How come the Scottish cardinal (who is Irish) had to resign for sexual hararasment, which looks like he made a pass at 4 men but Cardinal Brady who covered up for paedophilia is still in situ? Surely Brady actions are a whole lot worse. Or am I not seeing the Roman Catholic Church logic on this?
Scottish cardinal resigns but Irish cardinal does not
- Thread starter Bronte
- Start date
C
celebtastic
Guest
No one in Ireland ever resigns.
We get the leaders we deserve.
We get the leaders we deserve.
It does look like the Vatican knew all about O'Brien but only made their move after he had come out in support of priests marrying and having kids.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/04/cardinal-obrien-catholic-church-scotland
What a warped organisation this Roman church is.
Don't start me on Brady. I wouldn't have him resign, I'd have him in prison. An oath of silence on abused kids and letting Smyth continue abusing - sick sick sick.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/04/cardinal-obrien-catholic-church-scotland
What a warped organisation this Roman church is.
Don't start me on Brady. I wouldn't have him resign, I'd have him in prison. An oath of silence on abused kids and letting Smyth continue abusing - sick sick sick.
Ah I see, he's in favour of the insupportable notion of married priest, so this belief is a very serious offence in the RCC so the Cardinal for the sin of this belief (I presume it's a cardinal sin at that, or is it mortal sin) is compromised by his own organisation and forced to resign.
What a wonderful organisation.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
I think it is very naive of the Observer to fall for the line that Kev was fired because of his views on married priests.
To be sure, this statement is no coincidence but it was surely planned by Kev. Several possible motivations spring to mind: if he was going to be fired maybe he could be portrayed as the victim, might even be remembered as the martyr who took a couragous stand; or he was bluffing the Vatican saying "dare fire me now, they will put it down to what I said"; or planning as he did stout denial such a fulsome statement in favour of the married life might persuade people of the incongruousness of the accusations. For be very sure, this guy planned stout denial. But when the Vatican actually did fire him, the game was up, next thing they might announce that the allegations were well founded, nothing for it now but to come out (pardon the expression) with his hands up.
There is nothing at all about this saga which shows are Kev in any kind of good light, but his clever ruse of making that statement just might muddy the waters, it obviously has.
To be sure, this statement is no coincidence but it was surely planned by Kev. Several possible motivations spring to mind: if he was going to be fired maybe he could be portrayed as the victim, might even be remembered as the martyr who took a couragous stand; or he was bluffing the Vatican saying "dare fire me now, they will put it down to what I said"; or planning as he did stout denial such a fulsome statement in favour of the married life might persuade people of the incongruousness of the accusations. For be very sure, this guy planned stout denial. But when the Vatican actually did fire him, the game was up, next thing they might announce that the allegations were well founded, nothing for it now but to come out (pardon the expression) with his hands up.
There is nothing at all about this saga which shows are Kev in any kind of good light, but his clever ruse of making that statement just might muddy the waters, it obviously has.
So you think he was removed because he made a pass at 4 adult men? What is wrong with doing that? Or what is so wrong with doing that it requires you to lose your post.
In any case don't they forgive mistakes if you confess?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
According to the Observer the Four thought it was very wrong. I'm as modern as the next person and whilst anything goes between consenting adults in our modern culture anything which does not meet those two criteria is absolutely verbotten. I think we also know the Church's views on these matters.
I simply do not believe that he was fired because of his statement on married priests and very much suspect that he has achieved his objective, i.e. to make it look at least possible that this was the case. Maybe he sees a day in about 100 years when historians remind us that once we had a celibate priesthood until couragous people like our Kev took a stand, a regular suffragette
BTW no way should Seanie resign. That would let the Church off the hook suggesting he was some sort of rotten apple. Au contraire he was the Musterschhuler, destined for high office for doing exactly as was expected of him. What he should do is present himself at the nearest RUC station and tell everything and then we might see whether he might be prosecuted under civil law.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Ooops! I meant Continuity RUC.
Was he fired ? I thought he had already resigned, having reached the age of 75, and was seeing out his notice. What has happened, I understood, is just he's omitted from the conclave to elect the next Pope.
Still I'm not getting it. 4 priests in the 1980's thought it was a wrong approach by him, but he has to resign now? In addition the Church while it thinks homosexuality is an abonimation (and this particular Cardinal was really really trenchant on this himself) they allow homosexual priests as long as they are celibate. Of course a lot of homosexual priests are so repressed and confused by their own organisations attitude to sex of any hew, including the Cardinal in this instance, maybe they pretend there are no homosexuals in the Church at all.
How can the Cardinal live with himself preaching hatred of homosexuality when he is that way inclined himself, it would warp your mind wouldn't it. It's all very unhealthy.
There is a lot more to this than 4 priests bringing up old allegations now.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
I do not entirley disagree with you. On the other hand, one of the Four talks about contemplatng suicide, so it is not clear that the actions can be played down as much as you seem to.
There are a number of coincidences which need explaining, taking care to avoid that human tendency to see conspiracies everywhere.
First there is the coincidence that this is being revealed just as there is a need to elect a new pope. That appears to be pure coincidence.
Secondly there is the forced resignation coinciding with the election. That is not coincidence in that it is clearly why the Vatican moved so swiftly in relation to the allegations.
Thirdly there is the strange timing of Kev's statement on married priests. This coincidence needs explained. The Observer and others in this thread explain this one away by saying that in fact this is why he was forced to resign and not because of the allegations. And that is where I differ. The statement appears to me to be a deliberate attempt by Kev to muddy the waters and it seems to have worked.