Could allegations be revenge for opposition to homosexual “marriage?”

The resignation of the RC Cardinal Keith O’ Brien is as curious as it is disturbing.

This senior Roman Catholic churchman was very outspoken in his opposition to “gay” marriage and just as outspoken in his support of real marriage i.e  the exclusive union of one man and one woman for life. The word “exclusive” means that” twos company, three’s a crowd”  i.e  adultery is forbidden (by God,) and “exclusive” in the sense that  certain people cannot marry (regardless of any law that says otherwise) and homosexuals cannot marry, neither can heterosexual siblings marry.

Keith O’ Brien’s accusers waited many years to come forward, and we have to wonder why!

It is interesting to note that the Cardinal has had a very public, high profile position in the last year or so as he has courageously opposed the homosexual assault on real marriage and, for his labours, he “won” Stonewall’s “Bigot of the Year” award in 2012. Stonewall are a radical, militant and very dangerous homosexual organisation.

We are not Roman Catholics, and, concerning the allegations made against Keith O’ Brien, only he and his accusers and Almighty God know the truth. However, he is innocent until proven guilty and we think it is sad and wrong to name him but not his accusers!

We also consider the possibility of  a conspiracy by malicious people to silence him and to punish him for opposing “gay” marriage.

We will not be led by the nose in this case (or any other,) by the liberal media who often act as judge and jury in cases, before the facts are known and it is not  unknown for some in the media to report as true that which is false.

We know of an individual who this night is behind bars and we are as sure as we can be that he is there because of false accusations, therefore, in the case of the Cardinal, we are those who “hold our peace.”

13 thoughts on “Could allegations be revenge for opposition to homosexual “marriage?”

  1. I am a Scot and religious tho not a catholic. I have been following OBrien’s career for many years and I do not think it is Obrien’s views on homosexuality that did for him. Here’s why:

    Before becoming cardinal, O’Brien was known as an outspoken liberal that had earned him the ire of the Roman Curia. Ratzinger blocked him from being a cardinal and promoted Winning above him despite him being the senior cleric in Scotland. When Winning died Rome had no choice but to promote him but they made a condition of him becoming cardinal that he read out a bizarre declaration that he would follow church teaching against gay rights, feminism etc etc. Since then he has kept his word and banged the conservative drum.

    Until, that is Ratzinger resigns. Thinking he is free to act, O’Brien gives an interview flagging up his support of a married priesthood and then wham bam thank you mam, a scandal breaks the next day and the Pope “resigns” him 24 hours later in the fastest ever papal intervention for clerical misdeeds that have not even been investigated yet. And the allegation itself? Issued by the papal nuncio to the Observer newspaper with no names attached and the weird use of unclarified “inappropriate acts” looks much more like a smear tactic than any real accusation. I know people heavily involved in the Catholic Church in Scotland who are totally mystified by the allegations and have said to me that for four priests to have been molested by O’Brien 30years ago it is surprising that they had told nobody until now. Further, if their concern was to stop an abuser going to the conclave, why did they not bat an eye in 2005 at the last conclave? Or in 2003 when he became cardinal. Heck they could have stopped him becoming archbishop in the late eighties when the events were still fresh.

    I am seriously hoping he goes rogue now and spills the beans about what is going on. Was quite touched that he apologised to those he has offended (the gay community?) but he needs to go further now.

    • This is a very disturbing matter. You appear to be saying that there may have been a conspiracy to destroy Keith O’Brien’s reputation, but not involving the “gay” lobby, rather the Roman Catholic Church itself! It appears from your comment that the Cardinal had liberal views in the past. Does this mean he is not opposed to same-sex marriage after all? If you know certain facts about the man, surely some homosexuals knew also, why then did he receive the “Bigot of the year” “award” from Stonewall. Curiouser and Curiouser!

  2. He received the bigot of the year award from English stonewall but even so, I don’t think most ordinary people know the ins and outs of Catholic Church politics. It really is extremely unlikely that Stonewall, or any gay rights organisation would bother with such a naked smear as they would have almost nothing to gain from it. As to O’Brien’s views on equal marriage. He probably is against it but I think the over the top extremity of his stated views was very much playing to the gallery of the Vatican court and catholic conservatives in Scotland who have always regarded him with distrust.

    BTW this wouldn’t be the first time that a liberal cardinal has faced underhand action from within the church.

  3. BTW, the stonewall awards are voted on by a panel of the great and the good (gay and straight sympathetic people in the public eye). None of the people on the panel were either Scottish or Catholic and their source for O’Briens views were the lurid headlines in Pinknews and the national press rather than more nuanced articles in the catholic press.

    • You use the words “it appears” which means you are not sure and neither are we and neither are the press. Only Almighty God, the Cardinal and his accusers know the truth. Our question was a legitimate one and still stands.

      • I see you failed to print my question given that the person has admitted to it there is no confusion that the Cardinal did indeed act in a sexually inappropriate way. Does your question still stand ???

      • Golfieni. Susan also refuses to print the text of the disgraed cardinals statement! It looks like the truth does not have its conventional meaning on this blog. It would appear that the truth means only those things that suit Ms Whites purposes, even If they are mearly opinion or speculation!

      • @ Rob

        You wrote, “It looks like the truth does not have its conventional meaning on this blog. It would appear that the truth means only those things that suit Ms Whites purposes, even If they are merely opinion or speculation!”

        “The truth shall set you free” is only the name of this blog. (It appears to be a deliberate quote from the bible. “To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’” [John 8:32, NIV])

        There have been plenty enough situations in life, in which it would have been far more appropriate to warn somebody that, “The truth could get you jailed.”

        • Mr.Allman,
          We did not choose our blog name simply because we needed a name. We are Evangelical Christians and our Biblical faith underlies everything we say and believe. We want people to know the truth about every subject we write about because the truth is liberating and no lie is of the truth. You mentioned that you had stood alone against the transgender Act, well we know what that is like, because we have stood alone on many moral and political issues. It is sad that you did not receive any support from Christians in England during the court hearing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s