Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 28 of 28rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Duncer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
baz - no-one forced to admit that they have abused their position, to say nothing of that position being a senior cleric in a religious order which vocifourously hates homosexulaity, in order to act as a sexual abuser with impunity - is likely to be happy about it!
andy-hughes

You continue to accuse him of being a 'sexual abuser', do you know this for certain, were his sexual partners forced into taking part in acts which they did not volunteer agree to?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that homosexual acts are defined as sexual abuse?

"which vocifourously hates homosexulaity"

but has an awful lot of members (pun intended !) who seem to like practising it
AOG - "Or perhaps you are suggesting that homosexual acts are defined as sexual abuse?" - we are both too old and experiened for you to lob that bait into the pool, or for me to rise to it!

No, I do not know for sure that he is confirmed as an abuser, but his belated 'apology' and effective dismissal do tend to indicate that all is not as it should be - innocent people do not lose their positions and apologise for their conduct if not required. But I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilkty, so i will retract that part of my post.

If his partners volutarily entered into sexual acts with him, that again is not the issue.

The issue is one of galactic-proportioned hypocracy - to live and work as a cardinal in the Catholic church, which preaches that homosexuality is a sin against God, and to speak out personally against it, while conducting homosexual acts behind closed doors is cant of the highest order.

This man should be throughly ashamed for lying to his church, his colleagues, and his congregation, and he should never hold a position of authority over others again.
The former priest claimed Cardinal O'Brien made an inappropriate approach to him in 1980, after night prayers, when he was a seminarian at St Andrew's College, Drygrange.
A serving priest said he was living in a parish when he was visited by Cardinal O'Brien and inappropriate contact took place between them.
A second serving priest alleged dealing with what he described as "unwanted behaviour" by the cardinal in the 1980s after some late-night drinking.
A third serving priest claimed the cardinal used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact.
The above is from the BBC's website, doesn't sound like mutual agreement to me.
AOG = Admission of Guilt
AOG = Anotheoldgit

I'm confused.
AOG "Perhaps we should also question whether or not it is safe for two homosexual men to adopt male children?"
Again (you've already been asked) ...WHY?
//A third serving priest claimed the cardinal used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact.//

Kneeling down to say prayers was always asking for trouble!

21 to 28 of 28rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Admission Of Guilt?

Answer Question >>