Cardinal Sins?

[hibsbollah]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21563345

[johnbc70]

Very strange timing, month before he retires.

[Betty Boop]

Very strange timing, month before he retires.

Exactly, ensuring his reputation is in tatters.

[Hibbyradge]

That's what happens when you suggest that Priests should be allowed to marry!

[Big Ed]

Exactly, ensuring his reputation is in tatters.

…and that’s my problem with this story: it is a report on accusations rather than a matter of fact.

The report states that the four men who have complained to the Pope’s representative, are demanding his immediate resignation, knowing full well he is due to retire next month.

If it emerges that he has been guilty of the actions he has been accused of; then he deserves to be exposed, but the timing suggests something a wee bit sinister.

[hibsbollah]

Tom Farmer has just been on the BBC news supporting the Cardinal.

[Beefster]

Cardinal O'Brien has resigned this morning.

[--------]

…and that’s my problem with this story: it is a report on accusations rather than a matter of fact.

The report states that the four men who have complained to the Pope’s representative, are demanding his immediate resignation, knowing full well he is due to retire next month.

If it emerges that he has been guilty of the actions he has been accused of; then he deserves to be exposed, but the timing suggests something a wee bit sinister.


Falling like leaves in the autumn, so they are ...

More like a nasty stab in the back from those in the Roman Church who don't want to see it reformed (which it badly needs). This takes him out of the conclave to elect the next Papa and probably does them harm in the long run. O'Brien wasn't a man I liked much, but he was a better man than a lot of the people who'll be crowding around to condemn.

[EuanH78]

That's what happens when you suggest that Priests should be allowed to marry!

:agree: Suspect the 'Smear' phone has been red hot over the weekend. As Doddie says, those that dont want to see the CC reformed. Suits me fine tbh I'd rather it stays the dinosaur it is and loses more and more touch till it becomes a farcical non-entity.

Just my view of course.

[Beefster]

The timing is suspect and may partially be an attempt by the priests involved to trash his reputation before his retirement. The allegations were made at the beginning of February (i.e. before the 'priests marrying' chat and before the Pope resigned) though so are definitely not a reaction to any of Cardinal O'Brien's recent announcements or a [successful] attempt to stop him attending the conclave.

Practising priests tend not to make up allegations about their own Cardinal so I expect that they will turn out to be true.

[EuanH78]

The timing is suspect and may partially be an attempt by the priests involved to trash his reputation before his retirement. The allegations were made at the beginning of February (i.e. before the 'priests marrying' chat and before the Pope resigned) though so are definitely not a reaction to any of Cardinal O'Brien's recent announcements or a [successful] attempt to stop him attending the conclave.

Practising priests tend not to make up allegations about their own Cardinal so I expect that they will turn out to be true.

That may be true Beefster but equally 'priests marrying' chat was bound to be known at least internally within the Church before being made public, equally its conceivable that the Popes resignation though seemingly a surprise could have been known about beforehand too meaning my Machiavellian view of the Catholic Church can remain :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

So what's the correct conclusion to be drawn from all this? That a virulently anti-gay cleric is in fact gay? Or is there some deeper importance? :confused:

[--------]

The timing is suspect and may partially be an attempt by the priests involved to trash his reputation before his retirement. The allegations were made at the beginning of February (i.e. before the 'priests marrying' chat and before the Pope resigned) though so are definitely not a reaction to any of Cardinal O'Brien's recent announcements or a [successful] attempt to stop him attending the conclave.

Practising priests tend not to make up allegations about their own Cardinal so I expect that they will turn out to be true.




These accusations relate to alleged incidents dating back 30 years. Why leave it till now, Beefster?

[Beefster]

These accusations relate to alleged incidents dating back 30 years. Why leave it till now, Beefster?

As I say, I think it may be an attempt by those involved to trash his reputation as he retires. I could be wrong but I can't see 'the Church' plunging itself into crisis, just for the sake of getting back at a 'moderniser' (relatively speaking) who was about to retire anyway.

[NOLA]

met the Cardinal when he was 'just' an archbishop, as st Marys Cathedral was my local, always liked the man and a shame its ended in this manner, liked to chat about football and knew more than i thought a man in his position would do :agree:

[lobster]

Should the allegations have substance another hypocrite would be unearthed in the christian church. Whats the big deal?

[hibs0666]

And to think these clowns demand a hearing over issues of morality.

[PatHead]

Is there any word what the "improper conduct" is? I know everyone has automatically assumed it is sexual but has anyone actually said so?

[RyeSloan]

Is there any word what the "improper conduct" is? I know everyone has automatically assumed it is sexual but has anyone actually said so?

Don't think so...all been very vague.

It's an intreaguing turn of events though...pope resigns then 30 year old allegations against a Cardinal weeks before he retires.

[Beefster]

A friend of the beast Saville says it all.

What does it say?

[Future17]

A friend of the beast Saville says it all.

Ehm, no it doesn't.

You may wish to have a read of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257

[LeighLoyal]

Don't know what to make of this thing until the allegations and accusers are brought to light, until then there isn't much to say.

[PatHead]

A friend of the beast Saville says it all.

I must admit I really didn't want to respond to your "Sunsational" type comment last night but it has been eating away at me all day. Thought you were above that type of comment.

Due to his fundraising Saville managed to fool a hell of a lot of people during his life, enough to have various buildings/wards in hospitals and I think even a street named after him in Leeds. He mixed with Royalty, Prime Ministers, celebs and many church leaders, not only Catholic. To insinuate, with absolutely no proof that he shared beliefs with Saville on the strength of tabloid manipulation is really poor.

