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

[Terry_Washingto]

It IS true that the charge of “homophobia/bigotry” is bandied around by gay activists like Stonewall loosely at times (just as charges of “anti-Semitism/self-hating Jews” are for critics of Israel or of “Islamophobia” by Muslims) but a the very least Cardinal O’Brien has used tactless and insensitive language to describe supporters of SSM- such as “Nazis” or comparing them to slaveowners. Two wrongs may not make one right in Catholic moral theology but at the very least the prelate to my mind should have chosen his words more carefully.

Terry

 

[Dale_M]

I read the Cardinal’s editorial, and his pastoral letter. I didn’t read any offensive language. He simply stated the Catholic position clearly and logically.

There is language in it which many would find offensive (“this madness”, “grotesque subversion,” “tyranny of tolerance”) but it is no more offensive than political rhetoric often becomes when discussing emotional topics.

I would disagree though, that he simply stated the position of the Catholic Church. His essay was political, not theological. And in the attempt to make a secular case, he stated several claims which are questionable. I don’t think it surprising that the essay drew a strong reaction.

 

[Solly_Gratia]

It is past the time when people can use niceties in debating a fundamental change to our society. But the problem is again one of language. Franciscan university started its sociology course on deviant elements in society, using the term ‘deviat’ in its sociological technical sense. They got slammed because they included homosexuals in that definition.

All the gay lobby have to do is take words out of context, and bingo, instant twitter campaign. The Cardinal used the simile of reinstituting slavery with legal quibbles to make his point about the assurances we in the UK have apparently been given by our Lords and Masters who did not even make a manifesto committment to this action, he did not liken homosexual marriage to slavery; but so what, headlines are headlines. Since Catholic theology is based on natural law, it is quite right to speak of grotesqueness about a campaign to change a fundamental aspect of a society seen as founded in natural law, not legal positivism (in which laws are whatever we want them to be). He did not describe homosexuals as grotesque however; but again, headlines are headlines, and forget the fact that the Catholic church has provided a home to homosexuals for years, even in the clergy. This is the uphill struggle, in the face of ‘it’s only about love’ or ‘it’s only about equality’ accompanied by smiling pictures of Elton John who, despite Civil Partnerships being ONLY Civil Partnerships, was described by the BBC as Married, way back in 2003/4 (search the BBC news website)

 

[Pat_the_elder]

I support the Cardinal unequivially, as I have when he has talked about other issues such as capital punishment and nuclear weapons as well as the state’s place in helping the poor ( minimum wage etc.) … his views on these would have some posters choking on their coffee LOL

 

[Santi2]

Peter Tachell knows full well that as soon as the British government signs SSM into being, it comes under european equality law. If some forms of marriage can be celebrated religiously, with the legal aspect also part of that act, then ALL forms of marriage have ‘the right’ to be so conducted, and the churches that refuse will be penalised. The state, in this case the British government, will throw up its hands saying, ‘well we gave assurances but the EU over-rode us, sorry’, and sign the rest into being as well.

Are you familiar with the case Ferguson & Ors v UK lodged at the ECHR by Tatchell & Co? The government’s proposal to redefine marriage rides on the back of that particular case lodged by Tatchell & Co where the application is to compel government and courts to observe an obligation of consistency.

This is the uphill struggle…despite Civil Partnerships being ONLY Civil Partnerships,

And, that uphill struggle began when the CPA was amended to revoke prohibition of religious elements.

This is the goal of the gay lobby, whether individual gay people, or sympatheitc hets realise it or not. The ultimate goal is not to finally have gay religious marriages however, but to smash marriage and the church institutions. They expect the churches to give up marriages, to conduct voluntary blessings, to avoid legal action. They expect marriage to be reduced to the level of a state legal contract of what ever term of years the contractees express. Eventually, they expect to remove ‘marriage’ as a binding contract completely. This was signalled in the 1971 Gay Liberation Front manifesto, and was part of the ideology of left wing groups in the early part of the 20th century. Marriage is seen as a bourgois phenomenon ‘holding back’ society from 'progressive values that include full sexual liberty, abortion on demand, contraception on demand, partners on demand, and no responsibilities other that what the state requires. .

This is not about equality, since in the UK and elsewhere Civil Partnerships provide all the legal equality required. This is an ideological struggle by a small clique who have captured the media and high places of political power.

