Cardinal will only step down if told by Pope

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 05:49PM

Ultravid wrote: »

BOTH are gravely immoral. Both ought to be condemned.

Don't you or the church lecture anyone on morality ever. In you're opinion why is homosexuality immoral? Because some sheep herders wrote about it a cfew thousand years ago, what about eating shellfish?

LookingFor · 16-03-2010 05:51PM

Ultravid wrote: »

The Church abuse crisis was largely a homosexual abuse crisis

The church has indeed been abusing homosexuals for a long time.

But, let's come back to matters at hand - this is about the disconnect that exists between the Church's idea of right and wrong and the reality of the human condition, and the common sense idea of right and wrong, and the common experience of the human condition. That's manifested itself in a few different ways, including in its treatment of homosexuals. But this manifestation is a distinct one that stands on its own. I think O'Gorman can see the links in context of thinking that gives rise to the church's approach on child abuse and the church's approach to a variety of other matters, but I think any victim of child abuse would tell you straight up that you don't need anything more than that to rally your anger. I think it perfectly suffices.

Cheap Thrills! · 16-03-2010 05:51PM

Ultravid wrote: »

BOTH are gravely immoral. Both ought to be condemned.

What about lesbians covered in gravy?

Gravily immoral !!

trustno1 · 16-03-2010 05:58PM

This was just on the Last Word, for anyone (like me) who officially wants to rid themselves of all links with the catholic church - www.countmeout.ie

dvpower · 16-03-2010 06:15PM

Ultravid wrote: »

BOTH are gravely immoral. Both ought to be condemned.

You are gravely immoral. You ought to be condemned.

landsleaving · 16-03-2010 06:18PM

Ultravid wrote: »

BOTH are gravely immoral. Both ought to be condemned.

Why is being homosexual immoral? Can you actually answer that question with a reasonable argument?

Just wondering, I'd never deny you your right to condemn others based on their relationship preferences or anything, but I'd love to find out what possible argument against being homosexual exists?

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 06:36PM

landsleaving wrote: »

Why is being homosexual immoral? Can you actually answer that question with a reasonable argument?

Just wondering, I'd never deny you your right to condemn others based on their relationship preferences or anything, but I'd love to find out what possible argument against being homosexual exists?

Be careful with your wording. The homosexual inclination is disordered. But if it is resisted, there is no sin. Homosexual acts are however gravely immoral.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

landsleaving · 16-03-2010 06:37PM

Right then. So what's wrong with homosexual acts then?

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 06:41PM

landsleaving wrote: »

Right then. So what's wrong with homosexual acts then?

Read the links.

landsleaving · 16-03-2010 06:44PM

I try to avoid propaganda. But thanks anyway.

Also I asked for YOUR opinion.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 06:46PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Be careful with your wording. The homosexual inclination is disordered. But if it is resisted, there is no sin. Homosexual acts are however gravely immoral.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

You take moral advice/guidance from that cesspit?

LookingFor · 16-03-2010 06:57PM

I bet O'Gorman doesn't go to mass on Sunday. Not observing Sunday obligations is a grave sin.

True agenda revealed! He clearly just wants to change Church teaching on Sunday obligations.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Who f-ing cares what the Church has to say is a grave sin or not. He and others want proper justice for and handling of child abuse. The church's internal rules and so on are irrelevant.

ScumLord · 16-03-2010 07:34PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I have a question: if one of the victims of Brendan Smyth were to rape the Cardinal would it be considered a criminal or canonical matter?

There's only one way to find out mark. http://n1.cdn.spikedhumor.com/1/712000/153710-1q-40wYYGI4.jpg

Ultravid wrote: »

Be careful with your wording. The homosexual inclination is disordered.

What does that even mean, disordered?

LookingFor · 16-03-2010 08:03PM

The Catholic Communications office continues its defence of Brady.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0316/abuse.html

The Catholic Communications office has said that the then Fr Brady had no decision-making powers regarding the 1975 inquiry into Brendan Smyth.

In a statement it said that was the responsibility of his bishop and that he was asked to conduct the inquiry because he held a doctorate in Canon Law.

This afternoon, a Vatican official siad that a Roman Catholic confessor can do no more than absolve a sinner, even one who confesses to paedophilia.

Said official continues to prattle on in the article about internal Church law, oblivious to the notion that any other reasoning ought to pop into a clergyman's head. Apparently if a part of the CC you're morally castrated. If something like child abuse comes onto your desk, you sit on your hands and wait for the mothership to tell you what to do. If the mothership does nothing, neither do you.

plein de force · 16-03-2010 08:13PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Be careful with your wording. The homosexual inclination is disordered. But if it is resisted, there is no sin. Homosexual acts are however gravely immoral.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

you see the thing you're using there as a basis for supporting your theories on morality come from a religion which in itself is immoral, made thousands of years ago therefore they hold very little weight with me and many others

i am a very well rounded individulal. i try to be respectful, kind and the best person i can be to others, i benefit others in my life i'd like to think and live a very happy life, i happen to be attracted to and have relationships with other men, the way i always have been, the way my brother who was brought up the exact same has always been attracted to and had relationships with females and we're pretty much alike in our morals and thinking and the way we conduct ourselves, how you can call that disordered baffles me

and i'm sure others would describe your actions of tracing everything back to homosexuals, implying that homosexuality is some how linked to paedophilia (which is like linking heterosexuality to same) and basically trying to trash a diverse group of people based on one essence of their being, their sexuality, i think that is disordered

rovert · 16-03-2010 08:16PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Be careful with your wording. The homosexual inclination is disordered. But if it is resisted, there is no sin. Homosexual acts are however gravely immoral.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Dude seriously come out of the closet

bazza1 · 16-03-2010 08:16PM

Time to step down,Sean my son.

