583 Cardinal Keith O'Brien cf Julian Assange - targeted by Gay & Feminist lobbies

Cardinal Keith O'Brien cf Julian Assange - targeted by Gay & Feminist
lobbies

Newsletter published on 26-2-2013

(1) Cardinal Keith O'Brien cf Julian Assange - targeted by Gay &
Feminist lobbies
(2) Cardinal Keith O'Brien called Gay Marriage a "grotesque subversion",
awarded "Bigot of the Year"
(3) Four men made accusations about Cardinal O’Brien to the Pope’s
diplomatic representative in Britain
(4) Resignation forced by Pope, to protect Conclave from controversy
(5) Barclays and Coutts say they will stop funding Gay Rights awards
unless 'Bigot of the Year' category withdrawn
(6) Gay rights group Stonewall says it will retain 'Bigot of the Year' award
(7) Equality & Rights Commission says Opponents of gay marriage won't
face discrimination
(8) Germany outlaws bestiality, but "animal lovers" group protests

(1) Cardinal Keith O'Brien cf Julian Assange - targeted by Gay &
Feminist lobbies
- Peter Myers, February 26, 2013

After Cardinal Keith O'Brien branded Gay Marriage a "grotesque
subversion", the Gay rights group Stonewall named him "Bigot of the Year".

Yet he was forced to resign because four priests (one ex) had complained
(over 30 years) that he had touched them "inappropriately", implying
homosexual intent.

Despite this being an ostensibly private matter, it would appear that
these four men had collaborated, in accusations they made to the Pope’s
diplomatic representative in Britain.

They must also have contacted The Observer, which published the
allegations - for otherwise, how did the accusations become public?

Either they were victims of O'Brien, or they are conspirators against him.

Yet they have been allowed to stay anonymous. The Observer hid their names.

The "Rape" accusations against Julian Assange come to mind. The media
hid the names of the two accusers, until Israel Shamir publicly named them.

Did those two women have an agenda? Yes they did. Why should they have
been allowed to hide behind anonymity?

O'Brien was about to retire, anyway - in just a few weeks. The only
purpose in going public with these allegations can have been to stop him
taking part in the Conclave to select the next pope.

O'Brien had called for an African or Asian Pope to be selected, and for
priests to be allowed to marry.

These four men could be a clandestine part of the Gay lobby within the
Church, punishing O'Brien from the inside while Stonewall targets him
from the outside.

I am hopeful that an African Pope will be appointed. If so, it will be
the end of the Gay/Feminist campaign against the Church.

The churches of Africa have no time for the "Liberal" subversives within
the Church in the West. That movement is surely Communist-inspired - the
Feminist and Gay movements were led by Trotskyists and Anarchists from
the 1960s on.

The Gay campaign made no headway under Pope John Paul II, because he had
such charisma. Nothing stuck.

But Ratzinger was a Theologian, not a man of the people.

The African candidates for Pope seem to be more like John Paul II.

It might be objected that I am showing a callous disregard for the
victims of sexual abuse. Well, I do admit that a tiny minority of Church
leaders have done such things. But let me also pay tribute to the great
majority who reared people like me.

The point is that there is an organized camaign, which itself is not
subject to scrutiny - just as the assusers of Assange were allowed
anonymity until Shamir broke it.

It's time to turn the torch on that campaign.

(2) Cardinal Keith O'Brien called Gay Marriage a "grotesque subversion",
awarded "Bigot of the Year"

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/24/17075615-top-british-cardinal-accused-of-inappropriate-behavior-rejects-allegations

Top British cardinal accused of 'inappropriate behavior,' rejects
allegations

By Mohammed Abbas, Reuters

LONDON — Britain's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, a cardinal
expected to take part in the conclave to choose the next pope, rejected
allegations on Sunday that he had behaved in an "inappropriate" way with
other priests.
The Observer newspaper said Cardinal Keith O'Brien, 74, the archbishop
of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, who is
known for outspoken views on homosexuality, had been reported to the
Vatican over allegations of inappropriate behavior stretching back 30 years.

"Cardinal O'Brien contests these claims and is taking legal advice," a
spokesman for the cardinal said.

Three priests and a former priest, from a Scottish diocese, have
complained to the Vatican and demanded O'Brien's immediate resignation,
the newspaper said, adding that they wanted the conclave to choose Pope
Benedict's successor to be "clean".

