The gay porn video controversy that has gripped a Tyrone parish and fuelled much discussion and ribald commentary elsewhere is probably much ado about nothing, or certainly very little. You would imagine in times when priests are being censured and censored by the Vatican Infallibilia while the Cardinal of Australia is calling Jews inferior ( he might really mean subhuman) that there would be more to tax the collective mind of parishioners than this business. The priest in the eye of the storm, Martin McVeigh, would appear to have done no wrong other than forget to erase the contents of his memory stick and ended up giving a PowerPoint presentation containing ‘images of guys with moustaches going at it hammer and tongs.'
Yes, it was foolish given the holy communion ceremony he was about to perform. But blunder rather than badness is written all over it.
So what if he watches gay porn. I like to watch soccer or Scandinavian crime fiction and he watches porn. Some like to drink, others take speed, acid, ecstasy, whatever, and the odd one does a bit of bird watching or poetry writing. It is the tapestry of modern existence that might get up the noses of the politically correct and the I just love to be offended brigade.
In spite of that lot there is enough tolerance about to permit people the space to do as they wish so long as they are not being harmful to others. That harm however provides no insurance cover for beliefs. On that front there is no right not to be offended, no ideas or opinions with special protection. Let them all take their chances in the crucible of reason. There are many who wish there were a right not to be offended. Just imagine the power that would give to them. Don’t watch this, don’t read that, don’t go there, don’t talk to her, don’t discuss that, don’t believe what I don’t believe. Welcome to the Dictatorship of Don’t.
The problem would be much greater if this priest was a carrier of the Iris Virus and went round hammering gays, calling down on their heads the fire and brimstone from a ‘loving god’ who would torture and torment them for the sheer pleasure of the I just love to be offended mob. When the pain of another is required for one’s own pleasure, that is a real abomination. McVeigh really needs to bite the bullet on this one and acknowledge his mistake as distinct from fessing up to any serious transgression. Otherwise the real crime is going to be in the cover up and he is going to draw ridicule down upon him rather than fire and brimstone:
The whole incident has more than a little Father Tedness to it, especially McVeigh's claims that he doesn't know how the images got on his key. Were they just resting in his account? Did he accidentally brush against another priest and catch them like a virus? Did an elite squad of gay priest porn-commandos put them on there while his attention was elsewhere?
That's how daft it has come to look.
It is not as if he is in the position of the anti-gay pastor Grant Storms in New Orleans earlier this year. This ‘Christian patriot’, as he promoted himself, was arrested for choking the chicken ‘in the vicinity of a carousel and playground where children were present.’ He wasn’t a kiddie fiddler by the way, just somebody who was horny and decided a quick flog of the bishop would soon put matters right. No interest in kids so why in or near a kids’ playground and not in some naval school populated by burly marine cadets? Witnesses reported him to the cops because they observed him sitting in his car with 'his zipper down' attending to himself 'while watching children on the playground at Lafreniere Park.'
Once rumbled with the stolen cookie (pronounced cockie if you use a strong New Orelans drawl) in his hand, Storm asked the gay community for forgiveness. He had previously used religion to make life difficult for gays. He campaigned against the French Quarter’s gay Mardi Gras, which he termed a ‘Southern Decadence’ event. He confessed to having been 'proudful, arrogant ... I have been vicious at times in my condemnation of others.’
New Orleans was bunged as hundreds of thousands alighted from spacecraft to accept his contrition. Shows you what can happen when the chippers are down.
No need for Martin McVeigh to look as implausible and ridiculous as Storm. Time for the priest to cut the crap, cut his losses and, rather than run, stand his ground.
I agree AM, but do you really think that when this guy makes a public statement, it would be his words. He will have to be a good sheep and read out whatever bullshit his superiors make him and history has taught us the first reaction will be denial. This is, of course, assuming any statement is made.
ReplyDeleteThis is libellous and thus contravenes your own rules for submitting posts.
ReplyDeleteThree guys are arrested in an adult book store and appear before the judge. He asks the first guy to stand:
ReplyDelete"What is your name?" he asked.
"John," the guy answered.
"And why were you arrested?" the judge asked.
"I was by the magazine rack holding a big fat cigar and blowing smoke." he answered.
The judge didn't see anything wrong with that, so he dismissed the guy and called up the next one.
"What's your name?" he asked.
"John," the guy answered.
"Why were you arrested?" the Judge asked.
"I was by the magazine rack holding a big fat cigar and blowing smoke." he answered.
Again, the judge saw nothing offensive, 'This so-called adult store is begining to sound more like a smoking club!' he thought. So he dismissed the charge and called up the next guy.
"What's your name?? No wait, let me guess; John." he said.
"No," said the guy, "My name is Smoke."
..............
A man is about to jump off London Bridge when he hears a voice behind him. It's Santa Claus.
"Why do this? It's Christmas Eve?" Santa says.
"Because I've lost my job, " the man answered, " my wife has left me, and I have no presents for the kids."
"Ah, I can grant you 3 wishes, " replied Santa, "So when you get up tomorrow your job will be there, your wife will be waiting for you, and there'll be presents for the children."
