This third post on the subject follows our previous two here (1) and here (2). The posts should be considered as a set.
The "Order of Service" produced for Cilla Black's funeral (a BBC link to the document is here) is all that's needed to prove that a potential public scandal and Eucharistic sacrilege lay in wait. Many alert Catholics saw it coming a mile off. We did. The team at Torch of the Faith can even provide documentary evidence (provably published just two hours prior to the funeral) that they did.
If lay people were switched-on enough to the dangers, you'd expect that a permanent deacon, two priests and an auxiliary bishop – i.e. the four-hand clerical team that celebrated the funeral – were equally so. Either that quartet knew the clear risks, or they didn't. Simple as that. If they didn't, then serious questions should be asked about the extent of their prudent involvement in the preparation of a very public funeral broadcast live in the UK on TV, radio and the Internet – the latter also having a global reach; nothing, absolutely nothing, should have been left to chance, misinterpretation, or ambiguity. If, however, they did know of the possible perils (far more likely), then more serious questions must be asked about why they didn't take firm, preventative action.
The service booklet was publicly released at midnight, 13 hours prior to the funeral. It carried clear details about which members from both the deceased's family and her celebrity friends would be directly involved in the, inevitably skewed and wilfully misinterpreted (for 50 years), elements of "active participation". We also knew which entirely inappropriate items – for a supposedly Catholic Requiem – had been approved for inclusion.
Thus, as our first post detailed, many things were known well in advance (and obviously the booklet was only produced and printed after a suitable advance approval process [you'd think, anyway!] and then only following the synchronisation of many celebrity and clergy diaries to enable the funeral to go ahead on the date that it did and in the manner it did; yes it took a lot of planning that funeral).
So, to summarily recap our previous post, it was known days in advance by all who were involved in the preparation, that the "Mass" for Cilla Black's funeral would feature the following obvious abuses:
• a committed Protestant-Evangelical male pop singer – an avowed supporter of so-called "same-sex marriage" (who has co-habited for many years with an ex-Catholic priest - indeed with whom he was in attendance at the funeral) introducing the service by singing a "Gospel ballad" live on the sanctuary;
• the reading of the risible "Death is Nothing At All" poem (to be read aloud underneath a hanging crucifix - see image below - as penned by an Anglican minister);
• a man who is openly living in a same-sex "civil partnership" (whose "partner" was alongside him throughout the funeral) reading from the Book of Wisdom;
• a pop song – recorded by the deceased – being played at Holy Communion;
• the reading of a poem written by the Hindu-Brahmoist-Universalist "Divine Society" mystic, Rabindranath Tagore;
• a final tribute to be delivered from the sanctuary by a baptised but very publicly lapsed Catholic who is a former drag artist, comedian and lately a broadcaster by profession, who is also openly living in a same-sex "civil partnership" (whose "partner" was alongside him throughout the funeral).
All of the above items and personalities were obviously approved by the archdiocese as being suitable (and if His Grace wasn't involved in approving the materials for a nationally-broadcast funeral, then serious questions also need to be asked as to why not; we simply can't imagine that this was the case, though). Further, the extra information supplied in the points above, apart from the more esoteric aspects in bracketed italics (the reason for those emphases), was also effortlessly knowable. Therefore, alarm bells about potential scandals should have been ringing loudly among the 15 or 20-strong team involved in the preparation of a funeral to be witnessed by millions.
 |
| "Death is nothing at all" - apparently |
To get a context of just how high-profile an event this was in UK consciousness, read the following from The Guardian, a national title that is never lower than the bronze medals when it comes to awarding the most anti-Catholic annual media accolades.
The reason, as stated in our first post, as to why so many of the "active participants" (our emphases) were of such unsuitable standing to be seen by millions at the front-and-centre of a Catholic sanctuary is that Cilla Black in her later years consistently surrounded herself with the company of males involved in open and publicly proclaimed same-sex relationships. They were her closest friends and were an automatic and inevitable choice to be asked by the family to lead the "active participation" that is now so sentimentally presumed – and positively encouraged – to be the norm at the vast majority of Catholic funerals or "funeral services" held in the Archdiocese of Liverpool. They were also – from a purely practical point of view – quite sensible choices given the obvious ease, and no little skill, that each of them undoubtedly possesses in terms of public speaking and enunciation.
Talk about a perfect storm. Make that tornado.