As far as I am aware there no-one in the public knows what these "charges" are about. The Cardinal is quoted as saying he doesn't know who made these accusations and what they are. It could be telling priests he fancied giving the Mother Superior one or commenting on the size of a woman's chest equally it could be trying to have homosexual relationships with someone. I don't know but neither do you and to try and associate him with child molesation is bang out of order.

Surely he is innocent of anything until proven innocent. Your comment is the type of thing I would expect to see on a The Rangers messageboard.

[Beefster]

I must admit I really didn't want to respond to your "Sunsational" type comment last night but it has been eating away at me all day. Thought you were above that type of comment.

Due to his fundraising Saville managed to fool a hell of a lot of people during his life, enough to have various buildings/wards in hospitals and I think even a street named after him in Leeds. He mixed with Royalty, Prime Ministers, celebs and many church leaders, not only Catholic. To insinuate, with absolutely no proof that he shared beliefs with Saville on the strength of tabloid manipulation is really poor.

As far as I am aware there no-one in the public knows what these "charges" are about. The Cardinal is quoted as saying he doesn't know who made these accusations and what they are. It could be telling priests he fancied giving the Mother Superior one or commenting on the size of a woman's chest equally it could be trying to have homosexual relationships with someone. I don't know but neither do you and to try and associate him with child molesation is bang out of order.

Surely he is innocent of anything until proven innocent. Your comment is the type of thing I would expect to see on a The Rangers messageboard.

While I agree with most of what you say, it's been made pretty clear in the press that the allegations are about inappropriate contact with and approaches to priests.

[(((Fergus)))]

I must admit I really didn't want to respond to your "Sunsational" type comment last night but it has been eating away at me all day. Thought you were above that type of comment.

Due to his fundraising Saville managed to fool a hell of a lot of people during his life, enough to have various buildings/wards in hospitals and I think even a street named after him in Leeds. He mixed with Royalty, Prime Ministers, celebs and many church leaders, not only Catholic. To insinuate, with absolutely no proof that he shared beliefs with Saville on the strength of tabloid manipulation is really poor.

As far as I am aware there no-one in the public knows what these "charges" are about. The Cardinal is quoted as saying he doesn't know who made these accusations and what they are. It could be telling priests he fancied giving the Mother Superior one or commenting on the size of a woman's chest equally it could be trying to have homosexual relationships with someone. I don't know but neither do you and to try and associate him with child molesation is bang out of order.

Surely he is innocent of anything until proven innocent. Your comment is the type of thing I would expect to see on a The Rangers messageboard.

Typo. Although in reality it seems he is guilty of anything until proven innocent, and not the other way round.

[Scouse Hibee]

Ehm, no it doesn't.

You may wish to have a read of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257

Read that and....................................

[Scouse Hibee]

I must admit I really didn't want to respond to your "Sunsational" type comment last night but it has been eating away at me all day. Thought you were above that type of comment.

Due to his fundraising Saville managed to fool a hell of a lot of people during his life, enough to have various buildings/wards in hospitals and I think even a street named after him in Leeds. He mixed with Royalty, Prime Ministers, celebs and many church leaders, not only Catholic. To insinuate, with absolutely no proof that he shared beliefs with Saville on the strength of tabloid manipulation is really poor.

As far as I am aware there no-one in the public knows what these "charges" are about. The Cardinal is quoted as saying he doesn't know who made these accusations and what they are. It could be telling priests he fancied giving the Mother Superior one or commenting on the size of a woman's chest equally it could be trying to have homosexual relationships with someone. I don't know but neither do you and to try and associate him with child molesation is bang out of order.

Surely he is innocent of anything until proven innocent. Your comment is the type of thing I would expect to see on a The Rangers messageboard.

Never said that.

[Scouse Hibee]

What does it say?


It says he was a friend of JS and probably got a Jim'll Fix It badge.

[Scouse Hibee]

Well that was easy.

[Scouse Hibee]

For the avoidance of doubt, I never, I don't. And will now delete the OP to save any further offence.

[PatHead]

Never said that.

By associating him with Jimmy Saville I took that inference, why didn't you associate him with Sir Tom, Princess Di or Mother Teresa with whom he was acquainted?

Think it was pretty clear to what you were alluding.

[(((Fergus)))]

For the avoidance of doubt, I never, I don't. And will now delete the OP to save any further offence.

If you don't, why remove the post? If you have a case to make, just make it. If not, retract your slander.

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21649475

Cardinal now apologises for 'sexual misconduct'.

[lyonhibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21649475

Cardinal now apologises for 'sexual misconduct'.

These days, the standards of sexual conduct one expects of a high ranking member of the Catholic Church are pretty darn low anyway, so the mind boggles as to exactly what this utter creep has been up to.

Horrid institution.

[hibs0666]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21649475

Cardinal now apologises for 'sexual misconduct'.

Does this mean O'Brien is guaranteed a one-way ticket to hell, or does he just hang around in purgatory for a few millenia seeing as he is in the trade? Surely the big hombre wouldn't let him get past the bouncers for these transgressions.

[steakbake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21649475

Cardinal now apologises for 'sexual misconduct'.

He's got nowt to apologise for in relation to his sexuality but he should consider whether he's been a hypocrite all these years.

[HarpyHibby]

These days, the standards of sexual conduct one expects of a high ranking member of the Catholic Church are pretty darn low anyway, so the mind boggles as to exactly what this utter creep has been up to.

Horrid institution.