The Observer gave little detail on the allegations but said one
complainant had said O'Brien made an inappropriate approach after night
prayers. Another priest complained of unwanted behavior by O'Brien after
a late-night drinking session.

Last week, O'Brien advocated allowing Catholic priests to marry as many
found it difficult to cope with celibacy.

His comments last year labeling gay marriage a "grotesque subversion"
landed him with a "Bigot of the Year" award from gay rights group Stonewall.

The Catholic Church's handling of the sexual abuse of children and
others by priests has dogged the papacy of Benedict, who is due to step
down on Thursday after becoming the first pope in centuries to choose to
resign.
The next leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics will be chosen by
117 cardinals in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel.

Almost 10,000 people have signed a petition urging a U.S. cardinal not
to take part in selecting the next pope, saying to do so would insult
victims of sexual abuse by priests committed while he was Archbishop of
Los Angeles from 1985 to 2011.

(3) Four men made accusations about Cardinal O’Brien to the Pope’s
diplomatic representative in Britain

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/world/europe/top-british-cardinal-resigns-after-accusations-of-inappropriate-acts.html?_r=0

British Cardinal Resigns; Accused of ‘Inappropriate Acts’

By RACHEL DONADIO and JOHN F. BURNS

Published: February 25, 2013

VATICAN CITY — Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic cleric announced his
resignation on Monday, a day after being accused of “inappropriate acts”
with priests, saying he would not attend the conclave to elect a new pope.

The cleric, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, said that he had submitted his
resignation months ago, and that the Vatican said Pope Benedict XVI had
accepted it on Feb. 18. However, the timing of the announcement — a day
after news reports of alleged abuse appeared in Britain — suggested that
the Vatican had encouraged the cardinal to stay away from the conclave. ...

Cardinal O’Brien’s announcement came a day after The Observer reported
that four men had made complaints to the pope’s diplomatic
representative in Britain, Antonio Mennini, the week before Pope
Benedict XVI announced on Feb. 11 that he would be stepping down as of
Feb. 28.

The Observer said that the accusations, which dated back to the 1980s,
had been forwarded to the Vatican.

Last week, Cardinal O’Brien drew different headlines, telling the BBC
that the next pope should consider abandoning the church’s insistence on
priestly celibacy, and suggesting that it might be time for the papal
conclave to choose a pontiff from Africa or Asia, where church
membership has been growing even as it has fallen across Europe and
North America. ...

Rachel Donadio reported from Rome and John F. Burns from London. Alan
Cowell contributed reporting from London and Laurie Goodstein from New York.

(4) Resignation forced by Pope, to protect Conclave from controversy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/cardinal-keith-obrien-resigns

Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigns amid claims of inappropriate behaviour

Pope accepts resignation of UK's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, who
has been accused of 'inappropriate acts'

Severin Carrell and Sam Jones

guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 February 2013 11.57 GMT

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the UK's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, has
resigned as the head of the Scottish Catholic church after being accused
of "inappropriate acts" towards fellow priests.

News that Pope Benedict had accepted the cardinal's resignation as
archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh came after the Observer disclosed
a series of allegations by three priests and one former priest.

O'Brien has denied the allegations and had been expected to continue in
his post as archbishop until mid-March, when he was due to retire at age 75.

However, in a statement released by the church on Monday, it emerged
that the pope had accepted O'Brien's resignation a week ago, on 18 February.

In the statement, O'Brien apologised to any people he had let down and
said he did not want the controversy to overshadow the election of the
new pope.

"I have valued the opportunity of serving the people of Scotland and
overseas in various ways since becoming a priest," he said. "Looking
back over my years of ministry, for any good I have been able to do, I
thank God. For any failures, I apologise to all whom I have offended."

His resignation means the cardinal will not now take part in the
election of a successor to Pope Benedict. This will leave Britain
unrepresented in the process, as O'Brien was the only cardinal in the
British Catholic churches with a vote in the conclave. ...

Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, said he had learned of the
cardinal's decision with "the greatest sadness".

He said: "In all of my dealings with the cardinal, he has been a
considerate and thoughtful leader of the Catholic church in Scotland,
stalwart in his faith but constructive in his approach.

"The hugely successful visit of Pope Benedict in 2010 was a highlight of
his cardinalship and symbolised the key role of the Catholic church in
Scottish society."

