Catholic Church goes to war against David Cameron

The Catholic Church has decided to go to war with David Cameron over same sex marriage:

The Catholic Church is on a collision course with David Cameron as one of its most senior figures issues an outspoken attack on the Government over its plans to legalise gay marriage.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, says the proposals to allow same-sex unions are “madness” and a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

The cardinal’s intervention, in an article for The Sunday Telegraph, is the strongest criticism yet from any church figure of the plans, which are due to be unveiled this month by Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister.

He accuses ministers of trying to “redefine reality” and change long-standing laws and traditions “at the behest of a small minority of activists”.

The cardinal has added his voice to those of leading figures in the Coalition for Marriage, a group of bishops, politicians and lawyers opposed to the changes. The group’s supporters include Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

The group is in outright opposition to Mr Cameron, who hopes to make legislation changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, expected by 2015, one of the central achievements of his time in office.

I would have thought that buggering choir boys against their will was a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. They oppose gay marriage but cover up buggering of choir boys.

When the Catholic Church addresses their historic sex crimes perhaps then we might start listening to what they have to say about “traditional family values”.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Hakim of phut

    Cardinal O’Brien is   against “change long-standing laws and traditions”.  My My .For a 2000 yr institution they sure have a short memory. It was only 1829 … barely yesterday for the Catholic Church that in the UK the Catholics were finally treated like other citizens. What a surprise that  they were considered not equal to protestants.

  • Seems 2 me

    Seems to me that the old technique of smoke and mirrors is in action.  By referenceing sex abuse in the church as a defence for the churches position on gay marriage. Which begats the question, how/why did the male homosexual community take over a word “gay” that already existed to describe “full of joy or mirth”?   Now the homosexual community want to take over a word that means “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments”.

    I well remember the argument that resulted in the civil union outcome. That wa sthe argument that homosexual couples wanted the same legla rights as married people.  This they now have.

    This seems to me not to be a debate about legal status(homesexual couples in NZ already have this) this is a battle to change the meaning of the word marriage.

    Personally not a fan of homosexuality, but will defend to the death a persons right to practice their sexual preferencDont practice christianity but also defend their right to practice their beliefs..  

  • Kosh103

    It warms the heart to see christian love in action.

  • ???

    IMO the implication of gay marriage being legally sanctioned by the state is the same
    for EVERY church and EVERY religion – all can be held liable for
    discrimination against gays/lesbians they refuse to marry/divorce. I wonder what the Muslim response to this would be.

    For a lot of
    religions/churches homosexuality is also considered a sin. ‘Marriage’ is a christian term, a sacrament and also a trilateral agreement between a man, woman and god. Marriage is also the foundation stone of the family unit.

    Hence, why the 4% of gays and lesbians need to find their own
    terminology equivalent to marriage. 55.6% of NZers in 2006 Census recorded themselves as ‘Christians’, about 4% are gay.

    Gays already have equal rights to married couples in the eyes of the law.
    So why do they also want to adopt the christian term ‘marriage’?

    Personally, don’t care what Gays and Lesbians do so long as they do not impinge upon the rights of others. Also, would like to see religious institutions continue without interference from the state.

    • Hakim of phut

      The Church’s , were for a long time defenders of ‘unequal marriage’. Many still are . The husband  is dominant and the wife is subservient. And this was protected  by state law.

      Is this ‘Christian marriage” you refer to? Wives couldnt own property without the husbands permission .  Husbands could rape their wives. Children and wives were a form of property of the husband.

      • ???

         You clearly have never been in a modern christian church and have no understanding of what a modern christian marriage is about. Your views are out of date and ill informed.
        Husbands and wife can and often do jointly own property and neither are considered the property of the other, rather both consider themselves locked into vows with god. Rape and all forms of crime are not condoned. Wives often work. What planet are you on?

      • Hakim of phut

        Of course , you love equal rights  but not for everybody.   But some dont want any more change.
        Of course I was referring to what Christian Marriage USED to be. Perhaps you have forgotten.  (or are a man ?)