Yours,

Benny

Liam Byrne · 16-03-2010 08:21PM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

This is a case of Canon law -vs- Civil law, failure to report a crime is an offence under Civil law, but I dont know how Canon Law interprets it. He is trying to wash his hands of swearing these victims to silence by invoking some grey area of Canon Law.

So is riding kids not an offence under Canon Law ?

And if it is, how many of the scum involved were convicted and punished ?

Naikon · 16-03-2010 08:44PM

He should be held accountable. Glad I am not religious in any way anymore.

MackDeToaster · 16-03-2010 08:45PM

How things were different just a few months ago..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1205/breaking21.html

"Archbishop of Armagh Cardinal Séan Brady has today called for accountability among bishops in the wake of the Murphy report into the handling of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests."
......
"Asked what he would do if it were found that children had been abused as a result of any failing on his part, Dr Brady said he would stand down. “I would remember that the abuse of children is a very serious crime in civil and canon law. It’s also a very grave sin,” he said. "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."

:rolleyes: Mental reservation, I suspect he is telling himself he did act by making them swear an oath of silence and passing it up the chain, never mind that this in itself was complicit in, AND effectively silenced the victims, and so ensured the Brendan Smyth was free to rape away. The hypocrisy and self-delusion is astounding.

Hank_Jones · 16-03-2010 08:56PM

The irony of that is just amazing.

Cardinal who didn't act against child abuse, will only stand down if Pope who didn't act against child abuse tells him to.

What a fcuked up organisation.

Erren Music · 16-03-2010 09:04PM

dvpower wrote: »

Not everything that is wrong, is illegal.

you sound like bertie justifying taken bribes.

I am surprised the fool just doesn't say "it wasn't illegal to fcuk kids in 1975, Ireland was a different place then"

Ultravid wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman was abused, I don't doubt that, but Mr O'Gorman has an agenda, beyond the notion of seeking justice. This is my hunch: He is using the fact that he was abused to beat the Church. My bet is that he is angry with the Church because he himself is living with a man. He wants the Church to change her teaching (impossible) on sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the situation.

STFU you stupid fool

Hagar · 16-03-2010 09:17PM

It's an emotional topic but let's not get personal, we all have different life experiences and opinions. There's plenty of room for different viewpoints even if they seem untenable.

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 09:36PM

There is a need for reason and level-headedness in this, not hot-headed rowing and hating which you see here and in the MSM.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 09:38PM

Ultravid wrote: »

There is a need for reason and level-headedness in this, not hot-headed rowing and hating which you see here and in the MSM.

David Quinns blog link is in this thread somewhere, you know where to go.

PeterIanStaker · 16-03-2010 09:44PM

As long as we have Christotaliban like David Quinn, the less progress we make as a society. He'd be right at home in the American deep South.

philologos · 16-03-2010 09:48PM

Naikon wrote: »

He should be held accountable. Glad I am not religious in any way anymore.

Irrespective of whether or not you are an atheist or Christian these people should definitely be held to account. We should be past mere accountability at this stage surely?

Rabies · 16-03-2010 10:40PM

Erren Music wrote: »

you sound like bertie justifying taken bribes.

I am surprised the fool just doesn't say "it wasn't illegal to fcuk kids in 1975, Ireland was a different place then"

STFU you stupid fool

Banned.

Because you're new here it will be a bit shorter than normal

raah! · 17-03-2010 06:10AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

The difference is, there's no reasonable way to "opt out" of a national society without emigrating. That is the social contract a citizen engages in so long as they remain with a country's borders. Catholics, on the other hand, can choose to remain part of the church, or they can choose not to - but at this point they cannot reasonably claim ignorance or coercion, and so they must do so freely and with their eyes open.

So long as they willingly remain a part of that organisation, they are complicit in it's present and future actions. Presently, the church publically and shamelessly continues to shirk responsibility for the harm done to children in it's care or acknowledge it's own deep-rooted problems in any meaningful way - I do not think it is unreasonable to consider anybody who continues to support such an organisation, idealogically or financially, partly complicit in it's efforts to do so.

Being within the borders of a country does not mean that you have accepted any sort of social contract. To think that we have to is no different to religious people saying that as people we are obligated to follow the laws in the bible or something.

Also this argument about "opting out" could be perfectly applied to when church and state were not separate. These people who are still religious are simply a continuation of that time when their social contract included religion. The modern social contract has been changed slightly. Perhaps they do not see "opting out" to be as simple as you do. Just as while you think it impossible to not endorse laws or aspects of government you do not agree with, many people believe it is possible.

ScumLord wrote: »

They are, FF supporters and the people who voted them in again and again are responsible for the actions of Bertie, this is a democracy and the ultimate responsibility lies with the people but no one ever wants to admit they're wrong and be done with it, no they have to drag it out for years and waste vast sums of money in the process.

My point was that this was a necessary continuation of that logic, but you do not see people condemning supporters of political parties these days to the same extent they are condemning religious people. I was suggesting that it was more based in feelings of superiority.

goat2 · 17-03-2010 11:39AM

raah! wrote: »

In fairness there aren't many other directions the thread could go, when it quickly turned into little more than hate-mongering."I hate all catholics tbh"-thankthanktthankthank.

Saying the people who go to church are to blame for rapist priests is the same as saying that irish people are to blame for berty ahern stealing money... or any of those other governmental injustices. A claim to superiority isn't valid for those who still pay taxes.

that is different, and yes we are partly, because we elected him and let him in charge of the cookie jar

Cardinal will only step down if told by Pope

Comments