Post 1/2
Oh this is soooo funny. It's hysterical. But I must keep a straight face until I've finished the post.
Probably everyone's heard today's news that Britain's #1 cardinal has been caught with his pants... oh that was too easy (and tacky). Let's try this again. The Vatican's got him to step down over some indiscretions with some casual boyfriends of his.
Now, as the world knows, 1. the Vatican hierarchy is full of such men who're having affairs with other men or women (not a problem) or who are assaulting children (very much a problem).
The world also knows that 2. the Vatican is fully aware about such goings-on, and who's into it, and that the Vatican only doesn't want this laundry aired in public and is happy to keep quiet about it (indeed, if the Vatican itself is not fueling this fire).
So why has this particular cardinal been asked to make like vapour all of a sudden? (<- Uh I didn't mean to sound like a gangster just now, but mob lingo is just so fitting...) Back to the question: when no one else has been disrobed/defrocked for worse crimes, why has this cardinal been singled out *since* this very Saturday - when he was still advertised in the news as a major voter in the upcoming elections for the papacy? Less than 4 days have passed since he was touted a proud voter and now he's back on the news again as stepping down for something his superiors knew he was into.
In order to understand why he's really been told to take a long walk, I think one needs to read the rest of what the news reported on Saturday:
Apparently the British Cardinal couldn't keep his mouth plastered and blabbed that priestly celibacy wasn't divinely ordained (well duh, everyone except self-delusional catholics already know that it wasn't), except his saying so just went against the rather recent invention of the directive of 'papal infallibility': that whatever the pope says is divinely ordained, because the pope himself is divinely ordained hence infallible. And although the medieval pope who came up with the celibacy rule made up the rule before the invention of the 'papal infallibility' injunction that's binding on catholics - and although that medieval pope declared that his priests should all become celibate and dump their wives and girlfriends ASAP even as IIRC said medieval pope had his own girlfriend present at the historic declaration - still, the papal infallibility rule applies, even backwards in time.
Yet, heedless to what happens to those who fall out of line, the not-all-too-bright British cardinal went on about the point and even insisted that catholics priests should in fact be allowed to marry (he qualifies the statement with "a woman", but his own preference is for men - though I'm sure women the world over are breathing a sigh of relief that he's not eyeing one of them). He then threatened that the next pope will obviously consider this very question and then bring the matter up in public. Now Ratzinger, though getting out of the ratrace (oh get it? Ratzinger and Rat Race! So witty. Quick, Nobel literature prize)... Anyway: though Ratty is getting out of the Rat Race before the end of this very month, he is like his predecessor: one of the more rigid, literal and hence "true" roman catholic popes. That's why he was the head of the Inquisition (renamed to Congregation of something...The Faith?) until he was made the pope - and to be Head Inquisitor you really need to be a hardcore catholic. Being a christian fundamentalist, he's the guy who brought back exorcisms - and was once more recently thanked by looney head exorcist for this very recognition/reinstatement/rehabilitation of exorcism, as per the news. Ratzy also worked with John Paul II to undo all the uncatholic loose attitudes instilled by the Vatican II documents of Pope Angelo Roncalli (and remember how Roncalli's remains were exhumed and moved away from where the other papal bodies are decomposing or something? <- That actually says something about what the rigid popes think of that heretic...) So Ratty undoubtedly lost his marbles when he read in the news on Friday/Saturday that the British Cardinal had essentially started prematurely celebrating the return of the lax days and blurted away his hopes for a less rigid future. So they volunteered him for suicide, I mean they asked him to step down ("or we'll fire you").
But there was yet another faux pas that the British cardinal committed, which no doubt also caused him his head - or would have, had he not already lost it for hinting darkly that catholic priests will or should be tying the knot shortly. The Cardinal said that the ordination of female catholic priests should by rights also be on the next papal menu. That is unlikely to have gone down well with Ratty or many another orthodox catholic in power either. So that's 2 crimes that warranted catholic execution. Fortunately for him, the dude only got to be tried and punished once - and as this isn't the dark ages, his head's not even going to roll and he won't get tortured and burnt like other heretics were.
