logo
   Web Issue 3143 May 9 2008   
spacer




Bishop’s views outdated and hypocritical

Bishop's views outdated and hypocritical I was disappointed and angry to read Bishop Devine's comments about homosexuality (Fury at bishop's gay persecution' claim, March 13). His views are outdated and fail to uphold some of the basic tenets of Christianity, namely, to treat others as you would be treated yourself and to love one another. His comments also display some of the worst aspects of hypocrisy. The bishop is a leader of a faith that has itself had to lobby and campaign to promote the right for its members to be treated equally. As a result, the Catholic Church now holds a strong political and social position. It ill befits the bishop to criticise others for exercising their own right to equal treatment.

I agree with Calum Irving of Stonewall that the bishop's language is intemperate. It displays the kind of attitude that, rather than promoting greater respect between people of different opinions and faiths, is disruptive and divisive. Although I don't agree with them, I respect Bishop Devine's right to his views about homosexuality or on anything else. However, it is irresponsible to use his public position to promote debate on the basis of destructive prejudice and hyperbole.

The idea of a conspiracy against Christianity is absurd and, given the bishop's attitudes about not "tolerating" homosexuality, he would be better occupied examining why it is that so many people are choosing to live a secular life. His suggestion that secularism is corrupt alienates a huge part of the Scottish population who choose not to display their personal beliefs and lifestyle through public worship.
Debbie Wilkie,
Edinburgh.

It is not clear what explanation Bishop Devine can advance for his utterances and his culpable ignorance on the fate of gay men and women under the Nazis. There is simply no argument that gay people, as a group, and by reason only of their membership of that group, were identified for extermination - as Hitler made clear as early as 1940. They shared that fate with trades unionists, socialists, communists, gipsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and others, not least the first and main victims of the Shoah: the Jewish people. The bishop might for a moment ponder that the feature of people being marked out for death just because of who they were, not what they did, also sent millions of Polish Catholic clergy, religious and lay people to the same fate. Fortunately, no episcopal imprimatur is required for attendance at Holocaust Memorial Day events and we are not reliant on Bishop Devine for a pecking order amid the dead. But he might care to consider the suitability of any future attendance by him.

Hopefully, the bishop's response to a query on what parents of Catholic children should do on finding their child was gay was somewhat more compassionate than your report suggests. He might only manage a "measure of compassion" but in so doing he would ignore the teaching of our church that gay men and women should be treated "with respect, compassion and sensitivity". Certainly, the tradition of the church and a body of scripture, though not one word of Our Lord, condemn homosexual practices as "intrinsically disordered". The condemnation, take note, is of sexual practices, not of some "vast conspiracy" of homosexuals whom even the church recognises do not "choose" to be gay.

Our bishops no longer harangue us on the evils of contraception - not least as our parents simply ignored them en masse and most Catholics today affirm the right of parents to plan their families as a matter of personal moral judgment. The late, great Pope John Paul II, despite having less cause for self-condemnation than most, felt bound to kneel in silence and repentance at the gates of the Hell known as Auschwitz. Bishop Devine might just feel a period of silence and repentance calling him this Lenten time.
Brian Fitzpatrick,
Dalziel Drive, Glasgow.

I read with alarm the reported comments of Bishop Devine on the "giant conspiracy" advancing the cause of secularism - especially with regard to gay people and gay groups. I am sure the bishop is a good man, but his opinions are off-the-wall. Has he any idea how homosexual people suffer from bullying, intimidation, rejection? Is he aware that the group most at risk of suicide are gay teenage men? Does he care? Does he know the damage he does to ordinary gay Catholics (and others) who are trying to live their lives in faith and according to conscience? Happily, there are many other leaders in the church who take a more informed, compassionate approach. Bishop Devine finished his lecture saying: "Like Mel Gibson, who said, I'm going to pick a fight', so am I." I will happily, in a spirit of Christian charity, engage with Bishop Devine on his opinions, and have written to him to say so.
Fr Ed Hone,
High Street, Edinburgh.

As a Catholic, I was outraged by Bishop Devine's comments on Tuesday evening. Isn't it ironic that he chose to attack and marginalise the gay community in a lecture where he was also discussing the damaging effects of sectarianism? If sectarianism teaches us anything it is that setting groups against each other leads to hatred and division. He is out of step with mainstream opinion, even among the Catholic community in Scotland.

