Peado Michael Shirres influential in Maori Churches

A Catholic priest who admitted abusing at least five children in New Zealand and earlier worked in Canberra was never reported to police, the church says.

And one of the women he abused says she believes there’s almost certainly Australian victims.

Five historical complaints were made in 1993 against Dominican Order member Father Michael Shirres, a priest and theologian who died in 1997, Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn said on Wednesday.

However while Shirres confessed to offending over several decades, police were never alerted because the victims wanted privacy, the bishop said.

He was instead put through an independent sex offender program and removed from priestly work. He later apologised.

“At that time the policy with historic cases, as distinct from current cases, was to prioritise the wishes of the complainant,” Bishop Dunn said.

“We respected their wishes and realised that if we did not, people would not be prepared to come forward.”

He said the church’s practice was to encourage complainants to go to the police and the Dominican Order worked to support those who had come forward.

A highly regarded figure in communities in New Zealand’s Far North from the 1970s, Shirres lectured Maori theology in Auckland and authored several books.

In the 1960s, he was chaplain at the Australian National University in Canberra for several years and was there at least until 1964.

Whangarei resident Annie Hill told AAP within her parish there was talk Shirres has was already an abuser when he returned to Auckland in 1966.

She was abused from age five and has been left with post-traumatic stress disorder.

“He didn’t suddenly get off the plane back in his home country and become a child abuser,” she said.

Ms Hill, who took compensation from the church in the 1990s, said she was now compelled to speak out because she felt the Dominican Order in recent years had venerated Shirres despite repeated warnings.

“My father raised this with them in 1966. I raised it with them again in the early ’90s and then in 2016 I went back to them and said again: ‘I believe there are other victims. What are you doing to make inquiries?'” she said.

“At the level of action, empathy and understanding, nothing has happened.”

Dominican Friars Provincial Anthony Walsh – the order’s regional head – is overseas but a spokesman for his office in Victoria said the order would check archives to see if any accusations had been made against Shirres in Australia, although it was not immediately aware of any.

The order said it would reply later in the week.

Abuser NZ priest worked in Australia

Religious academics KNOW they target Children with the LGBT message!

From the Church of England’s refusal to discipline William Yate when he was banished from Northland almost two centuries ago, until today, the churches have long been responsible for covering up those abusing children here in NZ. These same religious leaders are now openly targeting the sexualisation of Children into special communities with the LGBTQI++etc philosophy (that sex with anyone is ok because they claim our evolution from animals means that it’s only natural to follow our carnal instincts).

As lauded feminist lecturer Helen Bergin (Catholic Institute of Theology) claimed in her Auckland University School of Theology classes, “…life would be so boring if there were only two genders”. It was her desire that children be given opportunities at a young age to experiment sexually so they can chose their new gender. It was from these classes that Eugene Sisneros graduated while at St Matthews, only to take the Anglican Church to the Human Rights commission to normalise his behaviour as a role model for Anglican children. St Matthews recently held the thanksgiving service for the 2018 Pride Festival.

There needs to be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into NZ religious organisation’s child sexual abuse, modelled after the recent Australian one.

Flashback 2015: NZ Bishop promotes homosexual agenda to Vatican


Most Holy Father,

Dear brother Bishops and fellow participants,

The anthropological cultural context of the family (Instrumentum laboris, Chapter One) neatly links this Synod with that of the New Evangelization.

The focus of the 2012 Synod reminded us that in many countries the majority of those who identify themselves as Catholic (cf. census statistics) do not gather for Mass on Sundays. Analysis of them indicated clusters: the first marriage of a significant portion had come to grief; some were homosexual; and many simply did not recognise themselves in the language we use to describe marriage and the family. In New Zealand, the questionnaires of this present Synod prompted many responses from these same groupings. They, whom some describe as having drifted from the Church, in fact harbour a yearning to belong but their experience is one of being beyond the Church. For them the greatest cause of suffering is rejection – whether perceived or real. That suffering affects the wealthy as well as the poor.

