There should be zero tolerance of the abuse of priests by parishioners in every parish in the Diocese.
Yesterday (13 December 2016) I was subjected to the vilest abuse by a man living in Enniskillen parish, a prominent businessman, now retired who is active in the Rosary group. His name is Gaby(Gabriel) Stewart. He owns Stewarts Butchers, now run by his son. He requested in a phone call to the Parish office to see me urgently. I acceded to his request and invited him to the priest’s house in Enniskillen. I thought naively that he wanted to talk about a family problem. He arrived about 2.15 pm. When he arrived I met him at the door and I invited him to the reception room. He began by referring to an article I had written in the latest Parish newsletter and a photo of me at the Martin Luther King Human Rights Centre in Atlanta. He went from that to telling me about his involvement in the civil rights movement and his admiration for John Hume and Seamus Mallon. He then referred to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness as people who were responsible for murder. He then proceeded to berate me for being an apologist for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. I said I was an apologist for no one. I am a priest and I speak for myself about issues I feel are important.
He referred to a TV interview I gave about 30 years ago in which he said I refused to condemn violence and how that had upset him. He could not understand how I refused to condemn violence. I said I had no recollection of the interview and my remarks would have to be judged in context. He could not be specific about the programme. He then went on to say how much he disliked me being in the parish and would not attend the Masses I was saying if he could. He said I should not be wearing a collar or appearing at Brexit protests or taking part in Interviews.
After he finished abusing me he got up and walked out of the room and out of the house. I was so shell-shocked I was stuck to the chair. I have been on the receiving end of much abuse over many years. This was one of the worst. Recently, I had the windows in my house in Tattygar broken in what police described as ‘a sectarian hate crime.’ In some ways the personal abuse by Mr Stewart was worse.
I came to the conclusion that this man was sick in the head but that he was also malicious and abusive.
I never met this man before but I have gathered that he has a history of confronting priests and people in the parish – even about the most trivial of things. However, his confrontation with me was vindictive and abusive. I will not be meeting this man again and I will be very careful about who I welcome into the Priest’s house in future.
Terrible for you to suffer that abuse in your own home. I condemn it utterly.
Do you condemn the man who firebombed Yvonne Dunlop and burnt her to death, or is he a Christ like Irish freedom fighter in your eyes?
if you believe this man to have mental health issues, do you think it is charitable to name him online ?
Joe
I agree that naming this man seems irresponsible to say the least.
He may have been under the impression he was having a private exchange of views on how his priest was fulfilling his role,
I don’t see the actual abuse that is claimed.
From what is here it appears to be criticism of Joe in his role has a religious leader rather than mere personal abuse.
It’s not as if he was accused of being devoid of charm,wit or civility for example.
I would have to agree with you here gio.
you are right. There doesn’t seem to be any personal abuse by this mental health victim (Joe’s diagnosis).
I think it was abuse and was nasty, but I don’t agree with naming individuals not in the public eye no matter what wrongs they commit.
There are employees in that business who could potentially suffer for no fault of their own.
The more I think about this, the more serious I think it is.
A man who is active in the Parish, comes to see his local priest and is concerned that he is failing in his pastoral duty by failing to condemn men of violence. The priest, rather than condemning men of violence, chooses to name and shame the man, which could lead to retaliation against him, ostracisation in the Parish, or self harming by the man.
The latter point is especially relevant since the priest, despite not being medically qualified, believes him to be “sick in the head”. If there wasn’t a genuine belief that this man was mentally ill (which would make the action taken in naming him even more shocking), then the priest is hurling an insult at the man and indirectly at all those who suffer genuine mental health issues. (Great Christian attitude). Finally, the priest indulges in heresay, suggesting that the man has a history of this. The latter points could potentially make this piece libelous.
Perhaps this piece was written in anger. Joe – have you considered the serenity prayer when you are all riled up? “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; /Courage to change the things I can and should; /and wisdom to know the difference.” (You recommend it in your parish newsletter).
Mr Stewart has also been given no chance to reply to many of the unsavoury things said about him in this piece.
Frankly this is a very dangerous piece for you to write Father McVeigh and I’ve think you could have opened yourself up here to legal action.
Thank you jessica.
anyone worried about potential libel / victimization should forward this piece to info@stewartsbutchers.com
Ah, Joe there you are. I asked you a question in a previous blog in regards to who was your heroes or heroines in Ireland, north & south. I would really like to know, Thanks.
parish office..sounds like a business your running,you have to expect a bit of abuse in business.
I would not tolerate any abuse towards any staff from any quarter.
I would not even express my political views in the office as it is a mixed environment and would surely upset someone.
There is a difference to what you say on a blog and what you say to someone’s face, especially in a confrontational manner and in their own home or place of work.
This is why it is absolutely essential that the truth comes out and why we will not move on until Britain owns up to its past here. It was not a one sided dirty conflict contrary to what we are fed in the media – and it is this one sidedness that results in prejudice.
There you go billy …i’ll agree with that …if only because I had my fair share of abuse while dealing with the great public in a previous life. That is exactly what a fair percentage of those lovely citizens actually do. Come to think of it , some of them were also mentally slightly out of tune….oh …I could tell some stories alright!