His statements regarding Holocaust memorials also showed a serious lack of understanding about what modern Holocaust remembrance is about. Even the Holocaust Memorial Trust is clear that the point of remembrance is to not just commemorate the Jewish Holocaust, but all forms of mass killing, whether on the grounds of gender, race or sexuality.

As a former pupil of St Aloysius' College in Glasgow - where the lecture took place - I also hope that it chooses to distance itself from his comments. Bishop Devine's statements represent an extreme of Catholic opinion and not the kind of sentiment I remember from a school that taught me to challenge prejudice and work for the good of others. His comments only promote marginalising swathes of our population and only work towards dividing our communities.
Martin McCluskey,
Bonn Square, Oxford.

Your report on Bishop Devine's grossly offensive speech about the gay activist community includes a comment from a Catholic Church spokesman who says the bishop was "accusing the gays of today of trying to adopt the mantle of victimhood of those who were persecuted by the Nazis". Gay people do not want to be seen as victims. They want the same dignity, respect and human rights that we all expect and deserve. That does not diminish or remove their right to remember those who died at the hands of the Nazis, especially as a significant number of those who were murdered in concentration camps were there because of the Nazi regime's prejudice about their sexuality.

Such prejudice should be consigned to history, but Bishop Devine seems determined to breathe new life into a campaign which has no place in modern Scotland. I question why he feels the need to attack others in defence of what is supposed to be a loving credo.
Jenny Kemp,
Lochend Road,
Edinburgh.

Spending years dealing with the "Catholic guilt" over my homosexuality, and yet working out in integrity how to reconcile, embrace and fully live out both my faith and sexuality, I find it most upsetting that senior figures in my church resort to prejudiced attacks on those of us who are doing no wrong but to live according to who we are.

What His Grace fails to recognise is that homosexuals were, indeed, persecuted during the Holocaust, with between 5000 and 15,000 gay men condemned to Nazi concentration camps as part of an "anti-social group". About 60% of these died in the camps, and many who survived were not recognised as Holocaust victims and were reimprisoned by the restored regimes in post-war Europe.

Bishop Devine fails to recognise that this is about the basic human right to live according to the diversity of sexualities with which God made us as sexual beings. Our sexuality is part of our innate human dignity, and to express it in love is to fulfil our potential in Christ. I hope the bishop reflects on his comments, apologises for the hurt and distress they have caused and that solidarity is achieved from all sections of our society in securing justice and respect for all.
Gareth Gould,
Harlesden, London.

As parents of a gay son and as volunteers with an organisation that helps parents when their children come out as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, we want to say how sad we were to read the comments made by Bishop Devine against gay people.

We have the greatest admiration for those of our gay friends who are devout Christians in spite of the many hurtful things they have had to cope with from churches over the years. They have a faith we envy, and they are often criticised for having that faith, even by other gay people. We receive loving support from individual members of the Catholic Church and their courage and commitment is inspirational.

Twenty years ago we walked around Dachau with our gay son and his partner; that is where we first realised what the pink triangle meant, and nothing could bring home more clearly what prejudice can lead to. More recently we were proud to represent parents of gay children at the Holocaust Memorial Service at the Usher Hall. Being gay is not a choice, and we are glad to be associated with the community. Those of us in Parents Enquiry Scotland love and value our gay children - they don't threaten family or Christian values - they are part of them.
Anne and Joe Patrizio,
Edinburgh.


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 12:11am Fri 14 Mar 08
Although I don't agree with them, I respect Bishop Devine's right to his views about homosexuality or on anything else.
-Debbie Wilkie

Do you? Do you respect his views on Catholic Adoption agencies having to close because of failure to respect his and his co-religionists' views on gay adoption? Try to look at that scenario through HIS eyes and you may come close to understaning his intolerance towards both "secularism" and the growing power of the gay lobby.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 12:22am Fri 14 Mar 08
Bishop Devine might just feel a period of silence and repentance calling him this Lenten time.
- Brian Fitzpatrickn

