28 1 min 10 yrs

Has the Roman Catholic church in Ireland no sense of shame, let alone common sense?;

A Catholic priest who was banned from a shopping centre after he was caught spying on people in a men’s toilet has been given a promotion, it has emerged. Fr Patrick McGarvey (43) has been appointed parish priest of Fanad, Co Donegal, by Bishop of Raphoe Philip Boyce. The elevation took place at a special Mass at St Mary’s in Fanavolty last month. Fr McGarvey was caught by undercover police at the Foyleside shopping centre in Derry in August 2004 watching people go to the public toilets there.

Surely he should have been dismissed, not promoted?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

28 thoughts on “THE ARROGANCE OF POWER

  1. So someone is convicted of a crime, is giving a conditional sentence and then serves the conditions of that sentence shouldn’t ever be allowed to hold a job? What he did was a crime and a sin. It isn’t excommunicatable nor was it a serious criminal offence, the only two situations when a priest would be defrocked.

  2. It’s shameful and wrong, and the reaction of the RCC is exactly the same sort of crap as those ‘psychiatrists’ in Norway who seek to mitigate the actions of that psychotic murderer by saying “Ooooh, but it’s not totally his fault; he was suffering from psychosis” or whatever. I don’t give a damn what either of them were suffering from, nor whether it is an ‘excommunicable’ offence or not.

  3. Because it SHOULD be an excommunicalble offence, that’s why, Seamus.
    A dirty perv who spies on people in public lavatories is not fit to hold the office of a Kings Cross ‘blow job for a tenner’ prossie, never mind that of a church Priest (of whatever denomination).

  4. “What he did was a crime and a sin.”

    Seamus, why is it a sin to “watch people go to the public toilets”?

  5. Excommunicated? No, Seamus is right it isn’t that type of offense. Defrocked? Quite probably. Promoted? Never.

  6. He did something wrong, he’s paid both sentence and penance. Why shouldn’t he be able to get on with his life?

  7. Mahons, a Priest is only going to be defrocked if he has either committed an excommunicatable offence or a serious criminal offence. This priest has done neither. He has paid his debt to society, he had paid he penance to God and he should be able to get on with his life.

  8. Noel, it is a sin for a priest to break their vows and last time I checked they took a vow of chastity.

  9. Seamus- Not to be unkind, but have you no sense at all? Do you think a pevert should be given a parish? Does this not cry out to you that the Church is tone deaf to the scandals that have been a plague? Do you think the type of activity (spying on occupents in men’s toilets) is resume builder?

    While it isn’t a violent crime it is cleary a creepy one. It calls into question both his judgment and the judgment of the Bishop who appointed him.

  10. “it is a sin for a priest to break their vows and last time I checked they took a vow of chastity.”

    True, I forgot about that. But of course, even without the vows, anything unchaste – which seems to include looking thru the keyhole – would be a sin anyway, wouldn’t it?

    But what a lot of nonsense that stuff is. Who is damaged by someone looking at someone else in the bog, and where does such an act stand in the whole litany of human evil?

  11. The scandals haven’t been of this nature Mahons. Do you think this will be the first PP to have committed a sin? The Church will only defrock a priest for committing a sin punishable by excommunication or if he has committed a serious criminal offence. This priest has done neither. It is also clear, considering his promotion, that since the incident in question he has shown reason for him to be promoted.

  12. Well clearly the Church weren’t the only ones who thought it was wrong considering that he was prosecuted. A sin is a sin. Clearly some are worse but the presence of a worse sin doesn’t make a lesser sin not one.

  13. You’ve got it all wrong. He wasn’t spying on toilet users in the cubicles, he was just trying to take confessions 😉

  14. Seamus- Of course he isn’t the first Parish Priset to have committed a sin. Do you seriously suggest a peeing tom is what the Church needs as a Parish Priest. While they might not be able to defrock him, they certainly don’t have to give him that kind of a position. It is absurd.

  15. How do we know what he’s done in the last six years? Maybe he’s been an excellent curate in the last six years and that is the reason for the promotion.

  16. Its probably a more plausible scenario than the Bishop sitting down and thinking “Do you know what we need in a Parish Priest? A guy who likes watching other guys taking a piss!”

    Which is the more plausible scenario? That the Bishop just randomly picked the first sexual deviant who wasn’t a paedophile or that he picked a successful priest who made a mistake a few years ago?

  17. No the most plausible scenario is the Bishop had slim pickings to begin with. And I assume the Bishop does not have his parishiners interests at heart but rather likes the idea of a priest who would be easier to control because of his gratitude at being given such a position despite the scandal.

  18. I had a bloke checking me out in the public toilets the other day and it was very uncomfortable.

    Especially as he was blind.

    Boom boom.

  19. Seamus

    The Catholic Church has lost its way and attitudes like yours won’t help them find it again.

    Deviates like this dont belong on staff and it is somewhat unbelievable that he would even be considered for a higher position.

    Was the church always this bad ? Is it just that this is not swept under the rug now?

    At least years ago no one would have defended this. For shame.

    They’ve learned nothing.

  20. Those who claim that he should not loose his job once he has been punished, would of course be quite happy if a convicted paedophile who had served his sentence, was re-employed as a teacher for their children or grandchildren. I certainly wouldn’t.

  21. A guy in a store steals a naughty peek thru the curtain of the ladies’ changing room.

    It’s been in 100 second-rate films and soaps. We all laugh.

    But a gay does the near equivalent and it’s shameful and a sin, he’s a dirty perv, a criminal, a sexual deviant, and what else have we got so far.

  22. I don’t think that anyone has been saying that this guy should be imprisoned or banned from society.

    The point is that he is eminently unfit for a position of moral leadership, which one might think came with the gig.

    Legalistic palaver about ” paying one’s debt to society ” is less than meaningless in this conversation.


    No one laughs when someone spies in the ladies’ toilet itself. When it’s happened here, the perp has gone to jail. No one laughs.

  23. Surely you must take into account the people of his parish, they know this man the best and have stood by him. Its easy to judge from the side lines!

  24. The people in the parishes of New Mexico trusted the priests sent to them under the famous ” move the molester ” program of the Boston Diocese for a long time too.

    I’m NOT saying that this guy is guilty of that crime, but I only note that the simple Christian trust of the ” flock ” has been often abused. The congregation can be the last to know.

  25. “they know this man the best and have stood by him.”

    Yes, presumably also in front of the urinals 🙂

    This is a non-story.

Comments are closed.