Forgive Me Father, For I Have Sinned.

CARDINAL KEITH O'BRIEN

I thought these were ‘allegations’ which Cardinal Keith O’Brien “strenuously denied” ?

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who was forced to resign by the pope last week, has made a dramatic admission that he was guilty of sexual misconduct throughout his career in the Roman Catholic church.

In a short but far-reaching statement issued late on Sunday, the 74-year-old stated that “there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal”.

The former archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, and until recently the most senior Catholic in Britain, apologised and asked for forgiveness from those he had “offended” and from the entire church.

The Guardian

28 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News

28 responses to “Forgive Me Father, For I Have Sinned.

  1. cantankerous

    Just when the Catholic church thought it couldn’t get much worse.http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/80779-how-mother-teresa-fails-to-live-up-to-her-saintly-image

    • Ha! You must have missed them being discovered to own a porn publishing company in Germany last year…!

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      The way to understand the paradox that is Theresa of Calcutta is to understand that much of Catholicism believes that suffering, like penance, atones for sin – the central theological issue of the Reformation. In Theresa’s sect aid and medicine were meaningless. Her role was to help her charges suffer into a state of grace, their suffering perversely believed to be saving them some serious time in purgatory. The money sent to her work would have ‘undone’ her spiritual mission. This is the religion, after all, which pays priests to pray for dead relatives to ‘speed’ their passing through purgatory. All these are founded on pagan practices, and are forbidden or doctrinally precluded in the Bible.

  2. Tom Austin

    Clarence J Boddicker
    March 4, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    This is where we part company. “Thou shalt not kill.” is what is written and what is understood.
    Your arguments to the contrary are the 21st century equivalent of those that warned against the coming of the printing press, as I see it.
    The Bible is as poetry. In that it speaks to different people in different ways, independent of any and all academia. When I read Gray’s Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard…
    http://www.thomasgray.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?text=elcc
    …it matters not whether I am familiar with a rural England long gone, I live and that is enough.
    The common Greek Koine is as dead as any other form of Classic Greek and we must not automatically assume that when new life is breathed into it what we get back is what was there to begin with. If I may borrow from Mel Brooks and his Frankenstein movie, you CJ are ‘Putting On The Ritz’.
    You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I am sure many happy hours could be spent when you are in the company of your fellow delvers.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Well, you’re kind of in my field now,, and defying common sense. I am completely certain you were utterly wrong.

      The ‘what is written is what is meant’ argument is hypocritically abused by antagonists of the text. curious that they always want to assert that ‘kill’ means ‘kill’ but never that ‘homosexual’ or ‘adultery’ means exactly what it says. The whole text is always self-illuminating and contextualising. Abstraction just breeds nonsensical interpretation.

      You also make the mistake of assuming that a ‘dead’ language is a meaningless language.

      In the English Bible we read one word, ‘love.’ In Koine there are no less than four words used, three most commonly, which represent specific types of love ranging from sexual to fraternal. According to you, then, we should all be having sex with our brother.

      In medieval law it was not unlawful to be a soldier and kill, it was not unlawful to kill in defence of self. Therefore to argue that the ‘kill’ which is rendered in English text means unequivocally and singularly ‘kill’ in any manner is nothing short of idiotic, non-sensical and ignorant. It is obvious from the whole Biblical text, and English law, language and literature that the line ‘thou shalt not kill’ as it is rendered by translation was not intended to be taken as a paradoxical demand for pacifism and non-violence, but rather to be understood as ‘murder’, an act of selfish motive.

      Incidentally, the original text was not originated in Koine. It was Hebrew. And both Hebrew and Koine renderings support what I just asserted.

      Game over. Try again.

      • Tom Austin

        “…‘kill’ in any manner is nothing short of idiotic, non-sensical and ignorant.”
        You raise man above your God, and the laws of man above Divine Instruction. You make your God in your own image. You argue against pacifism? What then is your other cheek for?

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        I don’t recognise the god you disingenuously try to raise from your profound lack of understanding. I understand a number of religious texts. The tradition you’re attempting to assert is not biblical. This is not an issue of raising man above god or defying divine laws with human law. It is simpler than that… It is simply that your assertion is completely and utterly wrong. You assert a meaning of a Torah commandment and define violation of it, or hypocrisy toward it, which is not remotely supported by the text. I’m not in defiance of a divine law, I’m in defiance of your assertion and erroneous interpretation.