The ex-cardinal also threatened that he's fine if the next Pope was from Asia or Africa, but that statement was nowhere as threatening to the Vatican as the other stuff he'd said. After all, I'm sure Asian and African christians are just as "dandy" as the European ones... And if they want gay Asian or African priests, hey, there's a whole gaggle of them too.
But not so innocuous is that there's also rapist christian priests in India/Africa/Asia, in case that's what was called for. So if Europe is wants a fresh supply of them, there's enough of that fish in the rest of the world too now, courtesy of worldwide initation into christianism.
Onto the news:
1. abc.net.au/news/2013-02-23/senior-british-catholic-says-priests-should-be-allowed-to-marry/4535700
I do want to draw attention to the hypocrisy of said Cardinal - before stupid little Indoos feel sorry for him. He's not as liberal as ya think. Like most "family first/marriage values/blabla" christians, he's a hypocrite:
guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate
Turns out he's not a bigot in the strict sense - being gay himself - but he's a hypocrite. He wants all other gay people to be punished (despite their being governed by secular law, instead of christianism's virulent anti-homosexual stance and catholicism's strict injunction on celibacy for priesthood), all while he insists on having the right to gallavant with his own all-male harem. Sort of like all those many documented medieval misogynistic christian priests who frequently threatened to torture and burn women for witchcraft unless they provided said priests with sexual favours. Christianism breeds self-contrary sleaziness and violence.
www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/feb/26/eu-britain-cardinals-views/
Cardinal Oââ¬â¢Brienââ¬â¢s views have sparked controversy
2. Advanced apologies as the next item is a bit tacky. But I didn't write it, and it's the facts and part of what looks like a news blog. Reader discretion advised, especially for those who get nauseous easily.
blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/02/cardinal-keith-obriens-prayers/
3. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate
"UK's top cardinal accused of 'inappropriate acts' by priests
Three priests and former priest report Cardinal Keith O'Brien to Vatican over claims stretching back 33 years"
Quick as lightening, the Vatican - desperate to ensure its own reputation is intact - has made its mouthpieces issue statements that it didn't ask the Cardinal to step down, that his own "conscience" (the little hypocrite has a conscience????) dictated this decision of his. Of course the Vatican didn't ask him to: I'm sure the Vatican just handed him the gun, locked him in a room with it and let him figure out what they want him to do with it... And he knows he's been handed his hat:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/26/pope-keith-obrien-english-cardinal
Pope did not ask Keith O'Brien to stand down, says English cardinal
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says no pressure was put on the former archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh to quit"
That's merely the Guardian relaying the defender of the Church's innocence, who was sent in to ensure the tracks don't lead back to the Vatican. However, the very day before that, the same Guardian had this to report:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/pope-forces-out-keith-obrien?CMP=twt_gu
Pope forces out Cardinal Keith O'Brien
Benedict forced resignation of Britain's most senior Roman Catholic in attempt to minimise the impact of allegations
But interesting - no? - that
a) *Several* priests have come forward to accuse the Cardinal of his ... indiscretions
b ) Timing of his outing and his being kicked out is very convenient and opportune, considering that
c) until this very Saturday he was still famously advertised by international news as one of the well-known distinghuished voters in the upcoming conclave to elect the next pope
d) the evidence against him - by priests - has been well-known for years apparently, yet they picked this time
So "of course" the Vatican didn't pressure their little buddy to conveniently take a turn towards the exit *now*...
Yet other news insisted the Vatican did pressure him to bow out Now Now Now. However, this next news item does offer up a new and unique excuse/reason for a change: he wasn't kicked out because of his revolutionary statements on Saturday about clergy having the right to marry etc etc, but apparently because the media wanted to out the hypocrite at a crucial time: on his 75th anniversary (and yet did it before anyway).
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100204332/cardinal-obrien-gay-sex-scandal-this-was-a-hit-job-that-succeeded-beyond-the-plotters-wildest-dreams/
Yet:
news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/02/25/23/01/britain-s-cardinal-o-brien-steps-down
Oh this is soooo funny. It's hysterical. But I must keep a straight face until I've finished the post.
Probably everyone's heard today's news that Britain's #1 cardinal has been caught with his pants... oh that was too easy (and tacky). Let's try this again. The Vatican's got him to step down over some indiscretions with some casual boyfriends of his.