He certainly should re-think his views on the appropriateness of his remarks on gay participation of Holocaust Day. Has he never heard of the pink triangle?
Posted by: fatzdomingo, Glasgow on 6:57am Fri 14 Mar 08
Why does it appear that a disagreement with any aspect of the Gay Lobby is taken as an attack? Why can't a man of religion be permitted to state the Party Line without being pilloried? I remember the lies spouted by Jack McConnell, "There will be no teaching or proselytising of homosexuality in Scottish Schools" - funny how someone at the Exec have had that particular speech removed from their web site, just as well I've got a hard copy for posterity then! Don't want to "remember" all of the assurances given to Parents when section 2A (28) was being binned? What, no Outrage at such deceit? Why not? The Gay agenda was to remove legal obstacles to getting their "message" into schools, now they want to make all other objections illegal. I personally don't give a tiddle what consenting adults do with one another in private, but you won't be telling any of my kids in my family that its ok to be gay. If any of them require help in that direction, their mothers will be the first ones to know, they will keep the kids safe and on the right track appropriate for their age not some stranger with their own agenda. So well done Bishop Joe Devine! Tell it like it is for now...for soon it will be a crime to do so!
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 7:04am Fri 14 Mar 08
Old Firm fans in handbag fight.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 7:04am Fri 14 Mar 08
Old Firm fans in handbag fight.
Posted by: Joe Shmo, Glasgow on 8:24am Fri 14 Mar 08
thank a non-existent god that i'm an atheist....
Posted by: The Scudder, Scotland on 8:27am Fri 14 Mar 08
I have no time for church people ,,, of any faith ,,
All they have ever given us is WARS ,,,
However, the guy is absolutely right in his views about so called "GAYS" ,,( whoever gave away that nice word )
Their activities are queer, wrong, and should not be tolerated in our society.
Posted by: billalba, Fife on 8:44am Fri 14 Mar 08
Scudder....your views are wrong, queer and should not be tolerated in a civil society
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 8:53am Fri 14 Mar 08
In recent days Cynicus has been most generous in the adjectives he has used to describe me, and on more than one board. Perhaps the greatest disservice I ever did Cynicus - for which he quickly forgave me - was to carelessly misattribute the crass words of 'somebody else' to him. The somebody else was Bishop "Sidney" Devine. Given Sidney's offering on bigotry I feel even more embarrassed than I did first time around - "Nobody's Child" isn't even gauche by comparison.
Posted by: Prometheus, Glasgow on 9:31am Fri 14 Mar 08
Bishop Devine's comment's would not be so bad if he was not a representative of an organisation which has committed more atrocities in the name of faith than any other. One only has to think of the Inquisition to name but one.
Posted by: GML, right here on 10:08am Fri 14 Mar 08
People who are inexplicably angry or aggressive about homosexuality are often saying something more about themselves than they realise...
Posted by: calum, Glasgow on 10:44am Fri 14 Mar 08
Cynicus wrote:
Do you? Do you respect his views on Catholic Adoption agencies...



She didn't say she respected his views, she respects his right to his views. "Although I don't agree with them, I respect Bishop Devine's right to his views..."

Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 10:56am Fri 14 Mar 08
calum wrote:
<b> Cynicus wrote:
Do you? Do you respect his views on Catholic Adoption agencies...



She didn't say she respected his views, she respects his right to his views. "Although I don't agree with them, I respect Bishop Devine's right to his views..."

</b>
Well corrected. So she is saying not very much then. This is just so much window dressing, a PR exercise. Gay men do this sort of thing much better. Is that sexist?
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 11:50am Fri 14 Mar 08
Fatzdomino I am not gay yet I was so angry when I read this stupid, stupid man's comments.

There is a reason why gay people are represented at Holocaust Remembrance Services - because gay people were victims of the Holcaust.

I also find it incredible that a man whose Church has a long and shameful history of persecution should accuse gay people of being involved in a conspiracy against his Church. Gay people in general want nothing to do with his Church - they just want to be left alone. Gay Catholics have all my sympathy but if I were in their shoes the choice would be clear.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:24pm Fri 14 Mar 08
''accusing the gays of today of trying to adopt the mantle of victimhood of those who were persecuted by the Nazis''

Perhaps the gays of today have learned a lesson about what happened in the Holocaust which is why they are determinded to be treatred equally. In that they have my full support. And when it comes to the issue of equality there can be no get out clause. Perhaps that is why the Bishop is so angry because the law does not allow his Church to practise discrimination even if it's theology does. To be secular is not to be without belief in morality, and fundamental to that is a belief in equality and justice. Both these concepts seem foreign to the Bishop in relation to the comments he has made about gays.
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 2:21pm Fri 14 Mar 08
1# Cynicus

In the Catholic newspaper the Tablet in November, Sir Stephen Wall, former Principal Adviser to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, said this:

“The (Catholic) Church portrays itself as the victims of aggressive secularism, but is actually heading towards an aggressive fundamentalism that is further from the Christian ideal than secular ideology.”

