Another Dick*head Cardinal

Winty

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, accused the coalition Government of trying to "redefine reality" and claimed the proposals were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right."

In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, O'Brien wrote: "Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9121354/Catholic-leader-Cardinal-Keith-OBrien-clashes-with-David-Cameron-on-same-sex-marriage-plans.html

A small Minority ???
46% would support same-sex marriage as found in the you gov poll

http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2011/10/04/one-five-britons-opposes-gay-marriage/


Lets remember that O'Brien was the man who who sent two priests for “therapy” after allegations of abuse when he was the bishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh

http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Black_Collar_Crime_in_Scotland



The sooner Ireland cuts the shackles of the Roman Church the better

Delirium

the RCC doesn't have exclusive rights to marriage and how it is defined. A state is perfectly entitled to define for itself what constitutes civil marriage.

Also, not every couple marries for the purpose of reproduction.

johnners2981

Calm down Winty

krudler

Winty wrote: »

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, accused the coalition Government of trying to "redefine reality" and claimed the proposals were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right."

marriage: universally accepted for humans.


except gheys.

Gregor Samsa

johnners2981 wrote: »

Calm down Winty

If you disagree with Winty's (perfectly calm) post, perhaps you'd like to offer your reasoned argument against it?

Galvasean

More "Help, we're being oppressed" hyperbole (I pronounce it hyper-bowl, English language be damned!) from a church desperate not to acknowledge that they no longer rule the roost and will never control us with an iron fist the way they once did.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Galvasean wrote: »

More "Help, we're being oppressed" hyperbole (I pronounce it hyper-bowl, English language be damned!) from a church desperate not to acknowledge that they no longer rule the roost and will never control us with an iron fist the way they once did.

i say it properly, but whenever I read it I auto say hyperbowl in my head, then after I've read forward a few more lines I realise what I did and track back to pronounce it correctly.

Galvasean

Just as an aside the headline reads: "Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien clashes with David Cameron on same-sex marriage plans"

I think it is indicative of where the Catholic Church is coming from when you have a guy who dresses like this:

expecting to have his views taken seriously in political affairs.

edit: Quite a lot of what I'd call sensationalist bigotry in the comments section. of course based on front page headlines the Telegtraph make the Daily Mail look liberal!

robindch

"Dress-wearing 73 year-old unmarried celibate man vehemently supports thing he has no experience of"

http://newsthump.com/2012/03/04/dress-wearing-73-year-old-unmarried-celibate-man-vehemently-supports-thing-he-has-no-experience-of/

NewsThump, English->Russian->English Using Google Translate wrote:

The most senior Roman Catholic cleric in England, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, spoke out against gay marriage, arguing that just because he is not the first thing that he said should not prevent him from talking to everybody about it.

O'Brien said that gay marriage will deprive children of traditional education, which shall include mother, father, and the shady old man who regards them in the church. He told The Sunday Telegraph: "What is important here that we think children no one wants to see poor children - especially not the priests ... Crying children desperately unattractive"

"In addition, any child brought up in a happy loving home, will probably be more difficult to hunt, even if it is a gay family." "Gay marriages are on the way to the best in the Catholic Church, so who knows what effect this will have on our ability to abuse children - is probably better for all concerned if we just leave him alone."

Church officials supported the statement by O'Brien, arguing that with pointed hat and a great chair of gold means that their two thousand year old opinions about the world today is very important. Catholic spokesman said: "If we allow people to live of life they want, what makes them happy and do not affect anyone else, what role have left the church in society?"

"Before you know it, we send the collection plates round mass in the parish will be empty, and we could start to sell billions of our assets." "This is a slippery slope to the church is aging - so of course we are against this."

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

"Dress-wearing 73 year-old unmarried celibate man vehemently supports thing he has no experience of"

http://newsthump.com/2012/03/04/dress-wearing-73-year-old-unmarried-celibate-man-vehemently-supports-thing-he-has-no-experience-of/

It is how I would imagine Dead_One's funny twin brother would write. I wonder does he use google translate?

