FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal O'Brien admits to below-standard sexual behavior
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(03-03-2013, 10:23 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]That's where an Inquisition should start, at the beginning: what went wrong? Who knew they were priesting a gay boy? And later, who made him a Bishop. Who said, "Yeah, he's good, let's go with him!" They need those names, and theey need to hold them responsible. And that's just the start of what they need to do.

An excellent idea.

Here's a modest proposal, which goes to your observation as well as Greg's.

Start an inquisition, but give it some teeth.  Reopen one of the old dungeons at the Vatican.  The worst offenders get sentenced to it.  Conduct the inquisition at the Vatican.  When men like O'Brien and Mahoney get summoned to appear, they will refuse, because they know that prison will follow.  At that point, they are in a state of official disobedience - schism, as is often said about the SSPX.  They can then be degraded, defrocked and replaced.

City Smurf: he didn't just sin, but rather lived a life of active sin (as he said, wanting a "conversation" one day about re-defining that particular "sin", obviously hoping it would no longer be a sin!) — that was his life, and he didn't keep it contained, but rather led seminarians into such sin, causing AT LEAST one of them to quit the priesthood because he couldn't make a vow of obedience to the very man who had already taken sexual liberties with him:

Quote:    “You have to understand,” explains the ex-priest, “the relationship between a bishop and a priest. At your ordination, you take a vow to be obedient to him.

    “He’s more than your boss, more than the CEO of your company. He has immense power over you. He can move you, freeze you out, bring you into the fold … he controls every aspect of your life. You can’t just kick him in the balls.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/d...-revealed/

Do you feel nothing for them?

So while your Homo Card (and I'm truly sorry Scotland and England had this blight upon them, but face the facts, pick up your cross, and move on) ...while O'Brien continued a lifetime of sin from Bishop until last yesterday — until being outed against his will (which, again, the Papal Nuncio tried to stop), I again stress that O'Brien willingly and with full knowledge became a big fat stumbling block to seminarians — the young men who DO take vows of celibacy, and who were by a vow of obedience unable to stop O'Brien from whatever "below-standard sexual behavior" O'Brien admitted to yesterday.

So going just by the word of + Jesus, this guy is TOAST. Indeed he is sorry, but not for the sin, as he clearly didn't believe it was a sin (read a paper, see for yourself), but was sorry that he was outed.

He's a goner. Maybe you're not catechized enough to understand the enormity of what he's done, but he attacked not only the seminarians with insight and free will, but also the Church herself. With intent. He used his always-rising positions in the Church to get laid, and indeed to destroy the priests and ex-priest who, by the way, we are praying for! Because they deserve the Church's mercy, and accolades for fighting the beast within the Church. Your Homo Card literally chased away those who wanted to be pleasing to God and Our Lady; the Papal Nuncio paved the path for the priests to be further tortured by not allowing them to state their cases. The ex-priest quoted above is perfectly right for not taking his vows to the Church, because we indeed are not called to obey demons. (Please don't tell me you're angry at the priests for outing your Cardinal?)

And oh yes we can surmise that those who are priest, Bishop, Archbishops, and Cardinals may have a sinful thought, even a sinful encounter here or there, and are truly sorry, and we should pray for them (of course we'd have to KNOW about it to do so.) BUT, we do not, however, imagine that such a one as O'Brien may go on willfully sinning for decades without one time considering that maybe he should STEP DOWN from any of his positions within the Church. He stayed. Showing that he didn't believe he would suffer for his crimes. Showing a complete lack of faith in the Church and in God, + Jesus, and Our Lady, while proudly wearing the vestments of the Church.

But I don't much care about O'Brien now — his fate is sealed — but rather look for a stringent Inquiry into those he came in contact with, from the first day of his entry into the Church, through yesterday. That we may root out the EVIL, at least in the higher echelons of the Church, as Our Lady, +Jesus, St. Peter, St. Piux X, etc would CHARGE us to do.

Your homo Card isn't going to have a place in Heaven, or even in Purgatory; he cast his lot with more knowledge of canon law than most of us will ever have, fully knowing he was working against the Church. (Which the Church actually had to correct him and have him restate his position.) I will pray for his victims, and that such an Inquiry into the evils of those who raised O'Brien to Archbishop and beyond. In the name of Jesus; without hate for the homos, but with holy anger against those who'd attack the Church.
(03-04-2013, 08:53 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Why remain a Cardinal until you are outed?  It's pretty likely that one of the people you abused are going to come forward and grass you up.  ...

Either he did not assess the risks correctly, which is kinda dumb for a man bright enough to be a Cardinal, or, he simply did not give a sh!t until he was busted and these are now almost certainly crocodile tears.

