Thread: Stooshie in Scottish RCC Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030708
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
we seem to have a right stooshie in the RCC in Scotland.
A parish priest in Lanarkshire is facing a Church penal judicial process after the publication of a book written by him detailing alleged homosexual bullying in the Scottish RCC.
He has been suspended from parish ministry. His suspension has been followed by a mass (both senses) walkout by parishioners in support of their priest. The Bishop is now threatening to close the church involved.
The cry of the parishioners is that the church (or the Church?) belongs to them, not the Bishop. How protestant of them.
Seems to be an own goal by the hierarchy. Is this evidence of the laity finally rising up against the clerical establishment? Will there be a new Reformation?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
It might be useful if you could find a link so that people can read the background and then discuss it.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
Apologies.
www.heraldscotland.com/revolt-in-the-pews-sums-up-the-challenge-faced-by-the-church.22731667
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Action. Reaction.
The idea that there will be a second Reformation over the RC hierarchy (allegedly) not tackling the problem of homosexuality in seminaries is ... amusing.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I've found it on
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19707
And there are links there to the BBC and a couple of newspaper articles.
Basically, this chap self-published in the net a book that said that Cardinal O'Brien was but the tip of a lavender iceberg. And now he's being punished and his congregation don't like it.
I suspect the RCC will do all it can to hush things up and Fr Despard will be faced with either staying and keeping quiet or going and then being hounded with accusations of falsehood and/or mental instability.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
And the idea that this thread has life in it without entering Dead Horse territory or becoming libellious is... challenging. Contributors are invited to rise to the challenge.
/hosting
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
Let's not discuss Fr Despard's allegations against any individual(s)(yawn) or the issue of homosexuality (more yawns). Its the reaction of the laity to apparent heavy-handedness by the hierarchy which is interesting
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Agreed.
Even the press reported it that way with the lady who made the statement pointing out that the congregation was The Church, not the the hierarchy.
I'm sure Pope Francis will be watching this with interest.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
For those as puzzled by the word "stooshie" as I was, it appears it could also be caused a "tizzy".
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
What, precisely, is this guy claiming is going on in seminaries?
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
No, stooshie is a bigger thing than tizzy. More like a stramash.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What, precisely, is this guy claiming is going on in seminaries?
I think his claims are largely, or even totally, historical. But I haven't read his musings.
This thread, though, is about the hierarchy's attempt to punish him for speaking out, and (more importantly) the laity's response (albeit localised, so far) to the hierarchy.
Have not all recent pronouncements by the Church and the present/previous pope, emphasised the need to be open about abuse in the Church? If no priest can speak out without fear of penal process against him by the Church hierarchy, who will speak out on the clerical side?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Ah, found the accusations in one of the linked articles.
quote:
No longer, if St John Ogilvie's sets a trend. Months ago the parish priest Father Matthew Despard published a book on Amazon. He told how he had received unwanted homosexual approaches during his training for the priesthood. Those, like him, who rejected these advances were bullied, he alleged.
What vile allegations. Don't let his fight against the RC hierarchy blind you to the fact that he's spouting homophobic rubbish.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Zach82
The chap is Fr Matthew Despard and he's the parish priest in High Blantyre, Scotland.
Earlier this year he published a book, Priesthood in Crisis : One Priest's Experience, initally for Kindle only.
The book gives an in-depth view of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland (which, you may know, lost its senior Cardinal earlier this year because of something very murky to do with sexuality and bullying) and among the claims is that there is, or has been, a "lavender" mafia within the Scots RCC that has been unchallenged for decades, and that it spreads from the seminaries right to the top of the hierarchy. He himself received homosexual advances in seminary and when he rejected them he was bullied - at least that is the claim.
The Archbishop of Motherwell resigned earlier this year but he said no action would be taken against Despard. Now an acting bishop has just turned up and suspended Fr Despard overnight and his congregation basically told the bishop where he should get off.
Another PR disaster for the Scots church which can ill-afford any more scandal.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Zach
So good to know that even from Boston you can instantly see the right-and-wrong of the Despard affair...
The last Cardinal primus of Scotland was relieved of his duties over inappropriate sexual conduct and bullying.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
All the way from Boston I can tell that, far from forming a lavender mafia, homosexuals in Scottish Roman Catholic seminaries live in terror that they will be found out. If they even admit to themselves they are gay in the first place.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Zach82
The chap is Fr Matthew Despard and he's the parish priest in High Blantyre, Scotland.
Earlier this year he published a book, Priesthood in Crisis : One Priest's Experience, initally for Kindle only.