Now, as the world knows, 1. the Vatican hierarchy is full of such men who're having affairs with other men or women (not a problem) or who are assaulting children (very much a problem).
The world also knows that 2. the Vatican is fully aware about such goings-on, and who's into it, and that the Vatican only doesn't want this laundry aired in public and is happy to keep quiet about it (indeed, if the Vatican itself is not fueling this fire).
So why has this particular cardinal been asked to make like vapour all of a sudden? (<- Uh I didn't mean to sound like a gangster just now, but mob lingo is just so fitting...) Back to the question: when no one else has been disrobed/defrocked for worse crimes, why has this cardinal been singled out *since* this very Saturday - when he was still advertised in the news as a major voter in the upcoming elections for the papacy? Less than 4 days have passed since he was touted a proud voter and now he's back on the news again as stepping down for something his superiors knew he was into.
In order to understand why he's really been told to take a long walk, I think one needs to read the rest of what the news reported on Saturday:
Apparently the British Cardinal couldn't keep his mouth plastered and blabbed that priestly celibacy wasn't divinely ordained (well duh, everyone except self-delusional catholics already know that it wasn't), except his saying so just went against the rather recent invention of the directive of 'papal infallibility': that whatever the pope says is divinely ordained, because the pope himself is divinely ordained hence infallible. And although the medieval pope who came up with the celibacy rule made up the rule before the invention of the 'papal infallibility' injunction that's binding on catholics - and although that medieval pope declared that his priests should all become celibate and dump their wives and girlfriends ASAP even as IIRC said medieval pope had his own girlfriend present at the historic declaration - still, the papal infallibility rule applies, even backwards in time.
Yet, heedless to what happens to those who fall out of line, the not-all-too-bright British cardinal went on about the point and even insisted that catholics priests should in fact be allowed to marry (he qualifies the statement with "a woman", but his own preference is for men - though I'm sure women the world over are breathing a sigh of relief that he's not eyeing one of them). He then threatened that the next pope will obviously consider this very question and then bring the matter up in public. Now Ratzinger, though getting out of the ratrace (oh get it? Ratzinger and Rat Race! So witty. Quick, Nobel literature prize)... Anyway: though Ratty is getting out of the Rat Race before the end of this very month, he is like his predecessor: one of the more rigid, literal and hence "true" roman catholic popes. That's why he was the head of the Inquisition (renamed to Congregation of something...The Faith?) until he was made the pope - and to be Head Inquisitor you really need to be a hardcore catholic. Being a christian fundamentalist, he's the guy who brought back exorcisms - and was once more recently thanked by looney head exorcist for this very recognition/reinstatement/rehabilitation of exorcism, as per the news. Ratzy also worked with John Paul II to undo all the uncatholic loose attitudes instilled by the Vatican II documents of Pope Angelo Roncalli (and remember how Roncalli's remains were exhumed and moved away from where the other papal bodies are decomposing or something? <- That actually says something about what the rigid popes think of that heretic...) So Ratty undoubtedly lost his marbles when he read in the news on Friday/Saturday that the British Cardinal had essentially started prematurely celebrating the return of the lax days and blurted away his hopes for a less rigid future. So they volunteered him for suicide, I mean they asked him to step down ("or we'll fire you").
But there was yet another faux pas that the British cardinal committed, which no doubt also caused him his head - or would have, had he not already lost it for hinting darkly that catholic priests will or should be tying the knot shortly. The Cardinal said that the ordination of female catholic priests should by rights also be on the next papal menu. That is unlikely to have gone down well with Ratty or many another orthodox catholic in power either. So that's 2 crimes that warranted catholic execution. Fortunately for him, the dude only got to be tried and punished once - and as this isn't the dark ages, his head's not even going to roll and he won't get tortured and burnt like other heretics were.
The ex-cardinal also threatened that he's fine if the next Pope was from Asia or Africa, but that statement was nowhere as threatening to the Vatican as the other stuff he'd said. After all, I'm sure Asian and African christians are just as "dandy" as the European ones... And if they want gay Asian or African priests, hey, there's a whole gaggle of them too.
But not so innocuous is that there's also rapist christian priests in India/Africa/Asia, in case that's what was called for. So if Europe is wants a fresh supply of them, there's enough of that fish in the rest of the world too now, courtesy of worldwide initation into christianism.
