 |
| If Scotland's Cardinal O'Brien is serious about his 'slavery =gay marriage' thing, he should chuck this mitre. Too much of a rainbow thingy going on here. |
Gay marriage rhetoric has certainly heated up in Scotland judging by the following article. I find this fascinating in that the gay marriage debate in England is barely luke warm. Maybe this is because Archbishop Nichols, head of the Bishops Conference in England is still an Archbishop. Maybe when he gets his red beanie, assuming he ever does, his brains will drain as well. The following is from The NewStateman web magazine:
Cardinal defends comparing gay marriage to slavery
Posted by George Eaton - 05 March 2012 11:11
Judging by his rhetoric, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, is not a man seeking converts.Challenged on the Today programme this morning over his comparison of gay marriage with slavery in a column for the Sunday Telegraph, O'Brien insisted that it was "a perfectly good example of what could happen in our own country".
He wrote in the paper:
John Humphrys: The idea of introducing the notion of something as grotesque as slavery, and I use the word there advisedly, the ultimate denial of a person's human rights, in this context will itself prompt many people to think that this is grotesque, that your notion of it is grotesque. (I would be one.)
Keith O'Brien: I'm not saying that it's grotesque, perhaps to some people it might appear grotesque.
Humphrys: But you're a Cardinal! Should you be using that kind of language? Equating, even as remotely as this, the notion of gay relationships with slavery? (That's the problem. He's a Cardinal. Installation as a Cardinal now seems to require turning in your brain to get the beanie to fit.)
O'Brien: I think it's a very, very good example as to what might happen in our own country at this present time and I feel I've duty, a responsibility to preach and to teach and this is one of the ways in which I do it.
Humphrys: Sorry, you lost me a little here, what might happen? Legalising slavery and the equivalent of homosexual marriage?
O'Brien: It is a perfectly good example as to what could happen in our own country if we go this way. I'm simply handing on the teaching of the Christian Church down through the years.
**************************************
Like Mr Humphrey's I'm at a loss as to how legalizing gay marriage equates to legalized slavery. How does extending human rights diminish human rights? I suppose I'm just not getting what Cardinal O'Brien is referencing as human rights. I personally don't equate loving a person and wanting to be with that person the same as desiring to own that person. Although, come to think of it, that pretty much was part of the marriage contract we conceive of as Traditional Marriage. Hubby owned both the wifey and the kiddies under contractual law. Maybe that's what Cardinal O'Brien is referencing in some bizarre Cardinal like way. Gay and Lesbian partnerships tend to be far less gender specific and much more egalitarian than the traditional straight marriage used to be, perhaps this is the threat that Cardinal O'Brien fears. In the Cardinal's mind God must still forbid women from being co equal, as opposed to complimentary. Gay marriage does certainly threaten that whole 'gender complimentary' thing the Vatican has been desperately pushing about 'real' marriage these last twenty or so years.
If I put on my own secret red beanie, I could make a bizarre but logically tight case that the whole master/slave thing was 'complimentary' as well. They too went together like a horse and carriage. Slave = horse, pulling the Master = carriage. Very logical and very utilitarian. It worked well for the Master who never had to walk and carry his own load, and it worked ok I guess, if the Master actually did something to take care of his horse. And it worked really well for the Master when the slave was female and produced more horses while pulling her carriage. Maybe this is what Cardinal O'Brien had in mind but didn't want to really state, because that might even be too grotesque for his intended audience of True Believers.
There really are times I wonder if there is any hope at all for Roman Catholicism as it's currently constituted in the 21st century. Which leads me to wonder yet again, just how much smaller and less faithful to the Gospels Benedict wants this Church to get. One thing for sure, it can't get much more illogical, fear based, and plain ignorant in it's leadership. But maybe that's just complimentary to it's mendacity, corruption, and greed.
He wrote in the paper:
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that "no one will be forced to keep a slave".Here's the full, shocking exchange with John Humphrys.
Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
John Humphrys: The idea of introducing the notion of something as grotesque as slavery, and I use the word there advisedly, the ultimate denial of a person's human rights, in this context will itself prompt many people to think that this is grotesque, that your notion of it is grotesque. (I would be one.)
Keith O'Brien: I'm not saying that it's grotesque, perhaps to some people it might appear grotesque.
Humphrys: But you're a Cardinal! Should you be using that kind of language? Equating, even as remotely as this, the notion of gay relationships with slavery? (That's the problem. He's a Cardinal. Installation as a Cardinal now seems to require turning in your brain to get the beanie to fit.)
O'Brien: I think it's a very, very good example as to what might happen in our own country at this present time and I feel I've duty, a responsibility to preach and to teach and this is one of the ways in which I do it.
Humphrys: Sorry, you lost me a little here, what might happen? Legalising slavery and the equivalent of homosexual marriage?
O'Brien: It is a perfectly good example as to what could happen in our own country if we go this way. I'm simply handing on the teaching of the Christian Church down through the years.
**************************************
Like Mr Humphrey's I'm at a loss as to how legalizing gay marriage equates to legalized slavery. How does extending human rights diminish human rights? I suppose I'm just not getting what Cardinal O'Brien is referencing as human rights. I personally don't equate loving a person and wanting to be with that person the same as desiring to own that person. Although, come to think of it, that pretty much was part of the marriage contract we conceive of as Traditional Marriage. Hubby owned both the wifey and the kiddies under contractual law. Maybe that's what Cardinal O'Brien is referencing in some bizarre Cardinal like way. Gay and Lesbian partnerships tend to be far less gender specific and much more egalitarian than the traditional straight marriage used to be, perhaps this is the threat that Cardinal O'Brien fears. In the Cardinal's mind God must still forbid women from being co equal, as opposed to complimentary. Gay marriage does certainly threaten that whole 'gender complimentary' thing the Vatican has been desperately pushing about 'real' marriage these last twenty or so years.
If I put on my own secret red beanie, I could make a bizarre but logically tight case that the whole master/slave thing was 'complimentary' as well. They too went together like a horse and carriage. Slave = horse, pulling the Master = carriage. Very logical and very utilitarian. It worked well for the Master who never had to walk and carry his own load, and it worked ok I guess, if the Master actually did something to take care of his horse. And it worked really well for the Master when the slave was female and produced more horses while pulling her carriage. Maybe this is what Cardinal O'Brien had in mind but didn't want to really state, because that might even be too grotesque for his intended audience of True Believers.
There really are times I wonder if there is any hope at all for Roman Catholicism as it's currently constituted in the 21st century. Which leads me to wonder yet again, just how much smaller and less faithful to the Gospels Benedict wants this Church to get. One thing for sure, it can't get much more illogical, fear based, and plain ignorant in it's leadership. But maybe that's just complimentary to it's mendacity, corruption, and greed.
How can a person become a cardinal with such poor knowledge of scripture and history?
ReplyDeleteSlavery is not forbidden by the bible. The RC Church was slow to condemn slavery. Brazil was the last country in the West to abolish slavery in 1888.
I have often thought that the slavery and contraception issues are best examples of the Vatican setting policy without regard to scripture.
p2p
p2p, I think taking that oath of allegiance they take in order to get the red beanie completely negates any previous education and experience. When one gives up their individual freedom and autonomy in an oath of obedience and cultic allegiance, they give up their brains.
ReplyDeleteCardinal O'Brien is no stranger to controversial stances, but it does seem that his public opinions on a variety of 'social issues' have taken a hard right turn since being installed as the sole cardinal of Scotland.
ReplyDeleteIt may be instructive to remember that the scarlet is symbolic for their devotion to shed their own blood in defense of the Church and not the people of God.
Exactly Tim. Given the oath they take, the Church really means the Pope and through him the Vatican.
ReplyDelete