Was Archbishop John Charles McQuaid a Paedophile?

There was a time when Planet Ireland orbited its own smug, self-satisfied star, held on course by a mysterious force known as certainty.  That was an era when Irish missionaries roamed darkest Africa, ridding the natives of their superstitions and giving them new ones.  It was a time when children on Planet Ireland were locked up in prisons run by brutal, ignorant rapists, when priests dictated to legislators what laws they might pass regulating private sexual behaviour of grown adults.  It was an era when priests and bishops could bring down an entire government with a single word, and when Prime Ministers of our little planetoid were happy to grovel on their knees before a Prince of the Church.

Nobody exemplifies this power more than John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1972.   While still president of Blackrock College, McQuaid played a huge part in drafting the 1937 constitution in much the same way as an Iranian cleric might today.  When Ayatollah McQuaid, clicked his fingers government ministers jumped.

But what’s this?  According to the Irish Times, the HSE failed to pass two sex-abuse complaints against McQuaid to the Murphy commission, which was therefore unable to investigate the allegations.

The Murphy commission accepted that the failure was due to human error, but it seems extraordinary that the HSE would not grasp the explosive significance of the documents it had in its possession.

According to the journalist, Patsy McGarry,   McQuaid was fond of a tipple and often dropped into a pub near his residence for a quick nip to steady his nerves.  On one such occasion, according to McGarry, the landlord’s child came running down the stairs, crying and saying that McQuaid had done something to him.  The Archbishop was immediately ejected from the premises.

A Prince of the Church

Nothing would surprise me about the institution McQuaid represented.  In 1960, according to the commission report, McQuaid was contacted by Garda Commissioner Costigan about obscene photographs of young girls in Crumlin children’s hospital, taken by one of his priests, Paul McGennis when he was chaplain there.  Costigan had been contacted by Scotland Yard after a security officer at a British film-processing laboratory intercepted the film and informed the police.  However, instead of investigating a crime, Costigan chose to abdicate his responsibility and pass the matter to McQuaid.  The archbishop did nothing, and McGennis went on to abuse children for a further forty years.  It says much about the power wielded by these men that not even the Garda Commissioner had the courage to stand up to them.

Perhaps now we understand more clearly why McQuaid, a notoriously severe man, was so lenient with a child abuser.

Perhaps they shared more in common than just a dog collar.

Planet Ireland’s orbit has been waning for some time.  I wonder if the McQuaid story will be the one that finally cuts the gravitational umbilical cord and sends our little planetoid spinning into the void until captured by a different star?


Health warning: unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on McQuaid is contaminated by the involvement of an active apologist for clerical abusers, who claims to have created most of it.  It’s not a reliable source.


69 thoughts on “Was Archbishop John Charles McQuaid a Paedophile?

  1. Quote : “According to the journalist, Patsy McGarry, McQuaid was fond of a tipple and often dropped into a pub near his residence for a quick nip to steady his nerves. On one such occasion, according to McGarry, the landlord’s child came running down the stairs, crying and saying that McQuaid had done something to him. The Archbishop was immediately ejected from the premises.”

    I was unable to find this particular story in Patsy McGarry’s piece in the Irish Times. Do you have a link to same?

  2. The reason you can’t find same in the Irish Times is because he said same on radio. If you like, I’ll try and find a link to same.

  3. ” I wonder if the McQuaid story will be the one that finally cuts the gravitational umbilical cord”. Maybe Bock.

    McGarry certainly doesn’t appear to be any apologist for the Catholic Church.
    How did you find him on the radio?

  4. haha.
    He seems like an ok journalist.
    Haven’t heard him on the airwaves though.

    Strange goings on there. Seems to me like a whole paedophile ring was in operation, lead from the top.

  5. Ok.I heard him on the radio being interviewed about this issue but must have missed the part about His Grace being in the pub.

  6. The late Noel Browne TD claimed that somebody met him at a funeral and told him in confidence that McQuaid had pedophile tendencies. Browne noted this verbal allegation in his biography or somewhere else. Browne’s biographer, Prof. John Horgan, notes the allegation but does not pursue the matter as there was no corrobrorating evidence available.

  7. As much as I’m not fond of McQuaid, these stories seem suspect. McQuaid going down to a local pub for a pint? McQuaid actually being ejected from said pub after an altercation? The alleged abuse is the most believable part of the entire story; the rest seems entirely fantastical.