This sums it up I think. The likeliest answer to me is the first; since the actual accusations and wrongdoings are all very old, he must have assumed that whatever shady deals had been worked out to cover him decades ago were permanent. Evidently the deal broke down for some reason. What mystifies me is why the priests only decided to come out now...it inescapably carries a political weight to put it off so long and then use it. This recent interview one of them gave on anonymity with the Grauniad implies they are coming at it to undermine O'Brien with an angle critiquing the hypocrisy of Catholic sexual morality:

'He [one of the anonymous priests abused by O'Brien] also dismissed suggestions that the accusations contain an element of homophobia. " This is not about a gay culture or a straight culture. It's about an open culture. I would be happy to see an openly gay bishop, cardinal, or pope. But the church acts as if sexual identity has to be kept secret."'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar...lic-church

(03-04-2013, 12:44 PM)Cordobes Wrote: [ -> ]This sums it up I think. The likeliest answer to me is the first; since the actual accusations and wrongdoings are all very old, he must have assumed that whatever shady deals had been worked out to cover him decades ago were permanent. Evidently the deal broke down for some reason. What mystifies me is why the priests only decided to come out now...it inescapably carries a political weight to put it off so long and then use it. This recent interview one of them gave on anonymity with the Grauniad implies they are coming at it to undermine O'Brien with an angle critiquing the hypocrisy of Catholic sexual morality:

'He [one of the anonymous priests abused by O'Brien] also dismissed suggestions that the accusations contain an element of homophobia. " This is not about a gay culture or a straight culture. It's about an open culture. I would be happy to see an openly gay bishop, cardinal, or pope. But the church acts as if sexual identity has to be kept secret."'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar...lic-church

It's not O'Brien they're trying to undermine, it's the Church. They don't care if bishops, etc have sex... Of course not, fornication, adultry, abortion, same-sex marriage...it's all good to those who belong to the Culture of Death. This is a *former* priest and he is gay and this was his chance to take the Church down a notch.

I agree with him, on one point only...the secrets have to come out. Then these priests, bishops and cardinals need to get kicked out. I don't care if we lose half of our clergy. I want them gone.

(03-04-2013, 11:31 AM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2013, 10:23 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]That's where an Inquisition should start, at the beginning: what went wrong? Who knew they were priesting a gay boy? And later, who made him a Bishop. Who said, "Yeah, he's good, let's go with him!" They need those names, and theey need to hold them responsible. And that's just the start of what they need to do.

An excellent idea.

Here's a modest proposal, which goes to your observation as well as Greg's.

Start an inquisition, but give it some teeth.  Reopen one of the old dungeons at the Vatican.  The worst offenders get sentenced to it.  Conduct the inquisition at the Vatican.  When men like O'Brien and Mahoney get summoned to appear, they will refuse, because they know that prison will follow.  At that point, they are in a state of official disobedience - schism, as is often said about the SSPX.  They can then be degraded, defrocked and replaced.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more, and maybe we should all call on our Bishops (including those Catholics ousted from Rome by the likes of this fool O'Brien), complaining that such an Inquiry isn't taking place even before a conclave. And if we're brushed aside, maybe we should have a talk with our Archbishop about how our concerns have been brushed aside, and try to follow in the footsteps of these molested priests all the way to the Nuncio, until such an Inquiry IS made.

As to why they waited so long, we can't reasonably answer, but however the Curia is outed (homos outing homos), let them fight it out. I still pray for the ones who were abused, because they were initially led astray by a Bishop whose buddy-Bishops felt would make a good Archbishop <--- those are the guys I want, the ones who RAISED O'Brien, as if he were in any way holy or prayerful.

And I'm being very careful who I cite (and in the case of HuffPo, hoping the name gives fair warning that it's a hedonistic rag of speculation), but the Guardian, cited below (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar...lic-church) is at times questionable [in my experience]. But if indeed the ex-priest (or current priest) said that, I wouldn't mind another source. And I might yet suggest that these priests are the fruits of O'Brien's "labors" (and by that I mean, "molestations", "against their will"), and still feel they need to be prayed for.

I still place faith in the Pope Emeritus, that he retired due to poor health, and yet maybe has something in place that will prove out his devotion to the Church, and to the cleansing the evil like O'Brien from the hallowed halls of the Vatican. But I am sure that the gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church. (Another something + Jesus said, and that O'Brien didn't seem to believe.)
(03-04-2013, 12:23 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you're not catechized enough to understand the enormity of what he's done, but he attacked not only the seminarians with insight and free will, but also the Church herself.

:doh:

Do yourself an almighty favour and stop and breathe.  Your anger is not holy.  Your anger is diabolical because it is leading you to condemn a man to hell.  I do not doubt the grievousness of his offense.  He has not only imperilled his own immortal soul but has also brought scandal to the Church and directly harmed the lives of others and their vocations.  But this is not beyond God's mercy.  Do not insult Christ's Sacrifice.  His Blood can still save His Eminence and it is to be hoped for and prayed for that the Precious Blood does so.  You say his fate is sealed?  He still lives and as long as he is one this earth his pilgrimage is not over and he can stilled be saved and enjoy God in Heaven.