        Furthermore, your out-of-context and thus misplaced invokation of ‘turning the other cheek’ is an illustration of how readily you engage in hypocrisy. As per the comments regards Pope Benedict’s former militaryvservice being a heinous hypocritic violation of a Biblical command (or rather your erroneous understanding of it) you seem intent on holding ‘christians’ to account for your interpretation of their scriptures. If you’re so sure your interpretation should be authoritative, why aren’t you following it to the letter, being so mindful and adherent that you would actually know what it says and why, rather than having a vague grasp of what some politically expedient verses say?

        And no, the Bible doesn’t support a purely pacifist worldview. It acknowledges, endorses and prophecies historical and future conflict in a very matter of fact manner. You can happily conclude that it has committed a vile error in doing such, but of course you’ll be guilty simply of anthropomorphologising the Biblical God, elevating man’s subjective secular values over the Biblical God’s, and creating a god in your own image. Wow. Such a paradox. And a contrast. I look into what the text actually says and why, and you make up what you think it should convey.

        What’s your other cheek for? Not what you imply. I happen to know enough about the text to point out that the same ‘Pacifist Jesus’ that you imagined also said “I do not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Go figure. Your interpretation once again does not hold up to scrutiny.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Incidentally, the Bible is not poetry. Nor is it ‘fiction’. You cannot credibly give a treatment to, and define a text as something other than it defines itself. To call the Bible poetry which is open to subjective interpretation and beyond academic study is dangerously ignorant, a violation of what the Biblical texts self-define as, and pretty stupid, really.

        It is a collection of credible narrative, attestable history, biography, poetry, religious instruction, social history, law and legislation and proven and unfulfilled futurist prophecy. To ignore all that and just call it ‘poetry’ and then treat it with less academic respect than Homer or Shakespeare or Thomas is simply dumb.

  3. Of-course, the only up-side to this ‘Cardinal Sin’ is that other virulent homophobic bigots will never be quite sure if their fellow bigots are ‘genuine’ or just straight-acting..!
    Apart from that, Cardinal ‘O Brienless is a two-faced, lying, destructive, scumbag -but hey, I guess somebody’s got to do it eh?
    …Not.

  4. dogman

    Thank you people. Some very good comments on here. Regardless of religion, people should look out for each other. Unfortunately so many of the elite seem obsessed with wealth and power and all too often their supposedly charitable acts have a hidden agenda. Life should be about what you put in, not what you get out of it. I’m not religious but I notice that too many believers cherry pick which parts of their religion that they abide by!

    • john carey

      Tony Blair sums up religion – Protestant so he could be Prime Minister – now Roman Catholic so he can be …..

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Indeed. There aren’t enough foul words to describe that odious little deviant.

  5. jubei

    What a decrepid nutso. Typically devious and clumsily navigating through the current asteroid field of allegations. “I didn’t do it! …They’ve made a mistake! …You have forensic evidence of me?! … That isn’t me in the picture! … Hang on, I think that is me! … I don’t remember… Hang on again, Yes I do remember… That’s preposterous… I’m gonna faint for a bit… You don’t understand… It’s an administrative fault… He fell onto me when I innocently overpowered him and he was semi-conscious and I was standing up with my pants round my ankles… How is that inplausable?! … I’m being persecuted… they are making a terrible mistake… was merely trying to help this person in a time of spiritual vulnerability… blah, blah, f*ckety blah”. The exhaustive reality of questioning a well-connected, manipulative and sinister narcissistic oddball like o’brien must be painstaking. Had the known victims so far not included practising priests along with ex-priests and clergy trainees I question if an investigation would have made it this far. The police must have strong evidence and I dare say there were ‘common rumours’ for years in the seminary canteens.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Indeed. But there are strong rumours of gay teachers, politicians, celebrities lurking in the closst and trying it on with an unsuspecting… We’re not allowed to hound them or root them out. Apparently being gay and promiscuous is their right. Evidently not if you’re a priest. You seem to be confusing ‘inappropriate’ with ‘illegal.’

  6. anon

    Gay sex rings, ‘The Filth’ corrupting the Vatican…and why the Pope REALLY quit

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287074/Pope-resigns-2013-Gay-sex-rings-The-Filth-corrupting-Vatican–Pope-REALLY-quit.html#ixzz2MZslfacy
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  7. rainbowsophie

    It’s the huge double standards that appall me here. If £135 bn would eradicate child poverty in this world and the Vatican alone is sitting on several billion dollars worth of gold (let alone the property values of the Church worldwide) then please would the Catholic Church stop being bloody so hypocritical and use some of their networth to go ahead and do so, instead of pontificating (no pun intended) with statements such as this

    “We are living in alienation, in the salt waters of suffering and death, in a sea of darkness without light. The net of the Gospel pulls us out of the waters of death and brings us into the splendor of God’s light, into true life. The modern world is … a spiritual and emotional desert of poverty, abandonment, loneliness… and destroyed love.”