    Noel Browne is also not a very independent commentator when it comes to McQuaid.

    As I’m a great believer in rot starting at the top, I would find it credible that McQuaid may have been an abuser. But the story’s above don’t seem credible to me and I don’t agree with making accusations or insinuations of this type without very solid evidence.

  8. Since the Murphy commission was deprived by the HSE of the opportunity to examine the files, we may not find out, but I understand that at least one of the complainants is taking a civil case.

    Nobody disputes that McQuaid routinely went to the pub and was given a private room so that he wouldn’t have to mix with hoi polloi. That would certainly fit in with the report of the child being abused. The ejection might well have taken the form of a request not to return.

  9. The wife of the Church of Ireland Bishop, Dr. G.O. Simms (an authority on the Book of Kells) knew McQuaid socially and was quoted somewhere several years after McQuaid’s death as saying that McQuaid had shown ‘an unhealthy interest’ in young children. I remember seeing a letter in the Irish Times after this remark came to public attention by a man whose father had worked as a gardener at McQuaid’s official residence in Drumcondra. The IT letter writer asserted that he had sometimes met McQuaid informally in the residence and the surrounding grounds and never had McQuaid made improper advances.
    Until harder facts become known maybe it is best to assume that nothing has been proved.

  10. The HSE has a lot to answer for. This latest story, and what was the reason behind trying to stop the 13 year old child traveling to England.
    Why would someone in the HSE go to the High court at all?
    were the McQuaid files the only ones not to be passed on?
    A person might think there is a very close connection between someone at the top of the HSE and the church.

  11. Nobody disputes that McQuaid routinely went to the pub and was given a private room so that he wouldn’t have to mix with hoi polloi.

    I don’t know anything about all this, but on the face of it I find this fairly incredulous. The archbishop of Dublin frequenting a local pub seems very odd to me. Again I don’t know anything about it, but I am very skeptical of senior clergy descending down from their burgundy towers for a pint when they presumably had fodders of drink on hand in their residences anyway.

  12. McQuaid was obsessed with sex and was well known to ask very personal questions both of his priests and penitents.In plain language,he was a dirty old fucker.

  13. Having had Mc Quaids hand touch my head in Meath Street chapel in 1954 as I was being “reluctantly confirmed” in the catholic church, leaves me with the thought that , that touch led to my present baldness.!! Or maybe it was the GOOD FOOD we enjoyed in Artane.?

  14. Whoever wrote the article on Archbishop John Charles McQuaid is a foul liar. I had an aquaintence of short duration with the man and can tell you with certainty that he was not a paediophile.

  15. @ Sojourner. An acquaintance of short duration? How long is a piece of string? It is very easy for someone to call an individual a paedophile without any concrete proof and I would abhor any such comments. But the thread poses the question ‘Was Archbishop John McQuaid a Paedophile? Assuming that you know with certainty that he was not a paedophile appears to indicate that you have solid proof that this is the case. Would you like to share the proof of this certainty with us?

  16. Very good, Sojourner. During your short acquaintance with McQuaid, what methods did you use to establish that he was not a paedophile? This could be crucial in clearing his name.

  17. I read a piece about Mcquaid many years ago,though i forgot what publication it was,and it suggested the pedo thing, that his palace was located very near a childrens school, and that he had a large telescope on an upper floor of the building pointed at the said school.
    Anyone know anything about this ?

  18. One of the things that was odd about McQuaid was the fact that he kept a very substantial residence in Killiney (a huge house in its own grounds, for one man), a long way from his ‘official’ residence in Drumcondra. I haven’t read any account that explains why he did this, maybe it’s in the Cooney book? And perhaps his ‘local’ was in Killiney, rather than Drumcondra?

  19. He did. Apparently the 7-bedroom Victorian mansion on four acres was a gift from his family in, I think, 1945, when he became Archbishop of Dublin. It’s referred to as his ‘private’ residence but I’m not aware that this was standard procedure before or after his incumbency.

    Useful to see the conveyancy documents on that, both at the time he came into posession and on its disposal after his death.

  20. Well, well, well !! I post a comment after the site appears to have been neglected for comment for about six weeks and suddenly following my little remark, (which I was half expecting to be erased) there are seven responses !! I hope to say something to each comment as soon as I can but I would just like to take a little time to check details first as I want to present as informed. Maybe a day or two.

