Sunday, March 03, 2013

Vatican accused of Cardinal O'Brien cover-up


Whatever the truth of the allegations of 'inappropriate behaviour' (ie homosexual acts) perpetrated by Cardinal O'Brien 30 years ago upon (so far) three priests and one former priest, there is something of the stench of a rotting fish emanating from the Roman Catholic hierarchy by way of response.

These allegations are serious not because Keith O'Brien is a cardinal, and not because he is a 'conservative' who has been 'hard-line' on such issues as embryology, homosexuality and marriage. They are serious because we are concerned here with historic allegations of paedophilia: the Cardinal is accused of 'inappropriate behaviour' against young seminarians who were, at the time, 18-20 years old. Male homosexuality was not decriminalised in Scotland until 1980 (the 1967 Sexual Offences Act applied to England and Wales only). The age of homosexual consent in Scotland after 1980 was 21. Ergo, Keith O'Brien is alleged not only to have flouted Roman Catholic Canon Law but transgressed the law of the land as it stood at the time. So, to satisfy his sexual urges, he was prepared not only to risk bringing scandal upon his church, but the shame of perversion upon himself - a shame which was (then) punishable with imprisonment.

Astonishingly, we now learn that the Holy See was made aware five months ago of these allegations of 'inappropriate behaviour' and the abuse of pastoral authority. But, instead of immediate punitive action against the Cardinal, The Scotsman informs us that the Holy See was involved in a cover-up:
His claim is said to have been taken seriously and led to the Vatican contacting Cardinal O’Brien and a “deal” being brokered by Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Montreal for the departure of the leader of Scotland’s Catholics.
Certainly, the 'deal' is in scare quotes, but it isn't at all clear why. The Vatican strategy - instinct- was to hush it up and wish it all away, hoping and praying that the priest-accusers would press the matter no further as the Cardinal sailed on happily towards a scandal-free retirement.

And you can't easily attribute this to John Paul II and encroaching dementia: this was the action of the Holy See under Pope Benedict XVI - who we are told has done so much to cleanse the temple and purge the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the chronic betrayal of paedophilia and the bullying lies of systematic cover-up. Semper Eadem, indeed.

Pope Benedict spoke in 2010 of 'the shame and remorse that we all feel' towards the victims of abuse at the hands of Roman Catholic priests dating back decades: "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry... your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated,” he said, contritely. Those who now accuse Cardinal O'Brien were no less betrayed, yet they are clearly not being viewed as victims by the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Despite their personal trauma and abuse - so emotionally and spiritually profound that one lost all sense of vocation - they are the agitators, the trouble-makers, the 'homophobes'. One told The Observer that he is 'disappointed' by the 'lack of integrity' shown by the Roman Catholic Church:
"There have been two sensations for me this week. One is feeling the hot breath of the media on the back of my neck and the other is sensing the cold disapproval of the church hierarchy for daring to break ranks. I feel like if they could crush me, they would."

..."The vacuum the church has created has allowed whimsy and speculation to distort the truth," the priest said. "And the only support I have been offered is a cursory email with a couple of telephone numbers of counsellors hundreds of miles away from me. Anyway, I don't need counselling about Keith O'Brien's unwanted behaviour to me as a young man. But I may need counselling about the trauma of speaking truth to power."

The former cleric says he feels that he, rather than the cardinal, has been the subject of scrutiny. "I have felt very alone and there is a tendency to become reclusive when people are trying to hunt you down."

He said he felt particularly angered by demands that the identity of the four complainants be revealed: "To those who want to know my name I would say, what does that change? And what do you think I have done wrong?"

He said that when the four came forward to the church, they were asked to make sworn signed statements to Mennini. But they were also warned that if their complaints became public knowledge, they would cause "immense further damage to the church".
Sworn, signed statements? Intimidating warnings and threats? It is all so eerily familiar. Nothing has changed; very little seems to have been learned.

These allegations are unproven; they are being made by anonymous priests and an ex-priest. Please don't judge them too harshly, for sexual abuse has life-long psychological consequences, and the bullying instincts of the powerful will stop at nothing to shame, discredit and defame the motives, integrity and sincerity of the whistle-blower.

166 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A fellow must go about his business, so a fuller comment later, one hopes.

But it does seem to this man that if the RCC refuses to wash it’s dirty linen in public, it’s ‘a cover up’.

3 March 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

From the mail

"Cardinal O’Brien’s apology follows growing controversy over his leadership in recent weeks. The vehemence of his public stand against same-sex marriage led to condemnation by the gay lobby"

Often those tempted most by evil, speak the most strongly against.

Because they know how corrupting it is.

I judge his words now not his actions 30 years ago.

Phil

3 March 2013 at 13:18  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

I said this before on another post, your grace, but it bears repeating. Cardinal O'Brien several years ago, supported a priest called Steve Gilhooley who wrote a book called 'The Pyjama Parade'. This was a book about sexual abuse in a seminary in Cumbria and he was being leaned on to persuade Gilhooley not to print it. O'Brien refused to give into this pressure. I believe that it is this, and the fact that we are now voting on another pope that has been the key factor in these priests coming forward, not 'inappropriate acts' on O'Brien's part. Why else would they come forward now? The fact is that there has- is a civil war going on in the Vatican between those who would have covered up abuse and those who wanted it brought out into the open and those in the former group have just managed to pick off both Benedict and O'Brien who belong in the latter group. That is tremendously worrying for us and in no small part due to a media who hate our church so much that they would rather misrepresent those who have tried to do the right thing on sexual abuse rather than support them. And as I have said before, this is no time for schadenfraude on the part of other churches. We are all under attack and what happens next month in the conlave affects us all, not just Catholics. We should stick together or we will hang separately.

3 March 2013 at 13:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Do any of you screaming hyenas actually know any of the DETAILS of this case. Or are we having trial by accusation and nothing else.

Links please if there are links to be had, that is...

One was reading about the difficulty gay sportsmen have about coming out. Anyone walking into the dressing room of the winning side after a game will more than likely be met with prima facie homosexual behaviour by the lads. It’s called male bonding. Ironically, the genuine homosexual, if he admits to being that way, will NOT be partaking in the celebrations. He is excluded, because no one wants the taint of true homosexuality off him.

Is O’Brien a homosexual, and by his deeds and actions as prelate, one would find this hard to believe, or rather was he guilty of male bonding 30 something years ago...

3 March 2013 at 13:33  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Good to see due process is still valued.

3 March 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

Can I also remind you of this story, concerning Cardinal Romeo's alleged statements that the Pope would die within a year. Note the date of the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9073811/The-Pope-will-die-within-a-year-Vatican-assassination-fears-revealed.html

3 March 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger David B said...

The Catholic Hierarchy yatter on about what they have done to improve the sexual abuse by priests and monks situation, and make their apologies, while at the same time fighting tooth and nail about using some of their vast wealth to compensate victims, and against releasing their own records to secular authorities.

They loudly screech about their ignorance of the damage such abuse could d, while at the same time still yattering on about how they (and often they alone) are privy to eternal values.

They have threatened confused and damaged young people who have been brainwashed to believe that they have the power of heaven and hell with excommunication, and the hell that they claim would follow from that, if they do not keep their abuse a secret.

Outrageous!

To people brought up to believe in the eternal flames if they go against a priests instructions then that might be worse than the abuse itself.

I could go on, and perhaps I will later. I have said before, and meant it, that the only ethical course of action for Catholics to do is to leave the church, and to stop funding it.

I know some decent people stick with the RCC, some I know in real life, and some I know from here.

But please consider that you might be wrong.

David

3 March 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B, this world is too harsh for a timid soul such as yours. It looks like the only practical solution for you is to leave it :-<

3 March 2013 at 13:48  
Blogger Nick said...

It is difficult for us to know exactly what happened 30 years ago, and I don't want to be an armchair-judge on this case. For all concerned, let God judge their consciences - only He can judge fairly. We know that many will latch on to this case for political reasons.

In the words of Fox Mulder:

"The truth is out there.."

3 March 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

Here is an article by John Cornwell on the Pope's resignation. I'm not a fan of his, but what he says here - that the Pope may have resigned because all the senior officers in the Curia have to resign with him and therefore it is a way of removing those who are unfit for office -may have some merit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287074/Pope-resigns-2013-Gay-sex-rings-The-Filth-corrupting-Vatican--Pope-REALLY-quit.html

3 March 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

They are serious because we are concerned here with historic allegations of paedophilia: the Cardinal is accused of 'inappropriate behaviour' against young seminarians who were, at the time, 18-20 years old.

A pedophile abuses prepubescent children. If the age of consent was 21 at the time, then cardinal O'Brien would be guilty of statutory rape or some other offense, But he wouldn't be a pedophile. This distinction is important because pedophilia is being used to hide the fundamentally homosexual nature of this crisis. The crisis was not about priests abusing little boys and girls. The crisis was about homosexual priests seducing teenage boys.

carl
who re-emerges from a drug-induced fog after whacking his back last Thursday

3 March 2013 at 13:54  
Blogger Albert said...

What a tremendously sad post for a Sunday in Lent.

1. The Cardinal is innocent until proven guilty.
2. There is no way you can regard the accusations as paedophilia - sexual activity with persons aged 18-20 is not paedophilia, even if it is illegal.
3. The legality of the alleged actions is irrelevant, because the reason the law was changed was because it was judged to be unjust. After all, all homosexual acts were illegal until relatively recently. But Anglican clergy engaged in such acts. Do you seriously think that bishops who knew and know of clergy who were committing homosexual acts we would now regard as legal, should be prosecuted?

So what's so wrong with the way in which the Vatican has handled it? What it knows is that a serious of allegations of homosexual acts have been made against a Cardinal. It does not know whether these acts took place. The acts did not abuse children, and would not be of themselves illegal now. However, the Cardinal is due to retire soon. Surely the most sensible thing for the Vatican to do, is what it has done. Accept the resignation and give the Cardinal less time than would be usual. This responds appropriately to unproven allegations and is not unjust to the Cardinal.

Then you go on to somehow bring Pope Benedict into it. Nice touch that. Have you not noticed that the Pope has resigned because he does not think he is able to be on top of everything? So even if this matter has been mishandled by the Vatican (and given the nature of the accusations, it is not evident that it has been), surely the Pope's humble resignation is admission that he may not have been getting things right.

Given all these things, this is clearly a disgraceful post. But it actually gets worse. For we all know that the Catholic Church does not have higher rates of abuse than similar organisations.

An old vicar friend of mine, is now a bishop's chaplain in the CofE. He told me that the thing that surprised him (and surprises everyone) is how much clergy discipline there is to sort out. He admitted he had at least one case of child abuse at the moment. This is not one of the CofE dioceses that has been in the press of late. Similarly, a local member of the CofE clergy told me that the Diocese of Chichester is bankrupt and that there is more to come from there. The CofE has admitted that part of the problem is that it's own child protection policy is inadequate (in fact, it is reprehensible).

Yet here you are, on a Sunday in Lent writing a post about unproven accusations of behaviour which are not illegal and should not have been illegal at the time.

Why do you do this? I think the answer is clear. Until 2010, when all this kicked off in a big way, the Catholic Church was getting much stronger in this country - especially as being the moral voice of Christians (the CofE being utterly confused). The Catholic Church has been profoundly damaged by the false perception that it has a greater problem in this area. We know that secularists enjoy going on about all this stuff because it damages the witness of the Church. But, from your point of view, that is fine because it has prevented Catholicism further eclipsing the CofE. Never mind the fact that our common Christian mission is being damaged by it - the fact that Catholicism is damaged makes it all worthwhile.

Given all this, I find myself wondering if you hate Catholicism more than you love truth, justice, due process, even-handedness, and indeed Jesus Christ.

What an impression to give on a Sunday in Lent.

3 March 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Che Yeoh, the Inspector heard the pope had to resign because he found out that HIV / AIDS was created in a Vatican laboratory with the intention of ridding the planet of intravenous drug users and homosexuals :->

3 March 2013 at 13:59  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

But please consider that you might be wrong.

Please consider that you might be wrong. The irony is that the evidence produced by an independent criminologists' report indicates that the problem in the Church was too much sexual liberalism. This report was part funded by the US Government and used all possible sources of evidence (not just Church records).

May I suggest that you read the report and ask whether it is Catholics who should be leaving the Church or liberal secularists like yourself, who need to understand what has been going on?

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

3 March 2013 at 14:03  
Blogger Albert said...

I can't get over this post. Do you seriously, think, Dr Cranmer, that there aren't Anglican clergy with similar accusations against them? That there are no bishops in the CofE who know of such accusations? I know of clergy in the CofE with such accusation against them - and not just going back 30 years either.

Sometimes I wonder which CofE you're in. But, as I have already said, truth and fairness are not really important in this post.

3 March 2013 at 14:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The damage done to the RCC was caused by the cover-up and not the fact of abuse. People do evil things. That is no mystery. But the RCC actively hid known abusive priests from exposure, and then sent them to new churches without providing the benefit of a warning. After all that has been revealed, the RCC must now do these things in public. It no longer possesses the credibility to wash its linen in private. Publicity is the road to restored credibility.

Rome did this to itself. Don't blame the messenger. Blame the leadership that did nothing while the house burned around them. And then demand that Rome publicly pursue this case to the end so that we may all know if the allegations are true or false.

carl

3 March 2013 at 14:16  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"A pedophile abuses prepubescent children. If the age of consent was 21 at the time, then cardinal O'Brien would be guilty of statutory rape or some other offense.."

You're technically right, but, as with all evolution of language, that is no longer what the term means. Society long ago abolished the crude correlation between puberty and adulthood. The very concept of an 'age of consent' presupposes emotional and psychological maturity, as well as the physical ability to engage in sexual acts and reproduce.

Some cultures/religions still celebrate manhood at 11 or womanhood at 13. We no longer do. For good or ill, rightly or wrongly, the child remains a child until the state determines otherwise. In the 1980s, for consensual homosexual sex, this was deemed to be 21. Ergo, the Cardinal is accused of abusing those who were just boys - emotionally and psychologically, at least.

3 March 2013 at 14:26  
Blogger David B said...

Albert. More than the abuse it is the reaction to it, the cover up, the threatening of kids with eternal fire if they don't keep quiet....

You defend the indefensible.

David

3 March 2013 at 14:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

The damage done to the RCC was caused by the cover-up and not the fact of abuse.

That's only half-true. Many people have a perception that Catholic clergy are more likely to be abusers. The perception is false.

I agree about the cover-up, but that does not justify Cranmer's outrageous post. Where is the evidence that the Catholic Church had greater cover-ups? There have been endless cover-ups in the CofE as well. Moreover, my objection to Cranmer's post is that he was making this - at several levels - something different from what it is. How convinced are you by his defence at 1426? It's nothing to do with being technically right, it's what words mean. Moreover, if all the same-sex relationships between Anglican clergy and men under the legal age of consent came out, we'd never get to the end of the list.

So my issue with the post is about truthfulness, fairness and even-handedness. And I don't think you need to be a Catholic to agree with me that that is lacking here (as your own post of 1354 showed).

3 March 2013 at 14:38  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

I think this goes back to the old maxim; cui bono? Who benefits from O'Brien being removed and unable to vote in the conclave, given the strong opposition he has shown to cover up of abuse? Why, those who are covering up of course. You're a politician, YG and you well understand the importance of timing and of mud sticking. Why did this come to light now? Why did these priests go to the papers now and not 30 or even 20 years ago? Whatever your arguments about the age of sexual consent, YG, these people were by Scottish standards, adults. They could marry and they could vote. They were not six year olds who did not know what was going on. The way this is going to pan out is that O'Brien can't vote in conclave, because he does not have the time to prove his innocence by then, and in a few months time, if he does prove his innocence, nobody is going to care. Do you really think the BBC is going to have a banner headline 'Cardinal cleared of all charges?' I for one won't be holding my breath. There is a clear agenda here and if those in the media really cared about abuse, they would be writing about that, not condemning someone as guilty before being proven innocent.

3 March 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

More than the abuse it is the reaction to it, the cover up, the threatening of kids with eternal fire if they don't keep quiet....

Since hell is hardly ever mentioned in the Catholic Church these days, I find it hard to believe that there have been many cases of frightening such children in this way - and I certainly would not defend such an approach. But it's interesting that you've made the doctrinal point greater than the abuse. Interesting because it enables you to continue to attack the Church while supporting the sexual liberalism which gave rise to the problem in the first place.

You defend the indefensible.

Where? As my last paragraph indicates, it is, if anything you who is doing that. But you don't want to know what has been going on in the Church or society in this case, which is why you are accusing me, instead of reading that document (which is, to my knowledge the most comprehensive and authoritative account of the problem).

Why not get to know the evidence? What would be the harm?

3 March 2013 at 14:45  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,

While sympathising with the hurt you must feel over the peccadilloes of your adopted church, trying to dilute the blame by asserting that the CofE is as culpable as Rome in this matter just won't wash.
The sheer scale of the abuse is mind-boggling.
In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles alone the total settlement and defence costs are hovering around One Billion Dollars. An absolutely obscene amount, and, if indicative of the total state of corruption within the church, should give pause to any who still contemplate continuing their affiliation with such an organisation.

Having, because of family sickness, been in Edinburgh for the past week, the saga of the extinction of Dodo passed me by.

I can only echo Carl's post @ 13:38 on the 27th. Mar.

Given the advances in gene technology, I'll bet he will soon be back on this forum in some guise or other.

3 March 2013 at 15:04  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Am I the only one wondering what "inappropriate behaviour" means? It could mean no more than putting the moves on, which - while totally off the reservation for a Catholic prelate - is standard behaviour for the outraged brigade on this forum, probably both male and, these days, female.

If the cardinal did do that, then it only strengthens the case for a ban on homosexuals entering the priesthood. In any event, the problem is homesexuality, not priesthood.

3 March 2013 at 15:17  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

Are you really that naive? You cannot get a grasp of proportions by picking up odd figures here and there. The Anglican Church in the USA is so small that it is technically a sect, I gather. Obviously, it is not going to have anything like as high a bill. In this country however, where people are less litigious there is nevertheless, at least one Anglican diocese which has been bankrupted, not only by abuse, but also by its mishandling of it.

The whole Anglican communion represents about 4% of all Christians, Catholics, in contrast represent over 50%. How do you know what happens when you even that out as a proportion? What happens is that it all works out as being much the same. This is not according to the Catholic Church, but according to independent evidence, the report I have already linked to and the evidence of the insurers who actually pay out (presumably they know).

