Gay marriage thread

[jean]

Last week, Archbishop Nichols was questioned about the use of condoms in Africa to help reduce the appalling numbers of AIDS cases. In a rambling answer, he seemed to suggest that distributing condoms might be seen by Africans as a form of western imperialism, and that it might be better if Africans found their own solution unaided!

That's the most ingenious excuse I've ever heard.

He's not a Jesuit, is he?

[ahinton]

I think there's a bit of a wriggle going on here. According to today's Guardian O'Brien's resignation has been with the Pope for some time, since he is due to retire in any case, and the resignation letter is a standard requirement.
If this is so, then the announcement is not quite as dramatic as it first seems. He has said that he will not be going to Rome for the conclave, but since Benedict hands in his keys on Thursday, he'll probably get away without much trouble during the interregnum.

It might indeed be just that but does not in any way undermine the gravity of the alleged offences.

These people's ability to excuse themselves is staggering. A couple of nights ago another prelate calmly said that even if a cardinal was guilty of offences, that did not mean that he could not form a judgement on the papal selection.

Last week, Archbishop Nichols was questioned about the use of condoms in Africa to help reduce the appalling numbers of AIDS cases. In a rambling answer, he seemed to suggest that distributing condoms might be seen by Africans as a form of western imperialism, and that it might be better if Africans found their own solution unaided!

Indeed; it does pretty much beggar belief, does it not?

[MrGongGong]

Innocent until proved guilty IMV
and I hope there is no foundation to the allegations
the Catholic Church has been allowed to do far too much damage already

[ahinton]

Innocent until proved guilty IMV

Of course, as in all such cases and quite rightly, too.

and I hope there is no foundation to the allegations

I'm sure that most of the rest of us do likewise.

the Catholic Church has been allowed to do far too much damage already

Unfortunately, sufficient evidence already tried and tested in court and elsewhere does indeed demonstrate this to be the case - or at the very least that "far too much damage" has been proved to have been caused in the name of that Church...

[Deckerd]

At least he confined himself to adults. You have to wonder why they kept stumm for 30 years though.

[amateur51]

At least he confined himself to adults. You have to wonder why they kept stumm for 30 years though.

I think that is what the lawyers call a "nice" point

At least he confined himself to adults. You have to wonder why they kept stumm for 30 years though.

From today's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/24/pope-office-received-cardinal-allegations

from which ...

"The earliest of the allegations, which are denied by O'Brien, dates back to 1980. That complainant, who is now married, was then a 20-year-old seminarian at St Andrew's College, Drygrange, where O'Brien was the rector and his "spiritual director". The statement claims he made an inappropriate approach after night prayers.

The complainant said he was too frightened to report the incident, and became depressed. He was ordained, but told Mennini he resigned when O'Brien was promoted to bishop in the mid-1980s.

"I knew then he would always have power over me," he alleges. "It was assumed I left the priesthood to get married. I did not. I left to preserve my integrity."

The second complainant, "priest A", describes being happily settled in a parish when he claims he was visited by O'Brien and inappropriate contact between the two took place.

The third, "priest B", alleges he was starting his ministry in the 1980s when he was invited to spend a week "getting to know" O'Brien, by then the archbishop of St Andrew's and Edinburgh, at his official residence. His statement alleges he found himself dealing with what he describes as unwanted behaviour by the cardinal after a late-night drinking session.

"Priest C" was a young priest O'Brien was counselling over personal problems. His statement claims O'Brien used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact.

The pair stayed in contact and priest C's statement alleges the now cardinal engineered at least one other intimate situation. The priest said O'Brien is charismatic, and being sought out by a superior who was supposed to be guiding him was troubling and flattering.

"You have to understand," the former priest said, "The relationship between a bishop and a priest. At your ordination, you take a vow to be obedient to him.

"He's more than your boss, more than the CEO of your company. He has immense power over you. He can move you, freeze you out, bring you into the fold … he controls every aspect of your life." "

Depressingly familiar stuff, especially from what we know from the circumstances of poor Mrs Andrade's suicide.

Cardinal O'Brien has not, as far as I am aware, been charged with anything yet and remains innocent until proven guilty.

It appears that the Pope has known about these rumours for some time.

[scottycelt]

You've got to feel sorry for scotty.

His tip to be the next Pope has just resigned

And the much-criticised Stonewall Bigot of the Year has resigned too

Oh, they're the same person

Britain's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, is stepping down as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh. It follows allegations - which he contests - of inappropriate behaviour towards priests dating from the 1980s. The Scottish Catholic Church says Pope Benedict has accepted his resignation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21572724

I sincerely hope that this sudden rash of resignations does not mean that these people should escape the flinty majesty of the law. Otherwise we'll never know if Stonewall got it right

Don't feel sorry for me, amsey ... though I'm gutted my 33/1 shot is now way down the Swanee.

These allegations do seem a bit suspicious after 30 years and long before O'Brien ever came anywhere near the job of Cardinal (and the current 'gay marriage' nonsense) but he has resigned before the Conclave vote and even the Church's critics can hardly deny this matter has been dealt with swiftly. The allegations are exactly that until proved. As somebody said on Sky News today .. even if the allegations are true, individuals do fail and the Catholic Church for all its current troubles has a a happy habit of easily bouncing back and confounding its enemies.

If true, the allegations de facto are as much about homosexual abuse (the overwhelming majority of cases of clerical sexual abuse) as any concerning the Catholic Church alone.

To put poor old amsey (and the BBC) right the Cardinal has nothing to do with representing 'Britain'. Scotland is quite separate from England & Wales as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. 'Britain' in ecclesiastical terms doesn't exist.