Most of our people, however, including the disaffected, find personal encounters with our priests and parish workers positive and encouraging. For this we give thanks. It seems therefore that where renewal is most required is within the framework and language with which our faith is communicated at a public level. When people hear themselves as being an object of judgement rather than a subject of worth, rejection is most felt.
Our Lord’s encounters with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1-30) and the adulteress (Jn 8:1-11), and with Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10) and Matthew (Mt 9:9-13), and so many others, are not exceptional cases; they are the normative pattern of the Christian way. Mercy is common to them all. While we tend to experience mercy on the level of affectivity, of equal significance is what we might call the epistemological consequence of mercy, captured in the Holy Father’s motto (miserando atque eligendo; Venerable Bede, Homily 21). Filled with mercy, our Lord is able to comprehend the tax collector Matthew in a new way recognizing within him an already existing goodness to which others had been blind.

Could not this sense of mercy, which unlocks in the heart of the beholder a deeper truth about the other, help us when we come to consider a particular category of those who suffer rejection: persons with homosexual tendencies? The mercy for which they yearn is not one of pity but of comprehension of the truth of who and how they are. Decoupled from the question of same sex marriage which will never be part of the Christian way, the Church’s theologians can engage seriously with the voices of science that say sexual orientation is neither a personal choice nor a matter of social conditioning but rests in the deepest ontological makeup of the individual and thus forms part of the mystery of human nature which is good.

Such a dialogue of theology and science (cf. Fides et Ratio, 69) would deepen our understanding of the anthropological cultural context in which we evangelize, and would do much to protect the credibility of the Church, including our claim to be a people of mercy and truth.

Thank you.

+Charles E Drennan
Bishop of Palmerston North
New Zealand

Making Milo: A recipe for Abuse.

Making Milo: A recipe for Abuse.


1 Catholic priest,
1 young boy,
1 parish congregation,
1 Catholic Bishop,


Mix: 1x Catholic priest and the 1x young boy by leaving them alone together, in privacy.
Cover: with a parish congregation who ignore the homosexual priest in their midst thinking it will harm the church to identify him.
Garnish: with 1x local Bishop in denial who facilitates priests movements around the world.

The first recorded case in New Zealand occurred before 1900.
Catholic priests who abused New Zealand children will not be investigated.
Cost to American Parishes (as at 2002): over US$572M

It is interesting to note that Milo’s attitude to youth sex was exactly mirrored by the Catholic Nuns teaching theology to future Anglican priests at the University of Auckland School of Theology when the subject turned to women’s rights to chose what is good for them without patriarchal influence.

Milo, CPAC, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia

Milo has provided a window into a disturbing aspect of gay culture.

By Michael Brown Published on February 20, 2017 •

Conservative gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos is surrounded by controversy yet again, first because he was invited by the conservative giant CPAC to keynote their next conference, then because he was dropped after critics posted several audio clips in which he apparently endorsed pedophilia, and now because of his statement strongly denouncing pedophilia, speaking as a child abuse victim himself. What are we to make of all this?

What to Make of Milo

First, it was an error for CPAC to invite Milo to keynote, despite his rhetorical brilliance and his ability to dismantle and expose today’s ridiculous PC extremes.

It’s one thing for Milo to speak on college campuses and other settings, where he can also be himself, including using his full range of profanity, vulgarity, and gay flaunting. It’s another thing for CPAC to celebrate an out and proud homosexual as one of its champions (after all, that’s part of being a keynote speaker at a conference of this kind; you are invited because of your leadership and your voice).

I gladly interviewed Milo on my radio show and would gladly do so again, but I would not invite him to be the graduation speaker at my organization’s school of ministry. And while CPAC is a political organization rather than a religious one, if it fails to hold the line on gay activism, it will cease to be truly conservative.

Second, while denouncing pedophilia (which is something every gay man I have ever talked to about this has done, without equivocation), Milo drew attention to the fact that many older gay men are involved with much younger gay men (commonly called “boys,” according to Milo), a practice defended in 2013 by the influential gay journalist Michelangelo Signorile, who noted that, “Historically, gay men have engaged in intergenerational sexual encounters, brief romances and long-term relationships — among consenting adults — probably much more than straight people have.”

And although Milo alleges that these aforementioned “boys” are all of the age of consent, it is no secret that gay activists have often been at the forefront of pushing for the lowering of the age of consent. (For a 2010 example from England, see here.) It is also no secret that gay literature through the centuries has celebrated the “love” of grown men and boys, and in these cases, there is no doubt that they were minors rather than young men.