Horrid insitution which provides care and charity for millions in the developing world? Don't forget the good for the bad. Small minded.

[Hibrandenburg]

Horrid insitution which provides care and charity for millions in the developing world? Don't forget the good for the bad. Small minded.

I see it the other way round. The bad uses the mask of the good. This organisation has used the blind trust of the masses by creating its perceived good and unquestionable reputation to allow them to carry out their depravities for centuries.

[Beefster]

He's got nowt to apologise for in relation to his sexuality but he should consider whether he's been a hypocrite all these years.

It's the hypocrisy that will be the big problem for the Chruch. You can't have Cardinals pontificating about the evils of homosexuality whilst having homosexual urges themselves. The Church needs to stop expecting celibacy of priests, allow marriage and accept homosexuality as a natural part of humanity to get a handle on all these problems. It won't happen anytime soon though.


I see it the other way round. The bad uses the mask of the good. This organisation has used the blind trust of the masses by creating its perceived good and unquestionable reputation to allow them to carry out their depravities for centuries.

I would imagine that the vast majority, by some distance, of folk involved in the Catholic Church (or most religions) are not 'depraved' and are generally good people with generally good, if sometimes misguided, intentions. Folk who don't like the Church/religion use stuff like this to attack the whole though.

[Hibrandenburg]

It's the hypocrisy that will be the big problem for the Chruch. You can't have Cardinals pontificating about the evils of homosexuality whilst having homosexual urges themselves. The Church needs to stop expecting celibacy of priests, allow marriage and accept homosexuality as a natural part of humanity to get a handle on all these problems. It won't happen anytime soon though.



I would imagine that the vast majority, by some distance, of folk involved in the Catholic Church (or most religions) are not 'depraved' and are generally good people with generally good, if sometimes misguided, intentions. Folk who don't like the Church/religion use stuff like this to attack the whole though.

And why shouldn't the whole be criticised? Even the most evil of societies had their good side, the vast majority have at least been complicit in turning a blind eye.

[Beefster]

And why shouldn't the whole be criticised? Even the most evil of societies had their good side, the vast majority have at least been complicit in turning a blind eye.

The vast majority of who?

[Hibrandenburg]

It's the hypocrisy that will be the big problem for the Chruch. You can't have Cardinals pontificating about the evils of homosexuality whilst having homosexual urges themselves. The Church needs to stop expecting celibacy of priests, allow marriage and accept homosexuality as a natural part of humanity to get a handle on all these problems. It won't happen anytime soon though.



I would imagine that the vast majority, by some distance, of folk involved in the Catholic Church (or most religions) are not 'depraved' and are generally good people with generally good, if sometimes misguided, intentions. Folk who don't like the Church/religion use stuff like this to attack the whole though.


The vast majority of who?


Sorry, I thought it was obvious because I'd quoted you.

[johnbc70]

And why shouldn't the whole be criticised? Even the most evil of societies had their good side, the vast majority have at least been complicit in turning a blind eye.

So the vast majority of 1.2 billion Catholics in the world have been complicit in turning a blind eye?

Maybe you can tell us what good did the Nazi's did? Oh yes they invented Volkswagen car.

[Beefster]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious because I'd quoted you.

I think claiming that the vast majority of 1.2 billion people have done something is more than likely to be a massive generalisation, based on nothing much at all.

[Hibrandenburg]

So the vast majority of 1.2 billion Catholics in the world have been complicit in turning a blind eye?

Maybe you can tell us what good did the Nazi's did? Oh yes they invented Volkswagen car.

Introduction of welfare programs
Medical advancement
Autobahn
Anti tobacco movement
Rocket science
Nature reserves
Banning of animal vivisection
Massive economic turnaround
Innovation in film
Industrial advancement

To name a few.

Point is that the vast majority were willing to keep their gobs shut and turn a blind eye to the evils of the regime because it benefitted them not to kick up a fuss. Even the RC church in Germany at that time had its head in the sand.

[--------]

http://www.scottishreview.net/index.shtml?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8427-289409-The+media+assassination+of+Cardinal+O%27Brien+++

http://www.scottishreview.net/LornMacintyre64.shtml

Food for thought?

[johnbc70]

Introduction of welfare programs
Medical advancement
Autobahn
Anti tobacco movement
Rocket science
Nature reserves
Banning of animal vivisection
Massive economic turnaround
Innovation in film
Industrial advancement

To name a few.

Point is that the vast majority were willing to keep their gobs shut and turn a blind eye to the evils of the regime because it benefitted them not to kick up a fuss. Even the RC church in Germany at that time had its head in the sand.

The Nazi state intimidated and terrorised and in many cased killed those who were opposed to it so I am not sure that many were turning a blind eye as you put it, more in fear of their life I would say.

[jodjam]

Maybe i'm reading too much into his apology yesterday but he talks about his time as priest, archbishop and cardinal. Is he admitting that these incidents have been happening recently as i'm sure the allegations were from a number of years back.

[HarpyHibby]

The catholic church may have had its problems over the years but deary me, comparing us to the Nazi's ? Give yourselves a shake. Fair enough you may not agree with its idealogies and beliefs but come on eh?!

Just for the record, I went to Loretto RC primary in Musselburgh and then onto secondary at St Davids in Dalkeith whilst regularly attending Our lady of Loretto church through curricular activities and i was never 'touched' or experienced any 'sexual advances' from Canon McMillan. Who'd have thought it eh?!

[Twa Cairpets]

I see it the other way round. The bad uses the mask of the good. This organisation has used the blind trust of the masses by creating its perceived good and unquestionable reputation to allow them to carry out their depravities for centuries.

