Good people stay in refugee camps till their children are dead or criminalised. Bad people try to get them out of there, to a new life and a good school.
This is the Tony Abbott position, along with piracy to keep them from that good school. Kidnapping these children on the high seas and dumping them back in Indonesia, or near it.
Bishop Power on Fran Kelly a few minutes ago said this was wrong. A Catholic like Abbott, he said the future Prime Minister’s attitude was not Christian and Jesus, a refugee himself when fleeing Herod’s persecution into Egypt, illegally perhaps, had a different view. The parable of the good Samaritan shows that people not of your faith can be good people, and they are good people if they help a stranger in need. He also said, in Matthew 25:
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepare for the Devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It is a big step for Tony Abbott to choose hellfire eternal over being good to a needy stranger but it is a choice he has made. He must now I think renounce his faith as he renounced Craig’s vote, or run, run, run like a rabbit from the Cathedral, the way he does, whenever that lesson is read, or loving his neighbour is commended from the pulpit, to his ongoing disgust.
He is in such a moral mess, a mess of his own making, that I fear for his health. Piracy, in order to keep children from a good school in Australia, and it is not only sinful in the rulings if any faith, but a breach of international law occasioning arrest and trial at the Hague.
What a piece of filth you have, my dear old friend, become.
And it’s a pity.
Name:
Bob’s gone all biblical on us this morning preaching to his online congregation. He must have read today’s disastrous Newspoll. Things are not looking good for Gillard and her wishy-washy open borders policies eh? Tony on the other hand has a spring in his step…
Remember Bob, “good fences make good neighbors.”
I think I read that in the bible.
No, it was Robert Frost.
Define ‘wishy-washy’.
Fences separate people, and create loneliness and isolation in the suburbs…too much privacy is bad…
Open your blinds, Frank, let the carpets fade…
Define ‘wishy-washy’. Wanting children not to be tortured, is it?
Define it, please.
WANTED. ONE MORAL COMPASS.
Contact: T. Abbott, Parliament House,
Canberra.
FOR SALE, One Moral Compass.
Contact J.Gillard, Parliament House, Canberra.
There’s you problem in a nutshell.
With one hand you strike at Christ and with the other you point to Him as the truth?
‘Who do you say that I am?’
No, I’m saying Abbott has abandoned his faith and if it had any cojones it would excommunicate him.
Or do you disagree?
Let’s try excommunicating Catholic politicians who proudly support a woman’s right to abortion, first.
I dont think that there’s a very powerful consensus about this within the church anyway. Perhaps it leans towards your view and there would be good reasons for doing so. Indeed many fleeing the middle east right now are in fact Christians who these great new Muslim democracies can barely wait to get their hands on.
Abbott will still take the most desporate boat people, but the moral, long-term priority should be on patching up the middle east, which is largely our fault anyway
Peter,
Putting aside what a woman decides, depending on what she believes, I’ve never understood men who presume to make it their decision and not hers. It seems to me that women can be moral too or is that too ambitious a statement for your church?
You then go on to draw a thoroughly reprehensible distinction between Christian refugees and Muslim ones. Are you actually Tony Abbott, because you certainly appear to have borrowed his moral compass on that one?!
As for patching up the Middle East I think letting the residents and proprietors of the place fix it up properly on their own terms is far more appropriate and better achieved with or without our help but definitely without our economic agendas. Perhaps you agree?
A child’s right to life is more important than a woman’s right to choose…(is this not obvious?)
I didn’t mean to suggest that Ch refs are more imp than Mus ones. I just wanted to point out that the new middle east under the democracy so naively assumed to be good is far less hospitable to the ancient Christians groups (who are far older than the Muslim ones, btw) than it has been for a very long time.
The point is that the whole boat people crisis stems from problems in the middle east, which it is still in our power, and responsibility, to solve.
“A child’s right to life”
If this is a reference to abortion, what is aborted is NOT a child, but a foetus.
At two months, a foetus is 20mm long vaguely human-shaped blob. It is by no stretch of the imagination a child.
“God” kills far more foetuses than induced abortions do:
Wikipedia:
Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.