"Oh Santa - however can I repay you?" gasped the man.
"Well - not a lot of people know this, " came the reply, "But old Santa is gay, you could bend over for me, the elves aren't much good at it."
"Dunno 'bout that, " the man said.
"Oh, go on, " Santa urged, "After all - I granted you 3 wishes, don't be so ungrateful."
"Ok, " the man sighed, as he unzipped his trousers.
Santa did the biz and when he finished the man pulled his trousers back up.
Santa looks at the man and asks "How old are you?"
"47, " came the reply.
"What? And you still believe in Santa Claus?"
...
John,
ReplyDeletegood to see you are still around.
I am sure George Pell will sue us if he is not the Cardinal of Australia!
Frankie,
ReplyDeleteheard the Santa on before in slightly rearranged style but it makes it no less funny getting it this time round!
Is it because Fr McVeigh is a priest that he has no presumption of innocence? Is it because he is a priest that he has no right to a good name? Is it okay to calumniate anyone, if they are a priest?
ReplyDeleteFr McVeigh has strenuously denied any wrong doing, so unless you have evidence to the contrary, you have no right to assume that he was responsible for the images.
The common theme I see is the Catholic Church is the enemy, and must be attacked at all costs.
Even British 'justice' has higher standards. I hope you are never accused of anything and then have your good name dragged through the gutter by people who cannot wait to put the boot in and lose all decent moral standards in their glee to attack you.
John,
ReplyDeleteand there was me thinking I might have libelled George Pell by calling him a cardinal!
Martin McVeigh has done no wrong other than give a daft rationale for something he has no reason to explain. Bigotry has led to the man being fearful. And the ‘cover up’ he is engaged in is not the cover up of something seriously criminal like Sean the Silencer did. He is merely fearful because of the hate crime he could be subjected to. It would be different and you would have a point if Martin McVeigh was being accused of something heinous here but this is not so. He is clearly innocent and rather than the emphasis being on criticising him in this article it is more an expression of solidarity with him in the face of prejudice and bigotry. He has a good name and should not feel ashamed. It is not as if he was swearing kids to secrecy after they were raped.
AM
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is that you are maintaining that Fr McVeigh is a liar. There was a time, (before atheistic immorality took root), that a man's word meant something.
If Father McVeigh says he had no knowledge of the filth on his computer, then, until proved otherwise, his word is good enough for me.
John,
ReplyDeletefrom all that is known he had no filth on his computer. That's Iris talk. He had gay porn. Like many others I couldn't give one toss about that. I wish the guy well.
AM
ReplyDeleteYou may call it what you like. I think that 'filth' is a suitable synonym for 'indecent images'.
But if there were nothing wrong with it, there would be no issue. The fact that there is an issue, and he is in such bother, proves that it is still regarded as 'filth' in the Catholic Church and in Tyrone.
John,
ReplyDeleteYou have to admit that it looks fishy. Why did McVeigh destroy the memory stick that very night? I'm no computer expert, but I think that at the very least, the date that the images were added to the memory stick could have been determined. Thus, if it is true that others had access to the memory stick, then the culprit could possibly have been identified. But McVeigh's first reaction was to destroy evidence. Why?
Secondly, McVeigh's own laptop was conveniently reported stolen before his superiors had the chance to examine it. Also, no trace of pornography was found on the other parish computers, so I'm not sure McVeigh can credibly claim that some other member of the parish's staff who had access to the memory stick was accessing porn on these computers.
I don't really have a problem with Fr. McVeigh looking at pictures of gay sailors going at it or watching movies with titles like "Shaving Ryan's Privates". More power to him. My personal preference is for pretty Czech lesbians dressed as nurses. However, my problem is that McVeigh is a hypocrite. Why oppose gays in public but salivate over them in private?
John,
ReplyDeleteat least now we are down to opinions. And in your view the images were filth and in mine they were not. It is only an issue for some Catholic Iris types and I doubt we will see Tyrone mobilise against it. I know too many Tyrone people to think they actually give a toss. But it must pale in significance when compared against swearing to silence children who were raped by priests. Wouldn't you think?
John great to see you have been released from the crypt, as for this business with Mc Veigh if he is a tail end gunner thats his business and now he has a year out to get help Irish Robbinsons mate could maybe help here,as for the computer pics on display and his denial,well its a bit like a fart,you know he who smelt it dealt it!
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteit has to be said that there is nobody like you for getting a debate going whatever the topic!
Alfie
ReplyDeleteAs you say, Alfie, it all looks very fishy. But can we really think that Fr McVeigh was so stupid he showed it in the first place, then he acted as if he were guilty, and then faked a robbery? Maybe, and maybe not. What I found revealing was that the expose in the Sunday World could only say he had refused Holy Communion to a divorcee and was strict. Come on, it is evident that Fr McVeigh has enemies, and it is equally possible they set him up. Or it is possible that he is guilty, but it is safer to assume innocence when there is no proof either way.