Sir Stephen also said the Vatican was wrong to oppose gay adoption and IVF:

“It is using, or abusing, its own moral absolutism to deny to people, whose way of life it stigmatises, the civil rights that a more generous state recognises as basic to their status as citizens”.

I think many ordinary, pew-filling Catholics will subscribe to Sir Stephen's view, and not the abject and vindictive paranoia of Bishop Devine or indeed yourself.
Posted by: shoojr, Glasgow on 4:09pm Fri 14 Mar 08
What a storm the old man has caused, and how gratifying that people bother with him. If he were a spokesman for the National Front, we'd all just ignore him and his avid supporters.

However owing to the importance of Catholic opinion in politics in Scotland, whether right or wrong, it's all over the place. Everyone please bear in mind the Bishop's publicly stated views on which party he favours when voting next time round, because he finds the SNP more sympathetic than Labour, and since they are notionally in power, we should all be concerned that our political leaders are willing to cosy up to Bishop Devine and his friends.

Never mind the angry opinion. Just one look at his photo might tell us all about his own personal Lenten battle. We should feel more sorrow than anger for what we might hope to be the last gasp of old-style Catholicism that so cripples so many people who want to have a faith.

Seriously though if the SNP wants us to move away from the Union and be a forward-thinking society the very first and most important divorce should be directed at removing the ties between church and state and ensuring that the vast majority of Scots, who have no religious beliefs, are no longer forced to live with outcomes foisted on us by self-interested politicians getting into bed with very powerful lobbies.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 5:36pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Oops! There is no one more angry or vitriolic than the person(s) whose conscience (and we all possess one, even if we deny or ignore that small, still voice), which knows the difference between right and wrong, is activated by someone like the bishop. This reminds me of children who get very angry when a parent tells them to stop doing something wrong; and, after all, aren't homosexuals just people who suffer from an advanced degree of arrested sexual development.

Leaping immediately to the defense of those who commit unnatural acts (who, accurately, should be referred to as sodomites or "sads," rather than the misnomer "gays") are the usual suspects, who either practice such perverted acts themselves or just plain hate God or religion.. People like the very odd "Catholic" priest Hone above (whose nefarious past has been tracked by the Catholic Truth magazine).

Anyone whose head is not completely buried in the sand knows that the homosexual lobby is one of the most powerful in the land, which seeks to shut anyone else up who has the temerity to publicly state their Church's teachings (witness the Swedish pastor sent to the slammer for quoting the Bible). With the deep pockets that homosexual organisations have, politicians (like the recently departed Spitzer) and the politically correct media (muttering their meaningless, tired, modernist mantras of "human rights," "tolerance," and "non-judgementalism"
) leap to do their bidding. And are joined by some very irrational people. Witness some of these posts.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 5:52pm Fri 14 Mar 08
I am sorry but I disagree with you Mr McCall you do not have to be part of the gay ''lobby'' to deplore the Bishop's remarks or to celebrate equality. I am heterosexual and utterly reject the stigmitisation of my fellow human beings for an accident of birth. There is nothing perverted about homosexual love, it is not learned behaviour so how can it be unnatural. My conscience tells me that it is wrong to reject a person because their nature is to love someone of their own sex. It is wrong to see someone as ''other'' because they are not exactly the same as you. That ways lies hatred and indeed the gas chambers where many homosexuals were murdered by the Nazis, lest we forget that.
Posted by: cambusken, Glasgow on 6:02pm Fri 14 Mar 08
It is not his views on homosexuality that I find disturbing; it is his attempt to use the holocaust to his own polemical ends. He first tries to deny that homosexuals were part of the holocaust - and so should not attend memorials - then (on radio) says they could as well align themselves with handicapped people as with Jews - insensitive to the fact that handicapped people were also targeted in the holocaust. The government has just persuaded Moslem organisations that the holocaust day is NOT just about Jews and along comes a supposedly educated man trying to suggest it is. I also found his conspiracy theory eerily reminiscent of the Nazi slander on Jews. Do we now look forward to demonstrations and counter demonstrations at holocaust memorial events on who and who should not be present? I find it hard to understand how a gentleman in such a prominent position, supposedly of leadership, could be so insensitive in the delicate matter of holocaust remembrance
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 6:07pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Observer:

Spot-on! Let's hope you speak for many. You certainly speak for all with a spark of decency. Mr McCall, on the other hand, identifies "irrational people". Who better to speak for them than a bigot such as Mr McCall, the very embodiment of irrational thought, and one with such a locker of cliches to deploy amidst his syntactical chaos and spelling mistakes?
Posted by: Prometheus, Glasgow on 7:19pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Mr McCall has the a cheek to talk of the church and it's teachings. If all religions practised what they indeed preached then we would be a whole lot better off. The catholic church has in the name of Christ, committed murder, rape, pillage and countless other unspeakable acts. Popes throughout history have conspired to any means to achieve their aims. A good (or bad) example would be Alexander VI who had ten illigitemate children, committed his first murder age 12 and of course, lest we forget, had to bribe his way to the papacy in the first place. On this basis, the church has little to teach.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 8:02pm Fri 14 Mar 08
What's this,? What's this? Vitriol raises its ugly head again. And wasn't that to be expected? If my memory serves me correctly, is Walker the poster I read a few months ago who spent a lot of of his time attacking other posters on different subjects? Wasn't he a "Marxist intellectual" who spewed out a lot of hatred towards Blair? The last refuge of the scoundrel, to paraphrase the good Doctor, is the use of hateful language (like the word "bigot," which , normally ,is guaranteed to shut most people up), and his self-appointment as an arbiter of language.

To a more intelligent poster like Observer, homosexuality is not an accident of birth--it is learned behaviour. Such practitioners may have been born equal in their heterosexuality, (there is no "missing gene") but are unfortunate enough to be in a dysfunctional family, with a dominant mother (from whom, when they reach a very early and sexually formative age, they are unable to detach and bond with their father--as a result taking on many of the characteristics of the woman) and an emotionally weak (who might as well be absent) father, unable or incapable of being that masculine role model from whom they can learn what it is to be a man.

History is replete with examples of men having a healthy love for other men; think of soldiers who give their lives that a comrade's life might be saved. Developed by emotionally healthy parents as normal men they have not descended into the promiscuous pit of sodomy.

And, for pity's sake. Why is it wrong to see someone as ''other'' because they are not exactly the same as you? Isn't that what others are--different from you. And what is wrong withh recognising such a major difference between heterosexuality (which man, from the dawn of history, has recognised as the normal state necessary for the continuation of the human race) and homosexuality (with all its ghastly side effects for people's health), an intrinsically, and freely chosen, evil state, which if it was widely chosen would lead to the demise of the human race
Posted by: Victor Smith on 8:02pm Fri 14 Mar 08
How any member of 'alleged' status in the RC faith can lecture about 'Sin' - of any kind - to anyone, when their 'organisation' has just taken under its wing a man the likes of Tony Blair - is mystifying and, seemingly, somewhat hypocritical !

I may be wrong, but perhaps both their attitudes towards mankind is much the same, although it would seem that Tony Blair is mainly driven by a sort of 'Self first and a greed for for financial gain - above all else' - even moreso than the RC church - good as they are at it themselves,and both it seems, are extremely evident to most people!

Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 8:15pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Tom I am not going to argue with all you say,suffice to comment that I believe you to be wrong, homosexuality is not a result of parenting, it is a natural state for many happy and joyful people, and has been a natural state for as long as we have been human beings. It is a shame that you do not understand that, I think that is behaviour that you have learned as I do not believe such prejudice is natural.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 8:48pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Oh dear. someone needs to go on a diversification course!
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 8:56pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Mr McCall

I am not an "arbiter of language" whatever that is: it's just that I learned how to spell 'defence' and 'practise' when I was at school, which wasn't yesterday. You should try harder. I was also taught that if you ask a question you put a question mark at the end of the sentence. Nor do I recall calling myself a "Marxist intellectual", although you seem to have been saving the term up "for months". Besides, I'm quite comfortable with what seems to be a sobriquet in your somewhat limited lexicon, and being called names by a bigot such as yourself is rather a compliment. I'll leave the "promiscuous pits of sodomy" and the rest of your Old Testament points of reference to such as yourself. What's it like there anyway? Are such metaphors still abroad in your circles? Wow. And what has a heterosexual hypocrite such as Spitzer got to do with a discussion on homosexuality in the UK? You're not drinking are you?

I didn't know of Bishop Devine's personal demons especially that of alcohol abuse - at least he has an excuse for his moronic utterances. I can see where this is heading, having dealt with the Mr McCalls of this world before and it's not a journey worth taking for anybody. So this "Marxixt Intellectual" will get back to his Richard Dawkins and his biography of Orwell. The latter warned of such as Mr McCall sixty years ago.

Observer et al seem to be having a field day anyway. Good luck with your 'discusson', O!
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 9:13pm Fri 14 Mar 08
ps: whoops - sorry about the 'discussion'.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 9:55pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Point of information: Alexander the Great was up to all sorts and he still conquered much of the known world and brought the joys of Hellenic civilisation to Asia - oddly enough I think it was the drink that was his downfall at such a young age. Tragic.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 10:03pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Lothians MSP George Foulkes has tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament over the bishop's "unfortunate, outdated and unchristian remarks". The motion calls on the Parliament to "tackle prejudice in all its forms" and acknowledge the right of the gay community to mark Holocaust Memorial Day.

The misery of it all - I agree with Foulksy wholeheartedly: well said, Lord Jambo. Well said indeed.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:24pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Myrmillo wrote:
Point of information: Alexander the Great was up to all sorts and he still conquered much of the known world and brought the joys of Hellenic civilisation to Asia - oddly enough I think it was the drink that was his downfall at such a young age. Tragic.
Hephaistion I believe (probably spelled that wrong) was his other half, then again he did have a rather strange relationship with Olympias didn't he, and didn't get on that well with his dad, so I kind of didn't mention that ! It sure didn't hold him back 'though.

Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:28pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Then again if your mother worshipped snakes and thought she had mated with a God it probably would be a strange relationship.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 10:47pm Fri 14 Mar 08
Mr. Walker. Isn't it "Observer, et al" ? And when you write "Marxixt Intellectual," who or what is a "Marxixt"? Oops. I almost forgot to insert question marks.

Which of the words "arbiter" and "language" does our facile, intellectually dishonest poster (who refrains from telling people whether or not he is a member of that <thankfully)>dying breed called "Marxist intellectuals") not know the meaning of? I would imagine that there are few Scots (or other nationals) who would use that oxymoronic term--"Marxist intellectual"--as an affectionate or humourous nickname or an assumed name.

There is nothing worse than a shallowly educated, picayune, little man making absolutely no reference to the point under discussion,; someone who trots out the same old tired insults of the intellectually challenged And, of course, he brings up that dreary old canard about the bishop's alleged "alcohol abuse." Personal attack smears, like Walker's, (he produces no objective proof, of course, about this) are somewhat like the New York Times' recent smear of John McCain--maybe he reads that "newspaper of record's " Book Reviews). It possibly reflects a love affair he, himself, has with the "demon drink." Misery does love (even false) company.

One other point. What could he possibly mean when he says, "What's it like there anyway?" I guess, like Clinton's pathetic parsing, it depends on what he means by the word "it." Only Walker might know what he means. But, I have my doubts.

One could go on and on about this intellectual lightweight, but I am looking for someone who can actually make a serious contribution to the subject under discussion.

Finally, as he sits there in all his p...and v...... I wonder if he can find my deliberately omitted full stop. That might keep him off the street.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 11:07pm Fri 14 Mar 08
1# Cynicus In the Catholic newspaper the Tablet in November, Sir Stephen Wall, former Principal Adviser to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, said ......It is using, or abusing, its own moral absolutism to deny to people, whose way of life it stigmatises, the civil rights that a more generous state recognises as basic to their status as citizens”. I think many ordinary, pew-filling Catholics will subscribe to Sir Stephen's view, and not the abject and vindictive paranoia of Bishop Devine or indeed yourself.
-Alistair, Edinburgh on 2:21pm today

What all this has to do with me I know not. You cite "Cynicus #1". Had you read as far as the second post, Cynicus#2. you might have deduced an attempt to empathise with the Bishop and to understand his extraordinary outburst on gays and the holocaust..

To be accused (along with the bishop) of " abject and vindictive paranoia" is a bit rich. I first campaigned for what has since become known as "gay rights" more than 40 years ago. At the core of my motivation was defence of individual liberty prov ided it did not impact on anyone else's-and freedom of conscience. These freedoms I extend to Catholic adoption agencies today. "Abject and vindictive" just about summarises my own view of parliament's recent decision fo force such agencies to close because the Christian conscience of their trustees will not permit them to place children for adoption with gay couples. I have a number of gay friends (including clerics) of both sexes and have had, to my knowledge, since the 1970s. Possibly some without my knowledge before then Most of them sympathise and some even share my views on the adoption agencies issue. Could he but face the thought, Bishop Devine would discover some unexpected allies on this issue. But they will be allies from my thought-world, not his. The True Faith has not been the best defender of freedom of conscience in the past few centuries.