So instead of just making mathematically arbitrary points, how about actually looking at the evidence? It's obvious why you won't. You've declared that the level of Catholic abuse is obscene. I agree. So what happens when you realise that that is the level of the abuse in the CofE? You must either drop the claim that it is obscene (which would be obscene in itself) or you must follow you own advice:

indicative of the total state of corruption within the church, should give pause to any who still contemplate continuing their affiliation with such an organisation.

But your comment has nothing to do with the issue. The allegations against the Cardinal are not child-abuse, and the matter has not obviously been mishandled.

3 March 2013 at 15:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Am I the only one wondering what "inappropriate behaviour" means?

Yes you are. It's an inconvenient problem as it might undermine the case that this was paedophilia.

3 March 2013 at 15:27  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

IanCad,

The settlement may be big, but the number of priests involved is small; 22 out of a total number of 1100 at present and that includes all cases from 1930 onwards. Unfortunately just one paedophile can perpetrate a huge amount of damage as Jimmy Saville has demonstrated. What you should be asking is why Cardinal Mahoney from Los Angeles is being allowed to go to conclave and Cardinal O'Brien isn't.

3 March 2013 at 15:44  
Blogger Mike Finlayson said...

I have to admit that I found these allegetions coming so close after the Cardinal had spoken in favour of priests marrying as more than a wee bit disturbing.

3 March 2013 at 15:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

As it stands, I don't have any insight as to whether the charges are true or false. Rome gives the impression of seeking to bury the case by means of an expedient retirement. There aren't likely going to be any legal charges involved. The cost to Rome then will simply be additional moral erosion of the RCC's credibility. PR people will likely say "Bury it, and it will go away." They are probably correct. If Rome pensions off this Cardinal, then the story goes away. Without a trial or a lawsuit, there is no vehicle to carry the story forward.

The problem is that this means of crisis management leaves one with the impression that Cardinal O'Brien is guilty of something. They are leveraging their own benefit at the expense of his reputation. Why would they do that if they thought he was innocent? Perhaps they don't think a clear verdict could ever be established and so they fear the case would become a permanent sore - with many people thinking the Cardinal got away with it.

It comes across to me as a cynical and utilitarian response. I understand it, but I think it is the wrong way forward. It is this attitude that got the RCC in trouble in the first place. In order to restore its credibility in the long term, it must absorb the punishment in the short term. It must deal publicly with such cases when there is credible evidence of guilt. The testimony of four independent witnesses constitutes credible evidence.

As for the definition of 'pedophile' I was not persuaded by Archbishop Cranmer's argument. I believe the use of that word leads most people to think the typical abuse victim was an 8 year-old boy. The typical abuse victim was a 14-year old boy, and puberty does make a difference (although not much of one.) It means the crisis was a homosexual crisis. There are lots of people who want to bury that fact, and so they deliberately hide the result with the word 'pedophile.'

carl

3 March 2013 at 15:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

And, yes, I would like to see the word 'inappropriate' expunged from our moral vocabulary. 'Inappropriate' means 'not fitting for the context' - as in eating your salad with the dinner fork. The underlying assumption is that there are no fixed structural sexual boundaries, but only context-sensitive boundaries. That is as close as our post-modern world can come to spitting out the phrase 'sexual immorality.'

carl

3 March 2013 at 15:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Che Yeoh,

You make an important point. By comparison, the Episcopal Diocese (i.e. Anglican) got hit for $45 million claim as a result of the abuse of one single clergyman - whose abuse the diocese had covered up for several decades.

To be fair, that $45 million was not granted by the court. Not because the clergyman was innocent, but because (wait for it): the diocese claimed the statute of limitations prevented suit after 1974.

Now if we must argue about child abuse, could we please do the following things:

(i) Acknowledge the ubiquity of the problem.
(ii) Acknowledge the ubiquity of the mishandling of the problem.
(iii) Think more about what to do about the problem, instead of using children's sufferings as an instrument for unrelated agendas against people and organisations we don't like.
(iv) Distinguish carefully between paedophilia and homosexuality.

3 March 2013 at 16:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

As so often, I agree with much of what you say. The difficulty here however is whether one could have a court on this. I don't think a secular court would bother and a Church court is difficult. I'm not personally convinced that 4 accusers is sufficient, because I think it is possible that this is about malice. If the four accusers are responsible for the publishing of the story now then I think there is a lot of malice involved. If the Cardinal is guilty then it's easy to understand the malice, if innocent then the presence of malice means they had motive anyway.

There is a serious problem over the word "inappropriate". Not only the kind of issues you mentioned, but also, it leaves considerable ambiguity about what is being alleged. One person's "inappropriate" may not be to someone else. And even what is inappropriate may still be trivial. All sin is inappropriate in an objective sense, thus, we have all behaved inappropriately. So it tells us little. Those who want to believe the worst (against the clear teaching of scripture in 1 Cor.13) will of course draw much stronger conclusions than the evidence (such as it is) supports.

3 March 2013 at 16:18  
Blogger raggedclown said...

In point of fact, a fifth complainant has accused O'Brien of inappropriate behaviour that allegedly took place much more recently, i.e. this century.

3 March 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The RCC has to find a way forward for cases like this. The Cardinal has been accused of moral fault. There is no legal component but that shouldn't matter. A Cardinal has been accused of sexual sin by four separate individuals. You are correct that the accusations may be the result of malice or collusion. But some sort of church proceeding would bring out those details.

What the RCC cannot do is say "Trust us to handle it privately." The RCC has shredded its credibility and cannot at this moment in time assert that proposition. It must instead go forward to a resolution in a public manner and let the outcome be what it may.

btw, you are right on target with this:

(iii) Think more about what to do about the problem, instead of using children's sufferings as an instrument for unrelated agendas against people and organisations we don't like.

Yes, that is why this scandal draws so much more attention than similar scandals elsewhere. But that doesn't lessen the responsibility of the RCC to be above moral reproach in its actions. This Cardinal came out strong for a traditional understanding of human sexuality. Now he is exposed as a potential homosexual. The RCC cannot credibly say "Nothing to see here. It's all been cleaned up. Move along." It must address these charges publicly.

carl

3 March 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

From the Daily Record today:

"It emerged on Friday that the Vatican were aware of another allegation dating back to 2001 and which was made in October."

Noting that it is merely an allegation at this point ... but that's only 12 or so years ago.

3 March 2013 at 16:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

When the news of this broke, loads of people on my Facebook were saying "This is not even news any more". That's how bad all this is for the Roman Catholic Church.

3 March 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

Carl,

Part of me agrees with you, but it's the timing of this - it really does look like malice aforethought. Allegations of abuse are made against authority figures of all kinds every day and those who are in charge have to make a judgement call on which are credible and which are not. The timing of this makes the allegations look suspect and these priests have not gone to the police, so they clearly felt that whatever happened was not a criminal act. I wish they would go to the police, because then they would have to go through due process and not be allowed to float around vague notions of 'inappropriateness' for people to interpret more or less luridly as they want. And maybe that's the answer; just bring in the police.

3 March 2013 at 16:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"3. The legality of the alleged actions is irrelevant, because the reason the law was changed was because it was judged to be unjust."

I recall that Both Cardinal Winning and the Most Rev Cormac Murphy-O'Connor tried to stop the equalisation of the age of consent from happening at the time.

3 March 2013 at 16:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

It seems there is an investigation into the case going on in the Vatican. Given the lack of legal component, I'm not sure there is much more that can be asked for.

Dan is quite right, it isn't really news. Even if true, it is about homosexual acts between adults. Where there is confusion on this however is because the Catholic Church is officially so opposed to such acts. However, although that is the teaching, the Church is very liberal towards sinners - particularly homosexuals and so the handling of this - I mean the Church's earlier knowledge of the accusation, is what you would expect.

Many people seem to be saying "how could the Catholic Church tolerate having a Cardinal who has accusations of homosexual activity against his name?" In short, the Church is accused of not being homophobic enough. That, surely, is a sign of how fair this case has become removed from reality and been inserted into people's desire to undermine Catholicism.

3 March 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

Just look at all the appeasers of child rape above.

Pathetic.

3 March 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

If I may, I did not pass comment on whether it was unjust. The reason that those Cardinals opposed it, I suspect, was that they feared it meant exposing young men to pressure from older homosexual men. If the accusations are true, then that would be some small evidence that their premise had a point.

3 March 2013 at 17:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer

Just look at all the appeasers of child rape above.

Pathetic.


You see what happens? You misuse the term "paedophilia" and suddenly, someone thinks homosexual acts are paedophilia. Is that what you want? Is it true or fair?

3 March 2013 at 17:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The people on my Facebook were saying it isn't even news any more because they expect the Roman Catholic Church to be involved in sex scandals, coverups, and public relations manipulations. It's the modern day equivalent of John Major's government and sleaze.

3 March 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Well then, they should be corrected. As we know, the Catholic Church does not have a higher proportion of scandals (actually it has a lower proportion of scandals), but the Church is very large, and it has clear teaching on the subject. People don't want to know that it has fewer scandals, because the purpose behind banging on about such things is to compromise the Church's teaching in order that they may "free" to embrace a more liberal sexual culture. The fact that, particularly the child-abuse scandals were caused by a liberal sexual culture creeping into the Church does not seem to count for much.

