Bigot of the year

File:O'Brien resignation, St, Bennet's, Greenhill.JPG

I believe the allegations against “Cardinal” Keith O’Brien because of the Moorov doctrine. Moorov was a shop owner, who sexually assaulted his shop assistants. Because there was no evidence other than the word of the woman, denied by Moorov, for each incident, there was no corroboration as previously understood: but the similarity in the women’s descriptions was held to be sufficient corroboration. You can say “It wisnae me, Ah didnae” once and be given the benefit of the doubt, but- four times?

The priests making the allegations may be assumed to have the priest’s commitment to integrity, and those still in orders will know the harm the allegations may do them.

O’Brien won the Bigot of the Year title because of this striking article, in which he compares the introduction of equal marriage to the reintroduction of slavery. What? Keith, babes, really- marriage is not like slavery. Really, it’s not. Or perhaps I have an idealistic view, never having been married. Onywye. He calls it the abrogation of a universal human right, rather than the acknowledgment of one.

I do not think he is a hypocrite, though. I think he has proper Catholic guilt about the priests he made passes at, and especially those who succumbed to him. That idea that gay relationships are harmful to mental and physical health: he really believes it.

That a man gifted enough to reach the top of such a vast organisation-1.2bn people- should hate himself as he is made so much, because of the doctrines of that “Christian” church, appals me. This vile and pitiable man, preying on those he had power over because he could not find a partner his church could recognise-

Some in the Catholic leadership will take the wrong lesson from this. They will say that it is even more important that no gay man enter their seminaries. Which is a shame, because as they have excluded women, contrary to the example of Jesus and Paul, gay men are their next best source of the gifts of pastoral care.

4 thoughts on “Bigot of the year

  1. Wow! His article in the Telegraph takes on a crazy perspective in light of the accusations. Even if someone is convinced homosexuality is a ‘sin’ – how can they preach against legal monogamous unions while they are clearly abusing their position of power to pressurise others to engage in random homosexual acts? I’d love to know what goes on the minds of these people. How do they justify their lives to themselves? It seems to me that Christianity provides a get-out-clause for some people to be absolutely vile even by their own standards, because they believe they’re created as sinful beings. It takes away a basic sense of responsibility for their own actions.


    • The Hesychasts had the answer to that one. Sin is a progression: the demons are tempting all the time, and feeling a temptation is not in itself a sin- but thinking of doing the thing itself is a sin. Then in an addiction-spiral, or slippery slope, doing it once, doing it occasionally, doing it habitually follow, until it is done without any guilt. We cannot let ourselves think of our temptations. Theirs was an ascetic philosophy.

      Antinomians, like the extreme Scots Calvinists, on the other hand thought that if predestined for Heaven by God, we could do what we liked, and God would forgive. There is a wide range of ideas about sin within Christianity.

      If his church were honest he could have had a life partner, rather than snatched, shameful drunken fumblings in the dark.


      • Totally, it’s all so unnecessary. It’s the abuse of power part that’s so sickening – using his position to pontificate in a discriminatory manner and then coercing unwilling subordinates to do exactly what he preaches against. Makes me kind of furious!


        • I have more sympathy with him than you. I think his position demanded that he preached like that, and he believed it because he had to. Some of my anger is for the system rather than him.

          That bloke from Stagecoach, on the other hand, who tried to keep Section 28 in Scotland- well, there is no requirement for a senior executive in a company to hate gay people. He had a freepost address for his campaign, and we got lots of advertising postcards from the gay bars of Canal St and sent them to him. I heard someone sent him a brick.


All comments welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.