PS Before he signed on transfer forms for His Eminence of Westminster, Sir Stephen Wall was a Blair courtier, promoted to the No. 10 sofa in the face of Foreign Office opposition.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 1:00am Sat 15 Mar 08
Observer: You've forgotten the Indian hermaphrodite, the Amazon princess, Persian royalty and various other people probably too numerous to mention.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 1:28am Sat 15 Mar 08
The misery of it all - I agree with Foulksy wholeheartedly: well said, Lord Jambo. Well said indeed.
- Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 10:03pm

Myrmillo, if that oleaginous oaf Lord Fuchs tells you that the earth is a sphere, then that is the time to art least consider membership of the Flat Earth Society. He is the very incarnation of what the great HL Mencken had in mind when he said somethin like. "whenever a politician opens his mouth, I always ask myself, why is this lying **** lying to me." Herr Barom Georg never opens his moth without prior calculation, uless to pass wind.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 2:20am Sat 15 Mar 08
Agreed - unfortunately I concur with the actual words. O
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 9:54am Sat 15 Mar 08
Mornin' all. Not long up. I notice that Mr M'Call has been salivating in my absence. Thankfully, all have ignored his latest paean. So shall I essentially. I have this feeling he doesn't care for me, but I could be wrong. (I was being worn down, anyway, by the dozen or so compliments posted three days ago following my letter to the Herald, and by people who can write in English.) The Herald certainly would not have published such rubbish as a letter.

Just a few caveats entered as follows. As I said before, it's a compliment to be the subject of an "ad hominem" attack from such a fool. I'm mildly surprised the Herald moderator has allowed the post to stand; but that's blogland. For the record: it wasn't myself who "brought up" the topic of Bishop's Devine's alleged alcoholism. And the NYRB has nothing to do with the New York Times. As a diabetic I have no problems with alcohol consumption, as all who know me, including Myrmillo, will confirm. I don't drink. And Mr McCall still cannot spell 'defence' nor 'practise'. What a numpty! I'll leave him with his Old Testament to wrestle with his considerable homophobic pathologies.

It's not often I find myself on the same side as Lord Foulkes - unprecedented if truth be told - but he is to be congratulated on his actions regarding "Sydney" Devine. For once he speaks, I suspect, for most of us.

As always, of course, we should heed the sage words of Cynicus. I thought "oleaginous oaf" rather understated Lord Fuch's true character. We should never forget that wee George was the mass murderer Blair's major mouthpiece in Scotland during the build-up and prosecution of the war against Iraq. I debated with him often enough on the Radio. But Goerge just knew, beyond a scintilla of doubt, about these old weapons of mass destruction. What a silly-billy! Hundreds of thousands have perished as a result. Now that's real criminality. And we must never forget the real deal - not the
faux-variety and the preferred topic of the homophobes.
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 10:40am Sat 15 Mar 08
Chris Walker,

I do not want to spoil your morning coffee, but you put down your 'Dawkins' for a second and pick up a book which is written by a 'dawkins-buster' and have a more interesting read. The name is Professor Alister McGrath and the book is: 'Dawkins' God'. This will change your view forever.

Regards.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 12:13pm Sat 15 Mar 08
Brian, Glasgow

Thanks for taking the trouble to post. I think we may have exchanged views before. Are you originally from Coatbridge? I doubt your thesis about "changing my mind", but you pay me the compliment of acknowledging, first off, that I have an open mind intellectually (I have) and, secondly, that it is worth trying to change it. I think Brian D Finch may have beaten you to it in that respect.

I was a Sunday School teacher once, a very long time ago; and I'm reminded here of Maynard Keynes' rhetorical injunction: "When the facts change, I change: what do you do?" It's just these facts........which are chiels that winna ding, remember.

I'm off right now to Glasgow to see a play in which my daughter's friend has a star part. Knowing my daughter who is a lawyer, this will no doubt have some hidden attempt to change my view on something or other, probably Plato's notion of justice or a similar esoteric abstraction. Or maybe she has finally noticed the remarkable physical similarity between Saddam and Gordon Brown - I saw the latter the other day and he looked so like Saddam - whose face I grew to know so well - with a haemorrhoidal problem.

I'm 70 in two months time. Do you think all this hoped-for osmosis is anything to do with my biblical life span being almost over? Imagine wanting to spend quality time in the after-life with some of the dumplings, only a few thankfully, who appear on these boards? Imagine wishing to have a place in their heaven listening to them exchanging their prejudices?

