Tue 23rd Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 23rd Sep 2014 at 16:20pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Cardinal questions whether David Cameron can be trusted

By on Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Emeritus Archbishop of Westminster, has said David Cameron’s push for same-sex marriage puts into question whether he is “someone whose steadiness of purpose can be relied on”.

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, the cardinal pointed out that same-sex marriage was not an election commitment, unlike the Conservatives’ promise to introduce tax incentives for married couples, which has so far been dropped.

He wrote: “In the run-up to the last election, the Prime Minister led us to believe that the strengthening of marriage as an institution was one of his important objectives.

“The Conservative Party’s manifesto, which made no mention of ‘gay marriage’, included a proposed tax break for married couples.

“Nothing has subsequently been heard of the latter proposal, and instead of action to strengthen marriage, we have the proposal to abandon the traditional understanding of marriage on the basis of a ‘consultation’ which explicitly excluded the possibility of a negative result.

“Protestations that this is all fundamentally ‘conservative’ ring a bit hollow.

“It is difficult not to wonder how far the Prime Minister is someone whose steadiness of purpose can be relied on,” he wrote.

The cardinal also argued that marriage was important to society as a whole, “believers and unbelievers alike”.

He said: “Redefining it as simply a contract between individuals irrespective of their sex, without regard either to its procreative function or to the complementarity of the relationship between man and woman, would be an abuse of language.

“More important, it would weaken marriage by diminishing its implications and therefore its significance.

“It has long been accepted that the State has the right to oversee the administration and legal aspects of marriage but it has never been accepted that the State can dictate to individuals and society itself what marriage should mean to us.”

  • Mtturner

    And then what ? . Do absolutely nothing when your government P— on you.

  • Mtturner

    I agree, and it is a worry, Public school does not prepare one for Public life, contrary to the opinion of certain individuals. They really only learn to look after the interest of like minded people, ie those who deprive the vast majority of equal opportunity, whilst promoting ‘ homosexual marriage ‘ as an urgent requirement for our communities.
    Scream from the rooftops. NO.NO.NO. 

  • Mtturner

    You have put forward your case with a profound level of unconvincing argument. If you are really in favour of aboloshing Marriage as we know it. Then please, please provide some argument to support  your position.
    I agree with one point. Everyone is capable of love. Of course they are. This is not an argument against Homosexuality. It is an argument against homosexual marriage. Can’t you see the difference ?

  • L.England

                                      sCam  wants  to  abuse  language  along  with  all  his  nefarious  deceptions  and  lies  foisted  on  a,  largely  unwilling  Electorate.

                                     Everyone,  Christian  or  not,  knows  what  marriage  is  and  most  will  not  tolerate  this  loathsome,  meglomaniacal  tyrannical,  desperately  donkey – licking,  historical  nonentity  of  a  P M s  pathetic  attempts  at  defying  logic,  linguistics  and  the  will  of  the  People.

                                     If  he  doesn’t  smarten – up  he  could  have  his  J F K  last  moment  ( hooray )  and  that  would  finish  all this  post  1923  ComIntern  ‘Long  March  through  the  Institutions’  ordure  for  once  and  for  all.  No  successive  government  would  dare  to  try  it  on  ever  again.  The  Military  would  like  that  too.

                                     Posterity  will  smirk  at  the  sCam  marriage  debacle,  believe  me.

  • whytheworldisending

    In Chapter 1 of Lord Hailsham’s book, “The Dilemma of Democracy,” (Collins 1978), he referred to two kinds of Democracy – ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP or Freedom under Law.

    He says, that there can be no compromise between the two, because this is what Elective Dictatorship will try to do: “It will assert the right of a bare majority in a single chamber assembly…. to ASSERT ITS WILL OVER A WHOLE PEOPLE WHATEVER THAT WILL MAY BE. It will end in a rigid economic plan and, I believe, in a seige economy, a curbed and subservient judiciary, and a regulated press. It will IMPOSE UNIFORMITY on the whole nation in the interest of what it claims to be social justice. It will insist on equality. It will distrust all forms of eccentricity and distinction. It will crush local autonomy. It will DICTATE the structure, form, and content of EDUCATION. It may tolerate, but will certainly do its best to CORRUPT, OR DESTROY RELIGION.