  • Cato

    Are you alleging that Cardinal O’Brien has covered up a sex crime? Evidence?

    • Hakim of phut

      THEY doesnt mean HE.

      • grumpy

        Perhaps the Catholic Church, in dealing with homosexual priests “buggering choirboys”, actually has developed quite an understanding of homosexuality and that is the reason for their stand.

      • Hakim of phut

        Their “understanding” , was to protect the priests. And more latterly discredit the victims.

        The rampant abuses  go way back to henry VIII time , so go with this ‘modern society’ excuse

  • ConwayCaptain

    There is a maxim in British Politics in that “You do not go head to head with the Miners Union, Catholic Church or the Brigade of Guards” and you will lose.  The Miners have gone but the RC s and the BoGs have big clout in the UK.

    • Gazzaw

      Hakim will find that out when he does his funded UK study tour for rookie MPs.

  • Wychbych

    Yes, it’s always interesting to read the words of virgin paedos in frocks, who systematically covered up heinous sexual abuse of children world-wide. Moral authority? ZERO.

    They are also embroiled in scandal in Africa, where priests out there are raping nuns, and forcing them to abort when they get pregnant. Reasoning? The priests don’t want to contract AIDS, so they fuck the nuns. Celibacy, anyone? Moral authority? ZERO.

    The Whore of Rome has lost all credibility.

  • Wychbych

    I love that ‘redefine reality’ quip.

    The sky fairy worshippers, bread and wine to flesh and blood… what part of any of their doctrine is believeable? I say again, you have no moral authority, Whore of Rome.

  • STEVE AND MONIQUE

    Against gays,but happy to cover up their own dirty dealings.Sad pack of buggers.

    • Wychbych

       *and* buggerers! ;)

  • Andrei

    Unnatural marriage has nothing to do with the so called “abuse” scandal.

    You are far far more likely to come across a boy who has been “buggered” by a secondary school teacher employed by the STATE than one who has been “buggered” by a Priest and by your bizarre logic that would  mean John Key has no moral authority to do anything.

    • Hakim of phut

      It the Church sanctioned coverup thats the problem,  send the priest/ brother somewhere else was the answer. To another school, another orphanage.  
      It wasnt just sexual abuse , there was physical abuse by nuns to children,  teenage mothers ,very common in Catholic dominated countries like Ireland.

    • Wychbych

       What irks people is the systemic cover-up of the frock-wearing kid-fuckers of the Whore of Rome. The current Pope was in charge of defending the Church’s reputation and stonewalling investigators. Just what’s going on right now in Africa re: raping nuns is another case in point.

      As I said, virgins in frocks, telling us how to behave. Moral authority? ZERO.

      I would rather have homos in my house than kiddy-fiddling priests. Perverts!

  • Hakim of phut

    Heard there was a catholic nunnery in the Bombay Hills which built a flat for visiting priests. 
    It was supposed  to be close to the nuns quarters until the mother superior found out and ordered it moved  500m away

  • Jos B

    Some points…

    In 2004 the Department of Education in the US commissioned a report by Carol Shakeshaft which reviewed sexual misconduct. She said that – 

     “… the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests.”

    Also, with regard to the “cover up” in the Church – the Church did nothing different to secular society in that regard.

    In 1994, Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints—184 in New York State and 41 in other states—against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994.[3] She found that “All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package.” 

    I think it is human nature to want to hide the sins of your own group and try to fix things from within, even if it is obviously the wrong thing to do. Monica Applethwaite makes the point – 

    I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not
    reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there
    were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved
    were not criminalized yet
    . It is fair for criticism of decisions made
    in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior,
    weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures
    set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate
    this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of
    today.

    We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused
    real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to
    rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending
    offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very
    same thing with convicted offenders
    — sending them to treatment instead
    of prison.

     

  • titanuranus
32%