8 Principal Arguments to Defend “Man-Boy Love”

As I demonstrated in painstaking detail in A Queer Thing Happened to America, the identical arguments that have been used by gay activists to defend homosexuality have also been used by advocates of so-called “man-boy love” (or, in its sanitized form, “intergenerational intimacy”).

The 8 principal arguments I listed were:

  • Pedophilia is innate and immutable. (This is increasingly accepted by scientists, who now call for sympathy for the pedophile’s struggles, while continuing to denounce their actions. It is also becoming more common to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation.)
  • Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
  • The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
  • Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
  • Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
  • Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
  • People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
  • This is all about love and equality and liberation.

As I noted in 2011, “none of these arguments should surprise us. After all, the age of increasing sexual anarchy in which we live is a fruit of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and the seeds of sexual anarchy were sown already by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940’s, as Prof. Judith Reisman has tirelessly documented. And it was Kinsey, after all, who relied on the research of pedophiles to document the sexual responses of infants and children.”

To repeat: Every gay man who has ever commented to me about pedophilia seemed as repulsed as I was to the thought of an adult sexually abusing a child, and I’m absolutely not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

But I am saying that, whereas most heterosexual teens who lose their virginity do so with their peers (schoolmates and the like, perhaps just a few years older than them), there is a disproportionate amount of intergenerational sex among homosexuals, often involving older men and boys (by which I do mean boys).

In the aftermath of the arrest of child abuser Jerry Sandusky, I noted that the acclaimed gay journalist Randy Shilts stated that “at age 11, [gay icon Harvey] Milk began attending performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera where he met with ‘wandering hands’ and soon was engaged in ‘brief trysts [with grown men] after the performances.’ While still in junior high, he ‘dove headfirst into the newly discovered subculture,’ and by the age of 14, Milk was ‘leading an active homosexual life.’”

This led to the obvious question: Were the men who were sexually involved with Harvey Milk much better than Jerry Sandusky? And can an 11-year-old give truly informed consent to such acts?

Shilts also wrote that as Milk grew older, the pattern reversed itself to the point that, at age 33, he hooked up with a 16-year-old named Jack McKinley, one of a number of younger men with whom he was intimate. How common was Milk’s experience among gay men?

I suggest that Milo has provided a window into a disturbing aspect of gay culture, one in which gay men do not abduct children and abuse them but one in which they do engage in sexual and romantic relationships with minors — unless we are actually to believe that when gay men speak about having sex with “boys,” they mean, “but only those who are consenting adults!”

I think not.

PRESS CONFERENCE: Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns from Breitbart, Tells Story of Past Sexual Abuse (FNN)

Catholic priests who abused New Zealand children will not be investigated


Four Catholic priests or brothers have never faced justice for sexually abusing children, despite the church accepting their guilt.

The Roman Catholic Church in New Zealand has, for the first time, revealed the number of sexual abuse claims it has received, many of which are still being investigated.

They show the number of people coming forward is growing every year, decades after they were abused. But few, if any, are resulting in fresh complaints to police.

Victims have said that, even now, the church remains unwilling to dig into the darker parts of its past.

“If a victim came to me now, I’d say, ‘Stay away from the church’,” one victim said.

Bill Kilgallon, the church official handling sex abuse complaints, has confirmed that details of known abusers were not passed on to police unless victims lodged a complaint.

Neither had the church made any attempt to investigate whether the priests had abused other children who had yet to come forward.

“It’s for them to go to police, not for us. If they give us information and don’t want it to go to the police, we can’t ignore that,” he said.

“It does grate for me that people don’t face a criminal consequence for their actions, but we have what we have.”

In four years to December 2014, the church has received 58 fresh child-sex abuse complaints, and accepted 26 as “proven”. A further 24 are still under investigation.

The number has risen every year  – 25 complaints lodged in 2014 – and Kilgallon expects the stream to continue.

The proven complaints implicated 21 priests, monks, nuns and teachers. Most are dead but of eight who are alive, four have never been charged. Police did not provide figures for how many child abuse complaints involving the Catholic Church it had received.

Kilgallon said all four had retired from the church and were not a risk. Their victims had chosen not to go to police because they could not endure a court case and no longer trusted police after a previous bad experience.

“Some are very fragile in their mental health and couldn’t cope.”