I half agree. I think there are vast swathes of catholic missionary activity in particular that it are, frankly. obscene, especially with reference to contraception. The churches stance actively kills people and creates poverty - this is not melodramatic, but in sub-saharan Africa in particular an absolute and surely incontrovertible fact. I find their stance on a homosexuality, for the most part pretty disgusting and undeniably hypocritical.

Do I think all priests are kiddie fiddlers, for example? No of course not - I cant believe that most are anything but sincere men with a deep calling trying to do good in the world, and leading their congregations to the best of their ability . I don't agree with why they do it, but I don't doubt they are doing it for good reasons.

Where rank-and-file catholics it seems to me are let down is by their leadership - be it our own cardinal and his hypocrisy covering his own sexuality, or the Vatican actively covering up child abuse and actively endangering other children. Such behaviour at the top of the tree must surely lead some to challenge their faith and trust in what they hear being preached?

[Scouse Hibee]

The catholic church may have had its problems over the years but deary me, comparing us to the Nazi's ? Give yourselves a shake. Fair enough you may not agree with its idealogies and beliefs but come on eh?!

Just for the record, I went to Loretto RC primary in Musselburgh and then onto secondary at St Davids in Dalkeith whilst regularly attending Our lady of Loretto church through curricular activities and i was never 'touched' or experienced any 'sexual advances' from Canon McMillan. Who'd have thought it eh?!

Don't feel too down about it mate.

[yeezus.]

Horrid insitution which provides care and charity for millions in the developing world? Don't forget the good for the bad. Small minded.

:agree: many people seem to be very quick to dismiss the great work carried out by the church.

[Hibrandenburg]

The catholic church may have had its problems over the years but deary me, comparing us to the Nazi's ? Give yourselves a shake. Fair enough you may not agree with its idealogies and beliefs but come on eh?!

Just for the record, I went to Loretto RC primary in Musselburgh and then onto secondary at St Davids in Dalkeith whilst regularly attending Our lady of Loretto church through curricular activities and i was never 'touched' or experienced any 'sexual advances' from Canon McMillan. Who'd have thought it eh?!

Have another read through the thread mate. I didn't bring up the Nazi comparison.

[Hibrandenburg]

The Nazi state intimidated and terrorised and in many cased killed those who were opposed to it so I am not sure that many were turning a blind eye as you put it, more in fear of their life I would say.

And in what way is that different to the Catholic Church? Have they never killed anyone who was opposed to them? Have they never waged war on people who failed to bow down to their rule?

It wasn't me who raised the subject of parallels between the RC Church and the Nazis, but now the subject has been opened for debate I think you'll find that over the centuries the RC Church wins hands down when it comes to evil deeds.

[Hibrandenburg]

I half agree. I think there are vast swathes of catholic missionary activity in particular that it are, frankly. obscene, especially with reference to contraception. The churches stance actively kills people and creates poverty - this is not melodramatic, but in sub-saharan Africa in particular an absolute and surely incontrovertible fact. I find their stance on a homosexuality, for the most part pretty disgusting and undeniably hypocritical.

Do I think all priests are kiddie fiddlers, for example? No of course not - I cant believe that most are anything but sincere men with a deep calling trying to do good in the world, and leading their congregations to the best of their ability . I don't agree with why they do it, but I don't doubt they are doing it for good reasons.

Where rank-and-file catholics it seems to me are let down is by their leadership - be it our own cardinal and his hypocrisy covering his own sexuality, or the Vatican actively covering up child abuse and actively endangering other children. Such behaviour at the top of the tree must surely lead some to challenge their faith and trust in what they hear being preached?

Agreed, the vast majority of believers are good people who's only wish is to make the world a better place. What absolutely baffles me though is their failure question the organisation that constantly tries to sweep any scandal under the carpet and in most cases even tries to cover them up. If I was a member of an organisation that was constantly involved in depraved acts that are supposedly against its very own values then I'd want to know how it could be stopped and what were the roots of the problem. Instead with the RC Church the shutters go up to protect the institution it's self. Any other institution would have been torn to pieces but the authority of the Church would seem to be unquestionable. Sorry, I just don't get it.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I half agree. I think there are vast swathes of catholic missionary activity in particular that it are, frankly. obscene, especially with reference to contraception. The churches stance actively kills people and creates poverty - this is not melodramatic, but in sub-saharan Africa in particular an absolute and surely incontrovertible fact. I find their stance on a homosexuality, for the most part pretty disgusting and undeniably hypocritical.

Do I think all priests are kiddie fiddlers, for example? No of course not - I cant believe that most are anything but sincere men with a deep calling trying to do good in the world, and leading their congregations to the best of their ability . I don't agree with why they do it, but I don't doubt they are doing it for good reasons.

Where rank-and-file catholics it seems to me are let down is by their leadership - be it our own cardinal and his hypocrisy covering his own sexuality, or the Vatican actively covering up child abuse and actively endangering other children. Such behaviour at the top of the tree must surely lead some to challenge their faith and trust in what they hear being preached?

I would agree. It seems those at the top i.e The Vatican are more concerned about the Church's reputation than anything else, and the hypocritical moralising of the likes of O'Brien infuriates me. Then again, I have no time for organised religion in any form. It isn't just Catholicism that has used fear within its faithful to guarantee their control over them.