I couldn’t condone this man’s behaviour though, and can’t quite think what he hoped to achieve by his behaviour.I’m not a religious fellow myself but surely he wasn’t behaving properly and if he didn;t agree with Joe’s views or the fact that he was a priest, what was the big deal? Nobody asked him to agree. If you’re in the club ..abide by the rules , otherwise leave it….etc He obviously had little better to do with his time than to have a good old row. That said , I think Joe is on dodgy ground naming names if there were no other witnesses there,
i think joes on dodgy ground naming names,i would agree you never know some ole altar munchers reading his post start the rumour mill going it would end up looking like he got a punishment beating.there was probably a witness present,they always have a skivey knocking about polishing the marble fireplaces and antiques,she will cover his back.maybe get her into heaven when she passes.
George Best, Willie John McBride, James Young, Pat Jennings and CS Lewis. Down south, I’d say Dave Allen and Jonathan Swift. Do I win a prize?
(reply to Bridget).
Thanks Joe, no prizes I’m afraid
Joe McVeigh ,you were absolutely correct in naming this man.”Prominent businessmen” often think themselves to have a god given right to lord it over others and assume that the clergy will jump to their demands.
You should pray for him father that he may appreciate you’re sense of mission
During rioting in Strabane a lorry was hijacked and the parish priest sat in it to prevent it being burnt. He was called every name under the sun. Now that’s abuse.
That was obviously before all the sex abuse scandals by the Catholic church became public – if the lorry was in danged of being burned today, the priest might be a bit more circumspect!
An insightful observation Sherdy
Me thinks the great and the good on here are hovering like vultures to pick off father Joe. Hiding behind their fake outrage they simply want to hammer him for his views about republicanism.
Joe mc veigh strikes me to be savvy enough and so must have his reasons for naming this individual. Perhaps maybe he feels threatened by this individual and by getting his dig in first he perhaps maybe is highlighting to the individual that more people now know of his animosity towards Joe? Good move if that’s the case as you can’t always rely on the ‘authorities’ to do the right thing.
Delicate snowflakes like Gio,bloggs etc should get off their fake lofty perch. Read between the lines perhaps?
wolfie
Name calling (as usual) won’t do instead of an argument.
A priest has a duty as a shepherd to his parishioners and a role as a counsellor.
How is naming this man and speculating about his mental health fulfilling those duties?
If you don’t have an answer try some more mudslinging. That might work.
Gio, again, it’s telling you jumped on the opportunity to kick the priest and yet mentioned little if nothing of the fella that assaulted him. It’s what you don’t say………as always.
Btw, in the interests of balance should you not be pulling M.T, bloggs etc for being deliberately offensive and provocative to republicans on this forum for their snide and disgusting utterances concerning the hunger strikers? No, I didn’t think so. I respect M.T and bloggs more than I do you; at least they are honest about where they are coming from. You on the other hand……….
name one thing I said about the hunger strikers that wasn’t true.
I agree the things I reminded everyone of about was “disgusting”, but nonetheless true.
wolfie
Mudslinging it is then!
What is the relationship between a priest and a member of his church?
I would suggest there is at least an expectation that private conversations would be kept confidential.
Certainly one would not expect ones priest to go to an online blog and reveal a private conversation and then go on to question the persons sanity.
I am surprised that Jude has let this stand, though given his total silence on Donal’s antics maybe I should not be.
It is at best naive and certainly ignorant and unchristian.
mudslinging is, traditionally, the penultimate resort in certain Republican circles….
Gio
It’s certainly a bizarre scenario.On the facts outlined in Fr Joes blog,one might have thought that he would raise his concerns with his Parish Priest or if he felt that there was real menace,report it to the local police.The last place one would expect to read a description of it is on a public blogspot.I seem to remember Jude reminding all posters that he no longer had the time to monitor all their contributions but it seems reasonable to assume that he would monitor all blogs.
Also why specifically name the mans business? It seems like an attempt to name and shame the gentleman in order to hurt him (along with his employees) financially.
Seems pretty vindictive for anyone never mind a supposed “man of god”
I know Scott! A man of God calling out a man by name and citing his business ! I hope if the business suffers they will know who called out the mob.
Assuming of course that the Rosary Group is a prayer group within the Parish, it is also an attempt to ostracise him from his religious social groups and place of worship. A priest attempting to deny an elderly member of the flock the succor of Christ rather extending to him His embrace.
must be worth 20 r 30 grand,drop in custom,turkey sales cancelled ect.
Jude, I have no idea of who Joe and Gaby might be, but I would like to think you would at least offer him the right of reply.
When you changed your policy on vetting blogs/posts I thought you were a bit naive about human nature in trusting that no one would abuse your trust.
Altruism is good, but unfortunately the lowest common denominator will always rear its head!
its the blogger who is abusing the trust not those commenting,
I think some of the criticism on here of Fr. Joe is a bit hysterical.
This conversation did not take place in a confessional box and Fr. Joe is entitled to call out a bully.
Perhaps any future exchange of opinion on the part of this business man will be put across with a bit more respect and civility.
OK – What if I were to go on to a loyalist blog, (being recognized as a UVF sympathizer) and claim that I had been insulted by Joe and give out the name of his Church, priest’s house and next of kin?
Or imagine if I was a Presbyterian pastor who was confronted by someone (and I was a UVF sympathizer) and I did similar?
If you take off your blinkers (as some who I disagree with profoundly HAVE being doing recently) you will see how stark and intimidating this kind of thing is.
I love Jude’s blog and the publicity it gets. It used to be an echo chamber, but now a lot of those who still go in are appalled by what they hear – and for those who have the intellectual and moral strength to curl one eye beside their blinkers (or ear muffs in an echo chamber?), they are beginning to question the mythology, lies and double think of the death cult of violent Irish Republicanism.