    In so doing the Church might then go some way to atone for their crimes against children.

    Now I know why I have always eschewed established card carrying Religion in all it’s forms.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Again, there are two fundamental issues there between which the church (generic) and the Church (Vatican institution) is caught.

      First, the church believes in doing good in general. But it has no mandate to house all the homeless, feed all the hungry, enrich all the poor, cure all the disease. That’s not remotely the message of the Bible, or of Christ, but is often falsely imposed on the church by those within and without. The message of the church is one – referred to as ‘the gospel’ – of the longevity of the human soul beyond the temporality of the human body and the consequences associated with existence within a finity nested within infinity based on the interactions of the two realms. Daily Christians are amongst the poorest, most oppressed, rights violated and neglected people,usually at the hands of Islamists and particularly at the hands of Atheists masquerading as socialists. Most atheistic rants against the church for not ending the world’sproblems are disingenuous – in the first place rich atheists could also eradicate those issues, in the second place the church could argue that the problems and their scale are the consequence of rejecting Biblical Christianity wholesale – even down to the Vatican’s greed, since the Bible teaches against the amassing of wealth and the building of institutions like the Catholic church.

      The problem on all sides is that humans become hypocrites and betray their own proclaimed values and defy their own logic every time they define a relativistic interpretation of moral order. At the drop of a hat. Atheists declare religion to be erroneous, intolerant and warmongering and respond with irrationality, bad science, violent and abusive outbursts and efforts at totalitarianism. The gay lobby demands human rights but only for themselves. The clergy preach the convictions of their faith while nurturing a rebellious secret life. Governments wax lyrical about democracy, then run decisions on agendas or create a ‘progressiveness’ which defies majority will. Superpowers declare sovereignty and then march on other nations. Muslims invent a revision of their faith which sells peace and love, but cannot disassociate from the fundamentalists who have the upper hand on functioning just as their founder did and how he instructed them. The politically correct devise a doctrine based on freedom for all and causing no offence, and then have to sit by as rights are trampled, offence is caused and perversions foisted on humanity – their hands bound by the fear of failing their own doctrine. The Catholic church declares itself the Christian authority but has failed to read the Bible and is simply waging a pointless crusade for authority at all costs, bearing more resemblance to its foundational pagan roots than to anything remotely Biblical or Apostolic.
      The statement they made is arguably sincere and accurate in its reflection.

      Then there’s the problem of 135bn ending child poverty.

      It won’t. Because it won’t end unbridled capitalist greed nor unfettered destitution caused by socialism. It won’t end the crusades of religions or the religiously anti-religious. It won’t end the reckless addiction to sexuality in two thirds of the world and the reckless addiction to endless breeding for economic or traditional reasons in the other third. It won’t end tribalism and conflicts of opportunism. It won’t end drug and alcohol addiction or feckless parenting. It won’t end war and it won’t end overpopulation. Those are all issues of the failure of human responsibility and accountability. And in the case of the church, humanity wants to blame God for the failures of humanity, call on God for the solutions of the problems and the handouts for the needy and greedy, and ignore God when it comes to the advice and instruction on how to live properly. How could even the most sincere church institution hope to accomplish anything in the face of such disingenuity and hypocrisy?

  8. Clarence J Boddicker

    There are two issues here…

    The Catholic church is guilty of all kinds of things. Those things are being unravelled now. Predominantly those things are failures and then cover-ups.

    Then there’s the issue that a startling number of apparently closeted homosexuals have lied to everyone they know and either predatorially or disingenuously embedded themselves in an establishment, an institution, which is foundationally at odds with their predilections. That’s dangerous enough if they actually believe that the church’s Biblical position on their psychological defect is correct and they have chosen to use the service in the church to suppress their tendencies, like a therapy. Each individual is responsible, not as a system, but as an individual, for making sure they don’t whip the snake out in a public lav and solicit sex, go to a queer brothel, abuse children or engage in sexually inappropriate behaviour. They have rules and oaths and those may indeed be unreasonable or unattainable. But failure is not inevitable and conspiracy and hypocrisy are not prerequisites. Individuals chose to lie, to indulge, to pose a threat to others, and to cover it up.