3 March 2013 at 17:10  
Blogger The Vile Vicar said...

When it comes to religion I keep an open mind. Religion to me is like supporting your favourite football team (a sport I personally can't stand). Religion creates apartheid when fundamentalists become involved. I am sure there are good and bad souls with varying beliefs. Good luck to them. But when disgusting perverts hide behind religion time and time again this does agitate me and makes me feel nauseous. I am from UK, a quite Christian based country fundamentally - and being tarred by the Cross of Christianity is not my way; so I have created a video about my on-going pathway of true understanding. Shame on you dirty, blaspheming priests and all other falsified, bloated, hypocritical, outdated notions - Watch it now and see beyond the Church... :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtPaDKco51k

Message : World Work as one to win.

3 March 2013 at 17:25  
Blogger Flossie said...

I must have made the point a thousand times that abusers of adolescents are not paedophiles! Age of consent is arbitrary - some countries do not have an age of consent at all, but for the purposes of the Catholic Church it is 18. 'Paedophile' is such an emotive word - it conjures up pictures of kiddy-fiddlers, which in nearly all cases was not the case at all, as most of them were adolescent boys.

As for covering up, while this cannot be condoned generally, it was common practice at the time in all walks of life. In some instances it was the least worst option - for instance in countries where homosexuality is punished harshly, turning a suspect over to the police could mean a death sentence with no fair trial.

This boils down, in my view, to hatred of religion, particularly hatred of the Catholic Church. There is plenty of evidence of sexual abuse of minors in children's homes and schools which are not treated with so much outrage.

It makes me laugh when the Peter Tatchells of this world trumpet this all over the place, when they themselves are advocating lowering the age of consent to an age far lower than that of some of these abuse cases.

3 March 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger Corrigan said...

It's an inconvenient problem as it might undermine the case that this was paedophilia.

I see. So this has been difinitively established in the public forum, has it?

3 March 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I think he's been well and truly nobbled by the homosexual bitches.

3 March 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Statement from Cardinal O'Brien:

"In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.

"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me
as a priest, archbishop and cardinal...

http://www.scmo.org/articles/statement-from-cardinal-obrien.html

If anyone wishes to pretend that this 'truth' would not have emerged without media scrutiny, you are either naive or deluded. Significantly, those protesting loudly against this post (during Lent!) have not uttered a single word of compassion for or understanding of the Cardinal's victims. There's the real disgrace.

3 March 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

And let us be clear about the meaning of this line in particular:

"Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.."

i.e., his instinct was to conceal and cover-up, effectively accusing three priests and one former priest of being liars.

3 March 2013 at 17:40  
Blogger Flossie said...

Your Grace, that is unfair! I don't think anybody here feels lack of compassion for the victims. Abuse is terrible in any circumstances, made worse by perpetrators in a position of trust, and worse still by Christians, and yet worse by attempted cover-ups.

But just to prove my point above about the Catholic Church being targeted for special hatred, I counted four items in today's C of E daily newspaper from the Guardian slagging off the Catholic Church. Now that this wrong idea of 'paedohphile priests' is fixed in people's minds, they are really going for the kill. The real problem is homosexual priests, but that of course would not get a mention in the Guardian.


3 March 2013 at 17:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "The real problem is homosexual priests, but that of course would not get a mention in the Guardian."

I don't think it'd come as much of a surprise that there are priests and vicars of a certain age who are homosexuals. God seems to have had a particular liking for homosexuals at one point when he was calling people to their religious vocation. He's probably changed his mind now that society has opened up and there isn't quite the same obligation for everyone to marry.

3 March 2013 at 17:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer,

I am sorry to hear that Cardinal O'Brien has fallen below expected standards.

I would point out Dr Cranmer, that I have not yet expressed direct compassion for his "victims" because until now it was not evident that they were victims (in fact, at the moment, it is still not evident that they were victims). To do have done so would have suggested I thought an innocent man guilty. Which considering you were alleging the allegations were of paedophilia would have been libellous.

If however, he has had victims, then of course I am sorry for them - I indicated as much when I pointed out that any malice would be understandable.

What I was arguing against was any suggestion by you that in the O'Brien case, the Church was mishandling allegations of paedophilia which included the disgraceful confusion of homosexuality and paedophilia.

I complained on many occasions in the past about the way in which you try to use child-abuse as a weapon for use in other agendas. I think that shows a severe lack of compassion. Perhaps if your posts were more accurate in the first place, these discussions would not take place.

Will you now agree to the suggestions I list at 1609

i) Acknowledge the ubiquity of the problem.
(ii) Acknowledge the ubiquity of the mishandling of the problem.
(iii) Think more about what to do about the problem, instead of using children's sufferings as an instrument for unrelated agendas against people and organisations we don't like.
(iv) Distinguish carefully between paedophilia and homosexuality.

Quite a good resolution for Lent, don't you think?

3 March 2013 at 17:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Corrigan,

I see. So this has been difinitively established in the public forum, has it?

(In case, we are at crossed-purposes). No it hasn't been established as paedophilia. Paedophilia doesn't even come into it. But that doesn't stop Cranmer trying to make the insinuation because it suits his wider agenda.

3 March 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger len said...

Interesting that this article follows the previous' confession being good for the soul'.Therefore a 'cover up' must be bad for the soul?.
It is only by bringing things into the light that they might be dealt with in a proper manner for it is in 'the darkness' that the enemy of mankind dwells.No one in the Church can condemn the sins of the secular World but then try to cover up the sins within the church(of whatever denomination)

3 March 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chin up, Catholic types. And the Archbishop is exonerated on this occasion. He brings us the ills affecting the CoE as a body, and now he brings us the ills affecting ONE MAN in the RCC. So it’s our turn to go white. Having said that, it’s just as well there isn’t a sin of enthusiastic glee Archbishop, what !

The CoE is falling apart. It’s just a question of who kicks in what’s left of the foundations first - militant womanhood or militant homosexuality. The RCC will go on and on and on, though it might have to show every homosexual within its ranks the door. It will still be there long after CoE women bishops start forgiving everything in sight including dirty pictures of naked young boys and are marrying queers, cats and dogs in church. Though not at the same time and to each other, one sincerely hopes...

pip pip !


3 March 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger CSPB said...

I agree with Albert. The problem is not one of
paedophilia but homosexuality.

Lifesite news has published an extremely interesting summary article as well as the more useful full text of an incredible document about the homosexual problem in the Catholic Church.

3 March 2013 at 18:48  
Blogger Albert said...

And the Archbishop is exonerated on this occasion

He plainly isn't. This whole argument has not been about whether or not the Cardinal is guilty. It has been about whether the Vatican, and Pope Benedict in particular, can seriously be accused of mishandling a case of alleged paedophilia regarding Cardinal O'Brien.

The RCC will go on and on and on, though it might have to show every homosexual within its ranks the door. etc.

I know you like to wind people up, Inspector, but really. Why would we want to drive homosexuals out of the Church? Because they are sinners? Well I too am a sinner. Would you drive me out? Being homosexual does not make one a sinner, but even if it did, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

This will be my last post for a while...

3 March 2013 at 18:49  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This is ridiculous. His Grace is now being attacked for anti-Catholicism by some of you folks. This is not a uniquely Catholic issue; it has happened and is happening in all denominations, in the secular world and in my community as well with rabbis and seminary directors implicated. The leadership did exactly the same things; they blamed, dismissed or threatened the victims and dealt with the perps by shuffling them around unsuspecting communities. The excuse was that publicity would expose Judaism to disrepute and would spur antisemitism. Some went as far to warn that surrendering fellow Jews to secular authorities is a sin. This worked until ordinary Jews had enough of this obscenity and blew the whistle, involved the police and named names. Now every major organization has agreed to open policies, to involvement of authorities and disclosure to the community. The problem is not over, but there is huge improvement compared to only a decade ago. By all means, give the accused the benefit of the doubt, but never treat him differently because he is a cleric and "represents" his religion.

3 March 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Albert said...

(I know I said that my last comment would be last, but I've just seen CSPB's comment):

For the record, in saying this is about homosexuality, I am talking only
about the case of Cardinal O'Brien. I am not talking about the child-abuse crisis in general. I don't myself have the evidence to draw that more general conclusion.

3 March 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

There have been so many homosexuals using the profession of Priest in the Catholic Church to hide what they really were, especially when it was illegal. Of course now they don't have to hide anymore, so they can go into other professions. But it is still left with those who cover it up. I can't somehow see though Cardinal O'Brien as a closet homosexual. Neitiher does he come across as a power abuser. So let's have it all out in the open. Who are these accusers and what exactly has he done to them? Male bonding that they have maliciously exaggerated out of all proportion or evil acts of male rape and debauchery? Cough it up what ever it is so that we can all see and then show compassion or not for any real victims.

3 March 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Oh dear...Avi,

Cranmer is accused of anti-Catholicism, not because he is complaining of Catholic abuse. I do enough of that complaining myself. He is accused of anti-Catholicism because he is misrepresenting a case of homosexuality as paedophilia, while not acknowledging the problem in his own community (which you have acknowledged). He does this because it suits his own agenda.

This is not a uniquely Catholic issue; it has happened and is happening in all denominations, in the secular world and in my community as well with rabbis and seminary directors implicated.

Exactly. That is the point Cranmer needs to understand and if that was manifest in his blog, no one would be complaining.

3 March 2013 at 19:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert dear fellow, no one want’s to drive homosexuals out of the church. And incidentally, the Inspector is a bigger sinner than you – probably.