Thanks anyway for your trouble, and I'll keep you posted as they say.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 12:35pm Sat 15 Mar 08
.....words of Cynicus. I thought "oleaginous oaf" rather understated Lord Fuch's true character.[/quotechr
is walker, west kilbride on 9:54am today

It is not often I am accused of under-statement. However, I accept that I am no Wullie, Aberdeen. However, I have decided to modify my reference to Lord FOO. The 'OO' elements = "Oeaginous Oaf'. The 'F' element is ...well, you can fill in the asterisks for yourself.

So, listen up MSPs. Don't fall behind the buzz next week in Holyrood. If you overhear, or are asked, the question, "Is/was Lord FOO fu'?" then the correct answer is: NEXT SILLY QUESTION. dON'T BE CAUGHT OUT.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:06pm Sat 15 Mar 08
Myrmillo wrote:
Observer: You've forgotten the Indian hermaphrodite, the Amazon princess, Persian royalty and various other people probably too numerous to mention.
Bagoas. I don't think the women mattered. But Alexander puts to bed the myth that homosexual men are always unmanly for all time.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:05pm Sat 15 Mar 08
Tom McCall wrote:
Oops! There is no one more angry or vitriolic than the person(s) whose conscience (and we all possess one, even if we deny or ignore that small, still voice), which knows the difference between right and wrong, is activated by someone like the bishop. This reminds me of children who get very angry when a parent tells them to stop doing something wrong; and, after all, aren't homosexuals just people who suffer from an advanced degree of arrested sexual development. Leaping immediately to the defense of those who commit unnatural acts (who, accurately, should be referred to as sodomites or "sads," rather than the misnomer "gays") are the usual suspects, who either practice such perverted acts themselves or just plain hate God or religion.. People like the very odd "Catholic" priest Hone above (whose nefarious past has been tracked by the Catholic Truth magazine). Anyone whose head is not completely buried in the sand knows that the homosexual lobby is one of the most powerful in the land, which seeks to shut anyone else up who has the temerity to publicly state their Church's teachings (witness the Swedish pastor sent to the slammer for quoting the Bible). With the deep pockets that homosexual organisations have, politicians (like the recently departed Spitzer) and the politically correct media (muttering their meaningless, tired, modernist mantras of "human rights," "tolerance," and "non-judgementalism" ) leap to do their bidding. And are joined by some very irrational people. Witness some of these posts.
TMcC
just plain hate God or religion..
- and this is a bad thing, non believing in your superstition or anyone elses for that fact
If being religous conjures up "nutjobs" like yourself and wee joe devine, we're all obviously far better off without you.

I also think you'll find that heterosexual folks indulge in what you decry as "perverted acts". Who are you to judge anyone when after all you're just a bigot
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:15pm Sat 15 Mar 08
Tom McCall wrote:
What's this,? What's this? Vitriol raises its ugly head again. And wasn't that to be expected? If my memory serves me correctly, is Walker the poster I read a few months ago who spent a lot of of his time attacking other posters on different subjects? Wasn't he a "Marxist intellectual" who spewed out a lot of hatred towards Blair? The last refuge of the scoundrel, to paraphrase the good Doctor, is the use of hateful language (like the word "bigot," which , normally ,is guaranteed to shut most people up), and his self-appointment as an arbiter of language. To a more intelligent poster like Observer, homosexuality is not an accident of birth--it is learned behaviour. Such practitioners may have been born equal in their heterosexuality, (there is no "missing gene") but are unfortunate enough to be in a dysfunctional family, with a dominant mother (from whom, when they reach a very early and sexually formative age, they are unable to detach and bond with their father--as a result taking on many of the characteristics of the woman) and an emotionally weak (who might as well be absent) father, unable or incapable of being that masculine role model from whom they can learn what it is to be a man. History is replete with examples of men having a healthy love for other men; think of soldiers who give their lives that a comrade's life might be saved. Developed by emotionally healthy parents as normal men they have not descended into the promiscuous pit of sodomy. And, for pity's sake. Why is it wrong to see someone as ''other'' because they are not exactly the same as you? Isn't that what others are--different from you. And what is wrong withh recognising such a major difference between heterosexuality (which man, from the dawn of history, has recognised as the normal state necessary for the continuation of the human race) and homosexuality (with all its ghastly side effects for people's health), an intrinsically, and freely chosen, evil state, which if it was widely chosen would lead to the dem