[Beefster]

Agreed, the vast majority of believers are good people who's only wish is to make the world a better place. What absolutely baffles me though is their failure question the organisation that constantly tries to sweep any scandal under the carpet and in most cases even tries to cover them up. If I was a member of an organisation that was constantly involved in depraved acts that are supposedly against its very own values then I'd want to know how it could be stopped and what were the roots of the problem. Instead with the RC Church the shutters go up to protect the institution it's self. Any other institution would have been torn to pieces but the authority of the Church would seem to be unquestionable. Sorry, I just don't get it.

You may have a point about some stuff but there's an element of hyperbole about it. 'Constantly involved in depraved acts' - the organisation, as a whole, isn't constantly involved in depraved acts but a tiny minority of the 1.2 billion followers may be.

Presumably, you consider Scotland/Germany/any country to constantly be involved in depraved acts because some folk murder/rape/abuse? What have you done to find out how it could be stopped and find out the roots of the problem?

You seem to see the Catholic Church as some type of unthinking, zombie-like mass. That's about as realistic as thinking all Germans were Nazis.

[lyonhibs]

Horrid insitution which provides care and charity for millions in the developing world? Don't forget the good for the bad. Small minded.

Frequently said aid comes with pretty hefty strings attached - i.e. organisation not allowed to promote the use of condoms if they are to receive this aid.

And please note, I am referring to the Catholic Church as an institution, with its sexist policies, byzantine hierarchical structure, sex abuse cover ups and list of gross misdemeanors against the human race, specifically "non believers", throughout history.

Not practicing Catholics, who I have in my friendship group and I'm sure of which there are a good few on here. I'm not calling the moral compass of your average "Practicing Catholic in the street" into question.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Tom Farmer has just been on the BBC news supporting the Cardinal.

That was a strange one. They interviewed STF, amongst contributions from other members of that congregation, but didn't put up a caption stating who he was. I suspect that the BBC gadgies didn't recognise him.

[Hibrandenburg]

You may have a point about some stuff but there's an element of hyperbole about it. 'Constantly involved in depraved acts' - the organisation, as a whole, isn't constantly involved in depraved acts but a tiny minority of the 1.2 billion followers may be.

Ok, if it makes it easier for you then replace constantly with continuously and the point still stands.

Presumably, you consider Scotland/Germany/any country to constantly be involved in depraved acts because some folk murder/rape/abuse? What have you done to find out how it could be stopped and find out the roots of the problem?

Yes you're right, there is a never ending list of murders, rapes and scandals happening in both of these countries but you'll also find that there are constant protests, prosecutions and public pressure to get these occurrences stamped out or the perpetrators punished. When was the last time we saw members of the RC Church protesting about the corruption and depravation within its leadership? When was the last time we saw the masses gathering outside the Vatican demanding justice? I'd take a stab and guess around the times of John Knox in Scotland and Martin Luther here in Germany, otherwise any protest against the RC Church comes from outside the organisation.

You seem to see the Catholic Church as some type of unthinking, zombie-like mass. That's about as realistic as thinking all Germans were Nazis.

Zombies? That's your take on my views but as I've previously posted before, I believe the vast majority of RCs to be good people with high morals but unwilling to question the institution to which they belong. And yes I do see parallels to the Nazi Regime. "For evil to triumph it takes but a few good men to do nothing" pretty much sums it up for me.

[Hibrandenburg]

Frequently said aid comes with pretty hefty strings attached - i.e. organisation not allowed to promote the use of condoms if they are to receive this aid.

And please note, I am referring to the Catholic Church as an institution, with its sexist policies, byzantine hierarchical structure, sex abuse cover ups and list of gross misdemeanors against the human race, specifically "non believers", throughout history.

Not practicing Catholics, who I have in my friendship group and I'm sure of which there are a good few on here. I'm not calling the moral compass of your average "Practicing Catholic in the street" into question.

:top marks

[Beefster]

Zombies? That's your take on my views but as I've previously posted before, I believe the vast majority of RCs to be good people with high morals but unwilling to question the institution to which they belong. And yes I do see parallels to the Nazi Regime. "For evil to triumph it takes but a few good men to do nothing" pretty much sums it up for me.

You don't have to demonstrate or make a placard to 'do something'. It seems to me that you're railing against something that you don't really know much about.

How do you know that some Catholics aren't raising these issues with their priest/Bishop/Archbishop on a regular basis?

How do you know that there aren't Catholic pressure groups trying to get the Church changed from within? (There are)

Comparing the Catholic Church of today (the vast, vast, vast majority of whom are the laity) with a political movement that wilfully murdered millions of people is just ludicrous and neatly ends my contribution to this thread.

[Hibrandenburg]

You don't have to demonstrate or make a placard to 'do something'. It seems to me that you're railing against something that you don't really know much about.

How do you know that some Catholics aren't raising these issues with their priest/Bishop/Archbishop on a regular basis?

How do you know that there aren't Catholic pressure groups trying to get the Church changed from within? (There are)

Comparing the Catholic Church of today (the vast, vast, vast majority of whom are the laity) with a political movement that wilfully murdered millions of people is just ludicrous and neatly ends my contribution to this thread.

In your opinion it might be ludicrous but not in mine. You could argue that Hitler's Nazi party ceased being responsible for mass deaths in 1945 but you can't claim the same for the RC Church.

And before someone else goes off on one, it wasn't me that drew the Nazis into this..

[Mon Dieu4]

on a side note, people were referring to the fact there was division about priests marrying, don't think it says anywhere in the bible they can't

in fact lots of original priest were married but that meant when they died their property and money went to their kids or wife

the church didn't like that so banned them from getting married so that all property and money went to them instead

totally out dated and they need to move with the times

[Bishop Hibee]

Been busy so haven"t been on here but I'll put my tuppence worth in now.

