Activists draw fire for labeling Scottish cardinal 'bigot' [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lizardley

Guest
A ‘gay rights’ organisation’s decision to label Scotland’s senior Catholic clergyman a ‘bigot’ last night for his strong defence of traditional marriage has been condemned by the Church in Scotland.

“Stonewall’s decision to award their ‘Bigot of the Year’ award to Cardinal O’Brien reveals the depth of their intolerance and their willingness to attack and demean those who don’t share their views,” Peter Kearney, the director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, said.

Full report: sconews.co.uk/news/23272/attack-on-cardinal-obrien-is-mark-of-intolerance/
 
The gay rights organization Stonewall is drawing both criticism and pressure regarding this award.
Sponsors Barclays and Coutts have said they will axe their funding if the category is not dropped next year.
Click to expand...
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson won Politician of the Year, but was booed for also criticising the bigot award.
Click to expand...
Ms Davidson, who is gay, has been among those giving cross-party support to a same-sex marriage bill which is being brought forward by the Scottish government, while Cardinal O’Brien has been a strong critic of the plans.
Click to expand...
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20175530

Previous winners of the Bigot award include Daily Mail columnists Melanie Phillips and Jan Moir, Tory MP Chris Grayling and Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party MLA Iris Robinson.

I agree with Ms Davidson’s view that Stonewall “doesn’t do itself any favours” by having the bigot award.
 
Ah, hypocrisy; nice to see its still rearing it’s ugly head. '-_-

It’ll be nice when the world wakes up and realizes that natural law and God’s law are the only laws that matter, and their petty and selfish wants and desires have no meaning… too bad that probably won’t be within our lifetime.
 
The fact that this group labels the Cardinal a “bigot” for not supporting same sex “marriage” is just another testimony to the fact that many pro “gay marriage” persons do not understand that in the Church’s teaching it is impossible to have a “gay marriage”. The ingredients do not produce a “marriage.” It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with proper recognition of reality. If this group at least recognized the Cardinal’s position (even if they disagree with it), they could not rationally label him a bigot.

Thus, in a twist of irony, there is one act of bigotry at work here, but not on the part of the Cardinal.
 
I’ve been having many discussions recently regarding “gay/same-sex marriage” and have constantly been referred to as a bigot or some other slanderous term. At this point its like a merit badge for me, it shows that the side labeling me as such has nothing else to use in attempting to refute my points so they resort to name calling. Being called a bigot because of my stance towards “gay/same-sex marriage” is roughly equivalent to when I’m accused of being a racist for not supporting Obama.

I know that Cardinal O’Brien cannot be so blunt (or can he? :)) but it is the truth.
 
As Scotland’s First Minister condemns Stonewall branding Cardinal Keith O’Brien a bigot, the editor of Scotland’s national Catholic newspaper, The Scottish Catholic Observer, highlights the irony in the group’s bigotry which has backfired:

"By making the award, Stonewall demonstrated intolerance and ignorance of the complexity of the marriage issue and they disrespected a senior clergyman who has had the courage to stand up for church teaching.

"Will homosexual activists now brand anyone who expresses an opposing view a bigot?

“With all the talk of equality and rights, are the faithful to be denied their rights?”

Full news report and SCO opinion at end: dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-backs-cardinal-keith-1414256
 
lizardley said:
"Will homosexual activists now brand anyone who expresses an opposing view a bigot?
Click to expand...
There are ways of expressing opposition to a view without being insultingly hostile about it. You reap what you sow and going into the public arena declaring loving relationships of gay couples to be ‘grotesque aberrations’ is hardly charitable or the foundation for a constructive dialogue. He didn’t get the award because he simply opposed gay marriage; he got it because he expressed his opposition in a very disrespectful and abusive way.
lizardley said:
“With all the talk of equality and rights, are the faithful to be denied their rights?”
Click to expand...
What “rights” are the faithful being denied? As far as I know, there is no right to immunity from criticism in the UK.
 
You are missing the irony of Stonewall using language such as ‘bigot’ when faulting the Cardinal’s choice of words. Pot, kettle? If there is no immunity from criticism, then homosexual activists cannot throw a tantrum/hissy fit when someone, Catholic leader or not, offers a counter argument based on Church teaching. Mutual respects, cool heads needed indeed.
 
lizardley said:
You are missing the irony of Stonewall using language such as ‘bigot’ when faulting the Cardinal’s choice of words. Pot, kettle?
Click to expand...
Are people going to start writing woe-is-me articles about the Razzies too?
lizardley said:
If there is no immunity from criticism, then homosexual activists cannot throw a tantrum/hissy fit when someone, Catholic leader or not, offers a counter argument based on Church teaching. Mutual respects, cool heads needed indeed.
Click to expand...
Referring to people as grotesque is hardly an argument based on Church teaching and its not a good way to try to convince anyone to support your views. This entire issue doesn’t even have anything to do with the Church. It amazes me that people squabble over an institution (secular marriage) which the Church has never regarded as anything but meaningless. 🤷
 