AM
‘It is only an issue for some Catholic Iris types’
It is an issue for all who hold the Catholic Faith. Catholics make one act of Faith, not hundreds of individual ones. Those who reject a single article of Faith or Morals have left the Church and thus are in your camp, not mine.
Marty
As usual, succinct and poetical!
John,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be so sympathetic to him if it is true thathe refused communion to a Catholic divorcee. That aside in the incident we are discussing he is not guilty of anything but a fib to ward off the mob. We'll hardly be too hard on him for that. There must e very few Catholics left. What Catholic these days rejects condoms? Are they all to be booted out as well? I am quite happy to have Catholics in my camp (to the extent that I have a camp) Protestants as well and whoever else as long as they do not expect me to practice their religion. They are all entitled to their religious opinion but not to inflict it on me.
John,
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, you remind me of my anti-nationalist friend Pierce Martin. Pierce thinks that it is possible that Fenians sunk the Titanic! Of course, that is possible, I suppose, but it would require a conspiracy of epic proportions. Conspiracy is always the least likely explanation, for even in the McVeigh case, it would have been very difficult to pull off ( if you'll excuse the pun!) All of the evidence we have points to Fr. McVeigh having a penchant for dude-on-dude action and being seriously careless. In my experience, conspiracy is a lot less likely than cock-up. (There I go again!)
I think the only good thing to come out of this is John has got the ole finger out again and got back in the ring where he belongs,now John when I mention ring I dont mean the form a circle boys kind. your absence reminds me of the yarn.A pirate walked into a bar and the publican said"hey,I havent seen you in a while,what happened?you look terrible" "what do you mean"said the pirate"I feel fine""what about the wooden leg? you didnt have that before""well"said the pirate"we were in a battle and I got hit by a cannon ball but I,m fine now" the publican replied "well ok but what about the hook,what happened to your hand?" the pirate explained "we were in another battle I boarded a ship and got into a sword fight,my hand was cut off,I got fitted with a hook but I,m fine now really""well what about the eye patch?" "oh" said the pirate "one day we were at sea and a flock of birds flew over,I looked up and one of them shit in my eye" "your kidding"said the publican "you couldnt lose an eye just from bird shit" "It was my first day with the hook"
ReplyDeleteAM
ReplyDelete‘I wouldn't be so sympathetic to him if it is true that he refused communion to a Catholic divorcee.’
Probably no more true than your fantasist attack on Cardinal Pell, who, if guilty of anything, was only guilty of choosing his words carelessly.
‘That aside in the incident we are discussing he is not guilty of anything but a fib to ward off the mob.’
If he is guilty then he is guilty of far more than that.
‘What Catholic these days rejects condoms?’
All faithful ones do.
‘Are they all to be booted out as well?’
Those who reject the Teachings of the Church exclude themselves. The real scandal today is that most of the hierarchy are not passing this on to their flocks, so many of them are not even aware of their obligations.
‘They are all entitled to their religious opinion but not to inflict it on me.’
And yet you seek to dictate what Catholics should believe and practice! Even down to who is eligible to receive Holy Communion, the Seal of the Confessional and what stance they should take on moral questions such as homosexual acts.
Just seen the parochial house that Marty McVeigh had to endure in Pomeroy,is it church policy to have houses as big as the priests ego,s.
ReplyDelete"From Pomeroy to New Orleans":
ReplyDeleteBKeane,
It depends on how independent he feels himself to be. If he pumps the church line it will be Bull. Seems clerics are so full of the bull they even talk it! As much sense from a fairground fortune teller. Good piece in yesterday’s Irish News on it from Patrick Murphy.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete"Pierce thinks that it is possible that Fenians sunk the Titanic!"
It was defiance of God and of the Pope that sunk it.
"All of the evidence we have points to Fr. McVeigh..."
If Father McVeigh would keep such 'filth' and display it, then act so stupidly as you have described, then he is a total fool. It is at least as likely that someone else left it there. One other person doing that would not make a conspiracy.
Marty,
Your pirate jokes are the best, because they arrr!
Priest walks into a restaurant and asks for a bloody steak,Bob Doh Brains was working there part time as a waiter, "Doh good on ya father would you like some fucking onions on it "..
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteCatholics are free to believe what they want and practice what religious opinion they want but they can't practice it on other people who do not want it. Just as I can't expect you to abide by my soccer opinion. You can believe that the Titanic was sunk because it defied your pope and your god just as freely as Jerry Falwell can believe earthquakes or AIDS were sent by his god to punish homosexuality. But you can't deny me the right to a hotel room or a prescription because I don't believe it.
I actually think the true Catholics are to be found handing out condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa in accordance with the best medical advice currently available. The Pharisees I think condemn them. Seriously if Christ were around today do you really believe he would shouting about condoms?
Anthony he would probably be moaning about the price of them , I kind of like the idea that the prods built the Titanic and the taigs built the iceberg!!John a cara believe whatever you want but as we have said before dont piss down our backs and tell us its raining..
ReplyDeleteAM
ReplyDelete"I actually think the true Catholics are to be found handing out condoms..."
