Cardinal O’Brien hysterically accused of whipping up prejuidice for defending marriage

Harriet Harman, Labour Deputy Leader, accused Cardinal Keith O’Brien of ‘whipping up prejuidice’ because of his defence of marriage in the Sunday Telegraph:

‘We have had prejudice, discrimination and homophobia for hundreds of years. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t want anybody to feel that this is a licence for whipping up prejudice.’

Margot James, the first openly lesbian Conservative MP, accused Cardnal O’Brien of using  ”apocalyptic language”:

“I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk. I think that the government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. It is a purely civil matter. I think this sort of scaremongering is what it is, it is just scaremongering.”

Here are excerpts from Cardinal O’Brien’s article in The Sunday Telegraph so you can judge the basis of this hysterical reaction:

‘Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?

In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.

Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.

This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.

In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.

Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant. No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.

Protect the Pope comment:  

This is the low behaviour of people who don’t want different voices to be heard in the national ‘debate’ on marriage. This the political manipulation of people who attempt to shut down reason by shouting emotional slogans.

In 19 84 the main tool of control used by the Ministry of Truth was smothering the ‘prols’ with a diet of shallow emotions so they couldn’t think. Welcome to the 2012 of Harman an James.

The day Cardinal O’Brien’s article came out the BBC ran wall-to-wall attacks on him and the Catholic Church, with no counter argument or defence of the cardinal’s position. This again shows the lie behind the BBC’s claim to be ‘balanced, and impartial’ in its news reporting. Maybe they think that running an obscure series on Catholics on BBC 4 counts as balance to their partisan attacks on their news shows.

12 comments to Cardinal O’Brien hysterically accused of whipping up prejuidice for defending marriage

  • georgem

    The sentimentality and hysteria of the same sex lobby is legendary. It’s a case of shouting loudly enough to drown opposition.
    Its organising ability for such a small minority is impressive. It uses every modern communication weapon in its armoury.
    In the face of this, all is silence from our E&W bishops. That is the real scandal.

  • Gurn

    Much respect to the Cardinal for speaking in such frank terms for so many people in this nation, coalition for marriage petition has reached 100,000 signatures.

  • Spesalvi23

    Cardinal Ratzinger when asked if bad press bugged him:
    “on the contrary, when there’s no bad press I have to search my conscience or wonder if I’ve neglected my work.”

    Good for Card. O’Brien to get that well deserved bad press. ;-)

    It will never change… It makes it even more important to emphasize solid education in faith.
    Most journalists are so incredibly clueless about matters of faith and religion, it’s rather horrific.

    Say good bye to free speech, free thought and opinion if things keep moving as they are.

  • Veritas

    A taste of things to come from the pro same-sex lobby……

    The Catholic Herald reported on 23 February 2012 that the Education Secretary Michael Gove has defended the right of Catholic schools to promote Church teaching on homosexuality following a complaint from Mr Brendan Barber (who is the General Secretary of the Trade Union Congress (TUC)- and also Director of the Court of the Bank of England).

    Mr Barber wrote to the Education Secretary in December expressing objections to the distribution of a booklet on sexuality promoting Catholic teaching throughout Catholic schools in Lancashire.

    One would have thought that with very high levels of unemplyment, Mr Barber (who went to a Catholic School himself) would have better things to do than to attack the Catholic Church’s teaching on morality in Catholic Schools.

    But I’m sure he has his own reasons.

  • Raymond

    Over at the Guardian the same vile anti-Catholic comments get accepted in the comments fields .Catholic voices get pre-moderated or silenced altogether .One person even called the Church the ‘Church of rape’ – would comments about jews,gays or muslims be allowed like this ? Please complain and report these abuses .The Guardian really is the Der Strurmer of our time .

    • Karla

      The Guardian should be renamed ‘The atheist times.’ The paper is vile in its hatred of Catholicism, and not only that, but during the sex abuse crisis it made up a lot of lies, false allegations, that were debunked – I recommend no Catholic or anyone of good will buy that paper. It is good enough only for a paper shredder.

  • Karla

    Some people like Harriet Harman love to throw around the homophobia card. Some people do not seem to understand the definition of ‘homophobia’ which means fear or contempt for lesbians or gay men. Just because somebody does not marriage to be redefined does not mean they are homophobes.

    Well done Cardinal O’brien for standing up for the proper definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. A government has no power to redefine marriage.

  • asrajit

    Well done Cardinal O’Brien. I fear it is too late to change matters. We need a really organized response as with the 1967 Abortion Act.

  • Celia

    Re the BBC: when I tried to post a comment on their website relating to the story last Sunday, I was informed that the item was (already!) closed for comment, despite only about 200 comments-uniformly hostile as far as I could see.

  • Kinga Grzeczynska LLB

    His Eminence, Keith Cardinal O’Brien spoke well with clarity and gusto. He spoke the Truth and said what he thought to be truthful and in accordance with The Holy Trinity.

    This weekend we will hear a letter from His Grace Vincent Nichols and His Grace Peter Smith of Southwark.

    May I suggest that you listen to the words of the two Archbishops, who have spoken in written word, on behalf of the Conference of Bishops in England and Wales.
    The debate about the contents of the letter has already started, since the letter is on the web.
    This debate about the attempt to redefine marriage is crucial.

    We are apparently in a consultation period about this topic.

    I wonder who is consulting who?

    On one hand the Government is trying to give us the opportunity of a democratic consultation. On the other hand, why do I seriously think that the decision has already been made by Government and The Prime Minister will implement this redefination of marriage at all costs.

    I wonder what my grandchildren will say about their school friends having two Mummies or two Daddies who are married?
    I wonder how sad God must be to see this idiotic redefinition of marriage being considered?

    His Eminence is much more gentle than I am. Cardinal O’ Brien called this ‘madness’. I call this idiotic.

    Reap as you shall sow. But don’t think that I will agree with it. I will speak out against these proposals and I urge men and women of good will to sign the petition against this.

    Kinga Grzeczynska

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>