  21. Replying to Long John Silver (comment 23) first: My aquantence with the Archbishop was long enough to confirm for me what I am saying. However, I know that anything would never be long enough for you to even make you think, let alone convince you. Lets just say that the string is long enough. The evidence that I possess is testimony and it is at least as objective and as worthy of consideration as any accussation leveled aganst him. My advice now is not to wet the powder before the time and not to waste the element of suprise on an open public forum.

  22. Replying to Bock (comments 24 and 27) The methods that I used to establish the integrity of the Archbishop were none at all ! I was not investigating him for anything and there was nothing to suggest anything lewd or improper about the man. Everything that I remember about him indicated the opposite.

    Comment 27: I am unsure which incident you refer to here — please clarify and I will reply. Is it the story in Dr. Noel Browne’s essay “A Virgin Ireland” of “John the Bishop’s” meeting with a publican’s son, quoted by John Cooney?

  23. Just a bye-the-way reply to Bock for comment 31: The last comment before mine on this subject matter, number 21, was posted on 31 Dec 2011 — a gap of about 6 weeks, I am not really interested in the rest of the site. All I am interested in is defending the reputation of John Charles McQuaid.

  24. That tends to happen Sojourner. Threads get reactivated after being dormant when further comments have been added.
    Ah, so what?

    Might have been best to let sleeping dogs lie considering your allegiances, as you really haven’t done anything to warrant dismissing any allegations, with your statement that you were of “aquaintence of short duration with the man”.
    Again.. so what?

  25. Reply for bmul — no 25 —– on behalf of Sojourner ———Just commenting on a query about JC McQuaid’s legendary telescope. My information on the technical attributes of the instrument are that it seems to be a refractor, popular at the time with amatur astronomers. Astronomical refracting telescopes actually show the image upside down making them unsuitable for terresterial viewing. The reason for this is that when viewing heavenly bodies, light is at a premium so the rectifying lens between the proximal lens and the distal lens is removed to enable a better collection of light. Upside down does not matter when looking at the stars —- there is no “right way up” out there. So, if JC McQ was using the telescope for land viewing he must have liked looking at things upside down.
    Now furthur, I understand that if the telescope was correctly mounted for astronomy by astronomer Frank O’Connor then it will not have much capacity to view downwards below the horozontal. Seems to me a very unsuitable device for a voyeur to be using!

  26. I am aware of such telescopes,clearly you have a great interest in the “heavens” but perhaps McQuade was wealthy enough to have more than one telescope [smile]
    Perhaps someone might confirm or deny that the palace, was located in proximity to a school ??
    It does seem clear he had an unhealthy interest in children [I was at the sharp end of the catholic church as a kid with the “christian” “brothers”,]
    Only in the early 70s,when Garret the good was forming a piece of social legestation [my spelling aint so good after sexton street] and the said McQuaid tried to interfere, that garret told him to keep to his religion, and he would keep to his policits, I only remember the catholic church in the 50s as a vile,sadastic, cruel instutition, and had fractured fingers to prove it.power comes from the top of the catholic church, and seeps its way throughout the instution, as it has up to this day and up to the time I left the church, at the ripe old age of 12 years of age ,my life has been all the better for it,
    I count a few catholic priests as friends, good decent honest men,I feel so sorry for them, trying to minister to their flock,with that big dark cloud over their heads permantly,

  27. iap337 — How did you establish that McQuaid’s telescope was an astronomical one? My understanding is that the astronomer Frederick O’Connor (not Frank), who built the telescope, was the man who accused McQuaid of using the instrument for voyeurism.

    Do you think Mr O’Connor didn’t understand the workings of his own telescope?

    Sojourner — So you just made it up, is that correct?

  28. No, I am just a good judge of character and I got to know him enough to assess him. A more objective assessment than Cooney’s who never met him at all.

  29. Replying to bmul again, this time about the school nearby: I believe that it has been established that there is a PARTIAL view from the deck of the observeratory to the school grounds but how much exposure is unstated. It would appear however, too restricted to be a realistic allegation. On the other suggestion by Cooney of spying on courting couples on Killiney beach, my information here is that there is no clear line of sight from the deck to the beach except for a section very near the water. If you feel up to it you could conduct your own investigation with a good pair of binoculars by checking the line of sight from the target area, reverse direction, to the observatory. (The owners of Ashurst House will not allow you to the deck to check from there). But remember this proves nothing in relation to voyersm.