In other words you think a true Catholic is someone who rejects the Church. That is a contradiction, although a well-worn path, trodden today by many in the Irish Church, from renegades within the ACP to 'Fr' Bryan D'Arcy.
BTW I won't pass judgement on who the 'true atheists' are. As a Catholic I don't feel qualified to.
"Seriously if Christ were around today do you really believe he would shouting about condoms?"
I believe He would give the same advice as in the Gospels; 'If you love Me, keep My commandments,' 'thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'blessed are the pure' and 'Go, and sin, no more.'
Those who give out condoms may just as well be handing guns out to would-be murderers, or drink to would-be drunkards. To do it in the Name of Christ is an aberration, and a form of abuse that must be eradicated not condoned.
And, yes, Christ is around today. He said 'he who hears you, hears Me', so when we follow the Church we are following Christ.
John,
ReplyDelete"If Father McVeigh would keep such 'filth' and display it, then act so stupidly as you have described, then he is a total fool. It is at least as likely that someone else left it there. One other person doing that would not make a conspiracy."
I'll let you in on a little secret, John. Last year, I lent a memory stick to a female relative. I was virtually certain that I had transferred detailed files concerning my own psychological and psychiatric history from the memory stick to my private laptop, but I had not. Indeed, to my horror, the files were still on the memory stick when she returned it. Because of the nature of my obsessive compulsive disorder, much of the material in those files is disturbing. I'll never know for certain if she read them. It is more likely than not that she noticed them at least, for they were not concealed at all. Anyway, she never mentioned the files and I never broached the subject. I do still worry about it though.
So do you think I am a total fool, John? Do you suspect a conspiracy? Or is it not far more likely that I just made a careless mistake, like Fr. McVeigh?
"So do you think I am a total fool, John? Do you suspect a conspiracy?"
ReplyDeleteNo, Alfie, but if you then went on to destroy the memory stick, whilst protesting that they were your not your files, and then invent a break-in to steal your own computer, and notify the police, all while denying everything and being in a profession that advocates that lying is never acceptable, I would say you were a fool or an impostor!
A new priest, born and raised in Ballyjamesduff, County Covan, Ireland is nervous about hearing his first confessions in Dublin, so he asks the older priest to sit in on his sessions. The new priest hears a couple of confessions. Then the old priest asks him to step out of the
ReplyDeleteconfessional for a few suggestions.
The old priest suggests, "Cross your arms over your chest, rub your chin with one hand and try
saying things like 'Yes, I see,' or 'Yes, go on,' or 'I
understand.'
The new priest crosses his arms, rubs his chin with one hand and repeats all the suggested
remarks to the old priest.
The old priest says, "Now, don't you think that that's a little better than slapping your knee and saying, "No shit... what happened
next?"
John,
ReplyDeleteHere are the facts of the case:
1) There was gay porn on a memory stick which Fr. McVeigh was in possession of. He claims others had access to the memory stick, but, to my knowledge, no one has corroborated this claim.
2) Following the public display of the images, McVeigh destroyed the memory stick.
3) Before a diocesan inquiry could examine the laptop Fr. McVeigh was using, it was reported stolen from the parochial house. No other item was reported stolen in the alleged break-in.
Of course, it is possible that Fr. McVeigh is the victim of either a conspiracy or a series of horrific coincidences. But based on his own suspicious actions and on the balance of probabilities, I would say that Fr. McVeigh is not the doe-eyed innocent you believe him to be.
Ask yourself this question, John: if the priest in this case were a liberal Catholic like Fr. Brian D'Arcy, would you be tying yourself in knots to protect his good name?
"Ask yourself this question, John: if the priest in this case were a liberal Catholic like Fr. Brian D'Arcy, would you be tying yourself in knots to protect his good name?"
ReplyDeleteAlfie, I find myself in the same position you did, when you felt compelled to defend 'Benedict XVI'.
I have no idea, if Fr McVeigh is liberal or conservative, but I do know he represents the Post Vatican II counter-Catholic religion, which I reject.
If I have any selfish motive it is because some of my children went to that school and I would rather not think that they had been in contact with a homosexual priest.
Having said that, I admit, when the case first came to light, I thought just what you did. Reflecting upon this afterwards, I thought that I have no right to condemn a man, and assume him guilty of something which he denies. Especially when the best that the Sunday World could say was that he had complied with Canon Law and discretely told a remarried divorcee, she should not go to Holy Communion. Had they come up with any evidence, or even unsubstantiated rumour, it might hold some weight, but they came up with nothing, whilst denouncing him as 'porno priest'.
I do think if a defendant in a British courtroom, (even a Diplock court), is presumed innocent, that anyone accused should have the same rights to the presumption of innocence.
Of course, if he is guilty, he should confess, repent, and dust himself off and carry on. That particular sin, though terrible is not the worst, and there is always a place for the prodigal son to return.
Meanwhile he is a man with a good name, and I believe him if he says he did not do what was alleged. If we can't take people at their word, then we are in sad state of affairs.
Jeepers, John, will you at least try to get over your loathing of gays? I don't mean to upset you, but what would you do if a child of yours turned out to be gay? What would you do if YOU were gay?