One acknowledged victim  said he wanted nothing to do with the church or police after it took nearly a quarter of century to jail the priest who sexually abused him in the 1970s.

He complained to both the church and police straight away, but the priest, Alan John Woodcock, was not jailed until 2004, by which time he had abused at least 11 boys.

After the man complained again in 2002, the church gave him few thousands dollars on the condition he did not go public.

“They make a little payment to people to try and and shut them up, but it doesn’t improve your life.”

The church does not record payments victims but Kilgallon, who took up his role in 2013, said victims had previously been paid by the church on the condition of silence.

“It’s never justified. It’s not the practice now.”

The figures record only those complaints made after 2010, the year the church started keeping a central record. It does not account for the unknown number of complaints never acted on, the dozen priests and church personnel convicted in the past 25 years, or the many likely victims who never came forward.

Sexual abuse victims said it was time for an independent inquiry, preferably a royal commission of inquiry into all institutional sexual abuse, and the church should not be left to investigate itself.

“Whatever has ended up in the courts is a minuscule tip of the iceberg,” one woman said.

Kilgallon said the church had come a long way in the past decade and most victims who had come forward more recently had found the church “helpful and respectful”.

However, after hearing the revelations from Australia’s royal commission into the institutional response to child sexual abuse, Kilgallon said he too would support a royal commission here.

“Is there any reason to think New Zealand wouldn’t have similar issues? I don’t think so. I’m guessing an inquiry in New Zealand across the board at all the institutions looking after children would show up some dreadful experiences.”

Twelve year battle for sunlight

Her Hutt Valley house is relentlessly cheerful, the walls painted with rainbows, her shelves stuffed with home-crafted art.

She keeps the other part her life in a shoebox. Inside is a neat stack of documents detailing her 12-year struggle to see the priest who groomed and then raped her as a teenager brought to justice.

The former priest has since been charged, and is now before the courts, but along the woman said she lost her trust in the Catholic Church she believed would protect her as a child.

“My whole life has been destroyed,” she said. “It’s a complete betrayal.”

A trained nurse, the woman has been unable to work for 20 years and suffers from severe post-traumatic distress.

She first complained to the church 12 years ago. After an investigation, her claims were accepted and she was paid $25,000. However, she said the bishop refused to take the complaint any further, because the man had left the priesthood.

“I remember being really pissed off. I didn’t think the fact that he was no longer a priest had anything to do with whether or not they had jurisdiction over him.”

After the church investigation, she went to police in 2004, but she was told it was too long ago and they could not charge the man.

“At the time, police weren’t taking stuff like this very seriously.”

Law changes and a shake-up in police handling of sexual abuse complaints culminated in her case being reopened last year.

Despite what she had endure, the woman still considers herself a Catholic. But her faith in the church’s ability to deal with abuse is shattered. “I just refused to accept that nothing could be done.”

Her advice to victims who have yet to come forward is to go straight to police, who are now taking such complaints far more seriously than a year ago.

The Catholic child abuse scandal around the would

Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church has been a smouldering scandal for decades, implicating thousands of priests, brothers and nuns.

In Ireland, a commission into child abuse reported in 2009 an “epidemic” level of abuse in boys’ schools, finding thousands of victims and more than 800 known abusers within the church over the past 35 years. It also implicated many senior priests in covering up the offending.

In the United States, the Catholic Church has spent an estimate $3 billion settling lawsuits from child abuse victims, forcing some dioceses into bankruptcy. A 2004 church-backed report found nearly 2000 priests had abused at least 4,500 children.

In Australia, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established in 2013, after a string of sex abuse cases and allegation from Victoria police of a church cover-up. The royal commission is still running but so far it has referred 666 sex abuse complaint to police, which include other institutions as well as the church. Overall it has received more than 13,000 complaints, about half related to faith-based institutions.

In New Zealand, there have been at least a dozen Catholic priests, brothers and other affiliated people that have been convicted of sexually abusing children. Some were retained within the church and moved around the country despite senior church figures being aware of their offending. There has been no nationwide inquiry into institutional abuse, and documents obtained by Fairfax Media show the Government identified a public inquiry as a risk, seeing it lose control of a process it had worked to tightly contain.

Catholic priests who abused New Zealand children will not be investigated

 – Stuff