–
–
Having known and approved the cast list, an apt-term, you would have hoped that someone – hopefully a cleric – would have highlighted the further clear hazards that lay in wait particularly during the distribution of Holy Communion.
Obvious questions like:
"What if X or Y, who are very publicly known to be in same-sex civil partnerships, then present themselves for Holy Communion?"
"What if Z, who is very publicly known to be a non-Catholic Christian, then presents for Holy Communion?"
"What about the wider congregation who may be unsure whether to present for Holy Communion, some of whom might not be Catholic, or perhaps be Catholics in a state of private sin?"
There were considerations aplenty. There was also enough scope and time for the archdiocese to have acted prudently in a number of damage-limiting ways.
At the very, very least, the service booklet could and should have included (as has been the case for many years in booklets provided for Mass celebrations at Westminster Cathedral, for instance) the appropriate spiritual and pastoral guidance as to what the Catholic belief in the Blessed Sacrament is, and accordingly who should or should not present for Holy Communion. Perhaps also a word about making a Spiritual Communion. But it didn't.
As said, there were other measures that the archdiocese could have employed – by its own clearly demonstrated standards (which is an important point to emphasise) – indeed way before any booklet was devised (more later).
As far as can be ascertained, the only guidance of note was issued verbally and clumsily by His Lordship – to a congregation who, to a man, woman and child, collectively failed to kneel after the Sanctus; not a single, solitary soul had the sense of reverence or humility to get down on their knees at a Catholic funeral...really if that glaring reality didn't offer any last minute clues to the clergy as to the potential scandals ahead then nothing could have.
"[In] this part of the service we are invited to receive the Blessed Sacrament, certainly those who are of our Faith; for those who are not and would wish also please to come forward for a blessing you are more than welcome to do so."
So, an open invitation for everyone to come forward for one of two purposes: either to receive Holy Communion or a "blessing". The only caveat-ish, was that those who are "of our Faith" (presumably Catholic!) are "certainly" invited to receive the Blessed Sacrament (what a garbled and mangled way of putting it!). We'll leave it to skilled logicians to deconstruct the meaning and effect of His Lordship's use of the word "certainly" in that particular context. We're not quite sure. What is clear, though, is that he issued a clear invitation to anyone who considered themselves as Catholic, however notionally, regardless of the state of their soul, to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
"I can go up – even a bishop said so!"
Is it any wonder that those who presented themselves to receive Jesus - Truly, Really and Substantially contained in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist – did so, regardless of their publicly known, and clearly intended to be continuing, sinful lifestyles?
Thankfully, the evidence strongly suggests that one of the aforementioned lay men involved in the very prominent proceedings on the sanctuary, and who is a known supporter of same-sex marriage, at least had the awareness, as a non-Catholic Christian, to only ask for a blessing when the time came.
It seems quite clear, though, that two others from among those males who were to the fore of proceedings that day, both of whom are publicly known to be in same-sex "civil partnerships" (indeed with their partners in attendance alongside them) not only presented themselves but also received Holy Communion.
In one of the cases, however, it seems that the eventual recipient, known to be a baptised Catholic, can be seen initiating a conversation with the bishop. It was contextually telling that, at that precise moment, the TV cameras zoomed-right-in (for such is the public celebrity of the man in question and his very well-known chosen "lifestyle"; it really wouldn't be a surprise if that vignette is recalled in UK media dispatches at a propitious future point when discussing matters of Rome...say this October!). It is as clear as day that some sort of discussion takes place. What on earth could they be discussing at that particular moment? The weather? It really doesn't take a genius to figure out the nature of the exchange. It also doesn't take too much scrutiny to conclude that, actually, it's the intended recipient – very possibly drawing on his residual Catholic echoes deep within – who is uncertain (and perhaps in good faith he only presented himself for a blessing) and that it is the bishop who overrides this and decides that all is fine, and even underscores this by issuing (as first noted by the Torch of the Faith team) an affirmative pat-on-the-arm to the man in question, who again demonstrated some innate Catholic senses by opting to receive on the tongue (the irony!), and immediately knew to bless himself after reception. Unlike for a later instance, further in this post, we won't give a specific video time cue to this sequence of events. The film is the public domain – and the phase is easily located for those wishing to view it. Incidentally, whilst it may not seem so, our prayers really are with this man – especially if there's even a glimmer of hope (God can move mountains) that his baptised Catholic-being may, by the victorious grace of God, be re-converted and that he is brought back to full and unimpeded practice of the Faith he clearly once knew very well.
