GIVEN the Roman Catholic’s despicable history of child abuse in Ireland, one would think that Church representatives would now be cowering shame-faced in a corner, and doing all they can to avoid drawing attention to themselves.
But no. Right now they’re all full of piss and vinegar over Ireland’s Civil Partnership bill which three RC bishops are describing as an “extraordinary” attack on freedom of conscience and religion.
Speaking at a press conference Larry, Curly and Moe said the Bill:
Three Roman Catholic bishops condemn Civil Partnerships in Ireland
Represents a fundamental revolution in our understanding of marriage and the family and cannot go unchallenged.
The three stooges are, in fact, Bishop John McAreavey, Bishop Denis Brennan and Bishop Christopher Jones who said they were “very concerned” about the Bill becoming law.
According to the Christian Institute, the Irish Civil Partnership Bill goes even further than UK legislation as it lays out fines and a potential prison sentence for registrars who refuse to carry out same-sex civil partnerships.
It would grant welfare and tax benefits on a par with marriage to homosexual couples who enter a civil partnership.
The Bill also contains new rights for cohabiting couples, whether same-sex or heterosexual.
Bishop Jones, who is chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Family and Children – is that a hollow laugh I hear? – said he was worried that the Civil Partnership Bill:
Is going to undermine marriage by conferring all the rights on same-sex unions as marriage, equating same-sex union to marriage itself.
They made clear that marriage – ho-hum – means the union of a man and woman saying:
Same-sex relationships, by their very nature, cannot be considered equal to marriage or almost equal to marriage.
The bishops said:
A husband is a man who has a wife: a wife is a woman who has a husband. A same-sex couple cannot be husband and wife.
They also said it was:
A grave injustice if the State ignores the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society a clear understanding of marriage as they grow to sexual maturity.
The bishops also warned of the wide ranging effects of prosecution for refusing to carry out same-sex civil partnerships. They said:
Christians, Jews and Muslims or anyone else who refuses to make halls and other facilities available for a celebration or reception connected with a same-sex partnership will face prosecution and fines.
The bishops said they were considering taking Constitutional action should the Bill become law.
Last month Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said that Irish registrars would not be given conscience opt-outs on religious grounds for conducting same-sex civil partnerships.
But Seymour Crawford TD, speaking for the opposition, said many religious groups
Are genuinely worried about the situation and cannot understand why we cannot allow a level of freedom in this area.
But in December the Evangelical Alliance in Ireland controversially said that Christians should support the Civil Partnership Bill. Evangelical Alliance Ireland is a distinct organisation from evangelical alliances in other countries such as the UK.
Evangelical Alliance Ireland’s General Director, Sean Mullan, claimed in a statement at the time:
The Government is seeking to legislate for greater justice and fairness for co-habiting couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As Christians we should support that stance.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 14th, 2010 at 3:50 am
“A grave injustice if the State ignores the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society a clear understanding of marriage as they grow to sexual maturity.”
So let me get this straight. Basically, they want children raised in male-female households so they can perpetuate the myth that children must be raised in male-female households. Way to check your logic, fuckwits. You’re so straight, you’re positively bent.
I tip my hat to Minister Ahern for not giving those bastards the “conscience opt-outs.” It’s the same reasoning why a public business, or business that serves the public must serve all the public, regardless if they are run by the government or some dimwitted fucknut with a cross around his neck.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:56 am
“The bishops said:
A husband is a man who has a wife: a wife is a woman who has a husband. A same-sex couple cannot be husband and wife”.
And a priest is not a “man” and is not qualified to pronounce on such matters. Sexually naïve monsters expert only at thrusting like Satan into a ten-year-old altar boy’s ringpiece.
If the Irish legislators were able to make this law, it proves to me there must have been an undercurrent of opinion there in favour of fair play ignoring the pederasts.
Does anyone know what church attendances a like in Ireland? The recent/ongoing sex scandals must have done some real damage.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:37 am
We’re supposed to let a bunch of child-diddling fuckwits tell us about morality?
March 14th, 2010 at 7:01 am
I am certainly an advocate for gay rights. I have taken them to task, however, on some occasions on their insistance to own their share of the word “marriage”. Marriage is a religious institution, and I think that the word should be erased out of every law book in the western civilization. It should be “civil union”, and then when the fundies want to get “married” they can go in front of their local witch doctor and have their god bless their poorly considered mistake.