The correct attitude for a homosexual who is in the church is thus. “Help me, I have a disordered mind with an unnatural desire to indulge in sexual activity with other men, and probably boys too if given the chance. Please do not put me in a position where I will let myself and the church down”

It’s damn simple man !

3 March 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector is not used to repeating himself. In his life, he damn well makes sure once is enough !

But here it is again. Cranmer is NOT culpable !!!

So he presents the story like some red top journalist – what of it !

3 March 2013 at 19:21  
Blogger David B said...

Flossie said ' The real problem is homosexual priests'

Not really - a problem is hypocritical priests, including the many who seduce the members of their flock who are often adult, often vulnerable, and female, who end up in effect as single parent, if they carry the foetus to term. There are quite a lot of them, too, including that friend of the Polish Pope. Maciel, was it? Not that he was above sexual predation on boys and indeed his own children.

The main problem is the covering up, and the blithe pushing of problem priests to other congregations, often those with more vulnerable, and even less likely to make a fuss, people. The deaf for instance.

David

3 March 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

The RC 'Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders' states as follows:

'The Church cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".'

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

It's my opinion that this is virtually impossible to carry out. I have read too many accounts of RC seminaries with bedroom doors banging all night long to believe that this has nothing to do with the Pope's resignation. I think there must be some substance to the story of the powerful homosexual cabal in the Vatican.




3 March 2013 at 19:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Albert, HG may be technically incorrect in calling this a case of pedophilia... I'm not familiar with UK designation. And the cardinal may well be a homosexual. However the allegation is not about a crime of homosexuality, but abuse of authority, not to mention confused to unbecoming a cleric, which victimizes adults as well. HG also takes issue with the culture and practice of cover-up and persecution of victims. Like it or not, the RC is a cantralized institution which can deal with this problem in a far more efective manner than decentralized religions with smaller, independent communities where everyone knows everyone. Rather than blaming HG, you should be dancing on the heads of your leadership to hurry up and gets it's procedures in place and apply them.

3 March 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger Flossie said...

I don't think that Cardinal O'Brien is necessarily lying to cover up his past peccadilloes. He may be casting his mind about wondering frantically if that comforting hug, or arm around shoulder, was the act he was being accused of. Anybody can anonymously accuse another person of 'inappropriate touching' but what is inappropriate to one person may not be to another, and we cannot possibly know the circumstances. There are too many imponderables. I feel quite sorry for him not knowing.

It might be that it was just a bit of alcohol-fuelled jollity that went too far. It's too soon to hang him out to dry.

3 March 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Albert, excuse the gibberish here and there, I didn't proof this and the autocorrect function on my cursed device does what it wants.

3 March 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

In the US at least, the problem was overwhelmingly hypocritical homosexual priests. You can't ignore this fact simply because it creates a bunch of politically incorrect questions that many would prefer never be asked. The crisis was caused by a large number of homosexual men who used the priesthood to obtain sexual access to teenage boys.

Now, it was magnified seventy times seven fold by the way the RCC covered up the matter, and exposed others to a known risk. But you can't separate homosexuality from this crisis. If a man desires to have sex with a 15 year-old boy, that is by definition homosexual desire.

carl

3 March 2013 at 20:01  
Blogger non mouse said...

Excellent, Your Grace; thank you.

It’s heartening that posts of the last few days draw together the apparently disunited concepts of bullying, abuse (of children or others*), harassment, and power. Power is the operative concept behind them all, so may I re-state the last claim I made on the bullying strand: Our major concern should be the bridling/unbridling of the drive to domination.

We do that by teaching children to defend themselves and each other, and by maintaining authorities that support their defences.

The ex-priests I’ve mentioned before responded to RC corruption in the same way as the one you cite today. This is not an isolated case, it is a symptom of a general condition: not just in any Christian church, but in all levels of post-modern society. I therefore think Your Grace leads towards a very useful thesis: for sexual abuse has life-long psychological consequences, and the bullying instincts of the powerful will stop at nothing to shame, discredit and defame the motives, integrity and sincerity of the whistle-blower.

I support Mr. Jacobs’** responses today, especially his very positive summation at 14:16, and his comment on the corruption of “inappropriate” via postmodernism (@ 15:59. At the same time, one also both notes and expects the RCs who park here to leap about in the flames.

But that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? They are attacking others who try to be Christian -- instead of refusing to participate in the hate-fest that the postmodern media have prepared for our mutual delectation.

Another thing they could do is turn their hands to cleansing their own stable. So should we all cleanse our own domiciles. Only by dealing with the corruption in our secular institutions – in government, education, law, and health – will we ensure that children of the future can defend themselves against the fatal epidemic that besets us now.

Our Christian duty is as Christ exemplified it: we must uphold The Law, not destroy it.
________________
*The point is surely that bullies pick on people weaker than themselves: age, gender, etc. are immaterial.

**Commiserations on the back, Mr. J! Take care of it.

3 March 2013 at 20:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:15  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Ok, that's twice this week I've found myself in agreement with Carl Jacobs. Obviously, I need to get to a doctor. In the meantime, let me just reiterate the point, the problem is homosexuality, or rather homosexuals who have infiltrated the priesthood. It's not the rule of celebacy (if it were, children would be in danger from any man who wasn't getting laid twice a week), it's something within homosexuals. At the most flippant level, it's the reason why fashion designers don't design clothes for proper women; most of them are gay and they're dressing fantasy 14 year old boys, which is the reason why models have to look like stick insects. I don't know how it is where you live, but go into a gay pub in Dublin and the usual couples arrangement is a man in his forties with another one twenty years younger. Maybe it's not every gay man; maybe it's only a minority, but the minority is big enough to make it legitimate to be concerned about homosexuals and it's time everybody stopped ignoring the massive big pink elephant in the middle of the room just for the sake of political correctness.

3 March 2013 at 20:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

I did not say that "homosexual equals pedophile." I have in fact previously denied that equation. That's why it is important to recognize that very few of the abuse cases actually involved pedophila. They involved men seducing post-pubescent teenage boys. Homosexual desire doesn't transform into something else simply because the victim is 14 instead of 16. Now, you may not want to answer the obvious question ...

Why did a disproportionate number of homosexual men in the RC priesthood decide to use their position seduce teenage boys?

... but you can't simply wish it away. It sits there and stares at you whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

carl

3 March 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Corrigan is damn right. Any problems with the church, and you’ll find a homosexual behind the curtain with his trousers around his ankles. You could navigate a blasted ship by that truth !


3 March 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Is it just me who sadly thinks this is a non-story?

Not to mention actually feels sorry for Cardinal O'Brien

We have someone here who thirty years ago (or ten years ago if the latest accusation is to be believed) made homosexual passes while in an intoxicated state. Sadly not uncommon - in any arena restricted to men-only and possibly more so where celibate men-only are concerned.

He's probably spent the following thirty years hoping that these moments of drunken stupidity didn't come back to bite him.

He may even have been more vehement on the subject of homosexuality precisely because of the memories of these moments of drunken stupidity.

Now they've come back to bite him at the worst possible moment, and it says something that the conspiracy theorists from both sides are away at the gallop, one side claiming the timing was an attack on the RCC to disrupt the conclave, the other side saying the Curia timed it because of the Cardinal's words on a married priesthood. Pretty impressive if even the conspiracy theorists can't decide which side did it.

There won't be many (if any) commentators on this blog who haven't something in their past that they remember in a cold sweat years later with a resolve for it never to happen again, be it something as basic as passing out drunk at a party! Yes, the damage done to the other parties is appalling and distressing, and yes, they should be treated with compassion, and yes, what help can be found for them should be given to them, and yes, they should not be made the scapegoats of this.

But neither should this be compared to the rape of a nine year old child. It is not the same thing.

3 March 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah you are a lesbian. We have no problems with lesbians. If you are commenting on behalf of male homosexuals, how could you – you don’t have the first idea how men operate – queer or otherwise. Might be an idea to sit this one out, don’t you think ?

3 March 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah. The Inspector owes you an apology. Apparently you know all about strong sexual arousal, erections and the urge to penetrate another human being. Do forgive him. You see, he had you down as a lesbian who would run a mile to get away from a man who showed you interest, and, most importantly, DOESN’T know it all.

3 March 2013 at 20:37  
Blogger Flossie said...

No, Hannah, you are wrong. The number of actual paedophiles, ie abusers of pre-pubescent children (in the US at least) was miniscule.

3 March 2013 at 20:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger David B said...

This week's Jesus and Mo seems pretty apposite.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2013/02/27/drop/

David

3 March 2013 at 20:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

Your definitions are too convenient by half. And your definition of 'pedophile' depends on an equivocation of the word 'children.' If the age of consent is 16, then a man can have sex with a 16 year old and the law would call that act legal. It would therefore fall under your definition of 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual.' If instead the age of consent is 17, then the act would constitute 'pedophilia.' But that legal distinction does not change the nature of the desire behind the act. It is intellectually dishonest to try to carve out some alternative sexual nature simply to avoid asking the obvious question that I stated above.

Why did a disproportionate number of homosexual men in the RC priesthood decide to use their position to seduce teenage boys?

carl

3 March 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah. But you are 16 aren’t you ? At least that is the impression folk have of you round here after reading your naive twaddle...


3 March 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger William said...

Avi

"Rather than blaming HG, you should be dancing on the heads of your leadership to hurry up and gets it's procedures in place and apply them."

