Cardinal sins? merged threads

Forums New posts
Smurf

Smurf

Private Member
Joined
May 15, 2003
Saying that if priests want to get married they should be able to.

How could anyone object to that?
 
Smurfy said:
Saying that if priests want to get married they should be able to.

How could anyone object to that?
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. Some **** will object though
 
Pity its taken so long to say so Keef, although after todays report, you should be worrying about other things.
 
Not a religious man me. But to deny a man the most natural urge has always seemed a bizarre request to me
And has , it would appear, led to some unhealthy tendencies
 
Smurfy said:
Saying that if priests want to get married they should be able to.

How could anyone object to that?
Click to expand...
I agree. The only barriers in my mind are practical ones. The apparent wealth of the RC church is a cliche, but i suspect that if measured in liquid terms it's the poorest of the major christian denominations. I remember reading that the stipend for a catholic priest is two pints of lager and a packet of crisps compared to anglican vics with a family to support - and i suspect a far more wealthy church on a per capita basis.

But imho this is just something that needs to be overcome, because i think the net good is compelling. I think there should be women priests as well, while we're at it.

On the subject raised via 1875's link - oh dear, oh dear. But i do think relevant. I do not buy that lack of rumpy pumpy creates pedos - if that line of argument is followed through the implications are frightening apart from any thing else, suggesting that all that stands between people and beast status is lack of regular shagging. But i could be persuaded that it can cause frustrated people to get leery with other adults more than they would otherwise do. if there is any substance in these allegations, which i hope there is not, it is relevant in that respect, although in the context of gay relations, there is no answer forthcoming via married clergy which is entirely possible - but only within the historically normal understanding of what marriage is.
 
tayside hibee said:
Not a religious man me. But to deny a man the most natural urge has always seemed a bizarre request to me
And has , it would appear, led to some unhealthy tendencies
Click to expand...

Priests were married until the early middle ages, and still are in both the orthodox church and the greek rite catholic church (split from rome with the orthodox schism and since reunited, missing along the way the celibacy thing that came in in the west). Finally, so to are the english rite priests that have come over very recently from the anglican church. In short, it is not a dogmatic requirement - came in for financial reasons I believe, though no doubt thats a simplification.
 
Possibly related to these revelations; the guardian has been reporting rumours that one factor in the Pope's resignation was impending revelations about senior gay clergy within the church, and their constitution of a bloc within a wider intractable battle to reform the curia after the pedo scandal. Seemed a bit 'Dan Brown' initially but this may be something to do with it being a reality.
 
egb_hibs said:
Possibly related to these revelations; the guardian has been reporting rumours that one factor in the Pope's resignation was impending revelations about senior gay clergy within the church, and their constitution of a bloc within a wider intractable battle to reform the curia after the pedo scandal. Seemed a bit 'Dan Brown' initially but this may be something to do with it being a reality.
Click to expand...

Thought the same EGB, now the plot thickens with the latest headlines http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate

Could it all be connected too blacken his character.:hmmm
 
I have had occasion on here to refer to Peter Kearney, spokesperson for the Catholic Church in Scotland, as a man of low moral character. The timings of the Guardian piece suggest someone has sought to ensure the Cardinal's reputation is ruined.
 
The Cardinals comments about priests marrying should promote an interesting ecclesiastical debate at Pope HQ but wont.

As EGB states in an earlier post the celibacy rule was brought in for financial reasons during the middle ages. It was brought in to stop the property and monies of deceased priests being passed to their wife and children; and to keep it in the hands of the Church. Without googling think it was brought in at a Papal getogether called the Council of Trent.

It will be interesting to see what theological argument the Church puts forward for its continuing.

Its debatable how much effect allowing priests to marry and abolishing celibacy would have had on the child abuse scandals. Priests would have still been in a position of trust with access to children; and while abuse by priests is understandably high profile most abuse occurs in the home by non celibate family members and friends.