But, as the threadhead points out, there are those child molesting catholics who think they must fight the sinners on every front. Deny anyone who disagrees with their narrow beliefs any right to equality. Fondling alter boys is secret and forgivable, especially by the clergy, but, open gays are an abomination!!!!!
While gay marriage is not available in Mexico, one thing I do admire about them is that a priest cannot legally marry anyone!!! To get married in Mexico, you must obtain a license, then go before a justice of the peace. Then it is up to you if you want to go before a god-whore in robes and have the union blessed by the church. A sane legal approach, in my opinion, and it’s a third world catholic country.
NeoWolfe
March 14th, 2010 at 8:45 am
@ Broadsword: A 2005 report in the L A Times said that:
“In the 1970s, more than 90 percent of Irish Catholics said they went to Mass once a week. Now the number is 44 percent, according to a recent survey.”
In the wake of the Murphy report, and other recent investigations which exposed the depravity of the RC Church in Ireland, I am willing to bet that mass attendances are far lower now.
March 14th, 2010 at 9:31 am
I have to give it to these bishops: I don’t think I would have the balls to give comment on any social issue with all past and present revelations about the church abuse of people and power. All we can do now is hoping that people will start giving thoughts about the reason they still cling to these bigots and that at least some will turn their back on this criminal organisation.
Quite interesting that there were cover-ups in Germany in Mr. Ratzinger’s fiefdom too. Did he know, did he care? I think he did and didn’t; while he was head of the Inquisition, to use it’s old name, there was threat of excommunication for anybody who went public with knowledge of abuse, so he must have known! Let’s please not forget this.
March 14th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Now that Ratzinger’s elder brother is exposed as being someone who slaps kids around and very close to the developing child sex abuse scandal in German, the Pope is described as “shattered.” This comes from one of his hirelings. The RC representative is then asked if celibacy is at the core of the problem. Answer: “No, because most child sexual abuse occurs in families.”
You couldn’t make it up.
March 14th, 2010 at 11:39 am
NeoWolfe, “Marriage is a religious institution” No it is not, people were getting married long before the religious hijacked this civil union back in about 5CE. Marriage is first and foremost a civil and legal union between two people, you can’t marry without the legal paperwork.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@ NeoWolfe
Actually, the council in Mexico City recently legalized same-sex marriage. Calderon flipped his wig on it, but since his party is only really powerful in the more rural areas, it seems he may not have the power to undo it.
March 14th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
The reasoning here is ironclad–and irrelevant.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
‘A grave injustice if the State ignores the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children….’
Is it just me, or is that just a little bit rich coming from an institution that has not only ignored the rights of children, but has systematically violted children and then willfully covered the tracks of the deviants who exploited them? Do these people know no shame?
March 14th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Marriage in western societies has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a civil contract about property. If you don’t know that try getting a divorce – the judge won’t give a rat’s patoot about religion but s/he will be very interested in the property settlement. The fact that people are able to get married by clergy is because those clergy have a dual role in performing a marriage. One is as a pastor administering a sacrament – which is nothing in law and does NOT make people married; the other is as a duly appointed representative of the state empowered to perform civil marriages; this is what makes people married. The fact that it happens in one ceremony means nothing. It is entirely within the realm of the state to determine which parties may be entitled to engage in a civil contract of this nature. This question is nothing whatsoever to do with religion. What is more the priests and bishops know this and are constantly trying to create a smoke screen about it in the hope of misleading enough voters that the government will find it difficult or impossible to pass amendments to marriage law thart will correct the current flagrant injustice.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
@ Marcus: no they do not know shame. never have, never will!
March 14th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
@Sailor1031 You are, of course, absolutely right. These are the very last people on earth who should be lecturing anybody on moral matters. The sooner we have got rid of every single last one if them and turned their abhorent churches into museums or art galleries or anything else that celebrates life rather than debases it, the happier I will be.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
why does does anyone listen to bishops anymore??
March 14th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
“do they know no shame?” Marcus, the colossally wealthy Catholic Church is now passing around the begging bowl in the hope that the far less wealthy laity will chip in for the cost of all the law suits, maybe that goes some way toward answering your question.
My question is, why are they having this hateful vendetta against gay people? People who have done them no harm and have no intention of doing them harm, people who just want to be treated fairly and be left alone to live their lives. Is it because since the Holocaust the RCC now knows that it is really bad form to pick on Jews? If that is the case then perhaps it should be pointed out to them that the Nazis persecuted gays too. Could it be that the RCC tries to obstruct every bit of social and moral progress because the more society progresses the more outdated and irrelevant the Church becomes?
