bishop take action? He was well within his rights to suspend the priest. He didn't.
    2) Why did the bishop move him to another parish?
    3) If the civil authorities did not take up a case against him, why should the Vatican? Clearly the evidence was not strong, or was so far back in the past as it would be difficult to prove that the priest did anything.
    4) 200 kids? Is this number just for shock value? Were it really true, he would have had the crap beaten out of him by angry people long ago. At least one angry parent or relative would have taken action.
    5) Perfect timing by the NY Times, isn't it? Do they have any other surprises up their sleeves in their attempt to attack the Church, and especially the Pope?

    ~Dr. K

  5. Anonymous says:

    Let's admit what is REALLY going on with the media's take on abuse comitted by priests: *if* the RC Church was to ordain momen, allow them to be Bishops, Cardinals, etc., if priests married (and had their wives as "co-priests", which is NOT, incidently, the way the married priesthood functions in the EO church), "blessed" same-sex unions, and permitted abortion, do you really think that there would be outrage over abuse?? No, the offending priests (if there were any male priests left), would be offered counseling, chances to rehibilite themselves, whatever their therapists determined that they needed. That is the way this crime would be treated. This is truly and (sadly) not an outrage over the disgusting exploitation and abuse of children (and a violation of the vow of celibacy), but an attack on the RC Church for it's traditional stance. It is what it is, wait, *who* said that??

  6. Matt says:

    From what I have gathered on this bishop, he won't exactly be missed–he was no friend to tradition or orthodoxy

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-