MrP

recedite

Galvasean wrote: »

I think it is indicative of where the Catholic Church is coming from when you have a guy who dresses like this:

expecting to have his views taken seriously in political affairs.

Hmmm... the outfit does seem a bit "camp" considering the subject of his rant.

However, I do like the little furious monkey face on his Golden Crook, just near the bottom of the photo.
Great symbol that, for someone who lives in a palace, with servants, all funded by donations. The Golden Crook.

joseph brand

Galvasean wrote: »

Just as an aside the headline reads: "Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien clashes with David Cameron on same-sex marriage plans"

I think it is indicative of where the Catholic Church is coming from when you have a guy who dresses like this:

expecting to have his views taken seriously in political affairs.

edit: Quite a lot of what I'd call sensationalist bigotry in the comments section. of course based on front page headlines the Telegtraph make the Daily Mail look liberal!

Is that a new Burger King crown he has? It looks Whopper! Ba Dumm Tish

boynesider

I think some of you folks are away with the fairies.

I just took a quick look at this forum because I am starting to consider myself an agnostic but some of the anti-religious vitriol in so many of the posts is incredible and is completely detached from reality.

Why the hatred? What does it matter to you if someone wants to believe in a Spiritual entity or not? It certainly doesn't bother me

Sarky

Do you agree with that cardinal that gay marriage is a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right"?

Or does such hateful speech make you angry?

joseph brand

boynesider wrote: »

I think some of you folks are away with the fairies.

I just took a quick look at this forum because I am starting to consider myself an agnostic but some of the anti-religious vitriol in so many of the posts is incredible and is completely detached from reality.

Why the hatred? What does it matter to you if someone wants to believe in a Spiritual entity or not? It certainly doesn't bother me

If it was personal 'spirituality' which they kept to themselves, then fine. No problem.

But when it's 'organised spirituality', then it's dangerous.

Galvasean

boynesider wrote: »

Why the hatred? What does it matter to you if someone wants to believe in a Spiritual entity or not? It certainly doesn't bother me

Did you bother to read the OP?
No, of course you didn't.
Otherwise you would not have strolled into this thread, "Yapyapyap, oh be nice to the bigots".

Seriously, people need to get a clue and read posts before mouthing off.

boynesider

Sarky wrote: »

Do you agree with that cardinal that gay marriage is a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right"?

Or does such hateful speech make you angry?

If I were to spend by life getting angry at the flaws or inadequacies of others I don't think I'd ever have a moments peace again.

If someone could prove that there is a link between what this Cardinal is saying and a rise in homophobia amongst practicing Catholics then there would be cause to reasonably criticise him. But I don't think anyone can

At the end of the day he is putting forward a viewpoint that you might not agree with but i don't think you can say he is promoting hatred in any way. I live in a very Catholic community and there are a number of gay people living in it who are completely accepted by just about everyone. On the other hand I was reading in the paper the other day about the extraordinarily institutionalized homophobia in atheist China. I haven't a clue why this is but I know for a fact that these things are just so much more complex than a lot of atheists try to reduce it to.

I just don't understand the level of vitriol and the attempts to divide society into the atheists(good) and the religious(bad). Aren't we all humans at the end of the day? Most of what I've read on this forum so far seems to me to be evidence of a deep-seated prejudice against religious people arising from some sort of psychological scarring, rather than honest and constructive criticism of what you perceive to be the negative influences of religion in society. Don't you understand that whether you like it or not some people will always have a deep and meaningful belief in whatever, and that this will only harden the more you criticse and mock it?

IMO this can only impede the advancement of secularism (which I believe is a reasonable and desirable goal). In fact what is the point in having an atheist/agnostic forum if it isn't principally devoted to discussing how to make our society more secular? All of these vindictive and mocking postings just seem so self-defeating and petty to me and the only thing they are going to do is turn people off whatever it is you are trying to achieve.

