Sorry Cardinal O’Brien, but reality is redefining itself
Posted on Sunday 4 March, 2012
Filed Under Civil Liberties, Religion
IF YOU are still unpersuaded of the need for secularism to prevail in politics, then consider the latest religious intervention. Britain’s most senior Catholic is dominating the news agenda today with a hyperbole-laden polemic against the prospect of men being allowed to marry men and women being allowed to marry women.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien starts, of course, from the theological premises set down in the Vatican’s 1975 Declaration on Sexual Ethics. Same sex attraction may be unavoidable, but is nevertheless ‘a serious depravity’; to act on that attraction is ‘intrinsically disordered’.
O’Brien is as entitled as any other citizen to express an opinion on gay marriage. The question is exactly how much extra weight his stance should carry by virtue of his position within an unelected hierarchy.
The Catholic church is a voluntary organisation, and is entitled to make whatever stipulations for its adherents its teaching appears to dictate. Obviously it would be wrong for the state to compel it to conduct gay marriage services.
But the same logic runs the other way; its authority extends exclusively to those who chose to accept it, which works out at around 8% of the population. It cannot be accorded a veto over policies that impact on the remaining 92% of us.
Moreover, the very credibility of its pronouncements on matters sexual is surely tainted by decades in which its leadership in many countries was knowingly complicit in child abuse on a mass scale.
On reading the O’Brien’s piece, I was also amused to see Catholicism posing as the brave defender of heretics and those who dissent from imposed orthodoxy. Get a history book, Cardinal.
The article contains more arguments than can conveniently be examined in the space of a blog post. Some of them are quite obviously tenuous. For instance, the idea that civil partnership is harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved is asserted without even an attempt at substantiation.
But one principal claim appears to be that marriage has existed at all times and places, and has only ever meant the legal union of one man and one woman. The government is trying to change that definition to include same sex unions, and is therefore guilty of attempting to redefine reality.
While my knowledge of anthropology is sketchy, the Cardinal seems to be on shaky ground here. As far as I am aware, human societies have always displayed a vast diversity of sexual set ups. One to one straight marriage has been dominant, but scarcely universal.
Even in the Bible, we read in in 1 Kings 11:3 that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Polygamy was nothing out of the ordinary in the Old Testament (Deut. 21:15), and Abraham himself engaged in divinely-sanctioned bigamy.
But the truth is not that the government that is redefining reality, but that reality is redefining itself. Committed gay relationships have surely been around as long as committed straight relationships, but it is only thanks to the social changes seen in the last 50 years that they have become both commonplace and open.
If the Coalition recognises that and allows LGBT couples that wish to do so to walk down the aisle, then that ultimate increases rather than diminishes the standing of marriage as an institution. Those that favour marriage should have no complaints about that.
<<Go back
Comments
30 Responses to “Sorry Cardinal O’Brien, but reality is redefining itself”
Leave a Reply
I know it’s been said many, amny times before…but it needs to be said yet again: The Catholic Church, with its record of child abuse, covering up child abuse, and torture of children by priests and nuns, is the last organisation with any right to pronounce on sex or anything even vaguely connected to sex.
Have these fuckers/buggers no shame? Do they not know when it is seemly to simply shut up and, er, butt out? Have they not read about the whited sepulchre?
Strange looking Irish agent of the Vatican wearing a large pointed hat and carrying a very very large incapacity benefit claiming walking crook tells the government they are mad. QE1 would have had his head on the Tower.
Denham is an anti-Christian bigot who would be anti-Christian even if the Church was pure as the driven snow – which, as I’ve said many a time and oft, it ain’t.
“As far as I am aware, human societies have always displayed a vast diversity of sexual set ups.”
They certainly have. But homosexuality has been stigmatised (to put it mildly)in pretty much all of them. One Ancient Greece doesn’t make a summer.
Dave’s “reality is redefining itself” is a tad disingenuous. What’s happening here is an attempt to redefine language. AFAIK couples (and indeed triples and quads, of all genders and of none) are already free to walk, skip or otherwise cavort down the aisle, just not in a church. It just ain’t marriage, which already has a pretty good definition :
“…duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.”
Laban Tall. Just because some people in the past had an opinion and wrote it down does not mean we all have to obey. If Hitler had won for instance. Let people get on with their lives Laban. Gay people getting married is their business it will not shake the world one bit. Are you saying people cannot define their own reasons for matrimony? Does it have to be biblical? Get a life Laben and stay out of others. Take your Mitre off.