  30. Hi Bock —– Sorry for the delay in getting back to you with your query about JC McQ’s telescope. I cannot trace any record of its technical details at this time but given his high interest in astronomy which took on from his father, the instrument was almost certainly a refractor which was usually the choice of amaturs in those days. The record that Frank O’Connor,(opps! sorry! Fredrick!), built it does not nessessarly mean that he manufactured the tube itself —- it may have been purchased as a unit. Building a telescope essentially means that he outfitted the belltower as a telescope. Now if the fittings and mountings were correctly measured and fitted to locate positions on the celestial sphere taking into account the geographical co-ordinates of the belltower’s exact place on the face of the Earth, then in short, the whole assembly would have been very unweildy and insuitable for the purpose that JC McQ is accussed of using it for. Viewing below 0 degrees, ( ie below the horizon), would not be facilitated. The allegation is plausable in a very far-feched sense but not to be entertained realistically.

  31. replying to comment 16 by de fan

    “A person might think there is a very close connection between someone at the top of the HSE and the church.”

    Need I remind you that the ethical approval for blanket fluoridation of Irish water was given by the “Guild of Saints , Luke, Cosmos and Damien” established by the archbishop of Dublin John McQuaid.

  32. I got an email recently to tell me that this conversation had opened up again but I see that it is off the beaten track for me. Anyway, I must say it is a surprise to see ol’ Bock looking for references from someone who points out something seeing that he never feels the need to reference any of the atrocious garbage that he spews out himself !

    Now, tell me Mr.Bock, where is your reference for accusing Archbishop McQuaid of sexual misconduct with kids? Cooney’s book? I have been through it, and in my humble but accurate opinion Cooney will never be an historian. He sold his credit in the 18th chapter, called “McQuaid’s Dreary Eden”. He should go and look for a job with Britain’s “Mirror” or “Sun” or maybe the real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, “Weekly Star”. That chapter sold his book for him by popular perverted demand.

    Now, as this accusation against McQuaid is now discredited and all but dismissed, you might at least have the decency to remove this thread although I cannot imagine you admitting the wrong in a matter like this. I know well that you and the rest of your “yes-men” supporters would rather wallow in this muck as surely as pigs will wallow in what they excrete.

  33. Since when do we need to produce references to prove anyone’s innocence? I understood that people are innocent until proven guilty. I was acquainted with the man and that is evidence enough for me to know what I am talking about.

    I am more interested in debunking the so called “evidence” that has been presented to the public to defame him by a pack of unethical and unscrupulous thugs under a mask of professionalism and propriety who have a vested interest in terms of monitory gain or a vicious revenge.

    Lets take a look at a book called “John Charles McQuaid, Ruler of Catholic Ireland” written some years ago by one John Cooney. Now this book was actually the ignition spark which caused the whole uproar in the first place as a result of a single chapter in it. This chapter draws very much from a document called “A Virgin Ireland” by Dr. Noel Browne, who was also qualified in psychiatry. Browne was a bitter enemy of McQuaid.

    “A Virgin Ireland” is a suttle but vicious story whose central character is “John the Bishop”, (McQuaid is only alluded to, never named.) and like it or not, it is a vile piece of revenge exercised under an abuse of the academic position.

    The book in itself is really an academic work and in terms of sales would only be of interest to the academic world, which would restrict sales resulting in the financial reward being relatively low. In order to increase the interested market, certain expedient liberties have to be taken and in an environment where the Church is under attack by a sizable collection of really bitter enemies, who are all too ready to believe any evil of it, what better than to feed the mob what they want to hear.
    The only snag is the morality of doing this kind of thing. But as so many journalists know, morality is only for fools and those enslaved to religious conscience.
    “The truth never really got in the way of a good story”.

  34. Why become fixated with Cooney? The world has changed since the book was written,

    Successive Tribunals have revealed a systemic culture of concealment of abuse; comprehensive reports have been produced catalogueing heinous crimes by priest and religious. McQuaid presided over that culture for thirty years.

    Are we to take it, on your word that the victims of abuse act out of “vested interest in terms of monitory gain or a vicious revenge”?

  35. Hey Sojourner,your pal McQuaid wore a dress and told people to worship wafers.If you think he was ok you are a fuckwit

  36. For clarity, You’re talking shit is not personal abuse.

    As long as it isn’t directed at the individual, it’s not abuse.

  37. Don’t let Sojourner off the hook.

    Successive reports have shown Archbishop McQuaid tolerated a regime of abuse, yet he claims criticism arises from “vested interest in terms of monitory gain or a vicious revenge.”