Kivaro

boynesider wrote: »

I think some of you folks are away with the fairies.

I just took a quick look at this forum because I am starting to consider myself an agnostic but some of the anti-religious vitriol in so many of the posts is incredible and is completely detached from reality....

Do you believe in fairies?

Dades

boynesider wrote: »

I just don't understand the level of vitriol and the attempts to divide society into the atheists(good) and the religious(bad). Aren't we all humans at the end of the day? Most of what I've read on this forum so far seems to me to be evidence of a deep-seated prejudice against religious people arising from some sort of psychological scarring, rather than honest and constructive criticism of what you perceive to be the negative influences of religion in society. Don't you understand that whether you like it or not some people will always have a deep and meaningful belief in whatever, and that this will only harden the more you criticse and mock it?

So what if religion is criticized? Have a look at the "Hazards" thread, or the "Religious Scandals" thread, or any of the threads on schools. There's a reason for it. Should anything be above criticism? Do you go into the politics forum and suggest people shouldn't criticize each other's preferred party? I doubt it. If you see criticism here that you feel is unwarranted - then explain why.

You suggest gay people in your catholics area are accepted - that's great. But do you know what? They are accepted in spite of what Catholicism has to say about homosexuality - not because of it. The authorities in China have as much to answer for. Though their homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with their "atheist state", unlike the dangerous rise of homophobia going on in Africa which is being justified on religious grounds.

Organised religion still exerts a huge influence on society, so it is naive to suggest that this is just an attack on people's personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are wonderful. Somebody else's corrupt church running 93% of publicly funded schools is not.

This is just the corner of Boards.ie where we call it like we see it. And the forum is free to post in for anyone who disagrees.

robindch

boynesider wrote: »

If someone could prove that there is a link between what this Cardinal is saying and a rise in homophobia amongst practicing Catholics then there would be cause to reasonably criticise him. But I don't think anyone can

So it's OK to be homophobic and for people in positions of power and authority, to promote homophobia amongst individuals who are not encouraged to think for themselves, but only so long as nobody immediately goes out and kicks the living shite out of a gay person?

Think I'm getting the hang of this "religious morality" at last!

johnners2981

phutyle wrote: »

If you disagree with Winty's (perfectly calm) post, perhaps you'd like to offer your reasoned argument against it?

I don't disagree, was just pointing out that calling someone a dick*head in a thread title isn't very calm and probably not the best way to sway people to your opinion

magicbastarder

boynesider wrote: »

I live in a very Catholic community and there are a number of gay people living in it who are completely accepted by just about everyone.

your use of the word 'completely accepted' would imply the community would have no issue with gay marriage. do you think that's a fair reading of the situation?

joseph brand

johnners2981 wrote: »

I don't disagree, was just pointing out that calling someone a dick*head in a thread title isn't very calm and probably not the best way to sway people to your opinion

Granted it wouldn't go down well over in the 'other forum'. In this forum it's not offensive, it's informative. That cardinal IS a penis-head.

boynesider

magicbastarder wrote: »

boynesider wrote: »

I live in a very Catholic community and there are a number of gay people living in it who are completely accepted by just about everyone.

your use of the word 'completely accepted' would imply the community would have no issue with gay marriage. do you think that's a fair reading of the situation?

Yes I think that most ordinary Irish people would accept gay marriage, and I believe that this acceptance would ironically be a consequence of the Christian heritage of the country.

recedite

boynesider wrote: »

Yes I think that most ordinary Irish people would accept gay marriage, and I believe that this acceptance would ironically be a consequence of the Christian heritage of the country.

I think you are still caught up in the idea that morality flows from religion, in our case here in Ireland, Christianity, and that the Chinese you mentioned earlier lack morals because of their assumed atheism.
But if Irish people support gay marriage it will be because their own innate sense of justice and ethics has overcome what they are being told by their clerics.

Sonics2k

boynesider wrote: »

Yes I think that most ordinary Irish people would accept gay marriage, and I believe that this acceptance would ironically be a consequence of the Christian heritage of the country.