This has been ugly and very unenjoyable stuff to write.
"So don't, then!"
Well, many times we have stopped to think – and pray – about whether we are pursuing the right course in being so microscopic about the matters outlined above, particularly given that at least one of the cases involved a baptised Catholic.
Rightly or wrongly, we could only discern the answer in the positive. For the scandal is public. The (zoomed-in) video evidence is in the public domain and has already been seen by millions. Therefore, if even one soul has erroneously – but justifiably – concluded that...
Catholic Mass + Bishop + Communion Received by
Those Very Publicly In Same-Sex Partnerships = All Is Now Actively "Gay-OK"
...then we must surely set the matter straight. Christ's Truth and the Church's dogma, doctrine and tradition haven't been overturned, no matter what one bishop might think or indicate!
At this point, it may be worthwhile to head-off-at-the-pass an old and battered trumpet blare - "but even Christ gave Judas Holy Communion!". Here's what a few Catholics down the ages have said about that.
 |
| "The morsel once given, Satan entered into him; and Jesus said to him, Be quick on thy errand." - John 13:27 |
Now from the ugly to the downright dark.
If further justification were needed as to why we've felt the need to drill into the abuses that took place at last week's funeral, then the following surely provides it. This is why we've delayed the placement of the video footage (in this post, that is) to this particular position.
Here's the video (just below) with a very straightforward, disturbing and accompanying question to go alongside our advised directions for viewing a precise portion of it:
• WHAT HAPPENS TO THE HOST - CHRIST HIMSELF - AS RECEIVED BY THE MAN SEEN IN THE LEFT HAND COMMUNION QUEUE (AS WE LOOK) AT 1hr 46mins 36secs?
• Keep watching that man's left hand (he's the one with the camera strap over his right shoulder). He has a conversation with the priest who appears to nod affirmatively to some ad-hoc suggestion that he makes. The priest hands him the Host. Then watch the troubled gaze of the priest and his gradually dawning concern at the events that unfold. Follow that man in all he does, remembering Who is in his left hand. Then, when he finally disappears from the camera view, to the right (we know exactly who he is, by the way; he is another baptised Catholic, the brother of possibly one of the most famous people on the planet - no exaggeration that), keep watching, for as long as the camera view allows, the precise body language of the people in the pew (amongst the Willis family) i.e. those he has just spoken very ostentatiously to, but most especially the female (whom we also know the identity of) who clearly gives an indication that she is quite concerned about, and alert to, the scandal that may just have happened. Advice: you'll need to use your pause button a lot.
We've watched it several times and we're still not sure. It could be that, after the man receives the Blessed Sacrament into his hand (and having possibly informed the priest that he'll take It with him to "consume" later, or some diabolical abuse to that effect...with the priest first being clearly approving but then gradually more disturbed...but still doing nothing about it!), and then after showily consoling the members of the bereaved Willis family, which was clearly his priority, that he finally moved away from the view with the Host still clutched intact in the fingers of his left hand. If so, you can only hope and pray that he then "communicated himself" back in his bench, or on the way. But there is just no way of knowing. Then again, it could be that he doesn't even bother to carry the Host away from his schmaltzy exchange with the chief mourners. Or maybe he has already secreted It into his pocket? Or maybe with sleight-of-hand he dropped It onto the floor? Or even crushed It with his fingers? Or tossed It away, again sleight-handedly, when he performed that left-hand-over-the-shoulder throwaway gesture in the middle of his conversation? The very fact that he even made that gesture if he was still holding the Host is simply vile. Truly, the whole thing is utterly horrific and blood-boiling to watch.
Whatever the man in question did with the Host, it is clear that the blonde-haired lady, several seconds later, makes a body language motion to the man next to her (who happens to be the deceased's middle son) that something very odd had just occurred concerning the failure of the communicant to actually place the Host in his mouth. She actually mimes the action of putting the Host into the mouth as though to suggest that the man who had spoken to them failed to do so.
As we said yesterday, aside from the earlier mentioned and quite provable public scandals, there are very strong grounds for suspecting that this third and far worse sacrilege may actually have occurred to the worst possible fulfilment. Pray no! An evil action has clearly occurred certainly as far as the point that the man received Jesus into his hands and then delayed his oral reception of Communion for at least a minute, opting instead to engage a group of people in conversation. But who knows what happened after that?