ReplyDeleteSo what if McVeigh is homosexual and had contact with your children? The vast majority of gay men, just like the vast majority of straight men, are not interested in children or young teenagers. If I recall correctly, the John Jay study of the child abuse crisis in the US Catholic Church asserted that as more self-identified gay men entered the seminaries, the incidence of reported clerical sex abuse decreased. Furthermore, most reputable studies of men who abuse children or young teenagers conclude that such men do not usually pursue relationships with adults of either gender. In other words, theirs is a kind of separate sexual orientation.
As far as the Sunday World allegations go, I never sought to say whether they were true or false. If I remember correctly, you were the one who introduced them as evidence for your conspiracy claim.
Finally, you mentioned Diplock courts and the presumption of innocence therein. Of course, everyone is presumed innocent before the evidence is inspected and weighed, but that presumption does not extend ad infinitum. A judgment must be made at some point. Based on the information we have, I don't think we can reasonably doubt that Fr. McVeigh was responsible for the "filth" on his memory stick. Otherwise, he would have to have been the victim of incredible malice and/or extraordinary bad luck. On top of this, though, is McVeigh's own suspicious behaviour. He is reported to have left the room after the incident, but returned 20 minutes later and tried to pretend it had not happened. Then he destroyed the memory stick that very evening. If this were a Diplock court, Fr. McVeigh would be in deep shit.
Incidentally, do you take Gerry Adams at his word when he says he was never a member of the IRA?
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that anyone can just ‘turn out to be gay’. People have a variety of desires that they need to keep under check. The Catholic Church teaches that ALL sexual actions outside of conjugal love, (open to procreation), of a married man and wife is gravely disordered. Even if directed at Czech Sapphics! People can have natural desires or unnatural ones, which must all be kept in check if we wish to ‘do good and avoid evil’. The real problem comes when people decide to give in, but that is ALWAYS a moral choice.
I cite as my authorities, the words of Christ to St Catherine of Siena; St Peter Damian (a Doctor of the Church); and a modern study of the subject, ‘The Rite of Sodomy’ by R. Engel.
Our Lord said to St Catherine,
“For Me this sin against nature is so abominable that for it alone five cities were destroyed by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear their iniquity ....“
“It is disgusting to the devils not because evil displeases them or because they find pleasure in good, but rather because their nature is angelic and flees upon seeing such a repulsive sin being committed. For while certainly it is the devil that first strikes the sinner with the poisoned arrow of concupiscence, nonetheless when a man actually carries out such a sinful act, the devil goes away. “
St Peter Damian wrote the ‘Book of Gomorrah’, in which he clearly shows that you cannot distinguish between homosexual acts in the clergy and the assaults on teenage youth so prevalent among those who renounced the moral order in the post Vatican II period.
Thirdly, R. Engels documents what might be seen as a case study to illustrate the truth of St Peter Damian.
“God forgives but mother nature never forgives” is an old
saying, which will have tremendous repercussions on the Church and on society where homosexuality is accepted.
All things considered, I would say that the John Jay Report, whilst valuable, cannot be considered definitive, not least because it was funded by the American Bishops, many of whom were promoting the very homosexual culture that it seeks to absolve them of.
As for Gerry Adams, if he did not have a track record of being a liar, I might be prepared to accept his word. I don’t lightly reject any man’s word, until forced to by overwhelming evidence.
Heard on the news there now that someone in Donegal has been kneecapped, I thought it might be that lying fucker Brady or one of his cronies, but alas it wasnt to be just some other scumbag in a big house ..
ReplyDeleteOH jaysuuuuus John,s of on one see what you started Alfie, well John you know what happened to Moses when he went to mount Olive,Popeye knocked his melt in ....
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI don't mind you quoting all that highfaluting religious stuff, but if you really think those glorious Sapphic goddesses from eastern Europe are "gravely disordered", then you and I are going to fall out!!!
What's God's problem with sex anyway? He's fecking worse than Mary Whitehouse!
Alfie
ReplyDelete"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." St Matt V, 27-28.
So it looks like check-mate!
At least God is consistent, He doesn't just go after the homos!
John,
ReplyDeleteI think a true Catholic (one committed to the practice of Christ) would see rejection of the Church teaching, if it meant saving innocent lives, an essential act of civil disobedience. What sane caring person would prefer to see children die in the streets in defence of a man made stricture? And for all your defence of the Church you do not strike me as a bad person who would refuse to hand out a condom to save lives. I doubt if you really have that belief that 'I will sacrifice you for my religious opinion.'
The teaching of the church comes from teachers like Sean Brady. He might not be a bad man but like every other Catholic cleric, bar none, he is a fallible man. Those who pursued or supported armed struggles by Irish Republicans have rejected Church teaching. But I think Mickey Devine set a better example for society than Sean Brady ever did.
‘Those who give out condoms may just as well be handing guns out to would-be murderers, or drink to would-be drunkards. To do it in the Name of Christ is an aberration, and a form of abuse that must be eradicated not condoned.’
I think that is comment enough in itself for readers to make a judgement on the ethics of the position you claim to defend. I don't need to add to it.
AM
ReplyDeleteA Catholic does not see his Church as a ‘man made structure’ so he would never be in the dilemma that you propose. I do not know of any circumstances where a condom might save a life. In fact, if someone has a deadly disease and uses one they may as well be playing Russian roulette with the life of the other person as they can never guarantee that it would be 100% effective. I would sacrifice nothing at all to religious opinion, but much needs to be sacrificed to religious certainty, but that should never involve an innocent victim.
‘Those who pursued or supported armed struggles by Irish Republicans have rejected Church teaching.’
Absolutely not. The men of 1916, MacSwiney, South and many others would be suitable candidates for canonization. How can anyone who aspires after what St Joan of Arc be rejecting Church Teaching? As Catholics we are bound to obey ‘lawful authority’, but in Ireland that resides in the Army Council of the Irish Republican Army.
There have been an awful lot of evil things done by those in and outside the Church, especially since the 1960’s, but I think you are putting too much weight on the actions of Cardinal Brady. Last night I sat down and watched all the interviews and other material that I could find about that case. Of course, Brendan Smyth was a monster, but I can’t see that Brady could have done much more than bring what evidence he had to the relative authorities within the Church. Of course had he known that the information would not be acted upon then he should have bypassed those authorities, but anyone would assume that such information would have been acted upon. The real villain in that case, (aside from Smyth), is the Abbott of the monastery that did not act on it.
“‘Those who give out condoms may just as well be handing guns out to would-be murderers, or drink to would-be drunkards. To do it in the Name of Christ is an aberration, and a form of abuse that must be eradicated not condoned.’”
‘I think that is comment enough in itself for readers to make a judgement on the ethics of the position you claim to defend. I don't need to add to it.’
I am not sure what is objectionable in the quotation you outline. It is simply to say that if you think that fornication is wrong, you don’t help people to do it, if you think that murder is wrong, you don’t facilitate it, if you think drunkenness is wrong, you don’t give out free beer to those affected by it.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteThe ‘facts of the case’ as outlined by you really seem to leave little room for objection. We might ask you to act as our barrister in the BC case!
I know there is no way of being scientific on this but if I was forced to choose to leave my children in the company of gay men or priests – with no form - I would opt for gay men without hesitation. It would certainly be to prejudge the situation but who of us would not prejudge when it comes to our kids and given what we know about abuse?
Marty,
I have the documentary taped and will most likely watch it today. But I hear it is horrendous. A neighbour told me that it shocked him and he is not easily shocked by what clerics will do.
John,
I doubt very much if many people think a bonk for the sake of it is ‘gravely disordered.’ I think they would imagine silencing a child who was raped and then becoming a cardinal is a ‘grave disorder’; that the ‘teachers’ responsible for such a situation are gravely disordered to the point that their teaching cannot be taken seriously.
Divine justice destroyed five cities and presumably all the innocent children in them because gays had a bonk. Are we honestly supposed to take this seriously? That Jesus Christ would rather see the children of five cities nuked because a lot of the citizens had consenting same sex relationships? That would make Jesus a mass murderer. We know the da was because of the things he ordered in the Old Testament but to suggest the same about Christ seems to ruin the professed spirit of Christianity – Jesus will murder your children because he loves them, just can’t have gays about the place.
In my mind it is bunkum.
More weasel word from Brady something akin to "I wuz only obeying orders"early retirement on the horizon I think,unlike the abuse victims he can spend the rest of his days in peace while they are in pieces,
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeletejust watched that documentary. Prime Time is doing it tonight also. In a normal body Sean Brady would be forced to step down. But the men of god can't accept normal status, thinking somehow they are of a paranormal stock.
So it looks like check-mate!
ReplyDeleteLook, John, I have never sought to claim that Jesus and the other two Trinity chaps in whom you believe have a healthy attitude to sex. Clearly they are prudes. My question is why? What's so bad about sex that it must be limited to procreation only?
Good question Alfie after all monkeys are fond of an auld ham shank...
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeletethem monkeys are gonna burn in hell for choking the chicken. So sayeth the Lord.
Ah so thats where the saying "spank the monkey" comes from its a church thing mmmm
ReplyDeleteMy question is why? What's so bad about sex that it must be limited to procreation only?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to be limited to it, it just should not preclude it; any more than eating should be done for the mere pleasure of eating.
We eat to live, rather than live to eat. Inverting nature always ends in harm, to ourselves, our families and society.
John,
ReplyDeleteSo essentially what you're saying is that sex is grand as long as there is a chance of conception and pregnancy. Why? Why can't people just give pleasure to each other?
You used the analogy of food. You say we ought not eat for mere pleasure. What about drinking though? You don't seriously think that there is a nutritional purpose to the grog, do you?
John wouldnt celibacy be inverting nature, and maybe thats why kids end in harm,the catholic church has cut a big stick to beat itself with this on one a cara,
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI would say that very many Catholics now see the church as a mad made structure given the fallibility of every cleric that has been all too demonstrable of late. I doubt if pronouncing themselves infallible works on too many these days.
‘I do not know of any circumstances where a condom might save a life’ seems an incredibly inane statement. There is enough medical evidence out there to show the impact of condoms on AIDS prevention, thus an ability to save lives. I presume that is why priests and nuns hand them out in Africa.
It matters not that you might think that the men of 1916 are suitable for canonisation or that I might even agree with you. The Church teaches that the IRA is immoral including the one you look on as the only ‘lawful authority.’ Which means you too reject Church teaching. Does the Church teach that the ‘lawful authority’ in Ireland is the IRA’s Army Council? I think you would be the only person in Ireland who thinks the Church teaches that.
Brady is goosed. He should resign with some dignity. I don’t see him as a particularly bad guy and I guess he is remorseful but he needs to know how impossible it will be for him to continue in that position and maintain any confidence. Patsy McGarry reported yesterday that even within the Church many feel his authority has seriously diminished.
Fornication wrong? “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy” HL Mencken
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteTaking the analogy of food, if someone were to gorge, then vomit then gorge again, so as to have the pleasure whilst thwarting its purpose of sustenance for life, that would be akin to deliberately suppressing the primary purpose of the marriage act in order just to enjoy the pleasure associated with it. The pleasure is there for a purpose, and that purpose is the continuation of the human race. If this can be deliberately thwarted, then there it would lead to every aberration against nature.
I think most grog does have a nutritional as well as a convivial element, but of course it, like most things, can be taken too far. Of course the Good Lord turned water in to wine, so it can’t be wrong to partake of the odd drop.
Marty,
There is no obligation on everyone to increase and multiply. Many people are not in a position to, for many differing reasons, and they mostly don’t abuse children. In fact those who do abuse are those who do not practice celibacy, not those who do. If you want to stop such abuse you would be better to insist that they should be celibate, rather than argue that celibacy is pointless. Society has argued that it is pointless, and that explains the mess.
Prime Time in half an hour looks at the Brady scandal
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteSo basically what you're saying is that Jesus has no problem with me having a glass or two of wine tonight, but he will freak out if I watch Peaches and Rene from the Sapphic Erotica website going down on each other?
Since both activities are purely for pleasure, why is the former right and the latter wrong? What is wrong with seeking pleasure so long as no one gets hurt?
PS. We've known each other (online at least) for about a year and a half, John, and I think we get on well. I admit that my vices are good food, good drink and excellent lesbian pornography. Nevertheless, I love my family and I do what I can to make everyone's stay on this planet as pain-free as possible. Do you think I'm evil?
AM.
ReplyDeleteInfallibility does not and never has meant that a Pope, or any one else, can do no wrong. It means, simply, that in given circumstances the Church can guarantee that a teaching on Faith or Morals comes from Christ. If it could not do that, then it may as well close down. How can it teach the way to Heaven whilst being unsure of the route itself? You are quite right though, many Catholics have lost their Faith, and many clerics too. That is no small reason why they have abandoned the morality that is taught by the Church.
A condom cannot guarantee to prevent the spread of AIDS so I for one would be far happier not to condone their use when they are risking spreading such a serious disease.
‘The Church teaches that the IRA is immoral including the one you look on as the only ‘lawful authority.’
Do you have a pre-Vatican II source for this? Who is it that I look on as the only ‘lawful authority?’
‘Which means you too reject Church teaching.’
If I have rejected any I will be happy to change my view and accept them.
‘Does the Church teach that the ‘lawful authority’ in Ireland is the IRA’s Army Council?’
I’m not aware it has taught one way or the other on this, so in absence of it teaching, we can only apply its general principles.
‘Brady is goosed. He should resign with some dignity.’
I’m not too concerned either way. I suspect that he has done less wrong than many seeking his scalp.
‘Fornication wrong? “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy” HL Mencken’
Do you really equate happiness with fornication?
John,
ReplyDeletewill answer this tomorrow as I am off to bed. Fornication, its great. Have you ever known anyone to be unhappy while doing it?
Alfie,
ReplyDelete‘Since both activities are purely for pleasure, why is the former right and the latter wrong?’
In partaking of a glass or two of vino you are not thwarting its primary purpose and substituting another. However that is what you do with ‘Peaches and Rene,’ (Couldn’t Rene change her name to Cream, then it would sound much more innocent?)!
‘What is wrong with seeking pleasure so long as no one gets hurt?’
It is quite likely that many people are hurt through pornography, from those who feel it is their only way to survive, to neglected wives. I think the overall effects of pornography harm all society.
Is it only a year and a half, seems longer, Alfie? No, I do not think you are evil. In fact I think that it is only a very rare person, if at all, who should be called evil. I think that while society was informed with Christian values it was easier for all to do good and avoid evil. It is incredibly difficult to do that today, probably more so than at any time in history, but at least we can be comforted that Christ came to call sinners not the just.
Alfie,
ReplyDeletejust having got the kids off to school and then to read this:
'PS. We've known each other (online at least) for about a year and a half, John, and I think we get on well. I admit that my vices are good food, good drink and excellent lesbian pornography.'
I am still laughing at it. Good for you.