As to the middle east, the Christians may be older, but they are a tiny minority, and they are unfortunately tarred with associations with murderous “christian” regimes in the US and Australia
Finally, what is in our power in the middle east is to GET OUR MURDEROUS HANDS OFF, and to stop brown-nosing the US over its interference
John,
Was the daughter of Feng Jianmei a two centimeter blob?
What of the appalling ideas of Peter Singer, no doubt coming to a hospital bed near you and soon.
read what I wrote. Yes, of course, very late term abortions are very undesirable in my opinion. In fact, I consider ALL abortions undesirable.
But it is not appropriate to call a foetus a child, unless you further specify - eg, that it is a very late-term foetus capable of independent existence.
It is an obominable lie to willy-nilly call foetuses children
A fetus is a nascent child: and what of it?
Capability of real independent existence comes when a child is seven.
this is getting absurd. Let others judge. Those with imaginary gods telling them what to think will probably not be very convincable by reason
Peter,
My question wasn’t what do you think is right or wrong for a woman to decide, but why you’re seemingly prepared to take that decision from her. Do you really mean to force women to carry to term against their will?
Please answer.
Not all refugees currently arriving here are from the Middle East, some are Tamils. Are you willing to take the Tamils?
Meanwhile I think we have to be able to help on more than one front and any given point in time. The current situation in Afghanistan for ethic Hazaras remains so dire that if it does improve then it could take a generation to do so. I don’t think it is conscionable to fail that generation of Hazara children. Do you?
Why am I even having to ask this? You’re supposed to be a man of conscience. Just start with an accident of birth not being a determinant of privilege in the world and work it out from there. It’s not hard. If I can do it without any religion and Bob can too, what’s making it so hard for religious people to find moral clarity about this issue?
I have no external god telling me what to think. Just making my point.
That reply was to John.
I don’t know HG, that could be your son being killed.
As his co-creator, your opinion in the matter is irrelevant, do you think?
I know the law says it is, but the law can be an ass.
Not irrelevant Stan, but not ultimately decisive either.
I think it is necessary that a woman’s body is her own province when it comes to the consequences and thus the responsibility for what she does with it.
The alternative is to force a women to carry to term against her will. Would you do that?
Please answer.
No, the decision is hers.
But a mans sentiments ought to be seriously weighed as well.
All it takes is a bit of selflessness.
Not the worst answer you might have offered Stan.
At the same time in answering you earlier I wondered about cases where a man wants rid of his responsibility against a woman’s wishes.
I think it is a moral question, but one more capably answered in my view by the kind of morality religions fail at.
An all too familiar scenario.
A man should not run from his responsibilities.
I am aware of the power imbalance inherent here, but such is life.
No, a woman has a right to kill a child, but I, as a former foetus, have a right to ask her not to.
Mincing words about mincing babies is dishonest. A baby is a baby. A death is a death. Some killings are understandable.
But let’s not pretend I was never non-human, or you.
No, do you think Abbott should be excommunicated, or not? For directly opposing his Church’s teaching on ‘my brethren’ and ‘the stranger within thy gates’.
Please answer this.
If the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated every one of their flock who opposed, fudged or wriggled out of their teachings, they would long ago have shrunk to the size of the Humpy Doo Mensa Society.
What about Pope Alexander IV systematically poisoning his daughter’s husbands, and making his son a cardinal at the age of 13?
My guess is that Mr Abbott will be happily eating crackers and guzzling wine for some time to come
I don’t accept that he directly opposes the teaching. Christ was not primarily talking about government policy.
I imagine Abbott regrets the tough talk and it does conflict with his faith, but he sees the greater duty as making sure people do not set out on these mad journeys at the hands of shonky swindlers, with a high chance of death.
Of course we will still take boats that would otherwise sink, but deterring this risk of life, wherever possible and in convincing terms, is the primary and greater moral good, I think.
Abbott has more faith in his own ambition than in anything else.
As for the issue of boats even Palmer knows that we need to go and get them to obviate the need for the dangerous journey.
To Peter:
Should he be excommunicated?
Please reply.