Crescentinus said:
The whole awarding by Stonewall is a hypocrisy at best.
Click to expand...
And what of all this talk of charity and respect for the human person? Treating people with dignity? Its a shame that all that seems to go out the window when the topic of discussion is gay marriage but if you can’t take the heat then don’t start a fire. There are more constructive ways of approaching this issue than publicly calling people grotesque and accusing them of bringing about some sort of societal apocalypse. :rolleyes:
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
And what of all this talk of charity and respect for the human person? Treating people with dignity? Its a shame that all that seems to go out the window when the topic of discussion is gay marriage but if you can’t take the heat then don’t start a fire.
Click to expand...
It’s highly hypocritical that the paragons of tolerance (yes, Stonewall) is being intolerant of those who have a differing position.

Also, I’m not sure if you are proselytizing…
 
Crescentinus said:
It’s highly hypocritical that the paragons of tolerance (yes, Stonewall) is being intolerant of those who have a differing position.
Click to expand...
I thought the Church was supposed to be the paragon of respect and tolerance for the human person. 🤷 Stonewall rightfully demands that for homosexuals and when the opposite happens it is free to identify those individuals and criticize them for it. Its certainly never laid claim to the title of paragon of tolerance unlike another institution I can think of which demands it from its adherents. The choice of language used on the part of Catholics is very disappointing.
Crescentinus said:
Also, I’m not sure if you are proselytizing…
Click to expand...
Proselytizing?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I thought the Church was supposed to be the paragon of respect and tolerance for the human person. 🤷 Stonewall rightfully demands that for homosexuals and when the opposite happens it is free to criticize for it.

Proselytizing?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you are proselytizing whenever these issues show up…
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Proselytizing what?
Click to expand...
You seriously don’t know what Crescentinus is referring to? It’s one thing to feel compassion for homosexually inclined people, it’s quite another thing to suggest gay relationships/gay “marriage” are perfectly fine. I’ve seen footage of gay parades, and “grotesque” is a perfectly suitable term. And yes gay “marriage” is a parody, it mimicks the natural union of a man and a woman who love each other and bear fruit (i.e. beget children). You’re clearly pro-gay agenda and would like to bring us Dark Ages Catholics to 2012, where we’re past being bound by moral laws, hence the term “proselytizing”.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
And what of all this talk of charity and respect for the human person? Treating people with dignity? Its a shame that all that seems to go out the window when the topic of discussion is gay marriage but if you can’t take the heat then don’t start a fire. There are more constructive ways of approaching this issue than **publicly calling people grotesque **and accusing them of bringing about some sort of societal apocalypse. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you did not read the Cardinal’s statement, but he referred to no one as ‘grotesque’, but rather homosexual union, which is an action.

People are not actions, and actions are not people. I would presume that such a distinction should be obvious.

The actual quote was

that homosexual marriage would be "a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.”

So where is a person, or persons being referred to as ‘grotesque’?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
And what of all this talk of charity and respect for the human person? Treating people with dignity? Its a shame that all that seems to go out the window when the topic of discussion is gay marriage but if you can’t take the heat then don’t start a fire. There are more constructive ways of approaching this issue than publicly calling people grotesque and accusing them of bringing about some sort of **societal apocalypse. **:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No societal apocalypse, it’s more subtle than that. We’re just socially moving away from God’s plan and legalizing an aberration. It’s more symptomatic of our moral confusion, the CC is there to clear the confusion and show us the straight and narrow, it’s our moral compass. Some would like the compass to cease to extinct, or would want to silence it or to recalibrate it. Know what? It ain’t happening, like never. Non-one loses their dignity if they’re denied the right to marry. Oftentimes, when you hear the word “dignity” these days, it’s as part of the propaganda to legalize euthanasia. If there weren’t risks of taking this thread off its trail, I’d ask you your opinion on euthanasia/assisted suicide. Underlying all this is: I’m my own boss, I know what’s best for me, I get to make my own choices, no one tells me what to do, who is God anyway? It’s charity on the Church’s part to tell people not to go down these ruinous paths. The Church, as you ought to know by know, is not a contestant on a popularity contest. Has it ever occurred to you that what the Church expresses is exactly where God stands on these issues? That God is not at all pleased with gay “marriage”?
 
Kenny_Kamel said:
I’ve been having many discussions recently regarding “gay/same-sex marriage” and have constantly been referred to as a bigot or some other slanderous term. At this point its like a merit badge for me, it shows that the side labeling me as such has nothing else to use in attempting to refute my points so they resort to name calling. Being called a bigot because of my stance towards “gay/same-sex marriage” is roughly equivalent to when I’m accused of being a racist for not supporting Obama.

I know that Cardinal O’Brien cannot be so blunt (or can he? :)) but it is the truth.
Click to expand...
^This! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top