The book gives an in-depth view of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland (which, you may know, lost its senior Cardinal earlier this year because of something very murky to do with sexuality and bullying) and among the claims is that there is, or has been, a "lavender" mafia within the Scots RCC that has been unchallenged for decades, and that it spreads from the seminaries right to the top of the hierarchy. He himself received homosexual advances in seminary and when he rejected them he was bullied - at least that is the claim.
The Archbishop of Motherwell resigned earlier this year but he said no action would be taken against Despard. Now an acting bishop has just turned up and suspended Fr Despard overnight and his congregation basically told the bishop where he should get off.
Another PR disaster for the Scots church which can ill-afford any more scandal.
Traditionalists, for a long time now, have been claiming that this has been going on liberal seminaries. It's something I heard quite often back when I was a trad RC.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I think the Gay bullying/Gay mafia in seminaries story can be criticized from 3 angles:
1. There are liberals in the Church who want to loosen Church doctrine on homosexuality and include priests and seminarians who ostracize those priests-in-training who don't accept their sexual advances. (These seminary stories are usually from a few decades ago, in the decades following Vatican II but before the rightward shift of JPII and BXVI had fully been implemented.)
2. There are closeted gay conservatives in the Church who want to have their sexual fun with no one telling on them but want the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular, to remain unchanged. They take advantage of young seminarians and bully them when they don't reciprocate or go public. This is the main Liberal critique of Cardinal O'Brien and refers to more recent (but still past, as in the 80's and 90's) events in particular places (like Scotland).
3. This isn't confined to seminaries and has more to do with the so-called "Gay Mafia" scandal in the Vatican. This criticism doesn't have a particular conservative or liberal bent but rather is aimed at the corruption of a circle of priests and prelates who are gay and sexually active, promote their own members, enrich themselves through shady financial dealings, hide their tracks through cover-ups, and oppose any reform to the Byzantine, glacially-paced, and often incompetent Vatican bureaucracy. I am not sure if this applies to Scottish seminaries but I have often heard criticisms of closeted gay priests living it up with Church money and promoting members of their own (gay) boy's club applied to a wide number of Catholic dioceses.
However, all 3 of these criticisms, although they have certain bases in fact (Cardinal O'Brien, certain recent gay scandals in the Vatican), are largely based on rumors among people wanting to advance their own ideolgical agenda.
It is true though, that men (and women) with power and the ability to cover it up will frequently try to sexually coerce others, male or female, and bully them if they refuse. Thus the need for more transparency and accountability at all levels of the Church (and every human institution).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traditionalists, for a long time now, have been claiming that this has been going on liberal seminaries. It's something I heard quite often back when I was a trad RC.
You mean... traditionalists didn't like liberal seminaries and spread nasty smears about them? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm shocked, shocked.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Are there really Catholic "Liberal Seminaries" in Scotland? In what way are they liberal? I confess my knowledge of such matters is close to zero, hence the question.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
All the way from Boston I can tell that, far from forming a lavender mafia, homosexuals in Scottish Roman Catholic seminaries live in terror that they will be found out. If they even admit to themselves they are gay in the first place.
Zach, I think you're coming late to this story. The current stooshie (or "uproar" in English) is the latest development in a sorry tale that has rumbled on since February. Some context is here.
This thread started off in Purgatory, because the current twist isn't about homosexuality, but about the Catholic church's response to disquiet in the pews. However, it is almost impossible to discuss this without reference to the allegations of the future cardinal, Keith O'Brien, pressurising seminarians into homosexual activity.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traditionalists, for a long time now, have been claiming that this has been going on liberal seminaries. It's something I heard quite often back when I was a trad RC.
You mean... traditionalists didn't like liberal seminaries and spread nasty smears about them? I'm shocked, shocked.
For my part, I don't doubt such rumours or at least most of them.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Are there really Catholic "Liberal Seminaries" in Scotland? In what way are they liberal? I confess my knowledge of such matters is close to zero, hence the question.
For a traditionalist, virtually any V2/NO seminary.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traditionalists, for a long time now, have been claiming that this has been going on liberal seminaries. It's something I heard quite often back when I was a trad RC.
You mean... traditionalists didn't like liberal seminaries and spread nasty smears about them? I'm shocked, shocked.
For my part, I don't doubt such rumours or at least most of them.
Right. Conservatives are angels.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traditionalists, for a long time now, have been claiming that this has been going on liberal seminaries. It's something I heard quite often back when I was a trad RC.
You mean... traditionalists didn't like liberal seminaries and spread nasty smears about them? I'm shocked, shocked.
For my part, I don't doubt such rumours or at least most of them.
Right. Conservatives are angels.
Now you're readsing too much into my post. All I said was that I believe there to be some truth in them. The RC Trad movement has its owm problems, of course, but they are of a completely different nature and a subject for a different thread.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I suspect the RCC will do all it can to hush things up and Fr Despard will be faced with either staying and keeping quiet or going and then being hounded with accusations of falsehood and/or mental instability.
Yes, that was certainly the modus operandi when that furore blew up at the Birmingham Oratory a few years back about what their own press release admitted to be an "imprudent" "intense but physically chaste friendship" between the then-Provost and an unnamed young man who was reported to have been rejected as a candidate for the priesthood. The two priests and a lay brother who mentioned it – and in this case, they mentioned their concerns to the Vatican, rather than publishing a book about it – ended up being sent on silent retreat and then two of them reassigned to churches in South Africa and Canada (the news trail went silent on the third, allegedly because he wouldn't go along with being transported to the colonies for not having done anything wrong).
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
All the way from Boston I can tell that, far from forming a lavender mafia, homosexuals in Scottish Roman Catholic seminaries live in terror that they will be found out. If they even admit to themselves they are gay in the first place.
Zach, I think you're coming late to this story. The current stooshie (or "uproar" in English) is the latest development in a sorry tale that has rumbled on since February. Some context is here.
This thread started off in Purgatory, because the current twist isn't about homosexuality, but about the Catholic church's response to disquiet in the pews. However, it is almost impossible to discuss this without reference to the allegations of the future cardinal, Keith O'Brien, pressurising seminarians into homosexual activity.
I know nothing of the allegations against Keith O'Brien, or the the feelings in the pews about the case. That is all very regrettable I am sure. I am merely looking objectively at the cause of this particular case of disquiet, and have found it to be in all likelihood a bunch of homophobic nonsense.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The cause of the current disquiet is that a whistle-blowing priest is being silenced by his bishop and his congregation are in a stooshie ("outraged") by this.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
in all likelihood a bunch of homophobic nonsense.
That ship has sailed. Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigned last May.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The cause of the current disquiet is that a whistle-blowing priest is being silenced by his bishop and his congregation are in a stooshie ("outraged") by this.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
in all likelihood a bunch of homophobic nonsense.
That ship has sailed. Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigned last May.
This particular priest, around which the stooshie done stooshed, has claimed that Roman Catholic seminaries are run by "Lavender mafias" that bully straight students into their ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
gay lifestyle. Which, purely objectively, no matter if the allegations against Keith O'Brien are true, is more likely utter malarky than not.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
The two priests and a lay brother who mentioned it – and in this case, they mentioned their concerns to the Vatican, rather than publishing a book about it
In this case, the priests went public because they had raised their concerns with the Vatican, indeed had provided sworn statements, but felt that the Vatican was ignoring them. See here.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The cause of the current disquiet is that a whistle-blowing priest is being silenced by his bishop and his congregation are in a stooshie ("outraged") by this.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
in all likelihood a bunch of homophobic nonsense.
That ship has sailed. Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigned last May.
I'm not completely convinced the ship is out of the harbour. This could certainly be one too many straws, but the reaction during the molestation scandals were shift and weave; this is more iron fist.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I cannot understand why, in this particular circumstance, the reaction of the Church hierarchy is at issue. How should the Church react to this priest's behavior?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot understand why, in this particular circumstance, the reaction of the Church hierarchy is at issue. How should the Church react to this priest's behavior?
Listen? Stop protecting abusive bastards? Fix it's fucking problems?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot understand why, in this particular circumstance, the reaction of the Church hierarchy is at issue. How should the Church react to this priest's behavior?
Listen? Stop protecting abusive bastards? Fix it's fucking problems?
Listen to people protecting a man making homophobic slurs? It seems to me that disciplining this guy IS fixing a problem.
[ 20. November 2013, 17:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Zach,
The whole point this priest is alleging in his book is that seminarians were sexually propositioned by their superiors and then bullied when they refused. The "mafia" language refers to an alleged cabal of male clerics having sex with other male clerics (often taking advantage of the younger ones) and using their influence to cover up their tracks and silence anyone who protested. With different words to describe it, anyone would agree it's wrong, whether or not it is true. (Note: Cardinal O'Brien's accusers said he did basically exatly what this priest said was endemic, and Cardinal O'Brien did admit to sexual relationships with priests (brought on by the drinking, a la Rob Ford), prior to his seclusion to wherever he is nowadays.)