I’m not an authority on the rite, but I would say that his policy does have a worthy good as it’s objective - to stop the boats rather than take the few who miraculously survive the trip (and thereby encourage thousands more)
You’ve quoted us a lot of scripture, but without any sincerity or belief… Satan, it is said, quotes scripture for his own purposes. But you have no interest in the truth; only in catching out your opponents.
The wicked man’s oracle is Sin/ in the depths of his heart;/ there is no fear of God/ before his eyes.
He sees himself with too flattering an eye/ to detect and detest his guilt;/ all he says tends to mischief and deceit,/ he has turned his back on wisdom…
No a policy with a worthy good is to increase our intake and bring them here directly so that boat journeys become unnecessary. It is called compassion, Bob and Clive Palmer can understand it each in their own way, and I thought you guys were big on it too… but I guess I was wrong.
I have faith in the authorities that they set the current in-take at a level which balances compassion with our ability to deliver such compassion. If they raise the quota, then i would welcome the fact that we have a new capacity to show compassion to the world’s most needy, while the responsibility of running a healthy, balanced state is not shirked.
You, however, with your sugary slip-shod, hysterical, feminine brain rant and rave about taking everyone and everything, pulling out your hair over how wicked we are, willing to sacrifice anything, rob whoever, bankrupt whatever, to pay for it.
Your just sound like petulant, foot-stamping children, crying more more more and now now now from a government you’ve decided owes both you and the world a living - a living that you snatch greedily and without gratitude or reciprocation
We have time and money enough and we need foreign workers. Gina does…
Bob suggests Japanese waiters should emigrate in smaller numbers to accommodate a few extra refugees.
And still you spew forth your pusillanimous wretched excuses. We the people are the democratic authority who matter and yet you abrogate your responsibility to a man like Abbott.
It is not good enough by halves.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Bob,Cardinal Pell put an end to Hell on Q&A during his discussion with Dawkins. It has been boarded up with an “Excellent Development Opportunity” fascia out the front. It’s natural heating features has secured for it a provisional EPA rating for its low carbon footprint, but it is reliant on a filtering system being implemented to mitigate the sulphur fumes.
Meanwhile residents of Heaven have filed an complaint under the trade practices act, against the proprietor of Hell Mr S.A.Tan for failing to provide sufficient thermal currents in order to keep their clouds aloft.
Bob, Christians have been doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus said since day 1.
Crusades, for god’s sake!; “in this sign I conquer”, for god’s sake!; not allowing Occupy to use their empty lot in NY, or their precinct in London, for god’s sake; Abbott is a true Christian: a lying, murderous, hate-filled scoundrel.
Don’t believe their publicity, look at their actions
a bible quote you don’t hear often from the phoney christians is
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
would that their imaginary heaven existed just so they could experience this; Abbott would be right in the front ranks of those being excoriated
Joseph and Mary stopped at the border.
Jesus was born, in a refugee camp, at the end of a queue.
Joseph payed a people smuggler with gold, myrrh and frankincense.
They made it to Christmas Island. Joe was assessed as security risk and deported.
Mary is held in detention for two years, with Jesus and another boy who is orphaned.
Mary, after two years alone and in detention, re marries, as Joseph has not been seen or heard from and is feared dead. Soon after she is released into the community.
After 5 years, ASI0 reassesses Mary and finds her to be a security risk. Jesus is pulled out of Springvale public school at 11 am, with his little brother and flown with his mother to Villawood for further detainment.
Mary employers and close friends are distraught. Jesus’s teachers and classmates are distraught. Their neighbors kick the ball down the street and wonder where their new friends have gone.
The family is denied any knowledge of charges/proceedings or any right of appeal, as is the media or anyone else who wants to know anything. They are simply labeled a non citizen and security threat. There are no explanations.
The family is denied permanent residency, after 6 months, and flown to Iraq.
Australia was safe, its borders, secure.
I like the idea William it had the right effect on me, but I suspect that sadly some others would use it as the impetus to propose crucifixion as a deterrent. That’s how low I feel we have fallen on this issue.
A mischievous person might say that if the border control had been effective, we might never have been cursed with Christianity, and indirectly Islam - for would Muhammad have existed without the acknowledged prophet, Jesus and his subsequent cult?