Do not dare insinuate that I am poorly catechised whilst you sit there and roundly condemn a man still living to hell without a chance of redemption.  And I will thank you very much not to take your insights into a man's soul from tabloid newspapers.  You do not and you cannot know the state of his soul.  You are injecting your own opinion into the little reports we have.  Stop doing that because it is not your place.  People can live their entire lives in sin and still be redeemed by His Holy Sacrifice if they so desire.  Do not presume to take it upon your self to decide who has this desire or lacks it.  Do not hide behind a mask of righteous anger when you are clearly motivated by base hysterics.

I pray for his victims, I pray for the Church.  And for the sake of his immortal soul I also pray for His Eminence.  Faith, hope and charity.  Pray your rosary.  The 3rd Glorious Mystery is most applicable here.
I feel very sad and indeed sorry for the man. He did well to come clean when he did rather than to let it drag on.

To suggest that he will automatically go to Hell is repugnant. If he has repented then God will be merciful to him; if he has not then let us hope that enough people are praying for that intention so that he is given the efficacious grace of repentance! Charity is not just for the righteous...

As a Scottish Catholic this may explain a number of things that seemed mysterious to me at the time such as the Cardinal's long-running support of Fr "Andy" Monaghan, the "radio priest", who directed teenage girls to abortion clinics, amongst many other terrible things.

There is a group of homosexual priests in Edinburgh and St Andrew's Archdiocese who are considered unassailable. These revelations may have been in revenge for finally having withdrawn support for Fr "Andy". The Cardinal, having compromised himself, may have been blackmailed by this or by another group. Or these men may have themselves been blackmailed by people wanting to derail the Church's protest against the planned redefinition of marriage.

Are any of these scenarios close to reality? I don't know, but neither does anyone here either. So, let's not jump to the worst possible interpretation of his actions.

By the way, it was pretty hard going to work today and hearing the comments and jokes being made by my colleagues about this. Catholics must look ridiculous and hypocritical. It's particularly unfortunate as the Cardinal was the strongest voice against the redefinition of marriage. The homosexual groups must be delighted.
(03-04-2013, 03:29 PM)Scotus Wrote: [ -> ]As a Scottish Catholic this may explain a number of things that seemed mysterious to me at the time such as the Cardinal's long-running support of Fr "Andy" Monaghan, the "radio priest", who directed teenage girls to abortion clinics, amongst many other terrible things.

I've never heard of this Fr Monaghan character!  Though that may be because I'm not a radio person... absolutely disgusting and shocking.  He has been dealt with?

Quote:By the way, it was pretty hard going to work today and hearing the comments and jokes being made by my colleagues about this. Catholics must look ridiculous and hypocritical. It's particularly unfortunate as the Cardinal was the strongest voice against the redefinition of marriage. The homosexual groups must be delighted.

I know exactly that's like.  I confess that when all this first broke my knee-jerk reaction was "for the love of God O'Brien... look at the mess you've left us to put up with."  One classmate even assumed my disgust was for the fact of his resignation and not for his offense in a discussion on the matter.
(03-04-2013, 08:53 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]What I don't get about Cardinal O'Brien and others like him, is why in the 15 years since the scandals first broke they haven't quietly slipped away into a monastery or obscurity

Most likely because he is a psychopath.  These people often convince themselves of their own righteousness; he is now just apologising because that's what is expected of him.  I doubt there is any true sorrow or repentance there - continual acts like this over a prolonger period of time with active premeditation suggest to me that this is just the kind of evil that goes unrepented. 
(03-04-2013, 03:29 PM)Scotus Wrote: [ -> ]Catholics must look ridiculous and hypocritical. It's particularly unfortunate as the Cardinal was the strongest voice against the redefinition of marriage. The homosexual groups must be delighted.

Why ridiculous?  Catholics are confronting a problem and trying to fix it.  What does the rest of society do, either in Britain or elsewhere in the world?  For example, there is widespread child abuse in schools in the United States.  What does the President suggest?  Starting school at an even younger age.

Why hypocritical?  Because Catholics made O'Brien step down?  How is that hypocrisy?  It's no more hypocritical than censuring a judge or lawmaker who breaks the law.  What do they suggest?  More cover ups? 

Here is hypocrisy:  claiming to be a democracy, and having a House of Lords that isn't even made up of genuine lords.  Here's more:  claiming to have a monarch, and then telling the monarch what she can and can't do, and whom she can or can't marry.  Maybe they are fixing that, but by what right do they fix it?  By the same "right" that it was imposed in the first place? 

Here's more:  banning hunting, on the ground that it's cruel, and then paying for abortion on demand, on the ground that it is not cruel.  Or disarming the populace with the promise that the constabulary is sufficient to protect them, and then standing around while a bunch of hoodlums burn the neighborhood down.  Good job, that. 

The entire structure of modern government rests on a massive hypocrisy.  In Britain, it rests on the laughable premise that there was anything laudable about several centuries of imperial pillage and legalized graft, by which the nation obtained much of its capital, and then abandoned its colonies to starvation and internecine warfare the moment it was no longer profitable to dominate them.  We could go through a similar analysis for virtually any country organized along modern principles.  The larger the country, or the more sanctimonious, the more glaring the hypocrisy. 

The Church is slow, but it is not hypocritical. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4