Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Archbishop Vincent Nichols compares greedy bankers to paedophile priests

And who does the New Statesman blame?

The Archbishop of Canterbury.

While Rowan Williams is undoubtedly used to being mocked, pilloried, criticised, condemned and unfairly judged by much of the media most of the time, it's a bit much when he's blamed even for the utterly insensitive and wholly inappropriate comments of England's Roman Catholic leader.

'Mud sticks' was Archbishop Vincent's message to the great and the good gathered at Mansion House yesterday (via the FT [£]).

But all his talk on poverty and the importance of Christian values in the market place has been rather overshadowed by his unexpected comparison of the mud which has stuck to the bankers and financial sector as a result of the greed of a few with the mud which has stuck to the Roman Catholic Church as a result of paedophile priests: the reputations of both institutions, he observes, have been badly damaged.

Of course, we know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

But the mud which sticks to the financial sector as a result of the greed of a few selfish bankers is as nothing to the faeces, fungus, sewage and slime which sticks to the Roman Catholic Church as a result of many professing ministers of God who torture and rape children.

No, Archbishop, there is absolutely no comparison at all.


Anonymous Francis said...

"[T]here is absolutely no comparison at all."

Quite right. But not, your Grace, in the sense you intend.

If one could quantify human misery, who do you think will have been responsible for more of it: the greedy bankers or the pædophile priests?

(Interesting, by the way, that you are happy to accept the epithet "few" regarding the bankers, but decide that "many" is the appropriate adjective to use when it comes to the abusive priests.)

Has your Grace any idea of the level of distress being suffered, in every household in this country and throughout the entire developed and developing world, as a result of the staggering levels of selfishness and lust for wealth of an admittedly tiny but massively powerful band of top-level officials in the financial sector?

Does your Grace realise that the terrible effects of this behaviour will affect literally billions of people for decades to come?

None of this diminishes the real and long-term suffering of those who have been victims of clerical sexual abuse. But your Grace chose to talk about comparisons. And there is, indeed, absolutely no comparison at all.

(P.S. I suppose I had better append the usual wearisome disclaimer: I am not a Roman Catholic.)

5 October 2010 at 18:19  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Bit of an odd-ball emotional outburst YG?

5 October 2010 at 18:21  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5 October 2010 at 19:48  
Anonymous Jim said...

Greed is indeed the source of the current economic mess, but that greed is spread far wider than just bankers. Bankers are greedy, but so are those who borrowed the money the bankers lent. They were greedy for stuff now, that they couldn't wait to save up for and purchase later. Have now, pay later. Buy it on the never never. Unsurprisingly their greed exceeded their common sense. But no one was forced at gunpoint to borrow more money than they could afford, and millions did not.

And as a society we wanted more government spending than our taxes would allow. We wanted our cake and eat it too. We believed the snake oil salesman Blair and his economically challenged sidekick Brown that there could be a 'Third Way' of higher govt spending and low taxes. Again greed, this time by the millions who voted for it, despite the obvious contradictions. The whole edifice built on the sand of a perpetually expanding property market.

This 'Blame the Bankers' schtick is just a smokescreen to hide the fundamental truth - the nation went on a spending frenzy, paid for with borrowed money, and now the merry-go-round has stopped and reality bites.

5 October 2010 at 20:09  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Always a tricky one - comparing sins.

Think I'd have to concur with Francis on this one. Though, on the other hand, Jesus did seem to think causing children to sin or lose faith was particularly reprehensible.

5 October 2010 at 20:15  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Well they're all off to let the Koreans solve it this week... Or something of the sort.

To the pure, it seems... all things are pure?

5 October 2010 at 20:16  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

They've changed it now

5 October 2010 at 20:24  
Blogger Preacher said...

Sin is sin, like dead is dead you can't be a little bit dead or a lot dead.
Sin is terminal,it affects others lives to a greater or lesser degree. Whether Lust or greed it is infectious. It is eternally fatal unless caught & treated in time.
The only treatment is to truly repent & accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for all ones sins. don't revisit the places where you were infected in the first place.
Worship Him, Love & serve Him.

5 October 2010 at 20:42  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Hey thanks for that advice preacher man. Jesus Christ eh? That's novel. I'll put him on my list, but I'm trying out all the other religions first, so it will be a while before I get round to him. Sorry, Him.

5 October 2010 at 20:53  
Blogger Preacher said...

You're most welcome Laurence, but don't leave it too late.

5 October 2010 at 21:10  
Anonymous ruthdemitroff said...

Suspect Dante's layers of hell are floating through his mind and he's put them in the deepest layer - the one reserved for traitors - the sins of the wolf.

5 October 2010 at 21:16  
Anonymous ruthdemitroff said...

Suspect Dante's layers of hell are floating through his mind and he's put them in the deepest layer - the one reserved for traitors - the sins of the wolf.

5 October 2010 at 21:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yout Grace, didn't your lot rape Trevor Baylis the clockwork radio man?

5 October 2010 at 21:28  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...


5 October 2010 at 21:35  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

And who does the New Statesman blame?

The Archbishop of Canterbury.

No it doesn't - it provides a link to a blog by an FT journalist. Guilt by links - or the old guilt by association game I'm afraid.