You are all talking pious drival. Leave the women alone.
Abbott seen sneeking out of George Pell”s office speaks for itself and George Pell’s and Ton Abbott’s demeanour reveals an obivious holier than thow approach which belies there true retched feelings which if truly brotched by their inner selves would render them into a catatonic state. Yes please
Are you Jim?
Your bad spelling and punctuation suggests this.
On Q&A in April 2010, Mr Abbott claimed that Jesus would not necessarily have allowed every asylum-seeker into Australia.
“Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone,” he said. “Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.” HUH???
Asked what Jesus would do on the issue of asylum-seekers, he replied: “Don’t forget, Jesus drove the traders from the temple as well.” WHAAAA???
“This idea that Jesus would say to every person who wanted to come to Australia ‘fine, the door’s open’, I just don’t think is necessarily right,” Mr Abbott said. WTF???
Abbott’s form of argument is called jesuitical for very good reasons.
Jesuitical doesn’t begin to cover it. Deranged is closer.
replying to Bob 4:34pm
“Mincing words about mincing babies is dishonest. A baby is a baby. A death is a death. Some killings are understandable.
But let’s not pretend I was never non-human, or you.”
(Should that be “ever non-human”?)
Sorry, but I refuse to accept that a fertilised egg is “human” in any way that justifies calling it a “child” or a ‘baby’.
It starts (to oversimplify) as 2 cells, becomes 4, then 8, then 16. At some stage it does indeed become human, but it is really refusing to look at the simple facts, it is allowing ourselves to be swept away by all the grand pious words, religious or humanist, mostly spouted by men over the millenia, to call a couple of cells a human being.
Especially when, as I noted before, in the normal course of nature, more than 50pc of all fertilised human eggs do not develop into babies and are flushed from the woman’s body.
This issue is profoundly important as a gratuitous obfuscation of the issue of early-term abortion - what should be a simple matter of preventing the creation of a baby, turns into ‘killing’ a baby. There is an argument to be had by sensible people at some stage of the foetus’s growth, but let’s stop talking nonsense
Let’s see now,
Tony Abbott is not in government
Tony Abbott is only saying what he intends to do IF he gets elected
Right now no matter what he intends to do he cannot do it as he is NOT governing
And yet he is being spoken about here as if he actually IS doing something.
On the other hand,
Julia Gillard IS in power
Labour is in power because they HAVE the numbers to govern.
Since they ARE in power AND have the numbers they can legislate whatever policy they want.
She has chosen to dismantle a working process and has no idea of what to put forward as an effective alternative (needs someone else to tell her what to do Angus etc)
Her solution rejected by High Court.
800 people already dead on her watch, boat arrivals now daily, Oz navy performing Taxi service with boats within sight of Indonesian coast.
And somehow we are talking here about what MIGHT happen under Abbott as opposed to what IS happening?
If Abbott disapeared tomorrow nothing would change, boats would still arrive, people would still drown. At what point does Labour take ownership of the problem and stops blaming those that are not in power?
Julia IS in power
She governs the country because she HAS the numbers and can pass legislation
It is up to her to solve it.
Who cares what Abbott thinks or says. He cannott DO anything.
Talk about head in the sand here!
800 people have died on her watch
JP,
I think I’d have to pull you up on characterising what went before as a working process. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Bob would probably call it a lie.
People stopped coming despite the fact that 99% of arrivals under Howard’s policies were settled where? In Australia, is the correct answer.
So the Palmer solution as suggested in various forms is probably the best one, but sadly if we have to lament anything then it is our apparent inability or lack of will to do even that.
It is disingenuous to blame Labor entirely for fumbling the poisoned chalice of asylum seeker policy. It was they who tried to compromise with Oakeshott and fell over at the Senate. The coalition could have assisted but Abbott said that if that means deaths at sea continue “so be it”.
As you say “people stopped coming” under Howard.