 

[epan]

There is language in it which many would find offensive (“this madness”, “grotesque subversion,” “tyranny of tolerance”) but it is no more offensive than political rhetoric often becomes when discussing emotional topics.

I would disagree though, that he simply stated the position of the Catholic Church. His essay was political, not theological. And in the attempt to make a secular case, he stated several claims which are questionable. I don’t think it surprising that the essay drew a strong reaction.

I must have read it too quickly. I’ll look again. If he said those things, then he should temper his language, and perhaps he deserves the label of bigot. Weird, I didn’t see that language. Where there is fear of the erosion of seemingly immutable laws, no doubt this concerns him deeply, and may frighten him, which might lead him to use intemperate language.

There is no denying that he is an influential person, and he should be very aware of his speech for any public statement, while nobody would deny his freedom of speech. I was feeling pressed for time, and rather skimmed it. But doesn’t he mean a tyranny of tolerance, as the seemingly sudden drive to accept same sex marriage?

The language may be offensive, but it really indicates more that he does not understand modern history. Times are changing too quickly for his Catholic frame of reference. In terms of social change in modern times, development is not sudden at all. It is the natural consequence of the women’s rights movement, and the gradual changes in the legal definitions of gender roles in marriage. None of this is sudden. It just seems that way to him, and so seems like tyranny rather than a logical progression, which ironically he may have been very supportive of as it went along.

 

[Dale_M]

I must have read it too quickly. I’ll look again. If he said those things, then he should temper his language, and perhaps he deserves the label of bigot.

I don’t think he deserves to be labelled a bigot. He is simply stating his views. Perhaps he did so more forcibly than I would prefer, but in terms of political discourse, his comments are not unprecedented. Singling Cardinal O’Brien out for mockery at an annual event is uncalled for.

The Bigot of the Year award needs to go. Such name-calling sullies Stonewall’s reputation, and does little to advance its own objectives. Meanwhile, it makes a martyr out of the person being dishonored, which rallies the opponents of Stonewall. The award is ill-conceived and counter-productive. I hope the friends of Stonewall will make this clear to the organization’s’ leaders.

 

[Solly_Gratia]

Are you familiar with the case Ferguson & Ors v UK lodged at the ECHR by Tatchell & Co? The government’s proposal to redefine marriage rides on the back of that particular case lodged by Tatchell & Co where the application is to compel government and courts to observe an obligation of consistency.

I could not recall the actual case that Tatchell was using, but I did know he was preparing things in advance; thanks for the detail.

Peace
Solly

 

[GWright]

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.

That is not true. These are the puerile lies the gay activists are telling to justify their conduct. Do not be deceived by them.

They claim Cardinal O’Brien “equated gay marriage with slavery”. That is a lie. He made no such comparison. He used slavery as an example to show that, just because Governments offer opt-outs to people regarding certain new laws, doesnt automatically mean the law is just or helpful. The bigoted gays have twisted this, out of context, into “gay marriage = slavery”.

They also claim Cardinal O’Brien said he was “declaring war” on gay marriage. Another lie. It was the gay press (pink-news, I think) who used this term to describe the fact that the Catholic Church campaigned against gay marriage. They have then recycled the term so much that it has now become attributed to Cardinal O’Brien, but its another lie and misrepresentation.

Lies and deceipt are the weapons of the gay activists - it is all they have, because they cannot argue against their own biology, at the end of the day.

Do not be taken in by them.

 

[JackyB]

There is language in it which many would find offensive (“this madness”, “grotesque subversion,” “tyranny of tolerance”) but it is no more offensive than political rhetoric often becomes when discussing emotional topics.

I would disagree though, that he simply stated the position of the Catholic Church. His essay was political, not theological. And in the attempt to make a secular case, he stated several claims which are questionable. I don’t think it surprising that the essay drew a strong reaction.

Doesn’t take much to offend in this country believe me, no matter what language he used he was up for the ‘award’ .

 

[GraceSofia]

Calling people bigots and homophobes is a tactic of the homosexualist lobby straight from the handbook After the Ball. The purpose is to intimidate and shut down rational discussion.

… they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to “use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.”

The charge of homophobia has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term “homophobic” attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.[58]
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, “Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda.” As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing “Destructive Trends in Mental Health,” with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. “We were bombarded by horror stories,” Dr. Cummings said. “Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.”

conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda