Nov 052008
 

Is there no end to the Catholic church’s arrogance?

Yet again we have Cardinal Seán Brady presuming to tell us what legislation we may have and what we may not.  This time, Brady is lecturing us about a planned law on civil partnerships, warning the government that it could be facing a legal challenge.

Seán  doesn’t like the Civil Partnership Bill, which will increase protections for cohabiting couples, including people in same-sex relationships, in matters like inheritance rights, pensions and taxation.

Brady doesn’t like this.

He thinks it’s an attack on the family, whatever that is.  This term “the family” is a stick the religious Right have used for generations to beat the rest of us over the head and try to intimidate us, but somehow they never quite manage to define what The Family is, apart from  some intangible, abstract concept to which they own the rights.  A bit like a KFC franchise.  A Family Soap-box.

How’s this for a condescending, supercilious threat to the Irish people and to their legislature?

Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution, to the moral integrity of the word of God and to the precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society may have to pursue all avenues of legal and democratic challenge to the published legislation if this is the case.

There are many assumptions in there, including the assumption that the Catholic hierarchy has enough surviving moral authority to lecture anyone on matters of probity. These people who presided over the abuse of generations of children, and who protected the rapists, still feel entitled to lecture us on probity.  Isn’t it amazing?  And isn’t it remarkable that Seán and his fellow bullies feel so unsure of their status these days, that they need to resort to the threat of legal action?

Incidentally, I have news for Seán.  As a celibate, he has no legal standing in the matter.  Furthermore, even if he were married, he would still have no standing to mount a legal challenge, because the Bill won’t change the law on marriage.  But in any case, he’s a celibate.  An unmarried, single cleric, who would do well to stick to his prayer book and stay out of affairs of State. And who would do well, as a celibate, to keep his lectures to himself about things like marriage, of which he knows nothing.

Don’t forget, these are the same people who tried to slither out of their responsibilities by claiming not to understand child-abuse.  Odd, isn’t it, the way these guys’ minds work?  They want a free pass on child-abusing priests by claiming to know nothing.  But on the other hand, they feel entitled to lecture normal people on things like contraception and marriage: things of which they also know nothing.

In years gone by, when Seán ‘s people were in positions of real temporal power, they abused that power and they abused the children of this land.  They betrayed the trust placed in them so badly that their word no longer commands respect or authority in this land, but despite everything, they’re in a state of denial and they can’t see how little we think of them.

They’re a disgrace.  They are widely held in contempt for their dishonesty and they’d be better off trying to win back our trust by a display of true humility instead of trying to intimidate us through silly legalistic bluster.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Seán  Brady has made an ass of himself in recent years.

You might remember some of these Bock posts.  Have a flick through them and then tell me the Irish Catholic clergy are living on the same planet as the rest of us.

 

Cardinal Error: Brady Gets the Red Hat

Half God, Half Biscuit

Oh those feckin old bishops!

The Brothers of Charity:ââ€â€œ Raping Your Children Since 1883 !!

What Is Desmond Connell Trying To Keep Secret?

  17 Responses to “Civil Partnership — Cardinal Brady Makes A Fool Of Himself Again”

Comments (17)
  1.  

    They need trusting breeders so the rapist element can keep accessing children. What a fucking prick. I think we need to kill 2 birds with one stone and convert peat burning stations into priest burning stations.

  2.  

    Clearly the church believes it still has a sponser in the ‘irish government’, and if they do, then the ‘government’ certainly doesn’t speak for me!

  3.  

    jeez bock – this stuff totally pisses me off! WHERE do ‘people’ like him get off? huh? and this on the day when the good ole US of A elected a president who wants ‘a better life for everyone, even those who didn’t vote for [him]’, yet californians said yes to prop 8..

  4.  

    I’ve just read on Yahoo that “Fianna Fail’s Beverely Flynn has called on the Catholic Church to state once and for all that it is fully in favour of EU membership.”

    WHY? WHAT? WHY??

  5.  

    Green Ink — You might as well try to convert a bishop into a Christian.

    Unstranger — Me neither!

    Glitterkitty — He truly believes he’s a Prince of the Church. These guys don’t get it.

    Mapstew — That’s very odd. Maybe Pee is looking for a job as a Euro-Bishop.

  6.  

    really pisses me off too !!
    seemingly Sen. Norris compared Brady’s comments to something like what Mugabe would say
    can’t believe californians said yes to prop 8

  7.  

    I had to redeploy certain staff members who normally monitor Californian constitutional amendments, so I’m not fully briefed on this development.

  8.  

    i’ve just checked again and even tho it’s looking like it could be passed by 52/48%, absentee votes haven’t been counted yet so the ‘no’ campaign hasn’t officially conceeded..

  9.  

    Great post Bock. It’s astonishing going through the full text of Brady’s statement – it’s as if he HAS been sojourning on a different planet this past couple of decades:

    “we have the good of children and of society at heart”

    – yet when push came to shove abusers in their own ranks were protected, and the abuse was allowed to continue. The institution of the church was more important.

  10.  

    When ArchBishop John Charles McQuaid ‘helped’ Dev with writing the 1937 constitution he went with current, fascistic thinking about social building blocks – marriage/family/nation.

    Marriage is therefore a privileged institution in our constitution. It is why a cohabiting man and woman with individual dole entitlements will have their dole reduced to that of a married couple. This follows on a decision in the courts in the late 70s/early 80s.

    In law, I believe, no domestic set-up can surpass or equal the statutory entitlements accorded to the married.

    The civil partnership bill is, I suspect, the inevitable ‘Irish solution’. It means the Government does not have to risk a constitutional referendum on marriage.

    In the longer run I imagine, with pointers from the law reform commission, they are hoping that the courts will reinterpret ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ as expressed in the constitution.

    O tempora, o mores!

  11.  

    Conan

    “In law, I believe, no domestic set-up can surpass or equal the statutory entitlements accorded to the married.”

    Why not ?

  12.  

    It’s due to having a written constitution.

  13.  

    Sorry, I’d read that initially as opinion.

    Choosing not to be married it put my nose out
    a bit.

    Sorry Conan and thanks Bock.

  14.  

    I should amend that. It’s due to having a constitution written by an old fascist.

  15.  

    There is a worrying trend emerging from the pro-Lisbon politicians who are criticising the RC Church for not coming out in favour of the Treaty.

    I thought the whole idea was to keep the Church out of politics and busy about their father’s business, which business, I might add, is currently bankrupt and could keep them occupied full time.

    I wonder what would happen if it were shown that same-sex partnerships tended to put more in the collection box?

    We would quickly see whether there are any limits to the cynicism of some of these people.

    Having said that, there are loads of religious who have joined up for the right reasons and dedicated their lives to the betterment of others. There should be some way of honouring these while pointing the finger at the other crowd. Fair’s fair.

    There was a very interesting article in the Irish Times the other day about psychological testing of candidates for the priesthood by a chap who has been involved in the testing.

  16.  

    I am amazed that nobody seems to have twigged the fact that unasked for legal liabillities will be foisted on cohabiting couples up and down the country without their express consent and nobody bats an eyelid at these provisions in the bill see discussion here:

    http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29177

  17.  

    Does anyone recall, when Sean Brady, was a so called ..relatively eh..young Canon Lawyer, of eh..35, when he swore children, who had been raped, by the paedophile priest, Brendan Smith, to secrecy, pouting Hellfire, and damnation.I often wonder if the fucker, has a conscience, and how he sleeps, at night.Probably ironing his long frocks, just in case he is defrocked.Those fuckers should keep their celibate opinions, to themselves.

Leave a Reply