Oakeshot is the part of the ruling government and current LG coalition controlls the senate. So back to my point, Julia as the numbers and control of both houses. That is why she is governing. If she cannot persuade her partners in coalition why should she blame Abbott. He is in OPPOSITION. That is our system of government. Elected parties and coalition govern whilst the opposition sits as an alternative if the government performs badly. Since when is it the oppositions business to support the policies which are contrary to their aspirations?
There is nothing complicated here
Julia was elected,
She chose her partners to gain the necessary numbers to govern and she was able to form government.
Then get on and govern.
If your partners are not cooperating and you cannot govern then call for an election and stand on your record.
It is not the business of opposition to govern orvto even help govern. Their task is to prepare and offer alternative policies to the voters.
No let’s not go back to your point. It was moot. The queues cleared when the refugees were placed here and some in New Zealand. That is all.
And it is the business of any good opposition to stand for good governance and accept their opponent’s mandate to govern.
Abbott’s “so be it” was far from good enough while people drowned. The numbers are tight. He should have been part of the solution.
The queues were cleared because there was not a boat arriving daily. Undisputabe fact is 6 boats in 3 years. The traffic simply ceased and the backlog was cleared.
Why did not Labour keep the Howard solution and simply started prcessing more people directly? Again they could have steered the policy into any drection they chose.
As for Abbott accepting the opponent’s mandate to govern that is a falacy. It is the voters mandate. He cannot accept or reject the government no matter what he does or says or feels. He can only point out what he thinks is wrong and offer an alternative. It is us who will vote to accept that alternative at election time or tell him to go away.
Numbers are tight!!!, so what? A majority of 1 is still a perfectly acceptable majority. Tightness has nothing to do with it. If your partners are not helping you than you do not have the numbers and should go back to the electorate to resolve the conundrum.
Again it is ludicrous to expect the opposition to bail you out when your partners are not willing to.
Tony Abbott is stating very clearly what he intends to do and his proposals will be tested at the election time. If we do not want hs solution than we will vote accordingly. On the other hand if he gets in than he WILL have the mandate to act.
We have a government. We put them into office to govern. We did not choose LIB/NAT.
Julia has the numbers, mandate and power to make a decision and implement it. Not Abbott, not Angus. We want leadership from people we elected to lead us, not those that we threw out.
The fact is that push factors change. Pull factor barely exist.
Other than that you’re just being an apologist for the unconscionable.
I don’t intend to be an apologist for Labor, but they need the agreement of others to act. What Abbott has said and done is despicable.
“the fact that 99% of arrivals under Howard’s policies were settled where? In Australia”
Not any sort of “fact”. Under 50% is a capital ‘F’ Fact (43% actually).
Not what I have read, so please quote a source.
As I understand it and I’m happy to be corrected 90% were accepted as refugees in the short term and 99% after protracted wrangling.
I know a few went to New Zealand and assumed the rest were settled here.
Why shouldn’t they?
Hudson,
Render unto Caesar, m8. Render unto Caesar.
That’s you’re problem; you don’t trust government or any authority - that was your enlightened contribution to civilization; radical mistrust of all others and total adoration of self.
That’s what made you such lousy parents/greasy neo-libs/dole-addicted burn-outs.
And you project this self-loathing into hatred for your country. All this internal angst come out in… Gay marriage!… Clergy abuse!… … Stolen generations! Omg, global warming!!… Refugees!
Waa waa waa. All of these things are just about you and your cowardice and your duplicity and your utter obsession with your precious little selves. You don’t really care about anything - other than being affirmed as ‘compassionate’, ‘free’, ‘loving’ and excuse me while I be sick
Appreciated the Beckett reference btw
Peter, do you share a similar faith in our authorities with regard to something like carbon change policy?
How about our abortion laws? Do you unquestionably accept the authorities have the balance right with those?
If so, I have to concede you’re at least consistent in your views, and I have no argument with you.
If not, what’s so different about refugee policy?
Well government could be trusted until you lot assumed that it couldn’t be - you just assume that it’s as two-faced, decieving and as selfish as you are, so that’s what it became. This is a democracy, after all! Look in the mirror and you’ll see the spineless, compromised, self-loathing Gillard government in all of your features.