  38. Here you go Bock, references regarding the ethical approval for blanket fluoridation of Irish water given by the “Guild of Saints , Luke, Cosmos and Damien” established by the archbishop of Dublin John McQuaid.

    And just on a side note Sojourner, I am not a “yes-men” nor do I have vested interest in terms of monitory gain or a vicious revenge, not do I belong to any organisation. I simply believe that I have the right to decide for myself what I ingest and should not have anything rammed down by throat by the State or the Church. The abuse and the cover ups have gone on long enough.

    Volume 58 Number 3 Journal of the Irish Dental Association Fluoride Supplement. June/July 2012

    The secretary of the Soil Association, James Ryan, joined forces with a number of individuals to form the Pure Water Association. These included Brian McCaffrey, President of An Rioghacht – The League of the Kingship of Christ – a body that was set up to try to ensure that Catholic social teaching was applied to all aspects of social policy. Catholic social teaching emphasised that the rights of the individual (and of the family) were sacrosanct and several members of the PWA felt that fluoridation was contrary to Catholic teaching. In Ireland in the 1950s, such a suggestion was taken very seriously.

    However, the Department of Health was remarkably unworried because it had sought and received advice on the ethics of fluoridation prior to the publication of its report. The Minister defended the ethics of the legislation before the Dáil saying that the Department had received advice that there
    was no ethical objection to the fluoridation of water supplies within the margin of safety recommended in the report. Interestingly, the Minister never revealed where this advice had come from and it was only years later that Dr Paul Beirne revealed the source. It was received from the ethical
    committee of the Guild of St Luke, St Cosmos and St Damien. This was a guild of Catholic doctors set up in 1932. It had some very influential people involved, including the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr John Charles McQuaid, and Monsignor John Horgan, Professor of Metaphysics at UCD. The connection was simple: Professor Thomas Murphy, Chairman of the Fluorine Consultative Council, had at one time been Master of the Dublin branch of the Guild, and he knew that the Guild had an ethics committee.

    The four members of the ethical committee were: the aforementioned Monsignor John Horgan; the Rev. Dr Conor Martin, Professor of Ethics and Politics at UCD; the Rev. Dr Eamon O’Doherty, Professor of Logic and Psychology at UCD; and the Rev. Dr Jerome Curtin, Professor of Moral Theology at Clonliffe College. Professor Murphy had consulted this ethics committee and received a written judgement (as above – no objections) on the ethical aspects of water fluoridation. Hence, the members of the Council, the Minister and the Department all felt that they could withstand the considerable challenge on the grounds of ethics. The challenge when it came was through the courts, in a case taken in the name of Mrs Gladys Ryan, wife of James Ryan, secretary of the Soil Association and prime mover in the PWA.

    Sorry about the copy and paste but my initial post would not accept the link I provided.

  39. Unless McQuaid founded the Guild of Saints Luke, Cosmos and Damien in England when he was still a 17-year-old Irish schoolboy I think you need to do more research

  40. In response to Seanergy, on my first blog upon returning to this conversation, I said that it was off the beaten track for me – I was not really returning in response to your thread which is more concerned with the politics of the time.
    I am really not concerned with Dr. McQuaid’s administrative policies nor his management of the political and religious affairs of his tenure.

    My motivation for being here is the posthumous defamation that has been heaped upon his personal character by “a pack of unscrupulous thugs” under a pretense of concern but whose real reason is monitory enrichment or just plain settling of scores with a dead person.
    As for Mr. Bock’s “yes men” whom I refer to, well, Mad Dog, in the thread aforegoing, is a prime example — inarticulate, offensive, and as far as I can make out, a typical mob product.
    (I do hope that Mr.Bock doesn’t blast me for abuse but I am afraid that I cannot be nice about such).

    Now, Ian, once again as I said to Seanergy, I am not concerned with how Dr. McQuaid handled his administration. Perhaps he did make errors of judgment in the practice of his office — I don’t know. My only preoccupation here is the monstrous garbage that has been smeared upon him by those who hated him of which Dr. Noel Browne was one.
    Remember that the title and subject of this is, “Was McQuaid a paediophile?”

    As you will notice, scrolling back into this thread, I was acquainted with Dr.McQuaid for a short time, but long enough to assess his personal character, and I remember him very well talking to me about hatred, not naming any enemy, (he had many), but I could catch the allusion. He knew what it was to be hated.