The very fact, though, that we even have to ask these questions is an evil in itself - and certain proof that these abuses need to be exposed.
And once again we recall that it's claimed by senior figures in this archdiocese that the Traditional Mass is "divisive". From what, precisely?
We said in our first post on the subject of this maddening funeral that it is no exaggeration to claim that an Act of Reparation now needs to be performed at St Mary's, Woolton. We stand by that.
Like we have also said before in an earlier post about other abuses in this archdiocese that were also captured on video: anyone who tries to nuance or explain such instances away as "something and nothing", has, whether they know it or not, bought into the "modernism-on-steroids" for which this territory has become famed these last several decades.
We're certain that these type of abuses happen very often in the many lax Novus Ordo celebrations that are commonplace right across the Archdiocese of Liverpool every week. We don't always have the video evidence to prove it, though. But we're working on it. Isn't it telling, though, that when video evidence does become available (such as that shown here, and that shown in our very first post) that we're so easily able to point out the liturgical abuses and sacrileges that do happen? It's like pushing at an open door. And need we remind you of the Didgeridoo Mass that His Grace attended earlier this year (but at least not on these shores, thankfully) which has left us all agog?
In any case, have you ever seen a clearer and more emphatic justification for the immediate abolition of Communion-in-the-Hand? Frankly, the footage above needs to be seen right across the Catholic world.
The responsibility for the real and potential scandals that have been exposed here lies squarely with the archdiocesan authorities.
In the days and weeks between Cilla Black's death and her funeral, there were many options open to the archdiocese – by its own standards – to ensure that there would be no risk at all of any of the above abuses and scandals occurring but still being seen by the watching nation to be the charitable providers of succour to the bereaved Willis family.
But sense and prudence didn't prevail.
So we are left to consider the wreckage of just one single event that managed to pack almost the entire gamut of possible scandals into its recklessly conceived framework. Just scroll back over this and our previous two posts and consider how just one, nationally televised, Funeral Mass for a very publicly lapsed Catholic as far back as 2011 – who, of course, may well have repented, but was a proclaimed supporter of euthanasia and the Dignitas clinic at least as recently as 16 months ago and whose preferred company in recent years was that of males in publicly proclaimed same-sex relationships – managed to fold so much scandal into just one single hour.
Several Eucharistic abuses and sacrileges, check. Show business performances on the sanctuary, check. Sickly preening and posturing at every turn, with pagan poems, protestant verses and pop songs, check.
All this in addition to a tawdry final eulogy which cited Satanic metaphors, burlesque night clubs and show characters...reducing a church full of people (a rarity in these parts) to uproarious laughter...which only served to tempt a Catholic bishop into shamefully making fun of the Sacrament of Penance (and smirking at his own ready wit whilst he did) - so that he would appear to be among the knowing "in crowd".
When we started this blog on the first day of this year, we said that it was "born of desperation...In head-shaking bewilderment at the ongoing denial of a toxic reality" and that "it's here to provide, when appropriate, a locally-based online witness about the mess a once great Archdiocese has become."
Is it any wonder we did?
-
So, could the archdiocesan authorities have avoided all of the above and still met the Willis family's needs? (for it is clear from what has been publicly said by the family since her death that Cilla Black hadn't pre-planned her funeral and it was left to her children to find the best solution to a completely unexpected situation)
Most certainly – and, as we've stressed already, by its own regular precedent.
First, here's some local context.
Last week, in fact just 48hrs prior to the funeral of Cilla Black, we attended a notionally Catholic "funeral service" as held in a Liverpool crematorium, and overseen by a Catholic deacon of the archdiocese, for the repose of the soul of a lapsed baptised Catholic who had died tragically in his young middle ages. Please do spare a prayer here for "M".
Unlike Cilla Black, the deceased was a territorial resident of the Archdiocese of Liverpool at the time of death and had been all through his decades. Upon his death, his family (again all lapsed baptised Catholics, and all still resident in this archdiocese) just about knew enough to "ring the undertakers and ring the church".