    Chapter 6 of Lord Hailsham’s book is entitled, “THE DANGER OF TAKEOVER.”

    On page 65, he prophetically spells out the danger to which our democracy is open: “This is the danger of takeover, that the whole system could be infiltrated from without and made the vehicle of a REAL TYRRANY COMMITTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PRESENT ORDER OF SOCIETY”

    At page 67 he continues, “… if backed by an immense majority of public opinion, dictatorship would be unavoidable by any means. But we should at least deserve our fate if we failed to take steps to prevent a takeover by anything short of this.”

    The three main parties have all been infiltrated, and want to impose their corrupt morals on the nation, but 4% is a lot short of “an immense majority of public opinion,” and we must take steps to prevent them taking over.

    “But what steps?” Lord Hailsham asks, at page 67. “The first steps,” he tells us include, “…an adequate system of defence, and an adequate police force to keep public order.”

    I certainly think its true to say that the police command greater respect from the British people than politicians who regard ordinary people all as PLEBS whose views can be so easily disregarded. 

  • Andrew

    It’s up to local civil authorities to ‘punish’ criminal acts committed by Catholics who transgress the laws within that jurisdiction. Unless you know otherwise, I didn’t think that the British government delegated to Rome the mechanisms and functions of Her Majesty’s courts.

    No?

  • Alban

    Changing the concept of marriage in human terms is an affront to normal heterosexual people who are man and wife. It is immutable. It cannot be changed to suit the whims of the abnormal.

  • Alan

    That is a most disgusting allegation, that the Cardinal “has encouraged sodomy”.  You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

  • Alan

    While I oppose “gay marriage”, which is a contradiction in terms, it pales into insignificance compared with (a) the iniquities of the Abortion Act, and (b) the cult of promiscuity and “one-night stands”, indulged in by most young people and a growing number of older people.  So let’s not lose sight of the biggest priorities in these areas of personal morality.

  • Kogo

    The Cardinal should keep his own political views to himself. It is certainly not for him to determine and decide what the Conservative Party should stand for and what ‘conservatism’ constitutes. 

    And as for the State “dictating”, this is again an unfortunate choice of words. For it is neither for the Church to dictate to the State nor to individuals or society this very same thing.

  • whytheworldisending

    Yes, but gay marriage is an incitement to promiscuity generally. The message is that traditional morals and standards no longer apply, and when people believe that, they behave accordingly. Contrary to what Cameron says, it is an attack on marriage, monogamy and the family, and therefore an attack on British society and ultimately Britain itself. Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are foolish if they don’t know this. If they do then they are an organised minority who do not have Britains’ interests at heart.

  • whytheworldisending

    What kind of democracy is this – where we all have to keep our views to ourselves, unless they agree with this unelected coalition government? There is something inbetween dictating and being bullied into silence. It is called debate – and only a dictator would try to stifle it.

  • Nicodemus

    A strange point since homosexuals are a minority and plans to afford them equal rights with the majority of hetrosexuals can hardly been seen as a dictatorship of the majority.

  • Nicodemus

    The whole purpose of rights is protect minority groups and individuals – even when they’re only 0.2% of the population. In fact it’s the minorities that need rights more than majorities. Millions may be offended but that cannot be allowed to be used to deny equal rights to minorities. That is the essence of what human rights are all about.

    Civil Partnership does not equal marriage. Marriage equals marriage.

  • PaulHalsall

    What makes a man appointed by dictate from Rome in any position to criticise anyone else on “democratic issues”?

    And while governments should conform to manifestos, all legislation for a parliament cannot be bound by a manifesto.

    Nichols and Murphy-Oconnor  would be much better speaking about the attacks on the NHS and DWP benefits – also in no manifesto – and wrecking damage on so many of us with AIDS.

    Nichols is a decent man., and supports the Gay Masses held in Soho. so it is sad to see him reduced to parroting lines from Ratzinger in Rome (Who, meanwhile has done nothing to stop the wild and violent attacks on gay people in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Uganda – all where Catholic bishops are calling for death legislation for gays.). (Neither has the Catholic Herald).