Are you serious?

The main opponent to Gay Marriage in Ireland (and most western countries) are the Christian churches declaring it an abomination, and destroying family values and changing the beliefs behind Christian Marriage!

joseph brand

boynesider wrote: »

Yes I think that most ordinary Irish people would accept gay marriage, and I believe that this acceptance would ironically be a consequence of the Christian heritage of the country.

How is it, that so many of the christian posters make absolutely no sense? Their posts are either gibberish or they are full of holes.

So often I have to question whether I'm:
A) Replying to someone who is a little bit simple or
Feeding a troll.

crucamim

boynesider wrote: »

I think some of you folks are away with the fairies.

I just took a quick look at this forum because I am starting to consider myself an agnostic but some of the anti-religious vitriol in so many of the posts is incredible and is completely detached from reality.

Why the hatred? What does it matter to you if someone wants to believe in a Spiritual entity or not? It certainly doesn't bother me

And a lot of the anti-Catholic vitroil is coming from moderators.

crucamim

Dades wrote: »

Somebody else's corrupt church running 93% of publicly funded schools is not.

We, Catholics have a right to live without our having to endure screams of hate against our church from a member of the Church which supported and profited from the Penal Laws.

What is wrong with the Catholic Church running the schools which it owns? Or your church running the schools which it owns? If you do not like Catholic schools, establish your own schools. Your doing so will reduce the percentage of schools which the Catholic Church owns.

magicbastarder

crucamim wrote: »

What is wrong with the Catholic Church running the schools which it owns? Or your church running the schools which it owns? If you do not like Catholic schools, establish your own schools. Your doing so will reduce the percentage of schools which the Catholic Church owns.

why didn't i think of that? sure i'll just start a school tomorrow.

why it is wrong is that while the church own the school, they do not fund it. your argument breaks down at this salient point. if they funded the schools themselves, well and good.

Sonics2k

crucamim wrote: »

We, Catholics have a right to live without our having to endure screams of hate against our church.

Absolutely agree with you.

But in turn, so does everyone else.

The outdated and bigoted laws of this country, which are held in place by the Catholic Church, that declares it's outright disgust and hatred of basic equality for the people of Ireland, based on the words of an evil little book that has been twisted by eviler men to suit their beliefs.

No offense Christians, but the dislike and sometimes, hatred, people have towards you is well deserved after centuries of oppression and bigotry. Karma has basically come back to slap you.

crucamim

magicbastarder wrote: »

why didn't i think of that? sure i'll just start a school tomorrow.

why it is wrong is that while the church own the school, they do not fund it. your argument breaks down at this salient point. if they funded the schools themselves, well and good.

This post of yours causes me to suspect that you are a snob. You seem to be suggesting that wealthy Catholics, who can afford private education, have a right to keep their children safe while poor Catholics have no such right.

Catholics pay tax at the same rates as other citizens. Why should they pay tax to fund the education of secularists if secularists do not pay tax to fund the education of Catholics?

Please go ahead and establish a school for secularists. So far as I know, you will receive the same level of taxpayer funding as do Catholic schools, Protestant schools and Islamic schools. Please stop interfering with the right of Catholics to have their children educated as Catholics - just as you have never interfered with the right of Protestants to have their children educated as Protestants.

crucamim

Sonics2k wrote: »

The outdated and bigoted laws of this country, which are held in place by the Catholic Church,

Please stick to facts. The laws of Ireland are made by the Parliament of Ireland. Laws of Ireland can be deleted by the Parliament of Ireland. Catholic bishops do not have an automatic right to be members of the parliament of Ireland although 24 of their counterparts in the Church of England have an automatic right to sit in the Parliament of the UK where, at present, they are a proper pain in the neck for the current UK government.

Galvasean

boynesider wrote: »

Yes I think that most ordinary Irish people would accept gay marriage,

I concur

boynesider wrote: »

and I believe that this acceptance would ironically be a consequence of the Christian heritage of the country.