Onto the news:
1. abc.net.au/news/2013-02-23/senior-british-catholic-says-priests-should-be-allowed-to-marry/4535700
Quote:Cardinal calls for priests to be allowed to marry
AM By Europe correspondent Philip Williams and wires
Updated Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:13pm AEDT
[img caption:] Photo: Cardinal Keith O'Brien will be part of the conclave that will elect the next pope. (Reuters, file photo)
(That was Saturday. Not any more: he's been fired since, I mean he's resigned today and won't be electing anyone to the papacy.)
Britain's most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has spoken out on the issue of celibacy, saying priests should be allowed to marry and have children.
Cardinal O'Brien says the next pope will be allowed to change the current policy because the principle did not come directly from Jesus Christ.
"There was a time when priests got married, and of course we know at the present time in some branches of the church - in some branches of the Catholic Church - priests can get married," he said.
"So that is obviously not of divine origin and it could get discussed again," he said.
Cardinal O'Brien, who is the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, says he has been too busy too even imagine getting married.
But he says many priests struggle to cope with celibacy.
"I realise that many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy as they lived out their priesthood and felt the need of a companion, of a woman, to whom they could get married and raise a family of their own," he said.
Cardinal O'Brian says the issue of women's place in the church could also be revisited.
"Previous popes have said that matter of whether or not women could be ordained priests just wasn't even to be discussed," he said.
"There were issues like this that I'm sure the next pope will consider himself, first of all, before deciding whether or not to raise these issues with the Church in general."
But he says other issues, such as abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage are not negotiable, as they are basic dogmatic beliefs of the Church.
The cardinal will be part of the conclave that will elect the next pope after the surprise resignation of Benedict XVI this month.
In the next few days, he will pack his bags and jet off to the Vatican where the cardinals will hold meetings and prayers ahead of the actual vote.
He said he had not yet decided who should take over leadership of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, but suggested it could be time for a younger pontiff, possibly from the developing world.
"I would be open to a pope from anywhere if I thought it was the right man, whether it was Europe or Asia or Africa or wherever," he said.
ABC/AFP
I do want to draw attention to the hypocrisy of said Cardinal - before stupid little Indoos feel sorry for him. He's not as liberal as ya think. Like most "family first/marriage values/blabla" christians, he's a hypocrite:
guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate
Quote:O'Brien, who is due to retire next month, has been an outspoken opponent of gay rights, condemning homosexuality as immoral, opposing gay adoption, and most recently arguing that same-sex marriages would be "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of those involved". Last year he was named "bigot of the year" by the gay rights charity Stonewall.
Turns out he's not a bigot in the strict sense - being gay himself - but he's a hypocrite. He wants all other gay people to be punished (despite their being governed by secular law, instead of christianism's virulent anti-homosexual stance and catholicism's strict injunction on celibacy for priesthood), all while he insists on having the right to gallavant with his own all-male harem. Sort of like all those many documented medieval misogynistic christian priests who frequently threatened to torture and burn women for witchcraft unless they provided said priests with sexual favours. Christianism breeds self-contrary sleaziness and violence.
www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/feb/26/eu-britain-cardinals-views/
Cardinal Oââ¬â¢Brienââ¬â¢s views have sparked controversy
2. Advanced apologies as the next item is a bit tacky. But I didn't write it, and it's the facts and part of what looks like a news blog. Reader discretion advised, especially for those who get nauseous easily.
blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/02/cardinal-keith-obriens-prayers/
Quote:Cardinal Keith Oââ¬â¢Brienââ¬â¢s prayers
Douglas Murray 26 February 2013
[color="#0000FF"]As the late Christopher Hitchens used to say of the most vociferous, gay-obsessed clergy: ââ¬ËI have a rule of thumb for such clerics and have never known it to fail: Set your watch and sit back, and pretty soon they will be found sprawling lustily on the floor of the menââ¬â¢s room.ââ¬â¢[/color]
In Cardinal Keith Oââ¬â¢Brienââ¬â¢s case it was not on the floor of the menââ¬â¢s room but ââ¬â if the stories of several former young novices are true ââ¬â in late-night prayer sessions that His Eminence brought himself low. This is allegedly the same Keith Oââ¬â¢Brien who was the author of last yearââ¬â¢s tumescent comparison of civil marriage equality for gays with the introduction of slavery. To revert to the moving language of legalese: in allegations stretching back thirty years, four men have so far come forward.