Quite. This argument that because HG has not written about CoE abuse cases (which he has by the way) then he cannot write an unbiased artcle of abuse in the RCC is a deliberate distraction in my view.

One of the problems of the inafallibility claims of the RCC is the knock-on affect of deferring all matters (including criminal ones) to anyone in authority in the RCC and taking their decision as the Gospel truth. Thereby creating a natural environment for cover-ups to flourish. Che is right, the police should be brought in to investigate pronto.

3 March 2013 at 20:49  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

David B,

It would have been nice if you had mentioned who Maciel's nemesis was - Benedict.

Your Grace,

I wondered, along with many others, why you chose to print this article today. Now I understand. As I said, timing is everything.

3 March 2013 at 20:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

You haven't answered the question at all. You have simply assertion convenient definitions and then declared victory on the basis of your definitions. But your definitions are hopelessly inadequate. They bespeak of a desire to shape the narrative and not to find the truth.

In the desire to attack homosexuals, not pedophiles, you have to paint a narrative which portrays gays as child molesting beasts, who are sub human... which is untrue.

This is not worthy of you. I haven't done any of these things. I manifestly do not declare all homosexuals to be child abusers. I have simply pointed out incontrovertible facts. It is a fact that there would have been no child abuse crisis in the RCC in the US if homosexuals had been effectively excluded from the ministry. Why is that true?

carl

3 March 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



hmmm. Let’s say aged 15. Still in sulky mode...

3 March 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 21:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 21:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, perhaps it's because they are mostly in exclisively male environments, in position of authority and in an onsitutional culture which lookd the other way? A number of the rabbis and heads of yeshivas who were recently outed were married. The antics of schoolmasters, many of them married or in heterosexual relstionships in all-boys schools all over the world is legendary. Perhaps these are crimes of opportunity and the sickness is predisposition for pathological authoritarianism which has been sexualized,rather than sexual orientation.

3 March 2013 at 21:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

When you learn to string an argument together which doesn't involve your usual silly stuff, then we can engage one another... at least Carl does that. Until then, we having nothing to say to each other.

3 March 2013 at 21:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Avi,

HG may be technically incorrect in calling this a case of pedophilia... I'm not familiar with UK designation.

It isn't in any sense an issue of paedophilia - the UK does not come into it. Please stop your defence of Cranmer's conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia.

I think you misunderstand the nature of Cranmer's post. His point is not to complain about O'Brien's behaviour. His point is to say that the Church has mishandled it. But how has the Church mishandled it? That isn't really clear, because we don't really know what has happened, yet. All we know is that his behaviour was with male adults. So to make a story against the Vatican, Cranmer calls it paedophilia.

Of course, it seems likely that abuse of power was also involved. But that is still to be determined, and given due process, conclusions cannot be drawn. So it's necessary to confuse people by using this term paedophilia, so show that the Vatican is involved in yet another child-abuse cover-up. Even though it isn't.

3 March 2013 at 21:07  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

This argument that because HG has not written about CoE abuse cases (which he has by the way) then he cannot write an unbiased artcle of abuse in the RCC is a deliberate distraction in my view.

The lack of even-handedness is side issue, which arises because Cranmer is attacking the Catholic Church for what so clearly goes on in the CofE. The major objection I have raised against Cranmer is in calling this a paedophile cover-up, when it is not.

3 March 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Hannah has at least an excuse for her posts, does she not :Intelligence, but also a degree immaturity, which will change with experience. But what's your excuse?

3 March 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger gentlemind said...

HG said, "They are serious because we are concerned here with historic allegations of paedophilia: the Cardinal is accused of 'inappropriate behaviour' against young seminarians who were, at the time, 18-20 years old."

carl jacobs said, "A pedophile abuses prepubescent children. If the age of consent was 21 at the time, then cardinal O'Brien would be guilty of statutory rape or some other offense, But he wouldn't be a pedophile."

HG said, "You're technically right, but, as with all evolution of language, that is no longer what the term means. Society long ago abolished the crude correlation between puberty and adulthood. The very concept of an 'age of consent' presupposes emotional and psychological maturity, as well as the physical ability to engage in sexual acts and reproduce.

"Some cultures/religions still celebrate manhood at 11 or womanhood at 13. We no longer do. For good or ill, rightly or wrongly, the child remains a child until the state determines otherwise. In the 1980s, for consensual homosexual sex, this was deemed to be 21. Ergo, the Cardinal is accused of abusing those who were just boys - emotionally and psychologically, at least."

What a mess. If an 18year-old female had had sex with a Priest, no offence would have occured.

If an 18year-old male had had sex with a Priestess in room A, no offence would have occured. Now change Priestess to Priest and room A to room B. In room A the male is considered to be a man (emotionally and psychologically). How, then, can he regress to being a boy (emotionally and pyschologically) just by walking into room B? Does he become younger? No. The law still considers him to be old enough to have sex. But the law does not consider homosexual sex to be sex.

If Cardinal O'Brien committed homosexual acts with an 18year-old male, the wrongness of those acts does not come from the 18-ness of the male, since if the male had been 21, or 41, or 16, the acts themselves would still have been wrong. The wrongness comes from the homosexual acts themselves.

As an aside, there is a categorical link between homosexuality and paedophilia. Neither are sex. By definition, sex requires sexual difference. By definition, a child is a non-sexual human. It is as impossible for a woman to have sex with a woman as it is for a woman to have sex with a girl. But if we say that "sex" between two women is indeed sex, then we have to say that "sex" between an adult and a child is sex. And don't try to argue on grounds of consent haha

The mistake, basically, is to believe that man-made can tell us what is right and wrong.
We are free to assert that society has abolished any correlation between puberty and adulthood. The human body, however, does not state that there is a correlation between puberty and adulthood. The body dictates that puberty is adulthood.

3 March 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Albert said...

I'd be quite interested (although I won't be posting tomorrow) in hearing, in the light of what we know, how the Vatican is supposed to have got this one wrong.

Keep in mind what is at issue: Not paedophilia, but historic, and (until today) unproven (and unclear) allegations of homosexual sin, which may or may not have involved an abuse of power.

3 March 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

William, I have seen institutional sloth, timidity amnd corruption first hand and was among many who began blowing the whistle and engaging the authorities to the horror of traditionalists. One of the arguments against pursuing complaints was that it would damage the marriagability or prospects of the victims. We called it bullshit and a subtle threat and publicised it; police and court procedures protect victim anonymity and anyone thinking of violating it knew they'd be facing charges. Things were not always so...secular authorities were not always preferable to in-house solutions, but in our democracies the courts provide a better justice in such cases.

3 March 2013 at 21:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger David B said...

@Che Yeoh, who said

"It would have been nice if you had mentioned who Maciel's nemesis was - Benedict."

Really? Wiki has this to say - is it wrong?

"Shortly being succeed as general director, after an investigation had been re-opened by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Vatican requested that Maciel withdraw from his ministry in lieu of further investigation and prosecution. In May 2006, Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, disciplined him: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked Maciel to live "a reserved life of penitence and prayer, relinquishing any form of public ministry”;[14] a canonical trial was ruled out because of his advanced age and poor health.[15] No explanation was given to the public or to the Legionaries of Christ."

Don't you mean that I should have mentioned the scoundrel who tried to hush it up?

Further from wiki

"In 1997, a group of nine men went public with accusations that they had been abused by Maciel while studying under him in Spain and Rome in the 1940s and 1950s. They described how he would feign to have an illness in his groin and had been given papal permission to receive help massaging out the pain. The group, which included respectable academics and former priests, lodged formal charges at the Vatican in 1998, but were told the following year that the case had been shelved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (on orders from Pope John Paul II), then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict.[13]"

And Benedict beatified JP11!!!

JP11 was no saint, he was a criminal enabler of abuse!

David

3 March 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


David Kavanagh. “Immaturity” – ring that bloody bell !

Having not taken up the archbishop’s suggestion you both butt out, one supposes we are stuck with you and you sisters on-line guff. Thank you very much, in a Tony Hancock way, but of course, you two wouldn’t know who he was...

3 March 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

I am not sure how much weight should be assigned to enforced celibacy. It is not a natural way to live, but this crisis has by and large avoided those who self-identify as heterosexual. The RCC would have a much healthier Preisthood if it let priests marry. But I don't think it plays much into this crisis other than the fact that it affects who self-selects top become a priest.

A pedophile is someone who desires sex with pre-pubescent children. You can't extend this definition past puberty. You are trying to create some deviant sexual orientation to separate homosexual men from homosexual men who desire to have sex with teenagers. But there is no such orientation. It is simply homosexual desire focused on youth. So the problem is determining why the RCC ended up with so many homosexual priests who wanted to have sex with teenage boys.

And don't look for me to defend the RCC as the one true church. I will deny it.

carl

3 March 2013 at 21:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Albert, I reread HGs post. The cardinal is accused of violating the law regarding homosexual conduct and the age of majority of the day. Wheather we call the latter pedophilia or messing with a minor is academic. The bigger issue is the machinery of obfuscation, deal-making and punishment of the accusers. It is this machinery which needs to be fixed, by invoking the press, public opinion and authorities if the big shots won't move their pampered arses. Surely you don't have a problem with that?

3 March 2013 at 21:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "So the problem is determining why the RCC ended up with so many homosexual priests who wanted to have sex with teenage boys."

