enhanced by
Bookmark:
Ache I agree with him 100% and I am a non denominational Christian. I am willing to accept non Christian beliefs from my neighbours and accept that it is non of my business. When those same neighbours attempt to attack the beliefs of those who are carrying out an essential job in the community, it really is another kettle of fish. The Catholic Adoption agency is an essential part of a world wide community. I do not think that you would get the same effort from those same sex families. Not a lot wrong with kids being brought up in a loving surrounding but I get the feeling that a lot of them are ares*les so there would not be that much difference.
#1 The Catholic Adoption agency and essential part of a world wide community...what??Maybe the Catholic Adoption agency should be privitised by the Church....You are willing to accept non christian beliefs..sorry they arent beliefs there scientific facts..
Now Pete39 #1 -- Don't crack it at me! But when you keep writing "Ache" -- I think you mean "Och".Imagine Tony Blair saying he "totally understood" the Church's objections. That's pretty good -- a bob both ways like.
...as long as the cardinal also includes heterosexual hedonists who want to adopt children as a lifestyle accessory (Madonna, anyone?)
This may come as a shock, but gay people are remarkably like straight people - some are nice, some are nasty, some are well-off, some are skint, some are hedonists, some are spiritual, some are intellectual, some are promiscuous, some are celibate, some are religious, etc. Most are quite ordinary.
Most probably don't want to adopt. This legislation will not force gay couples to adopt, or make it compulsory for gay couples to adopt.
I suspect that adoption agencies, who are the experts, would rule out couples of any persuasion who seemed to be more preoccupied with their 'hedonistic lifestyle' than with the needs of children.
The cardinal needs to do some reflecting on the words and teachings of his Christ, most especially the main message, which is love.
It says in the English press and on the BBC that a couple in Norfolk who fostered more than 200 children over the years have been jailed for assault, cruelty etc. Elizabeth and Walter Roe, who had been presented by a local authority as model foster parents, made life for the children a misery.
The abuse included pulling children down the stairs by their hair, hitting them with sticks, rubbing soiled underwear in their faces and depriving them of food. They forced one hungry child to eat tissues.
Stephen Spence, for the prosecution, said that Elizabeth Roe, 64, had portrayed herself as a “God-fearing, respectable figure”, but behind closed doors she was deliberately cruel to the children.
She was sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty of six charges of cruelty on six different girls under the age of 16.
Walter Roe, also 64, was jailed for three years after he admitted four charges of indecent assault on two girls. He was also put on the sex offenders register after he admitted indecently assaulting two of the girls in his care.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6334887.stm
I wonder if the Cardinal will now be worried about his adoption agencies being forced to place children with 'god-fearing' heterosexual married couples? Possibily not.
if such a thing existed would muslim or hindu adoption agencies be forced to do the same?
i am not catholic, nor anti-gay, but these agencies do not hide their 'conditions' for placing kids for adoption so those couples who do not fit them, can easily tell they need to find another agency.
what is the problem with christian agencies, who do good in the community, being able to practice their religion in public, through their actions.
What drivel this man speaks,
""deeply hedonistic society", where ancient morals were being replaced by "issues of life-style and choice". "
If the church won't renounce a policy that engenders discrimination then let someone else take up the slack that their agencies "departure from the field of play" will leave.
To translate the cardinals quote from above in the context it was used:
Gay=immoral, thoughless, perhaps even a just a little evilstraight=moral, good, spiritually enlightened
Although I am straight myself and not terribly pc I can see the flaw in this.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien may be a hypocrite when he uses the word "hedonism". I am sure that prince of the Catholic church is wined and dined and deferred to by all manner of fold and he takes it as his due as a prince of the church.
Where did the vow of poverty go when such men achieve such high stations? The way they swirl about in their vestments and demand deferrance at the drop of a red cap is laughable.
Cardinal O'Brien's remarks are misplaced and when WILL some high-placed prelates know when to say NOTHING?
People who don't marry, don't procreate, and have no sexual relations with women are called GAY, aren't they?? Or is that priests??
This is the same Cardinal whose church harbours paedophile priests of course.
What they know about raising kids you can inscribe on the head of a pin.
Put up or shut up, Keithy boy!
"He writes: "Political leaders ... have praised Catholic agencies for their work abroad. We ask now that they allow us to carry on our equally valuable work at home." "
What valuable work abroad?
How about trying to stop condom use in Aids afflicted areas in Africa and thus condemming thousands to death all because of these same "ancient morals"!
Get real. I am getting fed up with self-appointed deluded religious types thinking that they alone have a "better" moral compass than the rest of us.