The phrasing used ("lavender Mafia," etc) for the scandal is not unoffensive, but is typical for older Europeans unaccustomed to the PC filters young Americans like me navigate easily.
There are homophobic and heterosexist overtones in just about any discussion of the sexual improprieties of Catholic clergy - of course pedophilia, sexual assault, bullying and the covering up thereof are all very very evil and must be stopped yesterday but we (including my gay self) often let our anti-LGBT prejudices show in the way we talk about collared-man-on-collared-man shenanigans, consensual or not.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
OK. The argument therefore seems to be, since a leader of the Church has been accused of sexual misconduct, it must be obviously the case that seminaries are run by a shadowy gay conspiracy that persecutes the poor straight students.
Really?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot understand why, in this particular circumstance, the reaction of the Church hierarchy is at issue. How should the Church react to this priest's behavior?
Listen? Stop protecting abusive bastards? Fix it's fucking problems?
Listen to people protecting a man making homophobic slurs? It seems to me that disciplining this guy IS fixing a problem.
I defend homophobes at the same rate I defend racists.
The RCC has no credibility in these matters. They do not properly investigate or fix problems. They quash dissent. While I've no doubts about abuse of power in the RCC, i do have doubts about the extents described in that particular book.
The solution is to attempt to discover the truth, not stifle discussion.
Am I suspicious that reactions of parishioners here seem a bit more severe than during the kiddie-fiddler scandal? Yes.
Does this paint the church as a hero to the gay community? Hardly.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You think there needs to be a discussion about whether straight students in seminaries are persecuted by a gay conspiracy?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
OK. The argument therefore seems to be, since a leader of the Church has been accused of sexual misconduct, it must be obviously the case that seminaries are run by a shadowy gay conspiracy that persecutes the poor straight students.
Really?
No. The argument is the church is guilty of covering up sexual misconduct and protecting the offenders then quashing evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You think there needs to be a discussion about whether straight students in seminaries are persecuted by a gay conspiracy?
I think the RCC cannot afford to fail to investigate and invite others along for the investigation.
[ 20. November 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Just as a matter of interest, who here has actually read this piece of work? Or are we all relying on third-hand comments and our own pre-suppositions. Hands up...
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
I (the OPer) admitted upthread that I haven't read the piece of work in question.
But, as is clear elsewhere, I have in vain sought a debate on the reaction of the laity to the reaction of the hierarchy.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I haven't read it. I'm just going on what I've read in the quality Scottish newspapers, and heard on BBC Radio Scotland.
However, I understand that he is one of four priests making broadly similar accusations; all four provided the Vatican with sworn statements and it was when there was no response to those that the story was broken to the press. I'm not clear at what point Fr Despard decided that writing a book was the way forward.
I, too, am more interested in the current position of the hierarchy and the irate congregation.
[ 20. November 2013, 18:34: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
OK. The argument therefore seems to be, since a leader of the Church has been accused of sexual misconduct, it must be obviously the case that seminaries are run by a shadowy gay conspiracy that persecutes the poor straight students.
Really?
No. The argument is the church is guilty of covering up sexual misconduct and protecting the offenders then quashing evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You think there needs to be a discussion about whether straight students in seminaries are persecuted by a gay conspiracy?
I think the RCC cannot afford to fail to investigate and invite others along for the investigation.
I've been perfectly clear that I am talking about this particular case only. If you think it is possible that the Catholic Church is covering something up in this case, you are indeed asserting that it is possible that there is a lavender conspiracy. That's the allegation here.
I just think that, if we're going to get heated about Catholic white-washing, we should do it in a case that is less obviously absurd. Don't let your vendetta against the Roman Catholic Church blind you to the realities of this situation.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
It's not "obviously absurd" to Fr Despard's congregation. Two services have been affected by members of the congregation walking out in protest.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's not "obviously absurd" to Fr Despard's congregation. Two services have been affected by members of the congregation walking out in protest.
Indeed, I find it very dispiriting that so many people would be ready to believe in a gay conspiracy, and I find it regrettable that they would let their feelings about the hierarchy blind them to how dubious these stories are.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
It's also not "obviously absurd" to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who resigned last May.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's also not "obviously absurd" to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who resigned last May.
Didn't he resign because allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him? That is a far cry from resigning because of complicity in a lavender conspiracy.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
OK. The argument therefore seems to be, since a leader of the Church has been accused of sexual misconduct, it must be obviously the case that seminaries are run by a shadowy gay conspiracy that persecutes the poor straight students.
Really?
No. The argument is the church is guilty of covering up sexual misconduct and protecting the offenders then quashing evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You think there needs to be a discussion about whether straight students in seminaries are persecuted by a gay conspiracy?