The accusations by fellow priests about the Cardinals own behaviour are conveniently timed, if nothing else. The Vatican indulging in the black arts ....surely not :077:
 
While the ruining of KOB's rep is bad news for the Church, the cabal surrounding KOB's successor Archbishop Tartaglia are interested only in a return to hardcore doctrine and values. For them the ruining of KOB's rep at the very point he wanted to generate a critical progressive debate about married priests is a price worth paying. You are unlikely to hear Philip Tartaglia call for married priests.

The values of Scotland's Catholics are not well served by a continued push toward the extreme. KOB showed you can remain essentially true to theological doctrine but be otherwise progressive (at least on a key issue). So regretting the lurch to the ever more extreme end of the spectrum is not the only or best way to resist secularism.
 
Broadly take your point Arthur but calling anything you disagree with extreme is not helpful either. Extremity is subjective in many cases. where it can be objectively defined it is almost never something that can logically be applied to the status quo position. Gay marriage is objectively extremist for example but its more likely to be a term thrown at its opponents - this corruption of language is part of a process where unreason is triumphing.
 
Dub said:
Of course these people could be ganging up on him and telling porkies to discredit his vies on Priests and marraige.


It's possible :dunno:
Click to expand...

Who would know Dubster. Like every other 'body' the kirk[whichever denomination you choose] will have its cliques & inner circles, back stabbers & shitehooses.
 
egb_hibs said:
Broadly take your point Arthur but calling anything you disagree with extreme is not helpful either. Extremity is subjective in many cases. where it can be objectively defined it is almost never something that can logically be applied to the status quo position. Gay marriage is objectively extremist for example but its more likely to be a term thrown at its opponents - this corruption of language is part of a process where unreason is triumphing.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think opposition to same sex marriage per se is part of the extremes I am talking about. If it is done reasonably and rationally then it is a fair position, and in fact one that I would defend against the rabid equalities crowd who would not so much disagree but seek to disallow the very right to have the view. It's when the rhetoric goes extreme that I am talking about (on all sides). So when the new Archbishop's official spokesperson compares Catholics in Scotland to black americans in 1950's southern states, then we have reached a point when decent Catholics are not being served by their church. However many logical or abstract similarities there are the point is actually grotesque (in a country with a Catholic Lord President and Catholic Lord Advocate etc and in which there is entirely accepted intermarriage and sex, and no lynchings).
 
Dub said:
Of course these people could be ganging up on him and telling porkies to discredit his vies on Priests and marraige.


It's possible :dunno:
Click to expand...

since it is from 4 different sources, the conspiracy is more about timing. The claims seek to justify themselves in part by saying it is vital to have them out in the open before the conclave to decide a new Pope. However all the claims are historical enough for the same reason to have been in place in 2005 when Ratzinger was selected. So why now? I believe very firmly that the new Archbishop (who is a much more conservative hardliner) wishes to make an example of Cardinal O Brien and perhaps knowing that the article on married priests was being published with its progressive view, arranged or more likely allowed this to be brought to the public's attention.
 
arthurduncan said:
I actually don't think opposition to same sex marriage per se is part of the extremes I am talking about.
Click to expand...
Well that's great. But I didn't intend to open that argument, but rather to point out what is extremist and what isn't. Gay marriage is objectively extremist in it departs from the understanding of all human history and the overwhelming majority of contemporary people, not to mention implicitly denies objectively real facts of the human condition. It is therefore objectively extremists, whether one believes it right or wrong. I share your concern for the manipulation of thought via manipulation of language, so I was simply trying to anchor some terms. And as such, while you can disagree with Kearney, the Tartaglia guy, or whomever,it does not follow that they are extremist - you may be disagreeing because you are, or all of you or none of you may be. And this is not the same as any party being right or wrong.

If it is done reasonably and rationally then it is a fair position, and in fact one that I would defend against the rabid equalities crowd who would not so much disagree but seek to disallow the very right to have the view. It's when the rhetoric goes extreme that I am talking about (on all sides). So when the new Archbishop's official spokesperson compares Catholics in Scotland to black americans in 1950's southern states, then we have reached a point when decent Catholics are not being served by their church. However many logical or abstract similarities there are the point is actually grotesque (in a country with a Catholic Lord President and Catholic Lord Advocate etc and in which there is entirely accepted intermarriage and sex, and no lynchings).
Click to expand...
I have no particular time for kearney or the other weegie versions of the race relations industry - however, did you read what he actually said - because he didn't really say what he is being presented as having said.
 