March 14th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
A Bishop Brennan of Ireland is involved? Didn’t a priest called Ted kick him up the arse?
They haven’t said a single coherent thing about the same-sex unions but the one point the bishops made that strikes me as particularly odious is their idea that children “deserve from society a clear understanding of marriage as they grow to sexual maturity.” They are equating being taught that heterosexuality is the only acceptable relationship with a RIGHT that children have. They honestly see it as dangerous to their development for them to have two dads or two mothers, yet, though it is cliché to say it, if anything is a danger to children it is the Roman Catholic Church.
March 14th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
@ Angela. I don’t know where you get your date, but, Mosaic law contained regulations on marriage and divorce, written before 1150 B.C.
@ Janstince. Thank you for correcting me. While it’s true that Estados Unidos de Mexico does not recognize same sex marriage, Mexico City and the state of Coahuila do. But, my point remains, that a third world catholic country does not recognize the church’s authority to perform marriages, and that civil authorities alone can endorse a binding civil union.
NeoWolfe
March 14th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Are the tyrants who now claim that the world’s largest organized crime syndicate has a monopoly over marriage unmitigated liars? Or do their brainwashers prevent them from learning that their cult rejected marriage as licensed prostitution for the first 1,300 years of Anointianity’s (khristianismos) existence?
Origen wrote, “Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of licentious passion.” Jerome instructed Christians to “cut down with the axe of celibacy the wood of matrimony.” Ambrose declared that matrimony was prostitution against the Christian god. Tertullian called it “obscenity … more monstrous than any punishment or death.” Augustine of Hippo called it “sin.” Only in medieval times did the RC church adopt the position, “If you can’t beat them, annex them.” At that point they declared marriage a sacrament–after 13 centuries of instructing priests not to attend marriage ceremonies lest they appear to be legitimizing immorality.
The tanakh’s earliest reference to marriage is in the Yahwist (J) torah of c 920 BCE. Its earliest reference to divorce is in the Priestly (P) torah of 621-612 BCE. The concept of marriage, essentially the private ownership of women as men’s breeding stock, dates back to the Big Discovery of c 3500 BCE. The pretence that the torah was written by Moses was invented some time between J’s date and P’s.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:16 am
Harwood,
Didn’t your gradeschool teacher instruct you that the last paragraph was supposed to be a conclusion that summarized your talking points?
Nice shotgun blast of sorta-facts, without a single footnote.
NeoWolfe
March 15th, 2010 at 5:48 am
1 I know that same sex partners certainly need the same protection that wives and husbands get on the death of their partner. There have been too many cases of a devoted partner caring throughout the last illness and then relatives of the deceased walking off with the assets and even refusing the surviving partner a place in arranging funeral arrangements but
2 If as many have argued marriage is a civil contract why do we recognise the rights of the partner in a case of cohabitation.
In a business situation if there is no contract one surrenders the protection of the law. Peerhaps if the state were not to include these relationships people would realise the bebefits of a civil contract. Should we recognise those in same sex relationships that have not registered their union?
March 15th, 2010 at 9:29 am
@NeoWolfe. “I don’t know where you get your date, but, Mosaic law contained regulations on marriage and divorce, written before 1150 B.C.”
NeoWolfe, I’m sorry but I can’t remember where I read about christians getting in on the marriage business; I remember the 5CE reference was for Western Europe.
March 15th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
To whom it may concern: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:39 am
harwood,
In your own way, are you trying to prove that point?
NeoWolfe
March 16th, 2010 at 7:01 am
I am DR Harwood, MR Wolfe. I did not identify any person in my comment. But if the shoe fits…
Given the number of persons who have already identified Mr Wolfe as a jackass, if he wants to keep posting proof of his ignorance, the smart thing to do would be to adopt a new pseudonym. But I guess jackasses are not that bright.
March 16th, 2010 at 10:12 am
I am so sorry, Most Holy Dr. Harwood, but, so far, since I’ve been contributing here, only one person has called me a jackass, and that is you. But, since you are a Doctor, surely you must be correct, given your educational background. But, the assembled audience must surely be curious as to what grounds you have to address me in such a disrespectful manner. If failing to acknowledge you prominence is your complaint, I think that makes you the jackass, doesn’t it? Please respond.
