My goodness, the Cardinal certainly doesn't believe in mincing his words, as Massie
reports in today's Telegraph:
Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, himself a Catholic, made a speech intended to lure back the lost sheep and was promptly smacked down by Cardinal O'Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland. The Cardinal has also told Iain Gray, Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, that when the Pope visits next year, he hopes His Holiness will "really give you hell for what you have done to our country over 10 years, demeaning family and married life".
Evidently, the churches hold politicians responsible for the mess we are in.
Well, of course, so do most of us, even if we wouldn't go as far as Cardinal O'Brien, who blames this Government for "drug and alcohol-fuelled promiscuity, hedonism, vandalism, outright nihilism and the undermining of chastity and modesty".
I've had a verbal tussle
here with Tony on Cardinal O'Brien's pronouncements and political affiliations. Although I stand by my opinion that once faith leaders enter the political forum then their views should be up to the same rigorous scrutiny as anybody's else, it's got to be said Murphy made a bad mistake playing the religion card last week. He's paid for it amongst the target area of the electorate that he was aiming it. Problem is for the Cardinal, as Massie goes onto imply, that target area no longer has the power to swing elections, on the mainland anyroads:
For better or worse, Britain is not a Christian country in the sense it once was. The moral code of a book compiled more than 2,000 years ago in Palestine no longer governs our behaviour. We live in a pick-and-choose society. Some may choose Bible-based religion, some lukewarm religion, some, perhaps a majority, no religion. Politicians recognise this and speak and act accordingly.
6 comments:
>>Problem is for the Cardinal, as Massie goes onto imply, that target area no longer has the power to swing elections, on the mainland anyroads:<<
The mainland hmmmm. Not only is that erroneous but so is the premise, ie that Scottish Catholic Cardinals or Bishops ever did have the power to swing elections, or more to the point...........ever tried.
Scottish Catholics are notoriously touchy about their clergy telling them who to vote for.
On the damage Murph has sustained, I am not too sure how long this will last. Let's just say with a compliant meedia sleeping dugs will be allowed to lie.
Have you noticed the self-imposed media blackout type thingy goin on in Scotland right now over Stephen Purcell. It has all the hallmarks of a sensational scandal. Of course it concerns labour corruption and various other seedy goings on thus the media have put on 3 pairs of kid gloves.
Where are the Tories when you need them?
The target area is wider than Cardinal O'Brien's direct flock, but encompasses conservative (small c) Christians generally and I think, unlike the case in the US, although they are well-organised their power to influence results is minimal.
Re the self-imposed media blackout, much easier at a local level where the provincial hacks and politicians have a much more cosy and mutual beneficial relationship.
One reason also, I'm sure, here why the Adams story never got going (despite Slugger's best efforts!!) and why two other *alleged* scandals hovering around are unlikely to see the light of day. Not logical for the journos to bite the only hands capable of feeding them.
There has been a Scottish Christian party for years with a mixed race minister standing. I think he even stood at Glasgow N. East. Small c or not I don't think Christianity runs in Scottish politics and as far as I know the Catholic Church has not seriously ever tried to interfere.
I know people around Jim Coleman the guy who has temporarily replaced SP. He doesn't want the job and they are saying nothing about the scandal apart from "There is more to come!"
When I said bring on Tories I checked out the Express newspaper(Scottish edition) who are very much for the Tories and they scandalised me compared to the ever so compliant Scottish rags. I suppose at times like these it exposes how deep the corruption goes with Labour and the newspapers, and it needs an essentially English paper to tell us something approaching the truth.
>>why the Adams story never got going (despite Slugger's best efforts!!)<<
Lol! They really have it in for SF, especially MMcG and Gerry Adams. I'm not a big fan of Gerry's but felt I had to point out the literary 'tarring and feathering' going on.
They really have it in for SF, especially MMcG and Gerry Adams. I'm not a big fan of Gerry's but felt I had to point out the literary 'tarring and feathering' going on.
I think Mick overestimated the power of Slugger on that one and thought he could single-handed pull the story into the mainstream.
My opinions on Gerry are not a secret but I didn't feel comfortable covering that episode (same feeling with Iris' affair, if not the financial shenanigans).
I think Gerry and Peter Robinson exploited that kind of uneasiness which many people felt to bury serious accompagnying issues which shouldn't be buried. But there you go, you can only live with your own conscience, you can't determine how other peoples' affects them.
Not surprisingly, I believe in the separation of Church and State, (the ludicrous continuance of the establishment of the Church Of England notwithstanding - and yes, I was baptised as CofE).
But that goes both ways.
If the Church (Roman Catholic and others) are not to get involved in politics then neither should Government involve themselves in the deep and genuine beliefs of the Church.
Take Gay Adoption. I myself have no problem with this whatsoever - it is far more important that children have loving personal guardians than the cold, distant, impersonal and uncaring State with its appalling record.
So if Gays want to adopt they only have to visit their local Municipal Adoption Agency.
But that was not good enough for the ideological bigots in the Labour Party along with the elements of the Gay Community who quite frankly you wouldn't want to be adopting. They weren't interested in what was best for the children. No, they insisted that Churches follow their ideological rules rather than follow Church teaching.
And so the Roman Catholic Adoption Agencies with a record second to none had to close.
Everything the Labour Party touches, they destroy.
david
How the hell did we actually get to agree on something?
Now now don't start checking to see if the missue is injecting you with 'sensible Jock serum' in your sleep ;¬)
I remember 10 years or so being involved in a debate with people who thought the church of Scotland were wrong to want people of faith working for them in their care homes etc. I couldn't believe that some thought that essentially religious organisations had no right to require people to be of faith to work for them.
Post a Comment