Despite the fact that the Catholic hierarchy are doing their very best to stop gay marriage from occurring?
Watchoo' smokin'? :pac:

the culture of deference

boynesider wrote: »

If someone could prove that there is a link between what this Cardinal is saying and a rise in homophobia amongst practicing Catholics then there would be cause to reasonably criticise him. But I don't think anyone can.

People still believe in religion.

Their religion tells them gays are evil, and that they do not deserve the rights straight people have.

How would your little village respond if a gay couple announced they were getting married, or having a child.

crucamim wrote: »

We, Catholics have a right to live without our having to endure screams of hate against our church from a memebr of the Church which supported and profited from the Penal Laws.

What is wrong with the Catholic Church running the schools which it owns? Or your church running the schools which it owns? If you do not like Catholic schools, establish your own schools. Your doing so will reduce the percentage of schools which the Catholic Church owns.

You catholics should take a good long look at yourselves in the mirror, how anyone in this country can still believe and support RCC is beyond me.

crucamim

the culture of deference wrote: »

You catholics should take a good long look at yourselves in the mirror, how anyone in this country can still believe and support RCC is beyond me.

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

Delirium

consensual sex between two adults is not the same as sexually abusing a minor.

Newaglish

crucamim wrote: »

the culture of deference wrote: »

You catholics should take a good long look at yourselves in the mirror, how anyone in this country can still believe and support RCC is beyond me.

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

Wait, what?

Sonics2k

crucamim wrote: »

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

Are you comparing consenting adults in a relationship having sex, with the rape of minors?

Really?

Are you people so blind you can't see a difference anymore?

the culture of deference

crucamim wrote: »

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

I am a catholic. The RCC will not allow me to change that fact. As one of your flock I can say what I want.

Do you support child abuse?


BTW You are not doing any justice to your RCC beliefs by the way you are behaving on here, or maybe you are.

Galvasean

crucamim wrote: »

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

'by priests'
Say that in your head as many times as needed until you realise how truly bogus that statement was.

Tonyandthewhale

crucamim wrote: »

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

So are you suggesting there's nothing wrong with raping teenagers?

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

crucamim -- your next snarl will earn you a forum ban.

legspin

crucamim wrote: »

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

With statements like that, sometimes you just have to stand back and admire the pure cúntish nature of the post.

I waited seven years here to discover someone that I found worthy of being ignored. Congratulations, you have just made it two in a week.

Gregor Samsa

crucamim wrote: »

When one remembers that most of the victims of sex abuse by priests were teenage boys, one must wonder how gays can have the audacity to try to use the sex abuse scandal against Catholics.

One doesn't need to wonder at all, when one knows the difference between abuse and consent. And the difference between pederasty/paedophilia and homosexuality.

crucamim wrote: »

We Catholics can do without advice from any non-Catholic.

Evidently this is not the case.

joseph brand

legspin wrote: »

With statements like that, somtimes you just have to stand back and admire the pure cúntish nature of the post.

I waited seven years here to discover someone that I found worthy of being ignored. Congratulations, you have just made it two in a week.

Same here. Along with 'dead one'.

I'm surprised they can access the internet on their own. Unless someone else logs them on.

Religion actually suits them. They deserve it!

crucamim

phutyle wrote: »

One doesn't need to wonder at all, when one knows the difference between abuse and consent. And the difference between pederasty/paedophilia and homosexuality.

Did the victims consent to sex with gay priests?

Galvasean

I'm glad I'm only encountering such a warped mind on the internet. I don't think I could handle such face to face.

Sonics2k

What the hell...

crucamim

Sonics2k wrote: »

Are you comparing consenting adults in a relationship having sex, with the rape of minors? Are you people so blind you can't see a difference anymore?

Who raped the minors? Was it gays who happened to be priests?

Gregor Samsa

crucamim wrote: »

Did the victims consent to sex with gay priests?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?