“… But homosexuality has been stigmatised (to put it mildly)in pretty much all of them (previous societies -JD). One Ancient Greece doesn’t make a summer.”
I think you’ve made your position quite clear there, Mr Taliban.
And you call me a “bigot.”
…oh, and Mr Taliban, you don’t have to take my word for it:
Geoffrey Robertson QC:
“It is now clear that tens of thousands – perhaps even approaching 100,000 – children, mainly boys, were sexually molested by priests over a period (1981-2005) coinciding with Cardinal Ratzinger’s responsibility as head “prefect” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF, the Vatican body that oversees canon law proceedings against them). Judicial inquiries have described sexual abuse as “endemic” in Catholic boys’ homes in Ireland. The report of the understated John Jay College inquiry, published in 2004, found 10,667 victims in the US, where over $1.6bn is believed to have been paid in damages so far. A truth commission in Canada is uncovering huge abuse in Catholic-run residential homes. In Melbourne, Australia, the Church has had to compensate 300 victims of 60 molesting priests, only one of whom it has defrocked. Forty-five of Malta’s 850 priests are suspected paedophiles, with multiple victims. Similar incidents are emerging from the priesthood in Austria, Belgium and Germany. It is said that the scale of sex abuse in Latin America and Africa, to which many paedophile priests from America and Europe have been trafficked, will be even worse.
“Abuse happened on this scale – and was allowed to happen – in part because Joseph Ratzinger, both as head of the CDF and as Pope, has insisted for the past 30 years that all such cases be dealt with in secrecy under canon law. As late as July this year, when he promulgated new canon laws about sex abuse (finally making it as serious an offence as ordaining a woman), he deliberately and adamantly refused to direct his bishops to report confirmed or reasonably suspected cases of child rape to the police.”
Tony Bliar seems to have a permanent grin on his face. Old Glesga saying,’If you do not mind the shite I do not mind the pain’.
Trouble with Denham is his criticisms are meaningless like German imperialism’s criticisms of British imperialism or British imperialism’s criticisms of Russian imperialism or American imperialism’s criticisms of Japanese imperialism or Israel’s criticisms of Islamism. HP’s criticism of the Stalinist and SWP support of Assad when they cheer led Operation Cast Led. Meaningless chatter and hypocrisy.
Forgot to mention Denham’s opposition to nuclear weapons except in the hands of Israel who’s right to obliterate the Iranian working class by their use he resolutely upholds.
Things getting really silly on Stalinist Unity now. The Stalinists are quoting Lenin and Trotsky to justify their support of the Homs butchery (some twat called Vanya thinks its like Kronstadt) and the SWP are desperately trying to put a progressive spin on the pro-Assad resolution they put forward at StWC and which was passed by the Stalinist wankers gathered there.
Cardinal O’brien is saying what millions of people in this country would like to say. The word “homophobic” has been used to tape the mouths of all us who are utterly appalled at the grotesque promotion of homosexuality. Gays are a minority of outsiders who would like to re-define, not only marriage, but the human body, and humanity at large, to support their depraved bebaviour. They were not “born with” the need to use the bodies sewage system as a sexual vessel. They choose to behave in this most anti- Christ, anti- health, anti -nature way to feed their warped sexual obsessions. They bring about their own demise by their most grotesque ways. They do not have a “sexual orientation” they have unnatural, warped, mentally abnormal, mind set. They infect their own internal organs by penetrating the anal canal and having their anal canal penetrated. This is not sex. It is buggary; It is sodomy……..one of the worst practices known to man. This is where the whole “gay” issue needs to be addressed from.
katie. I understand some women like being penetrated up the canal. Many Catholic priests seem to like penetrating the canal.
Katie: perhaps if you gave it a try?
David Ellis. I think that Vanya is a guy. Got myself banned from SU for defending free speech for all. They have a hard core bakers dozen that like agreeing with each other! Real world shakers they are.
Vanya is a reel piece of work. A professional Stalinist sophist and provocateur. Stalinist Unity is finished as a blog because it neither allows free speech nor protects those who wish to discuss socialist politics from the gang bangers. They’ve got some bloke called Tony Collins doing the hatchet work now. The real reason it is finished is because it is an open enemy of the Arab Spring which has inspired youth across the globe into taking action. The SWP have blown it to by putting up the resolution that allows the Stalinists to rationalise their support for Assad and the Lake of Blood he is creating.
I would love to know Katie’s view on the finger up the arse during sex?
I am from the school that says the only true perversion is celibacy.