Huw Edwards even surmised today whether Vincent Nichols might be the next 'British' Cardinal, apparently blissfully ignorant of the centuries-old separate status.

[amateur51]

Don't feel sorry for me, amsey ... though I'm gutted my 33/1 shot is now way down the Swanee.

These allegations do seem a bit suspicious after 30 years and long before O'Brien ever came anywhere near the job of Cardinal (and the current 'gay marriage' nonsense) but he has resigned before the Conclave vote and even the Church's critics can hardly deny this matter has been dealt with swiftly. The allegations are exactly that until proved. As somebody said on Sky News today .. even if the allegations are true, individuals do fail and the Catholic Church for all its current troubles has a a happy habit of easily bouncing back and confounding its enemies.

If true, the allegations de facto are as much about homosexual abuse (the overwhelming majority of cases of clerical sexual abuse) as any concerning the Catholic Church alone.

To put poor old amsey (and the BBC) right the Cardinal has nothing to do with representing 'Britain'. Scotland is quite separate from England & Wales as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. 'Britain' in ecclesiastical terms doesn't exist.

Huw Edwards even surmised today whether Vincent Nichols might be the next 'British' Cardinal, apparently blissfully ignorant of the centuries-old separate status.

The timing of O'Brien's resignation within sight of his retirement is puzzling and I wonder what it might portend, knowing as we do that the Cathoilc Church sees itself as often being outside secular law If he is charged and found guilty, might that affect his pension I wonder - I am completely ignorant of the Vatican's pension arrangements.

[Flosshilde]

even if the allegations are true, individuals do fail and the Catholic Church for all its current troubles has a a happy habit of easily bouncing back and confounding its enemies.

In other words, moving the perpetrators somewhere else, sweeping it all under the carpet & hope nobody notices. Unfortunately for the Church the carpet's getting rather bumpy & full of holes.

If true, the allegations de facto are as much about homosexual abuse (the overwhelming majority of cases of clerical sexual abuse) as any concerning the Catholic Church alone.

What?


(A 'nice' comment from the Editor of the Tablet, Catherine Pepinster, about the conclave to elect the pope - "The participants are there because the pope who gave them the 'red hat' chose them to join the college of cardinals. That is the only stipulation. The conclave is not obliged to be made up of saints." (quoted in the Guardian))

[scottycelt]

What?

'What', what, Flossie ... can't you read plain English?

[Flosshilde]

Yes - perhaps you could try writing it.

[MrGongGong]

the Catholic Church for all its current troubles has a a happy habit of easily bouncing back and confounding its enemies.

That , my friend, reads like code for "yeah we know we are a load of evil bastards but never mind, we'll square it with him upstairs once a week and carry on as if nothing has happened" ...........

For the many many people that the church has damaged I don't think it has much to be "happy" about

[scottycelt]

Yes - perhaps you could try writing it.

I have written it ... and I'm still awaiting any sort of meaningful response.

Mr GG is on one of his hysterical rants again so I'm relying on you, Flossie!

[Flosshilde]

I've tried, & I really can't understand what this - "If true, the allegations de facto are as much about homosexual abuse (the overwhelming majority of cases of clerical sexual abuse) as any concerning the Catholic Church alone" means.

If you are saying that (homo)sexual abuse is not an exclusive problem of the Catholic Church, that is perfectly true & I don't think anybody would deny it. However, what is a problem in the Catholic Church is the way it's handled. When people in authority (reaching as far as the pope) are made aware of instances of abuse they don't discipline the perpetrator; they don't sack them, they don't pass them over to the police; no, they move them to another parish or diocese where they are free to carry on their activities. In any other organisation they would be sacked & put on the sexual offenders register and most likely be prosecuted. The Catholic Church sees itself (as does, to a lesser extent, the Church of England) as being above secular laws.

[scottycelt]

I've tried, & I really can't understand what this - "If true, the allegations de facto are as much about homosexual abuse (the overwhelming majority of cases of clerical sexual abuse) as any concerning the Catholic Church alone" means.

If you are saying that (homo)sexual abuse is not an exclusive problem of the Catholic Church, that is perfectly true & I don't think anybody would deny it. However, what is a problem in the Catholic Church is the way it's handled. When people in authority (reaching as far as the pope) are made aware of instances of abuse they don't discipline the perpetrator; they don't sack them, they don't pass them over to the police; no, they move them to another parish or diocese where they are free to carry on their activities. In any other organisation they would be sacked & put on the sexual offenders register and most likely be prosecuted. The Catholic Church sees itself (as does, to a lesser extent, the Church of England) as being above secular laws.

However you think the Catholic Church 'sees itself' it is no more above the secular law as any other organisation or institution. You and others here appear to have a certain paranoia when it comes to the Catholic Church. I do not wish to deny it has it's faults, some major, as with any other human club. Yet here is a clear case where the Church has acted swiftly and decisively before any allegations are even proven and yet you and others still rush to condemn.

However, it is undoubtedly some sort of advance that suddenly you appear now to comprehend plain English, though my point was that the child abuse cases involving clerics were overwhelming homosexual in nature. These may be uncomfortable facts for you but that does not make them any less true! Police authorities confirm that the Church has been fully co-operating in rooting out and handing over any alleged child-abusers for years.

However, as far as I can see no mention has been made here of the current heterosexual 'scandal' in the Liberal Democrat Party and the much more serious one in the Mid-Staffs NHS. I use the word 'current' deliberately as these events are much more recent than the huge majority of those which have so damaged the Church. The Mid-Staffs case is said to have resulted in literally hundreds of lives being lost.

So why the comparative forum silence on these other wholly secular scandals ... why do you think that is, Flossie ?