5 October 2010 at 21:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebel Saint:
How do you know that abused children lost their faith in GOd and his goodness through their experience? Perhaps it was strengthened?
Well done. And even if you are not RC you would be very welcome.
Your Grace:
The "many" Francis alluded to was intellectually dishonest of you and willful intellectual dishonesty is a sin. It is even more sinful when those who indulge it cosset themselves with the feeling that they are doing so out a sense of moral rectitude.

5 October 2010 at 23:30  
Anonymous len said...

I would think it something a bit more odious than mud that is clinging to the Catholic church at the moment.If you walk through a sewer don`t expect to come up smelling of roses.

6 October 2010 at 01:04  
Anonymous edgarallenwoe said...

Your local Anglican vicar or Jewish rabbi is as likely to be a child rapist as any given Catholic priest:


6 October 2010 at 01:12  
Blogger srizals said...

There is a Malay saying about this phenomena, 'Seekor kerbau membawa lumpur, habis terpalit' or 'One buffalo with a mud would stain the whole herd', which means one bad apple would be representing all the other fruits in the basket, including the oranges and the durian. The question that we would be asking ourselves now, is it a fair view? The answer would of course be based on our worldview. Wide or narrow. Wise or confused.

6 October 2010 at 05:05  
Anonymous The Observer said...

How about this one. Should it be representing all the police or whites in Australia or just the natives of Australia?


I would throw some mud at them, without second thought.

6 October 2010 at 06:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This is a classic example of post modern critical journalistic endeavour. Why are you so surprised?

6 October 2010 at 08:05  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Nichols is an insensitive idiot. However he is not alone as many Catholics still don’t “get it”. The terrible rape of children was bad enough but the continuing attempt to cover it up by the failure to release ALL documents is appalling.

Comparing bankers’ greed to paedophile priests is unbelievable. We are led to believe (preposterous though it is) that the Catholic Church is a source of moral authority. It exercises enormous influence over millions of (mostly ignorant) people who look to it for guidance. I have yet to hear a banker claim moral authority or “papal” infallibility.

It is the gross hypocrisy of the likes of Nichols that is staggering. That some people here still support this thoroughly corrupt institution sickens me. If you must do God than at least go and find a “decent” religion.

6 October 2010 at 09:34  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

...and if you wanted more evidence then see how the Catholic Church is more concerned with protecting its dogma than helping real people. It responded to IVF pioneer Robert Edwards who received a Nobel prize for a life time working to help women have children with the comment that it is “an affront to human dignity”. It is the Catholic Church the fits that description!

Edward’s work is a wonderful example of a man you has helped to improve the lives of millions, whereas the Pope has simply spread misery and suffering with his ban on contraception (for any reason) along with his homophobia and misogyny.

6 October 2010 at 10:42  

How Edward's work has damaged the lives of millions:

Daily injections of follicle stimulating hormone administered to hyper-stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple eggs, can lead to ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS). Common side effects of OHSS include nausea and diarrhea, painful enlarged ovaries, shortness of breath, and abdominal bloating. More serious medical complications, may include thrombosis, stroke, kidney failure, fluid build-up in the lungs, and even death. The somewhat painful suctioning of up two dozen eggs from the ovaries, via a needle inserted through the vagina can lead to infections of the ovaries which, as a consequence, may have to be removed. An enlarged ovary can also twist on its stalk cutting off its blood supply. This condition requires immediate surgery and perhaps removal of the ovary. Fatal hemorrhages have also been reported. In addition to the aforementioned contraindications, the usual risks of stroke, aspiration, or death associated with any procedure requiring anesthesia are also present.

A sexually active donor of ova also risks becoming pregnant with triplets or quadruplets. Irreversible infertility is also possible. Emotional problems can arise as hormonal side effects or when donors relinquish parental rights to children conceived with their eggs. Hormones used in egg extraction have been associated with memory loss, liver disorders, early osteoporosis, and ovarian cancer. Long term cancer risks of egg donation have not been systematically studied. Since the total number of eggs produced by a woman is fixed, menopause will be correspondingly hastened.

Apart from risks to egg donors, there are very serious consequences for the children resulting from in vitro fertilization. Fertilized embryos have a tendency to spontaneously abort and are associated with an increased rate of miscarriage. Half of those that do survive occur in multiplets who suffer premature birth with its attendant medical problems. Children conceived by IVF have an increased risk of major birth defects and cerebral problems including cerebral paralysis. Often the weakest are selectively aborted, often for nothing more than eugenic reasons. Donors with traits such as high IQ, Asian, blond, etc., are much sought after. For instance, donors are sometimes required to provide SAT scores. Genetic testing prior to implantation can also damage an embryo and a doctor may prevent transfer of genes which he deems to be “defective”. Some cultures, particularly in Asia, have a marked preference for male children and abort females. Requests to abort “gay” babies are not unheard of, even though the existence of a corresponding gene is a scientific fiction and some deaf people have demanded that their children be selected so as to have the same deaf gene. More

6 October 2010 at 12:09  

"The Pope has simply spread misery and suffering with his ban on contraception" — Graham Davis

Contraceptives have abortifacient effects. Moreover, most women who abort do so after a contraceptive "failure". Since you claimed in a previous thread that you were against abortion your position is inconsistent.

See /thepillkills.org/ for an account of the misery and suffering caused by contraception.

6 October 2010 at 12:18  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Unbelieveable. Agree again, that's three for three since you came back and I returned.

6 October 2010 at 13:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older