Hedonistic lifestyle? So what? We'll make a deal, I won't tell you were to stick your penis, if you don't tell anyone else where they can't stick theirs (within the societally agreed boundaries of consent and privacy so children, animals and rape are right out)
"what is the problem with christian agencies, who do good in the community, being able to practice their religion in public, through their actions."
None at all, Val 6#. The problem only arises because they get public money to dispense a public service. The RC church is a wealthy enough institution to run these services privately, if it chooses to. If the public legal position is that there should be no discrimination in the provision of publicly funded services, then the Government surely cannot fund a service and allow it to discriminate.
I am sure there are ways to work around his, and that's what we all want. It has been done in some parts of the USA where the same problems have arisen. I think what upsets people is the way the church has reacted, stamping its foot in a fit of childish pique and issuing threats unless it gets its way.
Mind you, I wonder how the Church would react if a private Catholic adoption agency was approached by a gay Catholic couple? I believe AB Vincent Nicholls admitted on Newsnight to Jeremy Paxman that his adotpion agencies already settled children with single gay and lesbian people. Do these singles have to hand the children back a couple of years down the line if a single becomes a couple?
As I see this issue it is part of the same problem as Pharmacy that refuses to fill birth control Rx or morning after pill, because of their personal feelings about allowing people to use this option.
As far as the Catholic leadership speaking for the community as a whole or minority interests. The fine morals of Catholic's has largely been a farce as it is with most people who have rigid belief systems. They can't control themselves so they go around trying to force others to do what they can't themselves. For 2000 years the faithful have been abused by greed and physical abuse coming from the Church. In a free society with legal redress for victims it has become obvious, but it isn't a new problem with the Church. In the old days the victims were frequently afraid of speaking out and if they did they were treated badly and even blamed.
Now I am not saying that Church's do not perform many good deeds and frequently are important. I just think their urge to force themselves on society should be given critical view. If they want to act in a facet of life that comes under the interest of an entire community, then they have to obey the laws. Claiming a great moral clarity which they seldom have is not going to impress.
#4
No, most are promiscuous.
#11
If only children were "right out". Ian Campbell Dunn anybody? The gay activist from Edinburgh who founded the Paedophile Information Exchange?There is an "equality" prize called the "Ian Dunn Award for Activism", whose past holders are Tim Hopkins and Patrick Harvie, MSP.
Things are not as clear-cur on this matter as the gay lobby would have us believe. Remember there is a new Paedophile Party standing for election in The Netherlands. Who formed it? The gay lobby, of course...
Did I say "clear-cur"? Maybe animals are "in" after all...
#14 - your evidence for that sweeping statement?
#16
Visit any gay websites and you'll see what their one overriding obsession is. Stop being disingenious.
#3, Hi Yane, not a Scots word. Being a heavy smoker I am continually clearing my throat. Occasionally I like to get that in print.
Where were all your comments when the Catholic church abdicated its responsibility to deal with homophobic bullying in their schools? Is that Catholic bashing too? I think not. Or is that yet more evidence of the disgusting attitude displayed towards anyone seen as less than worthy by the Catholic church.
What about the rights and the welfare of the children we keep hearing about?
It's hypocritical - cherry picking what you want to accept or believe in.
Clearly THOSE children are not WORTHY enough in your eyes?
Church's bullying stance slammedTHE Catholic Church is abdicating its responsibility for children's welfare by refusing to target homophobic bullying in schools, a teachers' leader said today.
The Church rejected calls from ministers for every school - including England's 2100 Catholic state schools - to have a policy on tackling homophobic playground bullying.
Web links
Scottish Catholic Media Officehttp://www.scmo.org.uk/ The Vaticanhttp://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
#17 That's your evidence?
22 - stop being a hypocrite. "ONE" thing that isn't relevant to this discussion and has nothing to do with countless decent homosexual people. Lets bang on and on about it because it serves whatever purpose you have on your mind?
Again, read the article and drop your personal chip on the shoulder. You seem to be overly keen or fond of surfing gay websites by the sound of it? Surf any other "heterosexual" site and you'll find more of the same filth. It's a small percentage of ANY society that engages in that behaviour - straight or gay. Don't dare tar decent people with the tired and worn out comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia. It's juvenile and insulting.
This article is about CHILDREN. Remember them? What the article is about?
Again I would refer you to posting 20 & 21. Selective cherry picking to suit whatever weak arguments.
Hi Pete39 #19 How about "Aeeccct!" Otherwise it sounds like "aik" as in tooth ache. I think we can all help ane another perfect our written disgust. Ha!
all incoherent cr*p
run along and get a brain matey
#25 If that is the sound you make when you have the toothache and some articles give you one, then spot on Yane.
#28
Have you thought about lyposuction?
lyoposuction? is that not a bit hedonist?