What percentage of the priesthood is homosexual?

3 March 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm intrigued by the mindset. The man is a cardinal and could be picking popes. He's been a priest since he was 26 years old. Surely Christians believe that their god knows everything and Roman Catholics believe that their god is sustaining the very fabric of the universe moment by moment. As he was doing whatever he was doing, he must have been aware that his god was fully aware of his desires, motives, and actions. How does one commit 'sin' of that order in the very presence of one's god? Isn't the very fact that he's a cardinal imply something about his commitment to the Roman Catholic Church? It's all very odd.

3 March 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger Julie said...

David b,

Read this.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present

3 March 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

What percentage of the priesthood is homosexual?

That is a good question. If homosexuals are significantly over-represented in the Priesthood, that could explain the figures. Then enforced celibacy does come into play because it has significantly altered the population of people who choose to become priests. But there are many other questions that would need to be answered before that hypothesis could be accepted.

carl

3 March 2013 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah, what's the point of deleting all your posts? The latter part of the debate is messed up now. Sheesh

3 March 2013 at 21:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Perhaps these are crimes of opportunity

An interesting comment. Why then would it be so focused on homosexual desire in the RCC? If it was just a crime of opportunity, wouldn't it be equally distributed?

carl

3 March 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "But there are many other questions that would need to be answered before that hypothesis could be accepted."

Indeed.

I'm inclined to believe that there are gender differences in this somewhere. That is, men as a class are inclined to be more promiscuous than women, and men as a class are more attracted to youth than women, and men as a class rate physical atributes higher than woman.

3 March 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps homosexual Christians, especially in a less liberal society than we have today, were attracted to the clergy as a means of control. The Roman Catholic Church is, afterall, fiercely against homosexual behaviour. Perhaps rather than using the Church to gain access to choirboys and the like, it was an aspirational thing which failed to deliver the benefits of self-control.

3 March 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger Flossie said...

He has now admitted sexual misconduct.

3 March 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ 100m behind, and closing :)

3 March 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Corrigan is damn right. Any problems with the church, and you’ll find a homosexual behind the curtain with his trousers around his ankles. You could navigate a blasted ship by that truth !"

Blimey, is that why Ratzinger resigned? :O Hold the front page!

3 March 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, I thought my post covered this. Again, it's being in a predominantly male environment in a position of authority... the opportunity... AND being a pathological power freak which may be most relevant. There is plenty of abuse of girls and women...and even animals... by such damaged personality types. In any case, note my qualifiers...I'm speculating. And so are most of us here btw.

3 March 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 . Hannah, what's the point of deleting all your posts? The latter part of the debate is messed up now. Sheesh

Don’t delude yourself, there’s nothing missing. Cranmer’s own words were ‘iron to sharpen iron’. That’s what he intends for this site. And this man is up for that. What we don’t need is an overeducated 26 year old lesbian Jewess with maturity problems posting distracting weak minded platitudes and her pushy brother appearing every now and then to ensure his sister has not been reduced to tears...

3 March 2013 at 22:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

"Jewess?" What is the point of using that noun?

carl

3 March 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, and regarding your post to Hannah, where you posit that had homosexuals been excluded from clergy, none of this would happen, this is what I'm arguing about. Namely that from the admittedly little I know of the topic, not all homosexual behaviour results from homosexuals. In many cases of abuse, the parties avail themselves of whoever or whatever is handy situationally.

3 March 2013 at 22:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, I'll delete one of my previous comments and repost a reduced version lest I'm libelling the man:

Tiberia: "We have someone here who thirty years ago (or ten years ago if the latest accusation is to be believed) made homosexual passes while in an intoxicated state."

There's the issue of power relations here. Had he made drunken passes at fellow bishops, archbishops, or cardinals then it would be a different thing.

3 March 2013 at 22:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Politeness dear fellow. She is not a Jew, a word that suggests masculinity...

What nefarious thought entered your brain then – out with it man !

3 March 2013 at 22:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So now that Cardinal O'Brien has (sort of, kind of) admitted to the truth of the accusations against him, what does the RCC do now? He has become the instant poster boy for accusations of hypocrisy. You can already see the headlines. "Anti-homosexual bishop is closet homosexual." The journalists are already sharpening their carving knives, and the RCC is the turkey being roasted.

carl

3 March 2013 at 22:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Avi,

Wheather we call the latter pedophilia or messing with a minor is academic.

No it isn't, because if you make the word "paedophilia" cover sex acts over (say) 18, then the word loses all meaning. The purpose of the use of the word is trade off the feeling that something like the abuse of an 8 year old is being covered up (rather than, discretion in dealing with someone's adult sins - something we all hope for).

The bigger issue is the machinery of obfuscation, deal-making and punishment of the accusers.

If that is what has happened, then that is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. I cannot see how anything I have written could possibly indicate I would take any other view.

But for it to be addressed, we need a proper account of what has happened, and that will not be helped by misleading uses of the word "paedophile" for entirely separate political purposes.

3 March 2013 at 22:28  
Blogger Flossie said...

How the media are going to love this. I can just see Peter Tatchell putting on his prim face and talking about hypocrites.

It is still possible to uphold Christian teaching on marriage even if one falls short oneself, so I don't see much hypocrisy from that point of view. There are more significant issues here which need dealing with.

3 March 2013 at 22:32  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

As an ex Catholic now an Evangelical Protestant all I have to say on this whole murky business is that a celibate priesthood is unbiblical on 2 grounds. The unbiblical nature of enforced celibacy and the unbiblical nature of a separate priesthood. The scripture is quite clear on both sets of error. Romans wake up and see the light, events are overtaking you.

3 March 2013 at 22:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector,given the wide spectrum of types here and the stuff that comes out of us, Hannah is hardly unusual or inferior in any way. In fact, she strikes me as one of the more normal types. Methinks you forgot what being young is and what manners are.

3 March 2013 at 22:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

It is normally said (I don't know on what evidence) that the proportion of Catholic priests who are homosexually inclined is 10-30%.

How does one commit 'sin' of that order in the very presence of one's god?

I know you might find it hard to believe, but there have been many priests with very liberal attitudes to homosexuality (and sexuality in general). This seems to have started after the Council (i.e. late 60s). The expectation seems to have been that the Church would change to accept homosexuality in the future. Cardinal O'Brien was known to have liberal attitudes towards homosexuality at the time, though for whatever reason, his position became more traditional later.

3 March 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger Flossie said...

Actually, he beat me to it¬

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/Cardinal-OBrien-Just-the-tip-of-Catholic-hypocrisy.htm

3 March 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger David B said...

@ Julie

I think I read that when it was new. I don't think it exculpates Ratzinger. Whatever he tried to do was aimed to be done within the church,and to this day the church strives to keep its papers private and struggles to avoid paying compensation.

OK so a number of priests who should have been tried criminally were removed from office.

Still a cover up.

And JP11 remains no saint. I would have had more respect for Ratzinger had he defied JP11.

David

3 March 2013 at 22:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "He has become the instant poster boy for accusations of hypocrisy. You can already see the headlines. "Anti-homosexual bishop is closet homosexual.""

It's not just hypocrisy, it's a stereotype. The louder they shout, etc. Though he might not even be homosexual like I am, just a man of malleable desire wanting sex with men because it's easier in his circumstances.

I actually feel quite sorry for him, as well as his accusers. Not least because he's 40 odd years of require celibacy. He's notorious now right at the end of his career after all those years of service.

3 March 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

He has become the instant poster boy for accusations of hypocrisy.

...or (like an ex-alcoholic) the voice of experience.

3 March 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

You included the word in a list of otherwise negative descriptors. Without acknowleging the truth of you argument, let's at how you presented it:

She is "overeducated"
She is "26 years old" (i.e. young & inexperienced)
She is a "lesbian"
She has "maturity problems."

Each tends to caste her opinions as being easily dismissed. In the middle you throw in "Jewess." The way its written would tend to indicate that you think being a Jewess also means her opinion is easily dismissed. I wanted to give you the opportunity to correct the record lest someone read and get the wrong idea.

carl

3 March 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

or (like an ex-alcoholic) the voice of experience.

Not with it being revealed in this manner. He would have had to come forward on his own initiative.

carl

3 March 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Albert, the point is that HG expressed here his strong feelings about abuse, be it of minors or those with little authority and recourse to justice... not about trashing Rome.

Of course we need to know more and in fact we do, as the cleric has made an admission which given his churlishness and the circumstance of this case, doesn't make him look very good.

3 March 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

I deleted my comments because I thought that I was arguing towards the personal towards Carl and secondly, I didn't appreciate the unhelpful butting in of Inspector, who added nothing to either side of the discussion, but just wanted to I dunno what he wanted to do exactly, but I thought it was a negative contribution.

3 March 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The blog owner is being consistent with the use of the term anyway, where he makes a related point:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/a-paedophile-ring-at-no10.html

about disregarding criminal records when doing background checks.

3 March 2013 at 22:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hannah, Carl and I might add, the Inspector, can and should be able to handle anything you dish out. Not I, though; I'm very sensitive and prone to weeping.

3 March 2013 at 22:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ In a context which is not about the Roman Catholic Church.

3 March 2013 at 22:57  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Inspector "an overeducated 26 year old lesbian Jewess with maturity problems posting distracting weak minded platitudes"

This from someone who has in the same thread said of me :

"Hannah. But you are 16 aren’t you ? At least that is the impression folk have of you round here after reading your naive twaddle..."