Beyond that, as is the case, sadly, with very many local families these days, they really didn't know what else to do. It simply occurred to them that they had to do something. But what? Well, seeing that the deceased had at least been baptised, maybe that it would be "something along Catholic lines". As is also the case in many modern instances, the family's token desire for "something Catholic" was simply and adequately met by a combination of the local parish team and the firm of undertakers making provision for a "service", with Catholic prayers and symbols (crucifix, holy water, a deacon [it's amazing the subtle effect that a cassock and sash seems to have!]) in the so-called "chapel" of the crematorium. It's hardly ideal, of course. But at least there's no risk of the type of Eucharistic abuse we've seen in the video above.
It was a box-ticking solution, for both the family and the parish/archdiocese (and no, we haven't overlooked the needs of the soul of the deceased here). It turned out to be exactly what the family had been looking for. Something Catholic but not "too Catholic or religious". And it was telling in the aftermath that they referred to how nice it had been "in church" and even at "the Mass". It's staggering but, there you go, it's reality, it's commonplace and there's no getting away from it. They simply hadn't wanted their baptised loved one to pass on without at least a few "Catholic prayers" being said over his coffin. But more importantly, for them, in this age of humanism-by-stealth it was also an occasion and platform that enabled several of his relatives, gathered in a secular building, to read a few poems, "and, sure, something from the Bible", and provide the usual "eulogy" (with laughs, always with the laughing) prior to the close of the curtains.
Variable themes along the lines of the above case-study are provided as "pastoral solutions" in the Archdiocese of Liverpool, we would estimate, for a great number, if not a majority, of funeral requests that are made to its hamstrung parishes every week.
One such example is very similar to that outlined above but with the added risk of being held in a Catholic church (n.b. we are not advocating any of these "solutions", we are just simply clarifying what the standard practice seems to be across the archdiocese). For example, we witnessed exactly the above case study, but instead held in a parish church in the Stoneycroft "pastoral area" in the summer of 2010. A deacon, check. Prayers, poems, a eulogy and some holy water, check. "Something Catholic", check. Again it was telling as to how many of the bereaved were later heard to remark with positivity about "the Mass". Again, though, it was some comfort to note that at least there was no risk of Eucharistic abuse.
Or there is yet another "provision" we know about (and for the record it was held on June 26, 2014, at a Marian archdiocesan church in the Halewood and Woolton Pastoral Area [No. 3]). This time it was led by a plain clothes female "minister" in a flowy cardigan, flanked by two other female "greeters" also in billowing dresses (the more gothic the better - it seems) who were generally busily stationed on the sanctuary throughout, all assisted by a female acolyte who stood out front by the coffin (but wearing a white cassock bizarrely - she may as well not have bothered), and all backed by a female organist cum CD-player operator.
What passed for a Catholic "funeral service" then unfolded. Well, it did once the CD-operator finally gave up trying, at the fifth time of asking, to replay Eva Cassidy's "Fields of Gold" across the loud speakers "for the entrance music" (small mercies, at least it wasn't Sting's version). It turned out that the CD had quite literally been jammed (strawberry) and produced one of the devil's true sounds, that of a CD continually a-stutter. All of the above nonsense was approved by the previous Archbishop, His Grace The Most Rev. Patrick Kelly and it's a commonplace across the archdiocese in any given week of the calendar. Anyway, the notionally Catholic family – who simply had no idea how to behave inside a Catholic church – were satisfied by "the Mass" they attended but were confused because they "didn't know that women priests were now allowed". But, however horrific all the above may sound, there was at least the one lasting mercy that there was no risk of Eucharistic abuse. Basically it was just a load of noise but heard in a Catholic church.
Yes, we know how muddled all this is getting and how compromised it may appear that we are. Bear with us, we're just conveying the archdiocese's own standards and solutions here, certainly not advocating for them.
Or we know of another occasion, with a deacon, as witnessed in a Catholic church in 2006, when the Order of Service was communicated to all by means of a Power Point slideshow projected on to the two big canvas screens hung as permanent fixtures either side of the sanctuary. All was hi-tech until the computer froze and the software had to be rebooted by the deacon. Again, though, it wasn't Holy Mass, therefore there was no risk of Eucharistic abuse.
Or another occasion we know of, again with a deacon overseeing it, that was witnessed at a Catholic church only in July of this year (on the outskirts of the city centre) when the delivery of "the yewlergee" was visually assisted by two physical props: a hoover and a pair of slippers.
We. Kid. You. Not.
Welcome to the Archdiocese of Liverpool.