Er emmm Anthony c,mere been trying to find that site all night a cara all I keep getting is some f##ker telling me god is skint and needs dosh.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if i was on a religious blog site (pmsl) at some comments, but i would like to say a few things about Fr Mc Veigh, nothing bad of course, but, I am curious about the memory stick, was there more than one,?, now, i have four memory cards, one is for personal use which i keep on my key ring, the others are for the kids to download unto and put on there own computers, mine is for computer programs only, and they are copyrighted, so if, this was Fr Mc Veighs personal memory stick, then he is a stupid idiot and should have kept it in a safe and private place, i think he got them mixed up and lifted the wrong one, that is the reason he distroyed it, as for the laptop, that needs looking into more, because, if what he says is the truth and it was stolen, then, the person who stole it could have gotten his filth files and put them on a memory stick, left it near one of the computers, and that is the one he used for his presentation, Its ust a theory.
ReplyDeleteWho Knows?. As for the rest of, what i call "Religious crap", and, i was a very good catholic church goer, When my late wife died 3 months before her 50th birthday in 1999, i started to go to church more often, one sunday the sermon was on , Unmarried Mothers, and, lo and behold, what happened, He was caught having an afair with one of those he was calling and got a job in a catholic school as an R.E. teacher, that well put me of the church. But i would never attempt to put anyone of going to there own church. Oh, Just one more thing, Did Jesus not say, Go Fourth and Multiply, to me that was to get as many as posible into the catholic church, the more the better for the cash flow, its called POLITICS.
May your God bless you "No Matter what he is called" , and keep you and your family safe. Amen, and, Woman!
Martyboy Mc Guinness has called on Brady to do the right thing by the victims,Brady should respond "pot ,kettle black" the pair of them should be told to fuck of..
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeletehas Martin McGuinness called on the Bishop of Louth to do the right thing by Aine Tyrall?
I for one agree with John about condemning this man before he gets a chance to defend himself,
ReplyDeleteHow did it get on his memory dick sorry stick?
How did it get on his Cumputor
Will we ever be able to unravel this whole mystery of the naked man , ah got it maybe it’s the Naked Chef Jamie Oliver that the people seen on the night , are they sure its wasn’t an Aperaestion maybe it was a woman dressed in a mans skin or maybe his best defence is it’s a Fairy, no now I have it, it was a leprechaun , I bet he is an honourable man that’s for sure with that very vital ingredient called INTEGRITY yeah that’s it the naked man was the Priests INTEGRITY got it
John,
ReplyDelete"In partaking of a glass or two of vino you are not thwarting its primary purpose and substituting another. However that is what you do with ‘Peaches and Rene'"
But how do you know what primary purpose - if any - Peaches and Rene have in this world? Their purpose could arguably be to make beautiful erotica!
John
ReplyDelete‘in given circumstances the Church can guarantee that a teaching on Faith or Morals comes from Christ.’
How, apart from on the basis of what it makes up?
Many Catholics have lost their faith not in a loving god but in a Church that is viewed as anything but Christ like. They feel that in order to be true to god they have to move away from a Church that has been hijacked by men for their own ends. A bit like what you saw with the Provos.
While being no scientist it is now an accepted medical and scientific position that condoms do curb the spread of AIDS. But I am sure you are aware of this already. Witch doctors and clerics can offer nothing that the scientific community feels it safe to go with. Prayer? I think of John McEnroe again.
‘Do you have a pre-Vatican II source for this?’
Never made the effort to search for one, the issue being so self evident. The papal nuncio was nuncio to the Dublin government not the army council. The most casual of glances at the history of church-state relations since the founding of the state will suffice to show you who the Church felt was the lawful authority. But again, you know all this and it merely detracts from the seriousness of your case when you put forward this type of argument - ‘I'm not aware it has taught one way or the other on this, so in absence of it teaching, we can only apply its general principles.’
People may agree with you that the Church should not recognise the Dublin government as the lawful government but they are most unlikely to argue that the Church does not in fact recognise that government.
‘Who is it that I look on as the only “lawful authority?”
Whatever army council you were referring to as the lawful authority.
Having since reflected on Sean Brady, I am now of a view that he should stay as it would make the position of the Church much more difficult if he does. Resignation (while the right thing for him to do) would allow the Church to get off the hook.
John,
ReplyDeleteSex evolved I guess at some point along the evolutionary trail to further propagate species. There is no specific reason why it should take place inside marriage that would trump it taking place outside marriage. Religions would be much more persuasive if they took a positive attitude to sex rather than use it to control people. Few listen to what clerics say on sex these days.
Somebody claiming not to play the game or have any interest in it is hardly considered suitable to be making the rules.
Basically, if people want to enjoy sex for its own sake and they are able to use human reason and ingenuity to prevent it always leading to the birth of children, what a brilliant means to bring more joy out of one of our more vital human attributes.
Itsjustmacker,
A religious blog? Appreciated the wind up. Quite often the topic focuses on religion and invariably takes off when John pops up who as you can see has some very strong opinions on the matter. He might actually think it is an atheist blog. It is in fact neither.