    Then the institution tried to cover its own ass. But it could never win anyway, once these sneaks secreted themselves in positions of trust. The church is now condemned probably illegitimately for ‘hypocrisy’ in teaching against queerdom while having priests in the ranks who behave as functioning queers. BUT… Consider for a moment the tone of pro-gay activism… If the church announces its intent to enforce its Biblical policy on homosexuality and proposes that it will purge the church of every hypocritical homosexual and every man who is a danger to boys and young priests, every nun who is a danger to girls and young women… Well… There’d be bloody hell to pay as Stonewall descend, because these groups don’t actually want the hypocrisy to end by enforcing the opposition of homosexuality, nor do they want gay pederasts ousted and ostracised. They want society and the church to so normalise those things that no one could draw a line any more between the illicit and the legitimate and such vices as man boy love or two priests getting frisky would barely seem to be misdemeanours let alone felonies.

    The church is trapped in a world gone wrong, damned whatever it does, caught between the brick walls of orthodoxy and the Stonewall of legitimising deviancy. Whether we will ever see a Vatican brave enough to chase the snakes out of this cornfield is the question of the decade.

  9. john carey

    I was born a RC – dad was very strict – did not speak to a `Prod` till I was 16 – I think it says it all that the ex-Pope was in the Hitler Youth – not `right wing` an organisation for him so signed up for the Catholic Church.

    The Cardinal should be crucified or be-headed, his choice.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Can I ask what crime this would be for?

      For homosexuality?

      For shaming the church?

      For hypocrisy which offends the gays?

      For hypocrisy which offends Christians?

      And what about the adult priests who went along with these advances for 30 years?

      What about the ones who repeated the sexual contact with O’Brien? Are they getting hung too?

      If I told you on this forum that a man I knew, in a drunken state, had cuddled me, tried to kiss me and told me he loved me before giving me a grope, and I stated that he should be beheaded or crucified for that, I’d be accused of homophobia and told to take it as a compliment, a tender moment passed by a man taking huge risk to show his true self, and that if I hadn’t tried it I couldn’t knock it, and should have gently let him down and said that I didn’t feel the same way.

      If he weren’t wearing a robe, this would be classic ‘Stonewall Normal.’

      So what is the crime? And if hypocrisy, then can you rule out that this ‘coming forward’ of ‘victims’ is not actually a disingenuous gesture by willing participants for political reasons?

      • john carey

        it was a joke! – and the Catholic Church is a bigger joke, but does not make people laugh, just scares the poor bastards (same as it did to my dear old Dad).

    • anon

      In all fairness Ratzinger was no fan of Hitler, had a cousin murdered under Hitler’s eugenics scheme, and was jailed for walking out and going awol after being conscripted into the Luftwuffe.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

      • john carey

        Ratzinger could have said `no` to joining the Hitler Youth – or any part of the military but did not.
        Seem to remember `thou shall not kill` is one of the Commandments – find it hard to square with an ex-soldier being Gods Representative on Earth.

      • rainbowsophie

        Sorry but every time I look at Ratzinger, I see Senator Palpetine, the Dark Sith Lord from Star Wars, they really are frighteningly similar :)

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        It doesn’t say ‘thou shalt not kill’ in the context you use it. The translation to English from whence we arrive at ‘kill’ made use of a word which was understood in the day to mean ‘murder.’ The claim that this text is the ordination of pacifism as a human prerequisite before God is academically unsupportable. Its another example of a ‘contradiction’ or paradox in the Biblical text which only exists because the antagonist misunderstood, misrepresented or misinterpreted, a common trait among the ‘New Atheist’ crowd.

        The Bible, whether true or mythological, is nonetheless a complex and worthy text to study, exquisite in its detail, its language and its preservation and the attack to which it is subjected should be every bit as considered, laboured and studied in its detraction as it is by the scholarsand academics who consider it fine literature or inspired text.

        There is no hypocrisy, no compromise, since the Bible does not condemn soldiery, and rather addresses conflict and warfare in human affairs as objectively as any historical text or anthropological commentary.

  10. Jonny

    I am not going to ‘Troll’ you; all I will say is this, which is ‘my’ opinion, “the church has lied and covered up child RAPE, please don’t call it abuse, from the TOP for too long, it must stop and the guilty must be punished – no one can defend this”.

    I will contribute no more to this thread, I have said my piece – thank you.

  11. Tom Austin

    I am sure this is a toughy for all those within the RC church Jonny, but hypocrisy is everywhere, and in such circumstances many may turn to John Ch8 v7, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone.”
    Is it any easier to leave off supporting your football team, are we all to forego voting?
    This Cardinal, when he was but newly ordained taught the younger children at my school. Our paths crossed rarely, but I remember him as being a little up-tight and keen.
    For the future:Allowing priests to marry and/or take the ‘Civil Partnership’ route may be the only way forward, for this will give an opportunity for openness to replace compromise.

  12. Jonny

    I am so annoyed with the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, their lies cover ups and behaviour. I do not know what I would do, if I was a follower; how can you listen and believe and pray in this organisation?