  • whytheworldisending

    The present situation is worse than a “dictatorship of the majority,” (and in the above quote Lord Hailsham was referring to a commons majority – as opposed to a majority of the electorate). It is the scenario which Lord Hailsham said our democracy is vulnerable to. He said that our political parties are susceptible to infiltration by an organised minority which could - once in power – use the vulnerabilities in our parliamentary system to “destroy the present order of society.” So, for example, imagine that militant homosexuals managed to take over the Liberal Democrat Party (not difficult); now imagine that they won a majority of seats in a general election (admittedly very hard to imagine); what would they do? They would do what the coalition is trying to do now. Let’s start again… Imagine the conservative party was infiltrated by homosexuals (quite unlikely); imagine THEY won a majority of seats (not hard to envisage)…It seems our democracy is safe, since an easily hijacked party like the LibDems could never get to power.

    WRONG. The Liberal Democrat Party has indeed been hijacked by homosexuals who have then used the Liberal Democrat Party as a TROJAN HORSE, smuggling its agenda into Government safely tucked away inside the coalition. Because Cameron’s party has no Parliamentary majority without that Trojan Horse, they can afford to be impervious to the views of both Parliamentary MPs and the vast majority of the British people. This is dictatorship by an organised minority, who are holding the Conservative Party to ransom. It is about as bad as it gets. The only way it could be worse is if the Homosexual Equality campaign was just a front.

    But wait a minute! Double agents Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt were both homosexual… and of course high ranking Marxist spies.

    Blunt, Philby, Burgess, McClean and friends didn’t succeed, but they did a lot of damage before they were exposed.

  • whytheworldisending

    That’s an argument for allowing wierdos to marry their pet animals. There have to be objective standards, otherwise the law becomes deranged and nobody has any regard for it anymore. That is already happening. The only truly objective moral standard comes from God, through Jesus Christ. When we leave the Way He has given us, we descend into barbarism. This is already happening. Christianity is what put the “Great” into Great Britain.We have thousands of years of Wisdom to build with. There isn’t time to reinvent the wheel – even if we could.

  • TheBlueWarrior

    What you are really saying is they should only speak out when it strengthens and supports your particular world view. 

  • Mtturner

    Cameron needs to explain several thing on homosexual marriage.

    Whats the real reason for this nosense ?
    What is the urgency ?
    Why is he clutching at the clearly dodgy opinion polls and ignoring the main ones ?
    Why is he ignoring the close to 1 million signatories who petitioned against this iniquitous bill ?
    What are the real reasons he will make it illegal for homsexuals to marry in C.O.E. ?
    Does this urgent desire for homosexual marriage stem bach to his Eton days. ?

    He needs to do certain things urgently

    Explain himself.
    Delay legislation for at least two years for proper public debate.
    Be honest
    Seek no change without referendum.
    Accept that the 100% natural equality is unattainable by homosexuals until they are
    able to create life.
    It may be normal these days for homosexual activity amongst a number, but, it is not natural and never
    can be.

  • Nicodemus

     It’s not an argument allowing weirdos to marry their pets. It argument that based on equal rights for everyone. If some people can marry their pets then everyone should be allowed to. Currently no one can.

    The problem with moral standards from God is that they’re not that objective and do change over time. Leviticus says homosexuals should be killed but I don’t see anyone supporting that anymore.Secondly the UK is a very multi cultural society, different people’s from different countries with very different religious outlooks. People come to Christianity or other religions of their own volition and that’s a very important part. It is wrong to impose Christian ethics on the whole society just as it would be wrong to impose Muslim ethics or Hindu ethics.The overarching philosophy of our country is liberalism (in the broader sense) and we adhere to that because a majority voted for it. Equal rights are a fundamental part of liberalism.(can’t get the bold type off for some reason – sorry)

  • whytheworldisending

    Lord Hailsham was talking about the danger of an organised minority infiltrating the political machinery of and subverting it so as to dictate TO the majority. Homosexuals are an organised minority.

  • Nicodemus

    “Whats the real reason for this nosense ?”

    Belief in equality of rights perhaps?

    “What is the urgency ?”

    The quicker it’s done the quicker people can benefit. I imagine he wants it out the way so he can concentrate on more important matters.

    “Why is he clutching at the clearly dodgy opinion polls and ignoring the main ones ?”

    a) Define ‘dodgy’. b) Since when did PMs base policy around opinion polls anyway?

    “Why is he ignoring the close to 1 million signatories who petitioned against this iniquitous bill ?”

    Tony Blair ignored well over a million people marching in the streets against the war in Iraq. Petitions carry far less weight than demonstrations.

    “Does this urgent desire for homosexual marriage stem bach to his Eton days. ?”

    What are you insinuating?

    “Delay legislation for at least two years for proper public debate.”

    This is so low on most people’s radar it’s hardly the kind of thing that requires a public debate. There’s the energy crisis, the environmental crisis and the economic crisis to name just 3 serious problems that are going to seriously affect everyone.

    “Be honest”

    He can’t. He’s a politician.

    “Seek no change without referendum.”

    Dream on. For most people this is a complete non issue.

    “Accept that the 100% natural equality is unattainable by homosexuals until they are
    able to create life.”

    Sorry but that’s just a bigoted opinion and there’s no reason for anyone to accept it.

    “It may be normal these days for homosexual activity amongst a number, but, it is not natural and never can be.”

    Homosexual behaviour is widespread throughout the natural world and it’s been prevalent throughout recorded human history. That statement just plain wrong. Ignorant statements like this do nothing except make Christians look stupid.

  • whytheworldisending

    There is already Equality for everybody, since everybody can marry someone of the opposite sex. Some people don’t want to, and nobody is forcing them to do so. Some people would rather have sex with children or animals but that doesn’t mean our marriage laws offend against any Equality.

    You are wrong when you say nobody supports killing homosexuals, and that is precisely why we don’t need moral relativism (which includes ALL shadesd of morality – not just yours) and we do need Christianity – it is what your “Liberalism” is derived from, though unfortunately it has been corrupted into permissiveness.

  • Nicodemus

     “Whats the real reason for this nosense ?”

    Belief in equality of rights perhaps?

    “What is the urgency ?”

    The
    quicker it’s done the quicker people can benefit. I imagine he wants it
    out the way so he can concentrate on more important matters.

    “Why is he clutching at the clearly dodgy opinion polls and ignoring the main ones ?”

    a) Define ‘dodgy’. b) Since when did PMs base policy around opinion polls anyway?

    “Why is he ignoring the close to 1 million signatories who petitioned against this iniquitous bill ?”

    Tony
    Blair ignored well over a million people marching in the streets
    against the war in Iraq. Petitions carry far less weight than
    demonstrations.

    “Does this urgent desire for homosexual marriage stem bach to his Eton days. ?”

    What are you insinuating?

    “Delay legislation for at least two years for proper public debate.”

    This
    is so low on most people’s radar it’s hardly the kind of thing that
    requires a public debate. There’s the energy crisis, the environmental
    crisis and the economic crisis to name just 3 serious problems that are
    going to seriously affect everyone.

    “Be honest”

    He can’t. He’s a politician.

    “Seek no change without referendum.”

    Dream on. For most people this is a complete non issue.

    “Accept that the 100% natural equality is unattainable by homosexuals until they are
    able to create life.”

    Sorry but that’s just a bigoted opinion and there’s no reason for anyone to accept it.

    “It may be normal these days for homosexual activity amongst a number, but, it is not natural and never can be.”

    Homosexual
    behaviour is widespread throughout the natural world and it’s been
    prevalent throughout recorded human history. That statement just plain
    wrong. Ignorant statements like this do nothing except make Christians
    look stupid.

  • Matty

    The same bishop who used Christmas Masses to condemn politicians etc when he could have spoken to the people about the birth of our Saviour – people must have left feeling that the real message of Christmas had been overshadowed. 
    Gay people show love – God is love…….are we not getting rather obsessed with this when other more uyrgent matters in our world need attention?
    The same bishop who loves to publicise everything he does.