Abbott is a rare and different breed who can argue an unpopular truth with conviction and determination. Perhaps the only man eho could reverse the entrenched damage the self-hating misfits have inflicted; abortion law, gay marriage movement, no-fault divorce, a shockingly low birth rate, an unweildy welfare state and welfare mentality.
He has core ideas about life’s goodness and the worth of each person which will translate into an increasingly confident nation; births will increase, people will laugh again, young men will do away with their make-up and long hair and flirtations with homosexuality and resolve to become men again.
A new dawn. A fresh start. A brand new day.
Meanwhile you can fester and wail in the corner, in sackcloth and ashes, about how excruciating this new turn of events will be. All success of others, even your country, can only provoke sadness and guilt in you, because of your sin. Your only consollation is in the suffering and withering of others, including your xountry, because you know,
In justice, these things should happen to you. But remember; the people in hell are not sent there; it is exactly where they want to be
m8.
“He has core ideas about life’s goodness and the worth of each person which will translate into an increasingly confident nation; births will increase, people will laugh again, young men will do away with their make-up and long hair and flirtations with homosexuality and resolve to become men again.
A new dawn. A fresh start. A brand new day.”
Is this supposed to be satirical?
If not, you need to get some help. being off with the pixies is one thing, but this is absolutely barking.
I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling Peter’s beliefs about real men and their appearance, with a guy who regularly gets around in fluorescent pink skin-tight lycra…I really am.
Jesus had long hair.
Peter, honestly after all that rabid vitriol you last line made me smile
You’re really Shaun Micallef working on a bit for Mad as Hell aren’t you?
carbonclimate change policyPeter has got to be a serial killer, doesn’t he? That whole m8 thing creeps me out.
He can be close to the bone and wide of the mark simultaneously, Buber called it “Gleichzeitig Naherdiebeinaberweitvondiezentrumnism” before his jaw lost all elasticity and his teeth fell out. He choked on his own words, God was listening but failed to call an ambulance.
Some of it sounds like the sort of remarks Bob would have made at the launch of Battlelines. Perhaps Peter is Bob, Tony’s new Rock.
From the wide ranging writing style and points of emphasis, I would say that Peter is one of a number of voices imprisoned in some poor mid-20′s young woman’s soul undergoing exorcism. “Dimmy it’s your mother, are you wearing fresh socks”
I’ve been there. I feel for Peter.
It took me longer than it should have to work out “m8″ taking away valuable time on my rebuttal and complete destruction of Buber’s theory of communication. I have honed it down to 30 words on a Fantale wrapper. It can be sung to “hand me down that can of beans”. It was a lot easier than I thought, his black hole is now a shallow wading pool.
No, on second thought you were closer R1.
Buber’s well is deep and wide except, as you rightly point out, when it’s not. Are the beans in a can symbolic of Buber’s Wikipedia entry? And does the top shelf represent heaven? Good on Pete for giving it a go and tackling some of the more convoluted life issues. Is Peter the one handing down the beans in this little scenario? Or is he the prism through which all else is viewed? Are we being blinded by Pete’s misdirected light refractions? Buber watches on. And wonders.
That first paragraph of Peter’s 9.12am post yesterday circles the rim of the black hole, gaining momentum, it received radio waves from 2GB.
The can of beans consist of Freddy’s 4 errors:
We never saw ourselves other than imperfectly
We attributed ourselves imaginary qualities
We felt ourselves in a false order of rank with animals and nature
We invented new tables of values and thought them to be eternal and unconditional.
Deducting the effect of these (removing the beans from the sauce) we also deducted
Humanity, Humaneness, and Human Dignity (and flatulence, I added that one in).
As it appears to be ‘un-Christian in the eyes of the great moralist to seek refuge by any means from the hellish collapse of one’s society by those means at hand, what measure of ‘Christian’ worth does he apply to those sexually exploiting their vulnerable youth to tragic outcomes within his own Church, then cowering in silent
conspiracy from the top down…?
Apparently he thinks it’s somehow the fault of “you lot”, Denis. Quote: “All this internal angst come out in… Gay marriage!… Clergy abuse!… … ” Search your conscience, Denis, search it very very carefully.