When the news first broke last week, it was an indication of how little trust catholic lay people have in their leaders in the 1st world that the vast majority I know, myself included, immediately believed the complainants rather than the Cardinal. I've met the guy on numerous occasions over the years including afternoon tea at his residence (but he didn't chat me up, the wife was with me :wink:). Always came across as a decent man who was a bit out of his depth theologically but who was trying his best. Always liked talking about himself and the trappings of power though. Turns out he used this power in a despicable manner however tormented he was about his sexuality.

Any RC under 50 in Edinburgh goes to church on a Sunday because they believe in God not in the leadership of the catholic church. Ask a question such as "do you want married priests" or "do you believe gay people should get married" and you'll get a variety of answers. There is no brainwashing. Silence does not give consent. People just do their own thing e.g. using artificial contraception and ignore church teaching on the matter.

Hiberlin, saying that the Roman Catholic church and de facto the members of it is/are is like me saying secular democracy is evil as it has led to Vietnam, Iraq and war in Afghanistan. It also perpetuates the exploitation of the developing world via institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. It just does"t stand up as a coherent argument.

Change in the church is glacial and this has become more of an issue as the pace of change in the modern world has advanced to dizzying speed. RC's in Scotland will be putting a great deal of pressure on the hierarchy to modernise and there will be change. The worldwide nature of the church means that while you may see married priests, after all, there are many priest with families in South America, Africa and Asia, there is not a hope of the church changing its position on gay marriage anytime soon.

[Hibrandenburg]

Been busy so haven"t been on here but I'll put my tuppence worth in now.

When the news first broke last week, it was an indication of how little trust catholic lay people have in their leaders in the 1st world that the vast majority I know, myself included, immediately believed the complainants rather than the Cardinal. I've met the guy on numerous occasions over the years including afternoon tea at his residence (but he didn't chat me up, the wife was with me :wink:). Always came across as a decent man who was a bit out of his depth theologically but who was trying his best. Always liked talking about himself and the trappings of power though. Turns out he used this power in a despicable manner however tormented he was about his sexuality.

Any RC under 50 in Edinburgh goes to church on a Sunday because they believe in God not in the leadership of the catholic church. Ask a question such as "do you want married priests" or "do you believe gay people should get married" and you'll get a variety of answers. There is no brainwashing. Silence does not give consent. People just do their own thing e.g. using artificial contraception and ignore church teaching on the matter.

Hiberlin, saying that the Roman Catholic church and de facto the members of it is/are is like me saying secular democracy is evil as it has led to Vietnam, Iraq and war in Afghanistan. It also perpetuates the exploitation of the developing world via institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. It just does"t stand up as a coherent argument.

Change in the church is glacial and this has become more of an issue as the
pace of change in the modern world has advanced to dizzying speed. RC's in Scotland will be putting a great deal of pressure on the hierarchy to modernise and there will be change. The worldwide nature of the church means that while you may see married priests, after all, there are many priest with families in South America, Africa and Asia, there is not a hope of the church changing its position on gay marriage anytime soon.

Let's wait and see who the next Pope is before we start talking about modernisation.

[Hibrandenburg]

Been busy so haven"t been on here but I'll put my tuppence worth in now.

When the news first broke last week, it was an indication of how little trust catholic lay people have in their leaders in the 1st world that the vast majority I know, myself included, immediately believed the complainants rather than the Cardinal. I've met the guy on numerous occasions over the years including afternoon tea at his residence (but he didn't chat me up, the wife was with me :wink:). Always came across as a decent man who was a bit out of his depth theologically but who was trying his best. Always liked talking about himself and the trappings of power though. Turns out he used this power in a despicable manner however tormented he was about his sexuality.

Any RC under 50 in Edinburgh goes to church on a Sunday because they believe in God not in the leadership of the catholic church. Ask a question such as "do you want married priests" or "do you believe gay people should get married" and you'll get a variety of answers. There is no brainwashing. Silence does not give consent. People just do their own thing e.g. using artificial contraception and ignore church teaching on the matter.

Hiberlin, saying that the Roman Catholic church and de facto the members of it is/are is like me saying secular democracy is evil as it has led to Vietnam, Iraq and war in Afghanistan. It also perpetuates the exploitation of the developing world via institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. It just does"t stand up as a coherent argument.

Change in the church is glacial and this has become more of an issue as the
pace of change in the modern world has advanced to dizzying speed. RC's in Scotland will be putting a great deal of pressure on the hierarchy to modernise and there will be change. The worldwide nature of the church means that while you may see married priests, after all, there are many priest with families in South America, Africa and Asia, there is not a hope of the church changing its position on gay marriage anytime soon.

Let's wait and see who the next Pope is before we start talking about modernisation.

[EuanH78]

on a side note, people were referring to the fact there was division about priests marrying, don't think it says anywhere in the bible they can't

in fact lots of original priest were married but that meant when they died their property and money went to their kids or wife

the church didn't like that so banned them from getting married so that all property and money went to them instead

totally out dated and they need to move with the times

This is my understanding too. Nothing biblical ('scuse the phrase) or holy about it. A land grab, nothing more.

[Bishop Hibee]

This is my understanding too. Nothing biblical ('scuse the phrase) or holy about it. A land grab, nothing more.

How could the church grab land that it already owned? It was protecting what it had rightly or wrongly.