And has recently said that he 'doesn't do "ad hominem anymore".

Which is why you call me a 16 or 15 year old, my ideas are 'twaddle', I am an 'over educated Jewess', a 'lesbian' etc. Andin a post below “Having got all that off your breasts, you are now free to roam the blogosphere to deposit your tat elsewhere and far away. (...Note the ‘far away’ bit...)”.

This is of course you not doing ad hominem, isn’t it?

3 March 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. @22:43 At last, an opportunity to use a good old English descriptive adjective. To wit, “Bollocks”

Avi, you are being unfair Sir. When the Inspector was a young man, he received some very good advice. “Keep your ears open, and your mouth shut, at least until you know what it’s all about”. Mind you, he was a damn sight younger than 26 when he dispensed with this advice...


3 March 2013 at 23:00  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Please do be civil here. I am sure that you said once that you were not going to do personal attacks on anyone. Strange that. And you know, the advice given to you, about keeping you mouth shut and your ears open, I am uncertain as to whether that has worked.

3 March 2013 at 23:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Like a rubber ball she comes bouncing back to me...”

Who will rid the Archbishop’s site of the banal Hannah....

3 March 2013 at 23:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...and her pain-in-the-arse brother...

3 March 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector :

"her pushy brother appearing every now and then to ensure his sister has not been reduced to tears..."

We could add an "s" to that if you want to have a proper fight but then you'd not be able to stand up against real men would you?

As an aside, to remind you, if you have forgotten, for many months you acted as Dodo's pal and indulged in various attacks upon people here. Yet, when it came to defending him, you ran a mile. A bit like the coward you are.

3 March 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Struth !

3 March 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Well, OK. If you don't like the polite gentle British version, then I will give the blunt American version. If I thought you were an anti-Semite, I would have said so. I thought you were too thick to understand how your post could be read. So I gave you a gentle push to fix it.

Next time, I will say something like "Hey, d**b-s**t. You realize that you just made yourself look like an anti-Semite, right?"

carl

3 March 2013 at 23:11  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector ,

"Who will rid the Archbishop’s site of the banal Hannah....
...and her pain-in-the-arse brother..."

Said the guy who promised not to do any more personal attacks. Hmmmm.

3 March 2013 at 23:12  
Blogger Corrigan said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4eANuMXd8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqkTzS02hDo

This guy is a bit of a fruitloop, but he's not afraid to call it.

3 March 2013 at 23:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Carl, {SOBBING} I love the Marx brothers, and Rodney Dangerfield, and all the jokes about holidays in the Catskills.

Ich bein ein Jew, I tells ye !

3 March 2013 at 23:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, not at all dear sir, I'm aware of the unexpected 30 pounder broadside Hannah raked your larboard with a few posts back. I stood by with stanchions, canvas and a barrel of tar, but you patched quickly and are still sailing fairly. But you recall the rules of war regarding ladies are quite different and simple; engage only with flags or put up the quarter sails and proceed on a new course. No offence to either you or Miss Hannah...the departure of the bird has unsettled us all.

3 March 2013 at 23:25  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

"Who will rid the Archbishop’s site of the banal Hannah...."

Struth indeed. I think that you can do better than post silly stuff like that. Poor old you. I do feel sorry for you, I really do, feel sorry for you will all of my heart.

3 March 2013 at 23:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

True I did insult inspector, but the difference is that I didn't promise not to be ad hominem,although I try and not to be, besides which I also said he was welcome to post on my blog and that I did hope he'd find a partner, so it wasn't without any pity or kindness.

And he has been goading me and my bro,for many months now, it has been a struggle not to respond in such a fashion. Unfortunately Inspector arouses that kind of negative response in people.

3 March 2013 at 23:32  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Mr. Barzel @ 21:04 Perhaps these are crimes of opportunity and the sickness is predisposition for pathological authoritarianism which has been sexualized,rather than sexual orientation. (And similarly @ 22:19).

Females of the homo-persuasion, whatever their religion or profession, are equally opportunistic. And then ‘feminism’ kicks in just like the Vatican: to protect its hierarchy and its material interests. I speak of what I've observerd, so it beats me why anyone would think the female gender isn’t subject to domination disorders. But, then again, perhaps they only practice on those subject to their ministrations, not on men who are bigger than they are.

And so, as abusers beget abusers (by arresting development), the force within the downward spiral intensifies.

Though discretion should protect the innocent, hiding the crime under bushels is usually unwise. The most deadly aspect is hiding of the Light of Truth in order to protect the guilty and the religious hierarchy: no matter what these priorities do to the children; or to the RCC; or to humankind.

And what if the crime is secular in its letter, date, and time? Should we not recognise that the Death of human law lies in denial of the Spirit of the Law? Do we not reap what we sow?

Furthermore, the Roman hierarchy can’t claim it was never warned: those preachers should have read their Bibles! Luke 12 reports the prophesy:
1. In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
2. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
3. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
( KJV).

4 March 2013 at 01:21  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 March 2013 at 01:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry for typos again: 'observed.'

4 March 2013 at 07:28  
Blogger len said...

When Jesus spoke about the Pharisees he called them "Whitewashed Tombs full of dead men`s bones and everything unclean."
There are clearly parallels with the church today.Much of what Jesus taught seems to have got lost over the Centuries.Jesus stated that 'religious performance' would fail.He knew it then, 'the Church' still hasn`t grasped this simple fact.To put on a' Christian facade' might fool some(for a time)but the mask will slip(eventually) and what lies beneath will be revealed.This is a time that facts must be faced not' covered up' in the interests of the church 'saving face'.

God intends radical change for man (not just a 'paint job')God wants to give man a new heart and a new spirit which will radically transform him from within.Man looks on the exterior but God looks on the heart because He knows that man cannot redeem what He has condemned.
Stop trying to justify behaviour that proceeds from the heart within man and accept God`s solution which although radical is the only one that will have lasting effectiveness of dealing with the sin problem within man.

(Ezekiel 36) 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

4 March 2013 at 08:19  
Blogger gentlemind said...

@Corrigan

I followed the youtube links, just to see who you were referring to as a fruitloop. Turned out to be the great Michael Voris.

You also used the word "unafraid". Fear is the great paralyser. Truth sets you free. Michael Voris is a free man. Freedom (in relation to fear) can definitely seem a bit fruitloopy haha

4 March 2013 at 12:33  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Gmind,

It is not good to bring any child into faith be it on the plains of Tibet or in the jungles of the Congo. It is by truth alone. Evidence is all they need, not Conversion; for one is wired to analyse themselves as dominated by internal demons to cut off, while the other sees the world full Demons to strike down and cast out.

As there are no demons that cannot be uncovered and faded to nothing, this thread reveals the Converted who give in to their 'good' fears and say they are now rulers over evil forces. Super Man needing his Lex Luther to prevent him seeing who he has become, the encasement of evil, moulded to fit over perfectly what he is running from.

Submission becomes a new life, the g spot is awakened. For reproduction is for dying beings. The most dead-conscious are the most sexually orientated. And a child who breaks a chink in their armor, well, becomes breakfast. It is in every religious household who have separated the genders.

4 March 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Nonmouse, this "bigger man" currently tiptoes among a collection of females; a wife, two daughters and a spoilt kitten, not to mention their legion of accomplices... their friends, I mean. My only male confederate, my son, is far away and quite busy. "Domination disorders" run rampant; they are, one might say, the default condition hereabouts. And thus I ponder the sublime mystery of the Almighty creating our mother Hava as Adom's helpmate who is, paradoxically...and not so paradoxically... to be "against him."

4 March 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Cardinal O'Brien never attempted to marry a man. He never expressed the slightest desire to do so. None of his views on public policy was remotely incompatible with any aspect of his past or present manner of life. Even if any had been, then that would not have invalidated his arguments. On the contrary, those arguments remain entirely valid.

The Lavender Mafia has staged this hit. But what does it imagine will be its victim's successor's position on the definition of marriage? It is Cardinal O'Brien's erstwhile liberal allies who have rubbed him out. The odious Damian Thompson, that self-appointed and viciously enforcing arbiter of Catholic orthodoxy who is fully accepted as such by this country's media, declares his Fairy Godmotherly status by his spitefully triumphalistic, and triumphalistically spiteful, post for Telegraph Blogs.

Thompson, of course, is ecstatic at the downfall of a cogent critic of global capitalism at both macro and micro levels, of its wars, and of the nuclear weapons waiting to be deployed in those wars. Clearly, thus speaks the entire liberal wing of the Church. No surprise there. That economic system is not called neoliberalism for nothing. The 1980s were Mother Mabel's Golden Age is every possible way.

Oh, and did I miss something, or did the secular media used to say that it was outrageous to suggest any connection whatever between homosexuality and the pederasty scandals? But then, they used to deny that sex between adults and adolescents, of which there is absolutely no suggestion in this case, was endemic, and socially acceptable, in the 1970s.

5 March 2013 at 00:59  
Blogger Ivan said...

antisemite - in years past one had to kill or at least burn down a house to earn that appellation. This is part of the sickness that is afflicting us, the abuse of language - that of by exaggeration and innuendo implicate others in thought processes they did not mean.
I understand the larger point that OIG was making, which anyone can figure out by the difference in coverage both in given to the abuses among the RCC and the rabbis.

6 March 2013 at 02:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older