Justifications for all the above – but not the hoover and slippers – (and we've left several occasions out) are loosely based on the following realities, rather than any burning desire to protect the Blessed Sacrament from abuse:
1) there aren't enough priests to accommodate the amount of funeral requests that are made across all the archdiocesan parishes each week from second and third generation lapsed Catholic families (this is true – and we won't bother for now discussing the reasons as to why we have such a vocations shortage and so many lapsed families);
and
2) many of those families, who haven't bothered to cross the church door for decades make a convenience of the local Parish Priest, expect him to jump, and cause considerable grief if they're refused. Hence it's just easier to provide "a solution".
Hence the menu of funeral choice that is a standard provision now across this archdiocese.
Sadly, on the flip side of all this, we know of plenty of faithful souls who have fallen between two stools, as it were. They have been let down by a combination of their family's ignorance of the need to provide their deceased loved ones with a proper and full Catholic Requiem, and the default archdiocesan policy to provide a simple "funeral service". Ignorance meets convenience and a poor soul is cheated of their final rite and right.
We could say more, and we know it is a very complex situation - we do appreciate that.
But the whole scenario, frankly, is a mess. A complete understatement. Really, it's the chaos of the post-conciliar Church writ large, certainly concerning this archdiocese anyway. But as always that will be denied...because we're just waiting for the "fruits of the Council".
In complete contradiction, however, to what is perceived to be default archdiocesan policy regarding funerals (and we can only go by what we've witnessed over a decade or more) there seemed to be no difficulty at all, last week, in sparing a bishop, two priests and a deacon for the celebration of a full Requiem Mass (leaving aside the vile innovations that were seamed into it) for the soul of a baptised Catholic (leaving aside the other factors) who had been resident in another archdiocese for many decades.
We're not being wilfully blinkered, here. We know this was a rare occasion. We also know full well that the archdiocesan authorities were probably placed in a tight spot, unwittingly, by the Willis family, who in turn likely acted in simple good faith: for Cilla Black was a very famous, baptised Catholic, daughter of Liverpool, so why not hold her funeral in the city, especially given that she was to be interred alongside her parents in a city cemetery? That line of thinking is very easy to follow. That said, we do wonder what the response of the parish team at Most Holy Name, Denham, Bucks might have been to any request to hold Cilla Black's funeral in her local territorial Catholic parish.
But what, really, did the Willis family expect and request of the archdiocese? Just "something notionally Catholic" perhaps? Given what transpired anyway, it's a fair bet. Also, given the very regular precedents set across the archdiocese every week of the year, and the known doubts about Cilla's practice of the Faith in her later years (she was very public about her lapsation - but these details could easily have been checked with her family), also the easily anticipated list of those quite compromised identities whom the family wished to play a part in proceedings, and the known list of very dubious extra elements that the family wished to introduce...was it really prudent, all things considered, to celebrate a full Requiem Mass? Especially given the very real and very predictable risk of the type of serious sacrilege and public scandal that actually occurred?
Lest it seem that we are advocating here that a baptised Catholic should have been denied a proper Requiem Mass, we make it clear that we are not. At the same time, it's very clear that there were many things to consider before doing so – and then some.
Still, if the decision of the archdiocese was to (seemingly quite naturally, almost by default) grant a baptised Catholic soul a full Catholic Requiem Mass – to be celebrated by a bishop, no less – then that is the judgement of the local Ordinary. It's his business, properly.
Another precedent has been set.
What does then become our correct concern, our business if you will, is to simply expect that, having granted the deceased a proper Catholic Requiem – one that was known would be televised to millions let's not forget – every precise effort, every minute care, and every painstaking vigilance would then be made to uphold the integrity of the Catholic Faith and protect the Blessed Sacrament from sacrilege and scandal.
That simply and provably was not the case.
That was the first scandal that ushered in all of the other scandals that took place at St Mary's church, Woolton, last week. A Marian church, for heaven's sake.
Satan and his minions had a field day and he even made sure he got a name check.
The state - (make that apostate) – of the Catholic Faith in the Archdiocese of Liverpool has now been exposed before millions.
We haven't been exaggerating.
It's not the first time that local scandals have been broadcast to the world from these parts.
Our prayer is that it's the last.
Our fear is that it won't be.
Priscilla Maria Veronica Willis - Requiescat in pace
Eternal Rest, grant unto her O Lord,
And let perpetual light shine upon her
May she rest in peace
Amen