AS for "nothing biblical", how about 1 Corinthians 7:27-34 "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband"

St Paul's conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38)

Now you may argue that he is absolutely wrong but you cannot argue that there is no biblical basis for celibacy.

[--------]

How could the church grab land that it already owned? It was protecting what it had rightly or wrongly.

AS for "nothing biblical", how about 1 Corinthians 7:27-34 "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband"

St Paul's conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38)

Now you may argue that he is absolutely wrong but you cannot argue that there is no biblical basis for celibacy.


And he writes to Timothy - at the time the pastor of the congregation in Ephesus): "The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Timothy 3:1-7.)

And in 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 9, Paul says THIS: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."

There is no sense in which Paul can be used as an authority for obligatory clerical celibacy as enjoined by the Roman Church at present.

(Both quotations are from the RSV Catholic Edition, btw.)

[Bishop Hibee]

And he writes to Timothy - at the time the pastor of the congregation in Ephesus): "The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Timothy 3:1-7.)

And in 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 9, Paul says THIS: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."

There is no sense in which Paul can be used as an authority for obligatory clerical celibacy as enjoined by the Roman Church at present.

(Both quotations are from the RSV Catholic Edition, btw.)

I'm merely putting forward the biblical basis the RC Church uses for mandatory celibacy. I believe we will see priests not being required to take a vow of life long celibacy in the western rite catholic church, the same as there is in the eastern rite in the future. It's the one big change that would"t ruffle too many feathers as there are many priests in the developing world who have de facto wives and kids and most catholics in the first world would see at as 'the right thing'.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm merely putting forward the biblical basis the RC Church uses for mandatory celibacy. I believe we will see priests not being required to take a vow of life long celibacy in the western rite catholic church, the same as there is in the eastern rite in the future. It's the one big change that would"t ruffle too many feathers as there are many priests in the developing world who have de facto wives and kids and most catholics in the first world would see at as 'the right thing'.

I'm curious as to how it is possible for what appears to be one the fairly fundamental facets of being a priest - being married to the church - to be put aside on the basis of political expediency. Would the same right be given to nuns? I'm not being facetious, just wondering, if priests do become allowed to marry, how it will be explained to the body of the church why it was forbidden yesterday and is ok from a spiritual point of view today?

[Bishop Hibee]

I'm curious as to how it is possible for what appears to be one the fairly fundamental facets of being a priest - being married to the church - to be put aside on the basis of political expediency. Would the same right be given to nuns? I'm not being facetious, just wondering, if priests do become allowed to marry, how it will be explained to the body of the church why it was forbidden yesterday and is ok from a spiritual point of view today?

The Catholic Church has always been open to change on a lot of matters contrary to what the current secular media would have people believe. If you'd approached a catholic in Edinburgh in the late 1950's and said that in 10 years time Mass would be celebrated in the vernacular instead of Latin with the Priest facing the congregation you would have been met with laughter or disbelief. It happened though. The Eastern Catholic Churches already do ordain married men. It would raise a lot of practical issues e.g. financial support but from a spiritual point of view the vast majority of catholics would take it in their stride. Only my opinion though.

[Brizo]

My understanding is that CofE married priests who left the Anglican church and joined the RC church are allowed to perform all the duties of a Catholic priest. If there was a fundamental theological requirement for celibacy then surely that couldnt happen. The celibacy ruling was originally financial (Council of Trent iirc) to stop a priest passing on his money to wife and/or children; and to keep it in the Church. In the middle ages priests could accumulate substantial personal wealth particularly those in charge of monastries and cathedrals which often had farms and other businesses attached.

I dont pretend to know much about scripture but have yet to be convinced that there is a theological reason for celibacy. Facts are it wasnt a clerical requirement for hundreds of years and we now have a double standards system where convert clergy can be married while "original RCs" cant.

i dont belief having married priests would cure all the churchs problems. My personal pov is that the abuse scandals were as much to do with unmonitored access to children and unquestioning trust as with celibacy. And the Cardinal could have just as easily had homosexual tendencies as a married man as as an unmarrried one. But allowing priests to marry would lessen the possibility of such issues arising and in a First World where the priest population is overwhelmingly OAP age, encourage new and younger vocations.

[--------]

I'm merely putting forward the biblical basis the RC Church uses for mandatory celibacy. I believe we will see priests not being required to take a vow of life long celibacy in the western rite catholic church, the same as there is in the eastern rite in the future. It's the one big change that would"t ruffle too many feathers as there are many priests in the developing world who have de facto wives and kids and most catholics in the first world would see at as 'the right thing'.


The Catholic Church has always been open to change on a lot of matters contrary to what the current secular media would have people believe. If you'd approached a catholic in Edinburgh in the late 1950's and said that in 10 years time Mass would be celebrated in the vernacular instead of Latin with the Priest facing the congregation you would have been met with laughter or disbelief. It happened though. The Eastern Catholic Churches already do ordain married men. It would raise a lot of practical issues e.g. financial support but from a spiritual point of view the vast majority of catholics would take it in their stride. Only my opinion though.


That was what I understood the position to be, actually, rather than a firm attachment to celibacy as obligatory to all priests.

It's clear top me that from the earliest days church leaders - bishop, pastor, minister, however you want to translate the word episkopos - were married. The Synoptic Gospels make it clear that the Apostle Peter himself was a married man - how else could he have had a mother-in-law (Mark 1:30/Luke 4:38/Matthew 8:14-15)?

To put it bluntly, it's one change the Roman Church could make which would heal a lot of wounds and sort out a lot of problems.