I think the RCC cannot afford to fail to investigate and invite others along for the investigation.
I've been perfectly clear that I am talking about this particular case only. If you think it is possible that the Catholic Church is covering something up in this case, you are indeed asserting that it is possible that there is a lavender conspiracy. That's the allegation here.
I just think that, if we're going to get heated about Catholic white-washing, we should do it in a case that is less obviously absurd. Don't let your vendetta against the Roman Catholic Church blind you to the realities of this situation.
Absurd how? Because you don't like what he's saying? That's exactly the reason why there has been such a problem in the past and exactly why the alkegations should be properly investigated.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The point is, that the Catholic church appears to be trying to silence whistle-blowers such as Fr Despard. If his claims are "obviously absurd" then demonstrate that they are "obviously absurd."
Archbishop Mario Conti's allegation that Cardinal Keith O'Brien actively blocked investigation into historic sexual abuse by clergy only adds to the disquiet felt be congregations.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'm completely at sea. What conspiracy?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If you really believe it possible that straight students in Catholic seminaries are persecuted by a shadowy gay conspiracy, then by all means carry on pitching about the injustice done in this matter.
But considering the place of homosexuals in the Roman Catholic Church, I personally consider the possibility quite preposterous.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm completely at sea. What conspiracy?
The conspiracy first referred to in this thread by Zach82 at 19.16, and further referred to by Zach82 in five subsequent posts.
As far as I can see, no other poster has referred to this "conspiracy."
Indeed, it is possible that the reason no other poster has mentioned this "conspiracy" is because no other poster thinks this thread is about a "conspiracy."
Personally, I think it's about a stooshie at High Blantyre, but what would I know?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's also not "obviously absurd" to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who resigned last May.
Didn't he resign because allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him? That is a far cry from resigning because of complicity in a lavender conspiracy.
When Cardinal O'Brien resigned, the allegations that he faced not only included a long-term relationship with another priest but also various incidents of groping, propositioning, or flat out having sex with young priests and seminarians. He used his influence to coerce, flatter, manipulate, frighten, etc., those that he wanted sexually.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate
This article is interesting because the accusers of O'Brien deny they are part of any gay cabal looking to shame the Cardinal for his opposition to gay marriage.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/24/keith-o-brien-accusers-deny-gay-cabal-claims
The old articles are about O'Brien using his influence to get the sex he wanted, but not so much about a group of powerful priests in one seminary or spread throughout Scotland abusing power to get sex and cover it up.
So unless there is new evidence, there is no basis to any accusation of a conspiracy.
When sexual abuse of minors has been endemic to an orphanage or boarding school, though, it has often been orchestrated by a ring of priests or brothers who have bullied/smooth talked/bribed, etc, their victims and their families into silence. I still need to read more about these new allegations to see if there is any proof of them.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm completely at sea. What conspiracy?
The conspiracy first referred to in this thread by Zach82 at 19.16, and further referred to by Zach82 in five subsequent posts.
As far as I can see, no other poster has referred to this "conspiracy."
Indeed, it is possible that the reason no other poster has mentioned this "conspiracy" is because no other poster thinks this thread is about a "conspiracy."
Personally, I think it's about a stooshie at High Blantyre, but what would I know?
The "lavender mafia" accusations are in the linked articles that explain what the stooshie is about. What do you know? Clearly knowledge of the particulars of this case is too much to ask.
[ 20. November 2013, 20:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just think that, if we're going to get heated about Catholic white-washing, we should do it in a case that is less obviously absurd.
At this point, what is less absurd? That abusers not only failed to be disciplined, they were moved to where they could abuse again? That abuse victims were hushed, rather than supported?
The RCC, as an organisation, has so failed in the recent past that they are under the burden of proof in nearly any case.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Don't let your vendetta against the Roman Catholic Church blind you to the realities of this situation.
I do not have an anti-RCC vendetta. I do not have a vendetta against any Christian sect.
I do think the RCC failed more greatly than many other organisations, but I attribute this to their size and structure. Their failure on such a colossal scale does anger me in that other orgaisations can hide behind this scandal and not address their problems more fully.
Speaking of this case, the RCC should investigate it openly and clearly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
But, as is clear elsewhere, I have in vain sought a debate on the reaction of the laity to the reaction of the hierarchy.
I feel your pain, I have had OPs go in directions I attempted to steer clear of. In this case, I think it near impossible and that the reaction may well be subject based.
In general, I think it natural, but wrong, for an organisation to value itself rather than its avowed purpose. I do not think the RCC is alone in this.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
At this point, what is less absurd? That abusers not only failed to be disciplined, they were moved to where they could abuse again? That abuse victims were hushed, rather than supported?
The RCC, as an organisation, has so failed in the recent past that they are under the burden of proof in nearly any case.
I'm just going with the option of considering the merits of this particular case instead of assuming that the Catholic Church is guilty.
The fact that the particulars of this case seem entirely irrelevant to your judgements seems rather off to me, but I would think so.
[ 20. November 2013, 20:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The simple point is they should investigate everything.
Absurd? I would have thought the scope of the sexual abuse scandal absurd had I read a book about it prior to its revelation.
Is the book which caused this current debacle absurd? I think at least parts of it might be, but it is incumbent upon the RCC to show that it isn't.
Their heavy-handed attempts to quash the accuser do not show them in a good light.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The simple point is they should investigate everything.
Absurd? I would have thought the scope of the sexual abuse scandal absurd had I read a book about it prior to its revelation.
Is the book which caused this current debacle absurd? I think at least parts of it might be, but it is incumbent upon the RCC to show that it isn't.
Their heavy-handed attempts to quash the accuser do not show them in a good light.
I would bet my biscuits that they did check into the story, and seeing as the accusation is that the Roman Catholic Church is run by a gay conspiracy, they found that the accusations were silly.
The reaction seems heavy handed because we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church and not a liberal democracy. The light that shows the hierarchy in might be terribly unfortunate for those who expect Churches to be run like liberal democracies, but like I said, let's save our ire for actual cases of injustice.
[ 20. November 2013, 21:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Fr. Despard's quotes in the Daily Record articles do seem to have a "blame the gays" explanation for the problems in the Church tinge to them. So I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy other than hearsay and he does seem a bit homophobic.
So yes, claims of a gay mafia controlling the seminaries or the Church, even just in Scotland, seem overblown, bigoted, and stupid.
Still, I would be surprised if men, gay, bi, or straight, didn't bully other men into having sex with them in just about any situation where men are forced to live together and don't access to sanctioned relationships with women or other men.
I'm not opposed to clerical celibacy - but without transparency and efforts to maintain a culture of openness and respect, seminaries (especially in decades past) were/are likely to resemble prisons in their sexual violence, although maybe not to the same degree.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Fr. Despard's quotes in the Daily Record articles do seem to have a "blame the gays" explanation for the problems in the Church tinge to them. So I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy other than hearsay and he does seem a bit homophobic.
So yes, claims of a gay mafia controlling the seminaries or the Church, even just in Scotland, seem overblown, bigoted, and stupid.
Still, I would be surprised if men, gay, bi, or straight, didn't bully other men into having sex with them in just about any situation where men are forced to live together and don't access to sanctioned relationships with women or other men.
I'm not opposed to clerical celibacy - but without transparency and efforts to maintain a culture of openness and respect, seminaries (especially in decades past) were/are likely to resemble prisons in their sexual violence, although maybe not to the same degree.
I don't know how they run seminaries in Scotland, by they don't lock the seminarians in here in the US. If a seminarian really wants sex, all he has to do is go out and find some.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Fr. Despard's quotes in the Daily Record articles do seem to have a "blame the gays" explanation for the problems in the Church tinge to them. So I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy other than hearsay and he does seem a bit homophobic.
So yes, claims of a gay mafia controlling the seminaries or the Church, even just in Scotland, seem overblown, bigoted, and stupid.
Still, I would be surprised if men, gay, bi, or straight, didn't bully other men into having sex with them in just about any situation where men are forced to live together and don't access to sanctioned relationships with women or other men.
I'm not opposed to clerical celibacy - but without transparency and efforts to maintain a culture of openness and respect, seminaries (especially in decades past) were/are likely to resemble prisons in their sexual violence, although maybe not to the same degree.
I don't know how they run seminaries in Scotland, by they don't lock the seminarians in here in the US. If a seminarian really wants sex, all he has to do is go out and find some.
That's true.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That completely ignores the dynamic of such processes. Completely ignore the reality of what actually happens in cloistered environments.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That completely ignores the dynamic of such processes. Completely ignore the reality of what actually happens in cloistered environments.
You're right, it DOES ignore the reality of cloistered environments... because Roman Catholic seminaries are not cloistered environments.
But hey, I'm just speaking as a student at a Roman Catholic seminary. I'm no expert.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Cloistered in the sense of protected, isolated. To state a person free to leave is safe from abuse denies much of the sexual abuse scandal. Denies sexual abuse in the workplace and anywhere else. Denies much about the basics of human interaction.
Not understanding what you are on about regardless. If there exist no problem, what matter an investigation? It could do only good at best, change no opinions at worst.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Do you actually have any experience with Roman Catholic seminaries, lilBuddha?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you actually have any experience with Roman Catholic seminaries, lilBuddha?
Actually, yes. Several friends over the years, at least two who went on to become priests, one who left and married. Lost track of the others.
To what point this inquiry?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you actually have any experience with Roman Catholic seminaries, lilBuddha?
Actually, yes. Several friends over the years, at least two who went on to become priests, one who left and married. Lost track of the others.
To what point this inquiry?
You don't seem to know, or ever really care, about the details of this case, and now I am wondering if your objections to my characterization of Roman Catholic seminaries have any basis.
Did these friends of yours intimate to you that they lived in fear of the homosexual sexual predators at their seminary?
[ 21. November 2013, 03:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Would not matter if they had or had not. I am not implying a conspiracy homosexual or otherwise.
If you wish to address the issue of why
an investigation and revelation of its contents would be a harmful thing, I will address it.
If you wish to discus how pressure may be applied in a seemingly free environment, I will gladly reply.
If you wish to imply that I am claiming an evil conspiracy, we can take this conversation elsewhere.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Would not matter if they had or had not. I am not implying a conspiracy homosexual or otherwise.
If you wish to address the issue of why
an investigation and revelation of its contents would be a harmful thing, I will address it.
If you wish to discus how pressure may be applied in a seemingly free environment, I will gladly reply.
If you wish to imply that I am claiming an evil conspiracy, we can take this conversation elsewhere.
I don't have to imply it, that is the allegation this priest is making. You may refuse to look at these allegations too closely out of some misguided belief that every allegation against the Roman Catholic Church is likely to be true, but you can't call me to hell for being willing to look at them with a critical eye.
Well, you can, I suppose.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Your reading appears to be a skewed and stilted.
- I do not believe every allegation made against the RCC.
- I've already mentioned by doubts as to the complete accuracy of the statements made in the referenced book.
If I called you to Hell, it would have naught to do your defense of the RCC.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If you agree that these allegations are most likely a pile of steaming, homophobic crap, then what is the issue here? That the Roman Catholic Church is not a liberal democracy that wants to have a grand public dialogue with a hateful twit like this priest? I sincerely can't understand what you envision happening here. The Roman Catholic Church makes no pretense of existing to facilitate dialogue. Most Christian denominations don't.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Then they'll be happy to continue losing North America and Europe. No church is its hierarchy. They are responsible to their people, especially in temporal matters.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You still aren't answering what you envision happening here. You want a reasoned dialogue with shrill homophobia?
The Church has no obligation to give such a person a pulpit, and I can't really believe you would want to give him a pulpit. The Church's responsibility is to proclaim the salvation of God in Jesus Christ, and is indeed accountable to God alone in that mission.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Zach82, I will only play Sisyphus for so long,this is simply not worth the effort.
My apologies to the thread for my part in this ridiculousness.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm not sure if this is worth the bother.
Zach, the newspapers and BBC ran many stories on the allegations (which were of sexual bullying and co-ercion in a seminary during the 1980s and 1990s) at the time they were made.
That was last February.
These allegations were made by four priests, who went public because the Vatican had shown no interest in investigating the claims, which they had previously made directly to the Vatican. Perhaps the Vatican failed to investigate because they thought the claims were patently absurd, who knows?
The priest who was accused of having perpetrated the sexual bullying, Keith O' Brien, had, since the 1980s / 1990s risen to become a Cardinal. He was, in fact, our most senior Roman Catholic.
Clearly, the allegations were not entirely absurd, because Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigned.
That was last May.
Archbishop Mario Conti then revealed that Cardinal O'Brien had blocked investigations into historic allegations of child sexual abuse within the Church. Story here.
That was in August.
So we have what appears to be a growing story; February - the Vatican won't investigate allegations against its Cardinal; May - Cardinal resigns but no clear indication that the Vatican is going to investigate; August - this appears to be part of a larger policy of non-investigation.
Simultaneously, another story surfaced. This concerned the sexual abuse of boys at a Benedictine boarding school. Story here
This is separate from from the O'Brien issue, but linked in public minds by the words "cover-up" Allegedly, three successive headmasters had covered up what was happening at Fort Augustus.
November - action at last! But wait - the action is to suspend one of the four original whistle-blowers! Instant stooshie! Baffled and angry church-goers walk out of Mass.
To quote the OP
quote:
The cry of the parishioners is that the church (or the Church?) belongs to them, not the Bishop. How protestant of them.
Seems to be an own goal by the hierarchy. Is this evidence of the laity finally rising up against the clerical establishment? Will there be a new Reformation?
Personally, as a non-Roman Catholic, this does appear to be a spectacular own goal by the hierarchy.
I was part of a congregation which saw apparently "absurd" claims made against our minister, for which he was subsequently jailed. Our time scale was - initial allegations made to the police in September; court case the following May. The Church of Scotland played a secondary role IIRC, as the victims went to the police in the first place.
ISTM that the Catholic hierarchy need to be seen to be investigating something, soon.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Zach, I may have spotted the problem here.
Scotland has two quality newspapers, the Herald and the the Scotsman, plus, of course, all the UK quality papers. The OP linked to the Herald.
IngoB linked to two articles in the Scottish Daily Record. Those are the only two links I didn't read, because when I clicked and saw they were from the Record, I didn't bother reading any further.
The Record has form for slanting its stories for maximum titillation. It's also got form for being homophobic. The Record will have spun this story for maximum "gay conspiracy" impact.
I couldn't work out where you were getting the conspiracy theory from, but now I see you were getting them from the Record link.
I apologise.
Can we assume the story in the Record says as much about the Record's traditionally homophobic stance as it does about the story in the OP and move on, away from "gay conspiracy" stories?
What does the stooshie in High Blantyre imply for the future of the RCC in Scotland?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
This is separate from from the O'Brien issue, but linked in public minds by the words "cover-up" Allegedly, three successive headmasters had covered up what was happening at Fort Augustus.
They are separate. Period.
quote:
Zach, I may have spotted the problem here.
Wow, after only two pages you actually look at the only information I've been given?
Check that, there was a fourth link I didn't read, which linked to these two reputable news sources of yours. I am such a prat for only reading three articles on the issue.
The BBC articles (which are linked in the fourth freakin link on this thread) are only more vague on the details of the book, but more explicit on the judicial process this schmuck is undergoing. Meanwhile, where this becomes unfair for this guy remains a complete mystery.
Because... the sex abuse scandals I guess?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
There are no Catholic seminaries in Scotland at the moment.The only active seminary is the Scots college in Rome.
Father Despard is not a priest of the archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh.Four priests of that archdiocese sent a complaint to Rome about Cardinal O'Brien,their bishop.Pope Benedict's resignation and the fact that O'Brien would vote at the conclave impelled them to make this public.
Both Cardinal O'Brien and the Bishop of Motherwell,Joseph Devine, had submitted resignat
ions to the pope due to age.We know about the pope's acceptance of O'Brien's resignation before he himself left office.
After the publication of Despard's book,his own bishop's resignation was accepted.The book has been withdrawn as I understand there are threats of legal action about unsubstantiated statements and innuendo.
A new archbishop has been appointed for St Andrews and Edinburgh,but the diocese of Motherwell has no bishop nor has the diocese of
Paisley ,since the translation of the bishop to Glasgow about 18 months ago.The bishop of Dunkeld
has been ailing for years but is still in post.
The bishop of Galloway has been involved very peripherally in a scandal in a former Benedictine monastery which involved mainly two Australian monks about 30 years ago.
There is a new bishop of Aberdeen,a very spiritual man,who was the Abbot of Pluscarden and then there is bishop Toal of Argyll and the Isles, who was appointed apostolic administrator of Motherwell ( a sort of locum moderator or interim rector)during the period of sede vacante.
The previous bishop of Motherwell was unwilling to deal with the allegations made by Father Despard and it has fallen to bishop Toal to investigate.The process was perhaps initiated in an unfortunate way.There has been claim and counterclaim about who was and who was not willing to meet privately.A weeping Father Despard
has claimed that he did not want all this to be done in a blaze of publicity.The parishioners of St John Ogilvie's were undoubtedly upset and some may not have heard that no judgement has been made on Father Despard .As happens often in such cases the person in the middle is removed from post (without prejudice) during the investigation.
He still remains a priest in good standing in the diocese.
The 'stooshie' was caused by the temporary 'hei
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Thank you for the objective account matters, Forthview.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
quote:
You don't seem to know, or ever really care, about the details of this case
quote:
You may refuse to look at these allegations too closely out of some misguided belief that every allegation against the Roman Catholic Church is likely to be true
Zach82,
your attacks on others have become too personal on this thread. Please don't make any more posts in this vein which insult other posters. If you want to continue along these lines, the Hell board is your option. The same goes for anyone who wants to respond to Zach in kind.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0