  • Rondre

    Who the hell is he to judge if Cameron can be trusted? What bishops can be trusted after their cover up of the rape of children by priest. hypocrite.

  • Rondre

    0.2 % ? Do your homework 6 out of ten people are gay. A conservative estimate.

  • Rondre

    You don’t know what christian means.

  • Rondre

    He only so called dealt with it because he was forced to by the media.

  • Matty

    I think you’re a little late to be worried that monogamy, marriage and society will be attacked – sadly all that has happened already and had nothing to do with gay marraige.  ‘Married’ gay people are not more or less likely to be faithful than heterosexual people are.  Many heterosexual people have paid little heed to monogamy, sexual restraint or faithfulness for some time so why suggest that gay marriage will cause it?  When all said and done we are talking about 2 people who love each other and wish to be joined in marriage in the same way as couples do.  It is based on love – God is love.  Let him be the judge of what they do intimately not us.

  • Nicodemus

     Saying anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex makes it equal of fair is plainly ridiculous.

    The essence of marriage is union of two consenting individuals. Animals aren’t capable of consenting and children aren’t considered mature enough to do so. Neither applies to gay adults.

    Interestingly though Muhammad, one of God’s prophets no less, had no problem with sex with children or monogamy. He married a nine year old, one of several wives.

  • Maximusmichaelus

    I cannot imagine a situation where I or numerous friends of mine will accept same sex marriage regardless of any flawed legislation which might just make its way onto the statute books. So we must devise an appropriate add-on to ensure that these newly weds are properly identified.
    ( without being offensive of course ) all suggestions warmly welcome.

    Suggestions might be in the line of.   Mismarriagement,    Ken and Matt,rimony.   Properly married in the eyes of the blind.     Should have gone to specksavers etc. I look forward to any contributions.

  • Dique_john

    The UK is indeed fortunate to have men of the caliber of Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, quite unafraid to speak out what must be said, on behalf of all those who depend upon the church for guidance. Unfortunately Mr David Cameron is assailed by an ideology which also has persuaded the retiring Archbishop of the Anglican church in a no less similar way, that makes it quite problematic for the rank and file Brits, who follow like dedicated loyal sheep, whose trust is not respected, but it is also a scandal for others who are not native to the UK. Worse still, those who have followed the Westminster system in their passing of Laws in the Commonwealth are now faced with a dilemma. Do they follow their conscience or remain faithful to a Commonwealth?

  • Nicodemus

     Wow. Sad to see your interpretation of the biblical message has lead you down a path of hatred and bullying. It’s worth remembering that Christ never once said anything against homosexuals and his central message for mankind was promoting love to all. This is something most Christians understand.

    It’s also worth pointing that as Christian, if that is what you call yourself, you are doing a huge disservice to fellow Christians everywhere by posting your vile thoughts on a public forum.

  • Max

    Your Grace I know you have spoken out against euthanasia. In England the elderly and vulnerable are being put on The Liverpool Care Pathway . Brave Doctors have spoken out against it . While  Archbishop Nichols remains silent . Please your Grace intervene.

  • Hisprogramme

    Props to the Cardinal for calling a spade a spade and giving Cameron a good slap down.

  • whytheworldisending

    The gospels don’t mention paedohilia, incest or bestiality. Does that mean you think they are OK? Of course not - so why do you pretend to believe that is any sort of basis for argument that homosexuality is OK?

    Similarly all sorts of undesirable behavours are widespread in the animal world, but we are not so stupid to believe that these behaviours should be imitated by human beings are we?

    I sympathise with your position, for I don’t think you have any sound arguments at your disposal – I certainly can’t think of any reason why we should promote activity that communicates lethal diseases among the general population. We have evolved away from advertising cigarettes, and this too shall pass.

  • Rondre

    How can we trust the clergy and especially the bishops for their cover up of the sex abuse and rape of children. I trust the PM first.

  • Nicodemus

     Well if you’re referring to STDs then these are transmitted by unprotected sex and promiscuity in both hetero and homo populations. Marriage, gay or straight, defines a relationship as monogamous so has to be a positive thing in this regard and should be encouraged for all, not outlawed for some.