Salmond said it would be a "great pity if a lifetime of positive work
was lost from comment in the circumstances of his resignation". He
added: "None of us know the outcome of the investigation into the claims
made against him but I have found him to be a good man for his church
and country." ...

O'Brien has been an outspoken critic of gay rights, denouncing plans for
the legalisation of same-sex marriage as "harmful to the physical,
mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved". He was named bigot of
the year in 2012 by the gay rights group Stonewall because of his
central role in opposing gay marriage laws in Scotland.

Colin Macfarlane, the director of Stonewall Scotland, called for a full
inquiry into the claims against the former cardinal. "We trust that
there will now be a full investigation into the serious allegations made
against ex-cardinal O'Brien," Macfarlane said. "We hope that his
successor will show a little more Christian charity towards openly gay
people than the former cardinal did himself."

(5) Barclays and Coutts say they will stop funding Gay Rights awards
unless 'Bigot of the Year' category withdrawn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9643124/Barclays-and-Coutts-threaten-to-pull-out-of-gay-rights-awards-unless-bigot-of-the-year-category-withdrawn.html

Barclays and Coutts threaten to pull out of gay rights awards unless
'bigot of the year' category withdrawn

Two of Britain's best known banks have threatened to withdraw
sponsorship from the Stonewall awards unless the gay campaign group
drops the controversial "Bigot of the Year" category at the annual dinner.

By Richard Alleyne

1:14PM GMT 30 Oct 2012

The move comes as the ceremony designed to champion diversity and open
mindedness was itself accused of "intolerance and intimidation" by
including the award.

Christian groups are particularly upset about Cardinal Keith O’Brien,
Britain’s most senior Catholic, being nominated for the prize for his
opposition to gay marriage.

Now Barclays and the royal bankers Coutts have said they will withdraw
their support unless the category is dropped.

Coutts, which has withdrawn its delegation from the awards on Thursday,
said: “Coutts are sponsors only of Stonewall's Writer of the Year Award
and have in no way been involved in the judging or support of the Bigot
of the Year category.

"We have advised Stonewall that we will be withdrawing our support of
the awards unless they remove this category.”

Mark McLane, Managing Director and Head of Global Diversity and
Inclusion at Barclays, said: “I have recently been made aware of the
inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards.

"Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award
category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall
that should they decide to continue with this category we will not
support this event in the future.

"To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary
to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly
positively focused event.”

Cardinal O’Brien is said to have made comments about same-sex couples
which some found to be deeply offensive.

He is said to have stated that same-sex relationships are ‘harmful to
the physical, mental and spiritual well-being" and compared equal
marriage to slavery and child abuse.

Under his leadership the Catholic Church in Scotland has pledged to
"declare war" on marriage equality and committed an additional £100,000
for the fight.

The former leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance, Alan Craig was also
nominated.

Mr Craig caused outrage by comparing gay equality advocates to the
invading forces of Nazi Germany and dubbing them the "Gaystapo".

Simon Lokodo, the Ugandan Ethics and Integrity Minister, is also a
contender.

He branded gay people "sick" and said they were seeking to "pervert"
children.

Lord Maginnis, another nominee, made headlines by referring to same-sex
marriage as "unnatural and deviant behaviour".

He said questioning if marriage equality would "mean that every deviant
practice has to be accommodated? Will the next thing be that we
legislate for some sort of bestiality?"

The Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, the Archbishop of Glasgow, caused
outrage in July when he claimed that the late David Cairns MP had died
due to the fact he was gay and that a "conspiracy of silence" prevented
people from stating that being gay directly led to premature death.

His words caused deep offence to the former minister’s partner, Dermot
Kehoe, who has said that the comments have added to his "grief and pain".

(6) Gay rights group Stonewall says it will retain 'Bigot of the Year' award

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/02/stonewall-unrepentant-cardinal-bigot-award

Stonewall unapologetic over Scottish cardinal's 'bigot of the year' award

Gay rights group says it will retain category in next year's awards,
after criticism from politicians and Catholic church

Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent

The Guardian, Friday 2 November 2012 17.33 GMT

{photo} Cardinal Keith O'Brien has described gay marriage as a
'grotesque subversion' of the traditions of marriage and likened it to
slavery. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
{end}

The gay rights group Stonewall has refused to back down after it
provoked a furious reaction by naming the Scottish Catholic leader
Cardinal Keith O'Brien as its "bigot of the year".

The Catholic church condemned the award as an attempt by Stonewall to
vilify its critics. Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, and the
Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, urged the campaign group to drop
the category entirely, arguing that branding people "bigots" was
counterproductive.

Davidson, who won Stonewall's politician of the year award at the same
event on Thursday night, said equalities campaigners ought to be seen to
use "generosity, tolerance and love" to promote their cause.

Salmond said Stonewall was "clearly wrong" to describe the cardinal as a
bigot, and added: "Personal insults are not conducive to a proper and
dignified debate on the important issue of equality in Scotland."

Two of Stonewall's most prominent award sponsors, the banks Barclay and
Coutts, have threatened to withdraw their support if the bigot category
is not dropped at next year's event.

But Stonewall said its 10,000 members had voted "decisively" to give the
title to O'Brien after he described gay marriage as a "grotesque
subversion" of the traditions of marriage and likened it to slavery. The
cardinal called it an "aberration" and claimed it might clear the way
for polygamous marriages and would cause "further degeneration of
society into immorality".

A spokesman for the group said it was "incredibly important" that it
challenged people who made "gratuitously offensive comments" about gay
people. The bigot award "is definitely going to happen next year. No
doubt about it," he said.

The Scottish Catholic church urged the Scottish government and both
banks to stop funding Stonewall and its awards. "Stonewall and others
have promoted terms like 'bigot' and 'homophobe' relentlessly in order
to intimidate and vilify anyone who dares oppose their agenda," a church
spokesman said.

"Numerous public bodies give sizeable financial donations to Stonewall,
including the Scottish government. These intolerant and intimidatory
tactics should mean that this funding is now questioned and examined as
a matter of urgency."

Scottish ministers have committed £300,000 for a three-year project run
by Stonewall Scotland to improve equalities policies for lesbian and gay
people in the public sector.

Salmond has resisted pressure from the cardinal to drop plans to
legalise same-sex marriage, and the new equalities measures are due to
be passed by the Scottish parliament next year.

The Scottish government rejected the church's demands to stop funding
Stonewall. It said it remained committed to the equalities project, but
added: "Using language that is disrespectful or discourteous is
potentially counterproductive to the cause of equality." ...

Previous winners of the bigot award include the Daily Mail columnists
Melanie Philips and Jan Moir; the Tory MP Chris Grayling; and Iris
Robinson, a DUP member of the Northern Ireland assembly.

(7) Equality & Rights Commission says Opponents of gay marriage won't
face discrimination

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/02/opponents-gay-marriage-wont-face-discrimination-says-equality-commission

Opponents of gay marriage won't face discrimination, says Equality
Commission

The advice, given to MPs today, also refutes suggestions that unwilling
clergy might be forced by human rights law to marry same-sex couples.

BY NELSON JONES PUBLISHED 14 FEBRUARY 2013 15:39

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has dismissed claims that
legalising same-sex marriage will lead to discrimination against people
who continue to believe that marriage can only be between a man and a
woman. The advice, given to MPs today, also refutes suggestions that
unwilling clergy might be forced by human rights law to marry same-sex
couples. Any such attempt, it concludes, would be "extremely likely to
fail."

Parliament is beginning its detailed consideration of the bill today.

Ever since the government announced its intention to change the law,
opponents have argued that people who take a more traditional view of
marriage will face discrimination in the workplace, even potentially
losing their jobs for expressing their beliefs.

A letter organised last month on behalf of Catholic priests and bishops
(more than a thousand signed it) compared the prospect to the situation
their church faced after the Reformation, when Catholics were legally
barred from holding many official positions. The move, the priests
predicted, "will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the
ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools,
charitable institutions or places of worship. It is meaningless to argue
that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage
in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the
opposite view at the same time."

Similar fears have been expressed by other campaigners. The
Conservative MP Edward Leigh introduced a Ten Minute Rule bill at the
end of January calling for explicit protection to be given to opponents
of same-sex weddings in churches - by making the exclusively
heterosexual view of marriage a "protected characteristic" under the
2010 Equality Act. Without such protection, he warned, "Army and NHS
chaplains who preach in favour of traditional marriage in their own
churches on Sunday could find themselves in trouble," while "tens of
thousands" of teachers could face disciplinary action.

Today's advice from the EHRC, written by a leading QC, suggests that
these fears are misplaced. When it comes to religious ceremonies, it
notes that "freedom to manifest religion or belief" is enshrined in the
Human Rights Act, as well as in Article 9 of the European Convention.
The principle is not absolute, since a government can interfere with it
in the wider public good, but in this case the government has said very
clearly that it wishes to uphold the right of religious objection.
Churches and other religious bodies will be able to opt-in to performing
same-sex marriages, but that will be entirely their choice.

The EHRC also sees "no reason why employees of all kinds will not remain
free to express their views about same-sex marriage." They, too, would
enjoy the full protection of Article 9. Furthermore, the Equality Act
itself protects employees from direct and indirect discrimination, and
also unfair dismissal, because of their religion or belief. Employees
should not be sanctioned for disagreeing with the new law, since it
"would be unlawful for an employer to discipline or sack an employee for
this. This is the case for all employees, whether in the public or
private sector, including teachers and chaplains." Nor would be anyone
be required to promote same-sex marriage as part of their job.

The guidance concludes that there "is sufficient protection for
individuals who hold the religious or philosophical belief that marriage
should only be between a man and a woman." The only exception the EHRC
can see is that registrars might be required to officiate at same-sex
weddings as part of their public duty: but as the recent case of Lillian
Ladele showed, this is already true of civil partnership ceremonies.

Campaigners against the Bill will probably dismiss this advice as
speculative. Seemingly contradictory advice from the human rights
lawyer Aidan O'Neill was publicised last month in the Telegraph.
Nevertheless, such a clear statement from the EHRC is likely to carry
weight, since it has a statutory duty to scrutinise legislation and to
issue formal advice to employers. The advice on same-sex marriage comes
on the day that the Commission also circulates new guidance on the wider
question of the expression of religion and belief in the workplace,
which it hopes will avoid conflict and costly court cases.

It's also worth noting that Aidan Smith, who was demoted by Trafford
Housing Trust after expressing an opinion about same-sex marriage on
Facebook, won his case at the High Court last year.

If there was a danger of over-zealous employers interpreting the new law
as requiring staff to suppress their opposition to same-sex marriage,
today's strong advice from the EHRC makes such a scenario much less likely.

(8) Germany outlaws bestiality, but "animal lovers" group protests

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2012/11/what-germany-outlawing-bestiality-tells-us-about-changing-attitudes-sex

What Germany outlawing bestiality tells us about changing attitudes to sex

The change in law reflects the contemporary view of sex as something
that can only properly be enjoyed on a basis of equality.

BY NELSON JONES PUBLISHED 28 NOVEMBER 2012 11:22

It's surprising to find that sex with animals is not currently illegal
in Germany. Nor is this the result of some historic oversight: it used
to be a crime, but the law was changed in 1969, at the same time as sex
between adult men was decriminalised. Supposedly there are even "erotic
zoos", which people "can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to
goats." That's according to the Daily Mail, though. A possibly more
reliable report quotes Madeleine Martin, an animal protection officer
from Hesse, who refers to the existence of "animal brothels".

Martin, who voiced her concerns in February, claimed that the sexual
abuse of animals was "increasing rapidly". She blamed the internet, as
is traditional in such cases, and called for the government to
re-introduce the ancient crime of bestiality. And indeed the German
Parliament is now debating plans to make sex with animals punishable
with a fine of up to €25,000. The same penalty would also apply to those
"pimping out" their pets to zoophiles.

But Germany's animal lovers aren't giving up without a fight. Michael
Kiok, chairman of zoophile pressure group ZETA (just take a moment to
register the fact that such an organisation actually exists) told
Spiegel that sex with pets wasn't demeaning to the animals - "We see
animals as partners and not as a means of gratification". He claimed
that the real abuse took place in the farming industry, where for
example it was seen as acceptable to ram electric rods into boars'
rectums to make them ejaculate.

Kiok's pet dog, Cassie, was unable to tell her side of the story.

Germany is certainly unusual, both in modern Europe and indeed
historically, in not having a prohibition on human-animal sex. Until
2003 it was punishable by life imprisonment in Britain. The maximum
sentence is now two years. There have been moves to tighten the law in
several countries, including the Netherlands where bestiality was banned
in 2008 amid concerns that the country had become "a magnet for
perversities". It still remains legal in Denmark, however, at least for
the time being. ...