ââ¬ÅPriest Bââ¬Â claims that after a late-night drinking session at a ââ¬Ëgetting to know youââ¬â¢ week at the Archbishopââ¬â¢s residence the young priest got to know an unwanted amount about his host. Cardinal Keith was meant to be counselling another young priest ââ¬â ââ¬ÅPriest Cââ¬Â ââ¬â over personal problems but instead allegedly tried to seize the opportunity provided by ââ¬Ënight prayersââ¬â¢ to give his own personal twist to the ââ¬Ëlaying on of handsââ¬â¢. And if anyone wonders how Cardinal Keith may could have got away with this all these years, as one of the ex-priests explains: ââ¬ËYou have to understand the relationship between a bishop and a priest. At your ordination, you take a vow to be obedient to him.ââ¬â¢ Indeed.
ââ¬ËHarmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involvedââ¬â¢ was how Cardinal Oââ¬â¢Brien recently described the prospect of two British citizens who are not members of his church marrying in a civil ceremony. How much more appropriate a description of his own career that may now be.
3. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate
"UK's top cardinal accused of 'inappropriate acts' by priests
Three priests and former priest report Cardinal Keith O'Brien to Vatican over claims stretching back 33 years"
Quick as lightening, the Vatican - desperate to ensure its own reputation is intact - has made its mouthpieces issue statements that it didn't ask the Cardinal to step down, that his own "conscience" (the little hypocrite has a conscience????) dictated this decision of his. Of course the Vatican didn't ask him to: I'm sure the Vatican just handed him the gun, locked him in a room with it and let him figure out what they want him to do with it... And he knows he's been handed his hat:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/26/pope-keith-obrien-english-cardinal
Pope did not ask Keith O'Brien to stand down, says English cardinal
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says no pressure was put on the former archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh to quit"
That's merely the Guardian relaying the defender of the Church's innocence, who was sent in to ensure the tracks don't lead back to the Vatican. However, the very day before that, the same Guardian had this to report:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/pope-forces-out-keith-obrien?CMP=twt_gu
Pope forces out Cardinal Keith O'Brien
Benedict forced resignation of Britain's most senior Roman Catholic in attempt to minimise the impact of allegations
But interesting - no? - that
a) *Several* priests have come forward to accuse the Cardinal of his ... indiscretions
b ) Timing of his outing and his being kicked out is very convenient and opportune, considering that
c) until this very Saturday he was still famously advertised by international news as one of the well-known distinghuished voters in the upcoming conclave to elect the next pope
d) the evidence against him - by priests - has been well-known for years apparently, yet they picked this time
So "of course" the Vatican didn't pressure their little buddy to conveniently take a turn towards the exit *now*...
Yet other news insisted the Vatican did pressure him to bow out Now Now Now. However, this next news item does offer up a new and unique excuse/reason for a change: he wasn't kicked out because of his revolutionary statements on Saturday about clergy having the right to marry etc etc, but apparently because the media wanted to out the hypocrite at a crucial time: on his 75th anniversary (and yet did it before anyway).
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100204332/cardinal-obrien-gay-sex-scandal-this-was-a-hit-job-that-succeeded-beyond-the-plotters-wildest-dreams/
Quote:Cardinal O'Brien gay sex scandal: this was a hit job that succeeded beyond the plotters' wildest dreams
By Damian Thompson Religion Last updated: February 26th, 2013
The Cardinal Keith O'Brien Downfall video had been ready to run for ages. The story of three priests and one ex-priest complaining of inappropriate behaviour was timed to break when the Scottish prelate retired at 75 next month. The aim was to expose his alleged hypocrisy.
Yet:
news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/02/25/23/01/britain-s-cardinal-o-brien-steps-down
Quote:UK cardinal quits after conduct charges
The priests complained to the Vatican about behaviour towards them going back about 30 years, according to the report. Cardinal O'Brien said: "I thank Pope Benedict ... I wish him a long and happy retirement. I also ask God's blessing on my brother[...]