    My preoccupation with Cooney is that he is the one who ignited this controversy using his book as a implement to mobilize the issue. The book is otherwise well written and it presents as an historic document, but this charade of respectability is only a cloak for what it is really on about and my verdict on it now is simply that John Cooney got his price for his muckraking. Apart from putting words into the mouths of people who are deceased and so can no longer verify what they have supposedly said, The only source he seems able to produce is the same one that Patsy McGarry is mentioned as regurgitating and which Mr. Bock greedily gobbles down, hook, line and sinker at the beginning of this conversation; “A Virgin Ireland”, written by a bitter and vengeful opponent of McQuaid’s who seems quite prepared to parade his social status to push the issue. If some layabout tramp were to write it, and that is possible, it would go nowhere, but with the good academic reputation of Dr. N.B. to endorse it, everyone believes it.
    Get one thing straight everybody, “A Virgin Ireland” is entirely a fiction and it has several inaccurate descriptions in relation to Dr. McQuaid alias “John the Bishop” in the paper.

    I can point these errors out in a later blog if anyone is interested.

  41. Hi Sojourner,
    Good.At least I got your attention.You may consider me inarticulate and offensive. I intended to be offensive.Nothing has been more offensive in Ireland than religion in general and the catholic church in particular.The unfortunate Irish have been oppressed by this so-called church.
    If that McQuaid guy was around today,people would laugh at him,skirt and all.If he did’nt tamper with little
    boys himself,he certainly was well aware of this despicable practice by his religious fellow travellers and was complicit in covering up for them. That makes him equally guilty. Your opinion that he was’nt that type of person is contradicted by the fact that he knowingly permitted and colluded in paedophilia.You might think that he was right but most people think it was disgusting.
    Maybe I am typical of a mob product,good.But my mob and I are not going to accept any more fake authority from any made-up religion ,regardless of what dresses they wear.

  42. Sojourner, are you saying that you have the ability to tell whether or not a person is a paedophile by spending a little time with them?

  43. That’s the trouble with sites like this, where people can’t even bring themselves to use their own name. It’s like idiots spitting at each other in the dark, no one with the courage to appreciate the freedom or pride of speaking for themselves. Listening to that idiot ‘Sojourner’ is just childish — a person afraid to be what his mother intended and consequently relishing the notion of hiding in the most appalling logic…. What a waste? By a shower of Wasters!

  44. Hi Mr. Angry.I have read your comment with much interest in relation to Archbishop McQuaid,as I was also confirmed by him in Blackrock in 1953,and like yourself,cherished the wonderful food that was dished out in Artane from 1954 to 1960.Maybe you could make contact,as i’m very curious to know if you were in Artane the same time as me. Chow for now,Take care,Peader.

  45. Why did this Bock chappie write in post number 23 that”this could be crucial in clearing his name”? What was he convicted of that requires his name to be cleared?

  46. Paedophilia is essentially about power. Whether or not McQ was a dirty old cleric he certainly was in a deeply unhealthy way obsessed with power and its manifestations. Others have written about what he and Dev got up to politically. In Dublin in the 60s I found grossly offensive his mixture of frightening the fearful, exploiting credulous folk religionists who went on about “pagan England and Catholic Ireland” and who generally signed themselves “Catholic Mother”, and denying people things they greatly needed, such as medical treatment (and let’s not start about the laundries), all coupled with a shallow and vulgar, 19C Italianate liturgical style.

    One Sunday in the pro-cathedral he processed out after High Mass, which he had not celebrated but had spent seated on the Cathedra wearing as was his wont cappa magna (with train bearer) and biretta rather than cope and mitre as the rubrics stipulated but would not have looked as grand. The cappa magna was intended to be worn by senior prelates on important secular occasions, not in church. The entire congregation went down to be blessed by this ersatz god-man as he passed – all, that is, except this young Jackeen. He stopped, and from about 50 feet eyeballed me for about 30 seconds. I eyeballed him straight back. McQ moved on with a filthy look over his shoulder. I thought it best to leave expeditiously before he could send armed minions after me.

  47. Bock, from the wikipedia edit history it looks like Kilbarry1 ongoing vandalism of McQuaid’s page has ceased. It appears to have a lot more balance at this stage,

  48. Kilbarry1 has a number of pseudonyms and operates as a rather pathetic religious troll on various forums.

    I’m glad his activities have been curtailed on WIkipedia.

    He’s a fool.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.