On the issue of health related matters, well, going to the toilet and not washing your hands is unhygenic. So when going to the toilet always wash your hands. When having sex always practice safe sex. More sex education, especially of children, is vital in this area. This will address Katie’s issues more than quoting scripture.
On the issue of secularism, this brings us to combined and uneven development. Can the corrupt advanced world project their values/structures onto the developing world? In a world where exploitation is systematic, individuals exploit individuals, nations exploit nations etc then this becomes problematical.
The West, which consumes resources like crazy and steals resources at the point of a jet fighter, where people own multiple flat screen TV’s and expect infinite choice without any thought of the environmental cost or who is doing the producing etc, should look to its own values/beliefs before telling the rest of the world how to live.
Death to The West!
A very interesting post, I agree with many of your points; here are some of my thoughts — http://olivermeredithcox.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/cardinal-obriens-vapid-polemic/
Katie
Why get so agitated by what others do ? No one is telling you what to do sexually , why tell others ?
I find it strange how obsessed some get by what others do in bed.
btw, your fixation appears to be on gay men, what about women having sex/relationships with women ? Or do you take Queen Victoria’s line that woman couldn’t possible do such things !
You do what you want to do and leave those who enjoy a bit of depravity to enjoy it . Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it .
It’s wild, isn’t it, how fixated homophobes are about anal sex. Lots of gay men don’t even *do* anal sex (and of course, lots of heterosexuals do). But the homophobes just don’t seem to be able to get their minds off arses. Try as they might, it’s all they can think about.
Stroppyburd & Clive. That Katie is just a frustrated bead rattler. A good seeing too would do a world of good.
Jimmy
I wouldn’t say that , but as Clive says , why are they so fixated with arses !
What i mean is, its not helpful to say all she needs is a good fuck. Its up to her if she does or doesn’t. Just as its up to others what they do . A point probably lost on her and her fixation with mens arses
http://bottommonologues.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/we-need-your-stories/
One for Katie , enjoy
Gosh, who would have thought there is so much priest porn…
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=priest+porn&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=DRBWT9fnCais0QWG-YzgCQ
stroppyburd. Well done that was a good laugh.
When and why did gay marriage become such a key issue for the left? It wasn’t mentioned by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rousseau, etc. as far as I know. Does it come from the desire for everyone to be the same, i.e. so-called “fairness”? Or is it based on the desire for the state to be in control of everything, in which case religions need to be marginalized and eventually done away with? How many committed leftists became committed leftists primarily because of the gay rights issue?
Gavino, ‘How many committed leftists became committed leftists primarily because of the gay rights issue?’
erm…………..well me for a start old love!
Society and the state still institutionally butcher’s gay people’s teenage years. It robs of them of everything Heterosexuals take for granted and are all but paid to celebrate. Sexual discovery, emotional growth and with them self worth.
Being told day and night you are a freak was something I certainly shared with Socialists 30 years ago. Still do. Born ‘pink’ maybe. ‘Red’ becomes just like bloody breathing.
If a ‘Socialist’ does not click that freedom is about the least free amongst us, then they are not talking Socialism.
Of course Marx et al did not mention Gay rights. My god some of the buggers even struggled to see women as more than slaves then. But they got the rest right. As evidenced before us each new day as Capital builds it’s own grave, taking all of us down with it unless we fight back.
Gay marriage to the Capitalist system is like a bomb under it’s very decayed Judeo-Christian foundations. Bring it on.
Another dirty Catholic beast jailed for molestation of children in Stoke on Bent. This mob of scoundrels should be abolished forthwith. Cardinal O’Brien should be deported to Oireland.
Martin. Marx probably did not mention gay marriage because it was not an issue for him during his time.
He seemed a sensible bloke and would not have interfered in such things as the bedroom.
He had more important things in mind I reckon. Seems to me Martin that those that are allegedly against gays get caught out on occasion with their face in the pillow.
You silly old Scottish buffer Jimmy, (Have I just committed a ‘Hate Crime’?)
There is more homophobic stuff in Marx than you will ever find in Leviticus in the Bible. Far from homosexuality not being an issue for Marx and his followers in the century following him, they singled it out and identified it as a class perversion. A result of the self same Capital mechanics as exploitation. Get rid of Capital and ‘Queers’ would just dissapear with it.
As we did in Stalins gulags, every bit as much as Jews in fact.
But my god the bloody economics and politics still makes sense. Old boil ridden Karl may not have stomached Gay marriage, but dig him from his grave and take him to our ‘new’ food banks and he will think he never bloody died.
Martin. I have buffed some floors to earn a living as well as other things! No you have not committed a hate crime. Keep your sense of humour Martin.