Monday 4 March 2013

Hypocrisy Is Not The Cardinal Vice

Cardinal O'Brien never attempted to marry a man. He never expressed the slightest desire to do so. None of his views on public policy was remotely incompatible with any aspect of his past or present manner of life. Even if any had been, then that would not have invalidated his arguments. On the contrary, those arguments remain entirely valid.

The Lavender Mafia has staged this hit. But what does it imagine will be its victim's successor's position on the definition of marriage? It is Cardinal O'Brien's erstwhile liberal allies who have rubbed him out. The odious Damian Thompson, that self-appointed and viciously enforcing arbiter of Catholic orthodoxy who is fully accepted as such by this country's media, declares his Fairy Godmotherly status by his spitefully triumphalistic, and triumphalistically spiteful, post for Telegraph Blogs.

Thompson, of course, is ecstatic at the downfall of a cogent critic of global capitalism at both macro and micro levels, of its wars, and of the nuclear weapons waiting to be deployed in those wars. Clearly, thus speaks the entire liberal wing of the Church. No surprise there. That economic system is not called neoliberalism for nothing. The 1980s were Mother Mabel's Golden Age is every possible way.

Oh, and did I miss something, or did the secular media used to say that it was outrageous to suggest any connection whatever between homosexuality and the pederasty scandals? But then, they used to deny that sex between adults and adolescents, of which there is absolutely no suggestion in this case, was endemic, and socially acceptable, in the 1970s.


  1. That "secular media" that you rightly lambast, includes almost all of the newspapers read by Labour voters.

    Papers like Owen Joness Independent, New Statesman and Guardian never cease their attack on every form of public-square Christianity, from council prayers to Parliamentary Bishops.

    Whereas the pro-Christian, anti-secular media, including the Daily Mail, are all right-wing.

    Where on Earth that leaves your political philosophy, I've no idea.

    I guess that's your problem.

  2. the pro-Christian, anti-secular media, including the Daily Mail

    One honestly does not know whether to laugh or cry at that one.

  3. So you deny the Left-wing New Statesman, Independent etc take all the positions I just mentioned?

    That really is a laugh.

    The Daily Mail has supported bishops in the Lords, council prayers, and opposed gay adoption, the redefinition of marriage and abortion.

    How many of these positions are supported by the mainstream Left-wing press?

    You know the answer. So, once again, where does this leave your political philosophy?

    All over the place, is my guess.

  4. Oh, you stupid, stupid, stupid little boy. Shouldn't you be in bed by now? Presumably with Damian Thompson.

  5. Damian Thompson ate my cupcake5 March 2013 at 00:03

    Anon is probably too old for Mabel, who is drunkenly tweeting away with demented fervour about Justin Bieber of all people in response to this post.

  6. Well said, imho, particularly about Mr. Thompson

  7. Seems very odd that Thompson cannot spell "Lavender" correctly, thinks that she is the Godmother of something called "the Lavendar Mafia."

    Or is this some secret meaning unknown to those of us who not Maid Men, Made Women, Made Old Women, Old Maid Men, or whatever the term is for members of the Lavendar Mafia?

  8. Hasn't Damian Thompson threatened to sue you?

  9. This blog gets more and more like the Coach and Horses, Soho, where the regulars show up to be insulted by the landlord.

  10. Tom Trilling, oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. I don't know which is funnier, that he made the threat or that he never followed it through.

  11. Unfortunately no-one else has commented on the actual post. I agree it was not hypocritical and agree with his basic stance. Where I have a particular problem (and did well before all of this) is the seemingly deliberately hateful manner in which he described gay people, well before the marriage debate came up, which is why the media (including the Mail, although they‘ve taken a different angle) are particularly relishing his downfall. His response after the story came out didn‘t help either. I am struggling generally with too many Catholic commentators focussing on the semantic details of whether he‘s a hypocrite or not rather than simply accepting this is a mess of his own making heightenedby his subsequent public outbursts.

  12. hateful manner in which he described gay people

    When, exactly?