Now if only MY lot would take a long hard look at ourselves and sort our problems out .... :rolleyes:

[Scouse Hibee]

Further allegations I see!

[--------]

Further allegations I see!

"Alcohol had been consumed" - I'm finding it a wee bit difficult to get my head round the idea of a prince of the church who repeatedly gets drunk and gropes his subordinate clergy.

Maybe I was right the first time - maybe "Father Ted" WAS a fly-on-the-wall documentary .... :rolleyes:

[Jonnyboy]

Am surprised the unbelievable utterances of that South African Cardinal have not caused reaction on this thread! According to Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier pedophilia is an 'illness'

Read and then listen to the audio http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21810980

Beggars belief really

[hibs0666]

And he writes to Timothy - at the time the pastor of the congregation in Ephesus): "The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Timothy 3:1-7.)

And in 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 9, Paul says THIS: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."

There is no sense in which Paul can be used as an authority for obligatory clerical celibacy as enjoined by the Roman Church at present.

(Both quotations are from the RSV Catholic Edition, btw.)

Just goes to show that people can make that book say pretty much whatever they want it to say.

[hibs0666]

The Catholic Church has always been open to change on a lot of matters contrary to what the current secular media would have people believe. If you'd approached a catholic in Edinburgh in the late 1950's and said that in 10 years time Mass would be celebrated in the vernacular instead of Latin with the Priest facing the congregation you would have been met with laughter or disbelief. It happened though. The Eastern Catholic Churches already do ordain married men. It would raise a lot of practical issues e.g. financial support but from a spiritual point of view the vast majority of catholics would take it in their stride. Only my opinion though.

Given the huge changes in society I don't think your example illustrates the catholic church as open to change.

[--------]

Just goes to show that people can make that book say pretty much whatever they want it to say.


No. Only if they misread it.

There is no place in the Bible where it says that church leaders have to be unmarried. The Roman Church's position on clerical celibacy is un-Biblical and wrong. That's my point.

[Hibrandenburg]

No. Only if they misread it.

There is no place in the Bible where it says that church leaders have to be unmarried. The Roman Church's position on clerical celibacy is un-Biblical and wrong. That's my point.

So the bible isn't open to interpretation and should be followed word for word?

[--------]

So the bible isn't open to interpretation and should be followed word for word?

No, I said not to misread it - there's plenty room for interpretation of Scripture when its authority is recognised, but in the Reformed Church the only qualifier or interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, not human dogma dreamed up by philosophers or theologians looking for loopholes or riding their own personal hobby-horses.

As Bishop says, the Roman Church is, I believe, moving towards the acceptance of married clergy - indeed, in many places and circumstances it's already there.

What I'm saying is that the teaching that priests or ministers should either be unmarried and celibate or married but abstaining from sexual relations with their wives has no basis in Scripture. There are plenty things that are open to discussion under the umbrella of the authority of Scripture, but this isn't one of them.

[Hibrandenburg]

No, I said not to misread it - there's plenty room for interpretation of Scripture when its authority is recognised, but in the Reformed Church the only qualifier or interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, not human dogma dreamed up by philosophers or theologians looking for loopholes or riding their own personal hobby-horses.

As Bishop says, the Roman Church is, I believe, moving towards the acceptance of married clergy - indeed, in many places and circumstances it's already there.

What I'm saying is that the teaching that priests or ministers should either be unmarried and celibate or married but abstaining from sexual relations with their wives has no basis in Scripture. There are plenty things that are open to discussion under the umbrella of the authority of Scripture, but this isn't one of them.

Damn! I was hoping for a simple answer, guess I'm just gonna have to read the book ;o)

[--------]

Damn! I was hoping for a simple answer, guess I'm just gonna have to read the book ;o)


Sorry. A lot of people think the Bible works like a reference book - you look up something in the index, turn to the page listed, and you get a simple answer. In my experience, that's not how it works.

[Greentinted]

Looking increasingly likely the (man dressed as a) lady did indeed protest too much.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cardinal-keith-obrien-was-in-longterm-gay-relationship-claims-partner-8544536.html?fb_action_ids=564949276883262%2C56494 7806883409%2C625759970774410%2C10151375236980662&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%22564949276883262%22%3A23407 5770069446%2C%22564947806883409%22%3A4600112740697 97%2C%22625759970774410%22%3A450875691642727%2C%22 10151375236980662%22%3A10150152651264109%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22564949276883262%22%3A%22news .reads%22%2C%22564947806883409%22%3A%22news.reads% 22%2C%22625759970774410%22%3A%22news.reads%22%2C%2 210151375236980662%22%3A%22news.reads%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

[Andy74]

No, I said not to misread it - there's plenty room for interpretation of Scripture when its authority is recognised, but in the Reformed Church the only qualifier or interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, not human dogma dreamed up by philosophers or theologians looking for loopholes or riding their own personal hobby-horses.

As Bishop says, the Roman Church is, I believe, moving towards the acceptance of married clergy - indeed, in many places and circumstances it's already there.

What I'm saying is that the teaching that priests or ministers should either be unmarried and celibate or married but abstaining from sexual relations with their wives has no basis in Scripture. There are plenty things that are open to discussion under the umbrella of the authority of Scripture, but this isn't one of them.

Although wasn't scripture itself only the result of much debate, editing and political motivation at the time, several centuries ago?

[--------]

Although wasn't scripture itself only the result of much debate, editing and political motivation at the time, several centuries ago?

Two millennia ago, actually, and while there are those who would say so, there are many, many others who would disagree.