So, The Irish Times on Saturday reported that a gaggle of self-appointed defenders of the Roman Catholic faith have decided to try to halt the Civil Partnership Bill currently before the houses of the Oireachtas. (Doesn’t the Catholic church already have Opus Dei and the Iona Institute to do that sort of thing for them already? Anyway..)

The groups behind the petition are known as the Catholic League and Priests for Life. (These groups are actually U.S.-based organisations, and are presumably trying to establish outposts in little, Cat-lick Oireland.)

According to Anthony Murphy of that Catholic League and the Catholic Voice newspaper, civil partnerships are a “pseudo-marriage for same sex couples.” Fair point, actually. He also says, “This [civil partnership legislation] is deeply immoral and a crime against the natural law. It is the duty of every Catholic to oppose it.”

(It seems to me that Anthony Murphy comprises the entirety of the Catholic League in Ireland and the Catholic Voice publication. I’d love to know how many colleagues he has in each.)

Priest Sylvester Mann, of Priests for Life Ireland, also describes the Bill as “immoral” and states, “The concluding words of the Code of Canon Law remind us that the ‘care of souls is the supreme law of the Church’.”

(Any other priests in Priests for Life Ireland? Do drop us a line!)

Let’s just take a moment to reflect on their words quoted above. In particular, the words “moral” and “immoral,” “natural law,” “care of souls,” and similar jargon.

This is the terminology used to describe their concerns over legal recognition of committed, consenting adults.

I wonder what language they would use to describe the systematic rape and other sexual abuse, as well as other forms of physical abuse, of children over decades and internationally? Such abuse – including what can only be called torture by anyone’s standards – has taken place in numerous countries, across every continent on the planet.

Or how would they describe the members of the hierarchy – both in each country and in the Vatican – who protected the abusers, and who actively obstructed justice where any investigations were actually initiated by the state authorities?

How would they judge the priest in Listowel who in a court of law, at a sentencing hearing for an already convicted rapist, gave a statement – presumably sworn on the Bible – in support of the guilty man?

What would be their viewpoint be of those in the Vatican – clerical and lay – who were involved in pimping and using men for sexual exploitation; these men included men who were vulnerable due to their immigration status in the Italian state, and trainee priests.

The Roman Catholic church (and their defenders) have absolutely no basis to judge anyone whatsoever: while they may feel that they are standing on some divine moral high-ground, they need to realise fairly quickly that all they’re doing is crawling around in their own depraved filth.

Popularity: 1% [?]

No related posts.