NeoWolfe
April 5th, 2010 at 8:34 am
I am not a Doctor. I am a simple human being. I know that naturally, children come from a sexual act between male and female. I know that it is not always consensual, and without any doubt I also believe I am here because someone in my ancestry, in all probability, was raped. Rape, sodomy, buggery and all other acts of sexual intimacy are all part of the large array – the massive, or small mural (a question of perception perhaps) of just being human. By the light of common reason, humanity is still in its journey. It is painful for some, for others a breeze. Our scale of sight is limited by our vision of death. We must all end. We must all die. Most want to make some sense before that happens. Some don’t and won’t! We are driven by life itself but some don’t care to take any control, while sometimes, those that do, take full advantage of power and might. Some are quite wrong in their actions. I say the Roman Catholic Church is not responsible for the vile acts of any man or woman, even within its ‘cover’. The Roman Catholic Church is not responsible for men or women who tell lies or try to bear false witness. A ‘few very bad apples’ without doubt and NO, what good that is sometimes done in that institution does never cancel the bad, also done under its cloak. The Roman Catholic Church is not one person. This institution, these people, are only human beings too, on the same journey as you or I. Today I feel good, full of faith, or what good I believe in, and with love and warmth too, tomorrow I might feel the exact opposite! I am human after all. That is the truth. It is our common condition and we are all part of it, whether we like it or not. Using our power to get our wants, even if that is against the will, or causes the harm of another, is an individual action of self. In the UK, corruption is everywhere. Chaos comes out of order! The local Councils, the Courts, the Police, the Members of Parliament – You name it, it’s bent, broken , falling to pieces. Big business is buying up our futures, our policies, our laws. When I feel out of control, I suspect like you, I will lash out against good reason, wherever that comes from. When the current sickness against having rules of moral worth ends, I wonder who will be left to uphold them! Maybe, just maybe, The natural Family of at least one man and one woman may take centre stage once again. I won’t be holding my breath though!
June 26th, 2010 at 5:58 am
The Roman catholic church – power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and when you claim to speak for God………….
They always needed someone to hate to sell their brand of love. It was the Muslims during the crusades, when 40-50 million were murdered in the name of God, by those carrying a cross in one hand, and a sword in the other. No wonder Muslim nut cases hate us
And there was the inquisition – say the earth was round, not flat per the pope, and it was to the torture chambers and fire that you went.
women were burned at the stake as witches. Their real witchcraft was exciting the church fathers organs, and creating a crisis re celibacy. So once again the church found a way to deliver a message – to women,a nd to those priests who like the majority of people long for sexual companionship.
the hatred of the gays is just the same thing for the minority who long for sexual companionship with the same sex. It gives the church fathers boners, and that doesn’t look good to those in their transvestite uniforms.
it goes on and on. they hated Jesus own people the Jews. Which their boy hitler, born and baptised catholic, leveraged to gain power and 50 million died for the “church of life”. He documented his hatred in Mein Kampf, learned while growing up in very catholic Austria.
And they have yet to EXcommunicate Hitler
while Pope RATZInger in 2009 UNexcommunicated a Bishop Williamson. He is a holocaust denier, but he brings back into the church his 600000 mad followers. At least Argentina threw this nazi bishop out of the country. And its House of Representatives just passed a gay marriage law.
And of ocurse the church has its cover up sex scandals, now reaching into Brazil, the USA, Ireland, Austria, Australia, Germany, Switzerland italy, etc. With Pope RATZInger and his brother implicated as well. When they talk about love, they really are talking about their secret desires.
And back about 1000 years ago, the church went to celibacy for priests, from previously allowing them to marry. The priests now marry the church in the queerest marriage of them all. So the priests are totally controlled, and their property is inherited by the church, not their wife or progeny.
Virtually every west european country except Italy and greece have legal recognition of gay peoples unions, including MARRIAGE in Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Spain and just recently Portugal. Which had the balls to sign gay MARRIAGE into law while the stench of the pope from his visit to derail it was still in the air. And Iceland just legalized gay MARRIAGE by a unanimous 49-0 vote of their parliment. civil Unions in Ireland – a foregone concludsion.
Along with 20 or so other countries, including 5 catholic countries in South/Central America, Israel, Repub of South Africa, Nepal, Canada, Chech Republic, Hungary, Austria etc.
The church is dead in Europe. Mankinds worst tragedy was that the Arabs didn’t retaliate properly for the crusades, by burning the Vatican to the ground, and turning its land into a sewer pit 500 years ago.