Another hypocrite departs the building. Men of God? Sick to their core.
 
I've not read anything to suggest the allegations compare with the beasts abusing kids, versus a misfiring gaydar.

I think your language is a bit ott smurf
 
some years ago I read Steve Gilhooley's book, he didn't name names at the time but it kinda makes a lot of sense now. :detective:
 
egb_hibs said:
I've not read anything to suggest the allegations compare with the beasts abusing kids, versus a misfiring gaydar.

I think your language is a bit ott smurf
Click to expand...

Ok innocent until proven guilty. However, at least one man of god is telling lies. Hypocrisy of being so vocal in denying the right of two men in a consenting relationship to marry yet at the same time.....
 
Sometimes I wish there was any truth in this Religion pish because someone like O'Brien deerves to rot in that hell he preaches of. An absolute hypocrite. A Bible thumping homophobe telling us about the sins of two loving men being in a couple yet all the while preying on male priests over a period of years. Sickening, yet unsuprising.

When a politician is caught out being a hypocritical prick like this its bad enough, but least those weasels don't claim to have the backing of God while being sanctimonious fucks.
 
Smurfy said:
Ok innocent until proven guilty. However, at least one man of god is telling lies. Hypocrisy of being so vocal in denying the right of two men in a consenting relationship to marry yet at the same time.....
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy charge definitely can be made - I was thinking of your sick to the core; haven't read it all but what I have suggests dlt rather than the saville-Dom of the cold abusers. Then again its not clear whether unwanted attention is an inappropriate proposal or something more sinister
 
egb_hibs said:
Hypocrisy charge definitely can be made - I was thinking of your sick to the core; haven't read it all but what I have suggests dlt rather than the saville-Dom of the cold abusers. Then again its not clear whether unwanted attention is an inappropriate proposal or something more sinister
Click to expand...

Shit! I agree with you :'(

Do we even know what the charge is? Never mind due process!

No, unless someone can say different.
 
The__Proclaimer said:
Sometimes I wish there was any truth in this Religion pish because someone like O'Brien deerves to rot in that hell he preaches of. An absolute hypocrite. A Bible thumping homophobe telling us about the sins of two loving men being in a couple yet all the while preying on male priests over a period of years. Sickening, yet unsuprising.

When a politician is caught out being a hypocritical prick like this its bad enough, but least those weasels don't claim to have the backing of God while being sanctimonious fucks.
Click to expand...
Cripes - if you ever find God, it sounds like Westboro baptist is the denomination for you! :shock:
 
O'Driscoll said:
some years ago I read Steve Gilhooley's book, he didn't name names at the time but it kinda makes a lot of sense now. :detective:
Click to expand...

egb_hibs said:
That crossed my mind too
Click to expand...

Crossed my mind as well,however a cursory search would suggest otherwise.

One of Gilhooley's staunchest supporters is Cardinal Keith O'Brien of St Andrews and Edinburgh, who the sash fringe hates because he's smart:

Gilhooley's friendship with Scotland's most senior Catholic clergyman has intrigued many. Why has O'Brien been so steadfastly loyal to the Church's black sheep? Gilhooley hesitates before telling how their friendship began. He was a young priest, being driven home by the Archbishop after a mass. O'Brien told Gilhooley he was often accused of being too churchy, and that he had really tried with his sermon that night. What did Gilhooley think? "I told him I thought his sermon was crap," recalls Gilhooley. "Those were my exact words."

There was silence in the car. "Then he burst out laughing. He roared with laughter, to the extent the car began to shake, and from that moment on he always trusted that if he asked me something I would tell the truth. We got on like a house on fire. He was so good and kind to me. If I have any regrets, one has to be if I hurt him by leaving."
 
Great point made by the journalist Catherine Daveney on the difference between contesting allegations and denying....
 
BD_DVdPCYAERyPE.jpg:large


had to happen I suppose. I am afraid the absolute destruction of this man, whatever his sins, is a horrible horrible thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom