Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

St. Andrews: LGBT students protest during sermon by anti-gay Cardinal O’Brien

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Great to see the students protest.

    This needs to happen repeatedly in RC churches up and down the country, week in – week out, until they get the message that homophobia is not acceptable – no matter what manner they dress it up in.

    The “grotesque” approach to demonising and subjugating a minority in offensive and belligerent language – such as that of the Cardinal must be protested until the church change their stance and the Cardinal resigns and apologises.

    1. Cilia Blick 15 Apr 2012, 4:19pm

      We need to bring back the 60’s expression “grotty”, which was short for grotesque. As in “this cardinal is dead grotty”.

  2. Well done on all concerned!

  3. Well done all concerned. Let’s make this clear to all believers. You are either collaborating through complicity or silence, or you are part of a movement towards equality and justice. You can’t just sit back, keep putting money in the collection plate, keep ticking the census box and then saying its not your fault.

    1. You’re spot on. We’re constantly being told that the majority of Catholics don’t agree with the church’s teachings on homosexuality, abortion, contraception etc. but if they don’t stand up and say so then the church will never change.

      1. Cilia Blick 15 Apr 2012, 4:21pm

        Its a top down church, not a bottom up one, though, so I’m not sure they listen to their parishioners.

        1. Surely if this majority of catholics (if it is really true) took a stand, the church would have to listen?

          1. As someone who was raised Catholic I can understand the mentality and it is hard to shake it off. The idea of being disrespectful to a priest seems so shocking, but it shouldn’t be. They are only human and very capable of making mistakes and being wrong. Sometimes they are very much in the wrong indeed!

          2. @Dromio

            I was also raised a catholic and I was able to throw off the shackles soem years ago now. So I know all about the mentality of catholics, but I don’t accept any excuses for catholics who claim to disagree with the church’s teachings yet continue to attend mass. It’s abhorrent, immoral and hypocritical. As long as they do so, the church will continue to think it’s right about these things.

          3. When I was about 9 or 10, I was an altar boy at church for a year or 2. One day, O’Brien visited and said mass with our priest, although he was only a mere archbishop at the time, not a cardinal!

            The church claim we aren’t born gay, it’s our upbringing. So using their logic, they are largely responsible for my being gay as I was brought up as a catholic and even O’Brien himself played a small part in my life!

            Thanks, Keith!

    2. Catholics who can think for themselves have a duty to stage a walk-out, if you ask me.

      1. Yes, Jonpol, you’re exactly right. There’s no point in them disagreeing with the church’s views if they carry on going to mass and don’t let the church know what think. They have a moral duty to let the church know what they think.

      2. i agree . . . lets hope they have the courage

    3. I agree totally. Those who continue to support the church through remaining silent are part of the problem. They are enabling bigoted and homophobic behaviour.

  4. For best effect, you and your 50 closest friends arrive at the church early and sit as close to the front as possible. This makes it obvious to the whole assembly and leaves the first few pews empty which screws with everyone remaining, especially any speakers, for the rest of the service. It gives the psychologic impression that no one wants to get too close to the priest or alter.

    This can be done in all churches and other hate-centric organizations.

    You don’t have to say a word, just walk out about 1 minute after the speaker begins. Do it in groups, about 15 seconds apart as if the people leaving have a good idea.

    Life’s too short not to have fun with the village idiots.

    Personally, I would have protested nude out front, holding a placard with “1 Samuel 18:1-4″
    [You'll never think about King David the same way again, and unambiguous proof Gays and their love is mentioned in the Bible in a very positive light!]

    1. Dennis Battler 15 Apr 2012, 4:14pm

      I say knit point red hats (parodying the cath-drag) and put them on as you leave, as suggested, in stages of say 3-5 people at a time, 5 – 10 minutes apart to fully disrupt the pompous burlesque show in progress.

      1. And if the sermon is something you agree with – such as talking about addressing global poverty? A protest needs to be specifically targeted at the church’s shortcomings and hypocrisies. A general ‘we don’t like you’ won’t carry much weight – especially with Catholics, who are used to not being liked.

  5. Rainbow Protestor 15 Apr 2012, 4:29pm

    The protest was organised to minimise disruption to the service, not to condone the speaker but to show acceptance of the right of others to speak. It was also arranged this way to avoid any possible criticism of the group from the (quick to judge) anti-marriage equality brigade – 100% successful! The Chaplain himself congratulated and thanked attendees of the protest for their ‘respectful and dignified’ presence, after the service.

    A criticism I have of the arrangements was the deliberate and carefully-managed segregation of the protesters to the back of the church, by other students helping to coordinate the congregation. This is not only un-Christian in its lack of welcome, but has nasty overtones from historical segregation of minorities.

  6. If only everyone would get up and walk away from these Christian Clown who say crazy hateful things to try to destroy people with their words of hate, these Religious Leaders who are now Clowns in a sad circus of hate and destruction where once they spread the words of love and helping all now spend millions stopping gay marriage instead of feeding the hundreds of thousands of children who starve to death on earth every year. We need more and better and bigger protest like these to show them they are harming others with their religion of hate and persecution of others. Turn your back on anybody who hates and walk away, is an easy way for anybody to protest, if everybody did this then it would make a difference, keep up the good work.

  7. Someone invades the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and then has the audacity to claim that the congregation was ‘unwelcoming’ and ‘segregating’! LOL. I’d like to see how welcoming the punters in a gay bar would be if someone walked in and tried disrupting the night’s proceedings by objecting to them – vocally or not.

    The Church is not – ever – going to change its teaching on this, so ‘Get over it!’ as some people seem to like to say.

    1. why so pessimistic?

      MANY other denominations changed their views, evolved, grew, learned. There are many very accepting Christian denominations now. So why not keep a door open for the Church of Rome and the Church of England?

      I will have to disagree with you that the church will “not – ever” change its teachings.

      1. Christians regularly protest gay pride marches.

        1. Which church? Which Christians? Many Christian faiths already have turned around and changed and becoming accepting and supportive of the LGBT community. Others are clearly in the process of changing. What’s going in with the Quakers is vastly different to what’s going on with the Anglicans, which in turn is vastly different to what’s going on with the Catholics. It doesn’t make much sense to just vaguely refer to Christians and tar them all with the same brush.

          Ask yourself this – how many Christians protest at Pride marches compared to the large number of gay-friendly Christians organisations which march in Pride parades?

          1. Dormio i think you are wrong on this one. catholic church, that accounts for over half of 2.2 billion of christians (largest denomination in the world) is strongly opposed to lgbt, as are ortodox, protestant, pentacostal churches, even anglican church is firmly split on this issue. only small churches like quakers are on our side

            of course not all followers agree with official position of their churches, but they know you cant just force them to change that position.

    2. @John — I imagine the catholic church will change its tune eventually. After 400 years they admitted imprisoning Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun was the wrong thing to do.

    3. The ;Holy Sacrifice of the Mass’?

      Sounds kinky.

      You do realise I hope the the bible is a work of fiction?

    4. “The Church is not – ever – going to change its teaching on this”

      Really?

      They changed their teaching on a Geocentric model of the universe and burning of witches, didn’t they?

      Its more likely that it’s you that is holding onto a desperate intransigence becuase you need something to back up your bigotry. Maybe you should get over it and go back to school….

  8. George Broadhead 15 Apr 2012, 5:08pm

    It is a pity that these meek and mild protestors could not have emulated Peter Tatchell and other members of OutRage! who reacted to Church of England homophobia by disrupting a service at Canterbury Catheral.

    1. Spanner1960 15 Apr 2012, 6:13pm

      Yeah, great idea. That way we make ourselves look as big a bunch of knobheads as they are. No wonder LGBT people get so much sh|t when so many act like a bunch of spoilt brat fcking children. There are many ways to skin a cat, and acting like pricks isn’t one the best.

    2. Lord Carey has still never got over it.

  9. Why does it bother you so much what the Church teaches? The state is on your side. Why are you so worried? Is it because you crave acceptance from everyone – even those who will always accept you as sons and daughters of God, but cannot ever condone gay sex or the gay political movement?

    By the way, who founded St Andrews? Was it the Catholic Church perchance? Yeah, thought you’d miss that bit out.

    1. @John

      You clearly demonstrate why the RC church (whilst it likes to think that it is) is not infallable.

      There are plenty of examples of the RC church being wrong in their actions e.g.:
      * Refusing to allow emergency contraception to rape victims
      * Refusing to support contraception in fight against HIV in Africa
      * Failing to report acts of child abuse to police in Ireland and elsewhere
      * Interfering in police investigations in child abuse in Belgium, Ireland and elsewhere
      These are just a few examples of thousands that could be given.

      Clearly, the RC church are very wrong in their acts – as in their grotesque treatment of LGBT people.

      They may have founded St Andrews – and that was a good thing. It does not make them immune from criticism or absolved from bigotry and hatred when they commit it.

    2. Rayne Van-Dunem 15 Apr 2012, 7:21pm

      Because it was the church which spread doctrinal homophobia to most of Europe in the first place.

      It was the church which damned homosexuality as a sin in Europe.

      It was the church which, when known as the “state church” of most polities, motivated the state to criminalize homosexuality as an offense punishable by death.

      It is the church – not just Roman Catholic or Orthodox, but ALL Christian, Muslim and Jewish denominations – which are being pressed on this matter.

    3. @John — don’t take it personally. We’re against any large, rich, multinational organizations that say we’re abnormal, abhorrent creatures deserving of fewer human rights than other people.

    4. “but cannot ever condone gay sex or the gay political movement?”

      Notice how these bigots never accept that two men can fall in love as being the core of a gay relationship? Its always about the sex.

    5. Why does it bother you so much what the Church teaches? The state is on your side.

      Because the church is clearly trying to influence the state.

  10. I am really pleased to hear the students did themselves proud. Homophobes like this Cardinal must be stood up to at every opportunity.

    Going off on a tangent for a moment: It’s purely a personal thing, but I wish we would stop referring to ourselves as queer. I think it’s a horrid, negative word. When we describe ourselves this way I consider it extremely counter-productive – if we can’t refer to ourselves in a positive, respectful manner then how can we expect that of others?

    1. Queer is a word being reclaimed. Surely it is better to reclaim it for ourselves than to let it be used against us. Also it is a useful word as it encompasses all the the elements of LGBTQQI etc without the clumsiness of an acronym. I used to not like it because it does sound a bit like an insult, but I now think we should make it a positive.

    2. Adopting an insult is quite a long-establish tactic by minorities to defuse insults.

      It’s a way of saying ‘I don’t care what you call me’, stick and stones and all that.

      The shock value also gets attention, especially if it gets banned.

      It’s even been used commercially, e.g. ‘4 Poofs and A Piano’, ‘For Eyes’, ‘Niggaz Wit Attitude’ etc.

    3. In the states there are married LGBT couples who refer to one another as “partners” instead of “spouses”, “husbands” or “wives”. Talk about internalized homophobia. If LGBT people will not act equal by using accepted marital nomenclature, we cannot expect others to respect us as equal.

    4. I don’t like the word queer either, simply because my Great-Uncle used it when I was a wee boy in a completely non-sexual way. He used it to describe someone who was strange or odd, in a sinister way! It’s always stuck with me and I’ve never liked it!

      But I can see the merit in reclaiming it.

      1. I think reclaiming “queer” has been effective in some ways. It has certainly taken the sting out of that particular word but there are lots of other words that LGBT people find offensive that are still used. I don’t like queer as a label. It doesn’t suit me, personally and I never use it.

    5. Agree totally.

  11. This man is discusting and shameful to britain. I cant see how someone can hold such strong views on homosexuality when from my point of view, it does not affect him at all

  12. My, how the Church has lost its power. Imagine doing that in the Middle Ages or even in the 19th century!

    1. The Church – as in the Catholic Church – officially became an outsider nearly 500 years ago. This is why it is a different grouping to deal with compared to the Anglican or Church of Scotland bodies.

  13. The Church has lost the power it once had. Imagine how a cardinal would react in the Middle Ages (Name of the Rose stuff) or even in the 19th century!

  14. @John

    “I’d like to see how welcoming the punters in a gay bar would be if someone walked in and tried disrupting the night’s proceedings by objecting to them – vocally or not.”

    Well, this is exactly what some christians do when they protest at gay pride events.

    This is exactly what some christians do when they post their foul comments on sites like this.

    This is exactly what some christians do when they organize petitions against the human rights of LGBT people.

  15. I’d like to see how welcoming the punters in a gay bar would be if someone walked in and tried disrupting the night’s proceedings by objecting to them – vocally or not.

    Punters in a gay bar aren’t usually occupied with encouraging a petition to limit the civil and human rights of Christians and/or non-gay people.

    Though, come to think of it, it mayn’t be that bad an idea ….

    1. Buggery caues AIDS 16 Apr 2012, 9:14am

      Homosexualites in gay bars or anywhere else certainly ARE itent on removing the civil and human rights of religious expression an freedom of conscience. It is people human right and civil right topeacefully voice their concerns over what they consider deviant practices that harm society. The homosexualite disorder brigade would dearly like to remove that right.

      1. “Homosexualites in gay bars or anywhere else certainly ARE itent on removing the civil and human rights of religious expression an freedom of conscience.”

        Care to back that up? And how do you possibly know what goes on in gay bars?

        1. how do you possibly know what goes on in gay bars?

          Can’t you guess where and how our coprophagic friend gets his expertise? (Now there’s a thought to help reverse your breakfast!)

        2. Kris

          Keith is one of those closet cases that hangs around in dark rooms. Ashamed to hide his face and then makes himself feel better by harassing gay people. If only he could admit who he really is and deal with his shame.

        3. “And how do you possibly know what goes on in gay bars?”

          Keith’s craziness is brought to you by the letter X and the word gay….

          1. Mind you Will, despite the tedium of his relentless attention-seeking I’d still rather have him an ‘ex’ than a ‘practising’ – the latter is too horrid a concept to contemplate.

          2. Totally agree Rehan…. he’s hardly an asses to humanity, let alone the gay community.

          3. Heh – I know you meant to write ‘asset’, but he’s certainly an ass as well.

          4. Opps :) Freudian slip, but appropriate one at that…

      2. You just can’t keep away, can you Keith? But you’re frothing again dear, take a deep breath and lie down (preferably on a busy highway).

        BTW, what does ‘caues’ mean?

        1. There’s a regular troll on these threads called Keith. Cardinal O’Brien’s first name is Keith. Maybe it’s him!!!!

      3. Clearly the troll does not understand simple English (nor medical knowledge)

        Buggery does not CAUSE AIDS.

        First of all, it is not possible to contract an AIDS defining illness (now more commonly referred to as end stage HIV) without having first had HIV. No matter how the HIV is transmitted – the method of transmission does not cause the AIDS defining illness. Given that very few HIV patients will develop into an AIDS defining illness, the presumption that the HIV will develop further is uncertain and fairly uncommon.

        Secondly, there are various methods of contracting HIV – shared needles, heterosexual sex, gay sex, trauma, inuterine, contaminated blood products, etc. Not every episode of heterosexual sex will cause transmission of HIV – thus heterosexual sex is not a cause of HIV or AIDS defining illnesses. Nor is buggery.

        So what is the cause of HIV – the virus itself!. The cause of AIDS defining illness? Having already contracted HIV and developed complications.

      4. Actually, unprotected sex, among other things, causes AIDS, so it can be put down to a lack of education, largely. Astounding that you’re not riddled with it, in that case.

        1. Unprotected sex is a route of transmission.

          The cause is the virus – but the cause of HIV.

          AIDS defining illnesses are caused by complications experienced whilst having HIV.

          The route of transmission is not a cause of either the initial virus nor the complications that may be experienced with it.

  16. He’s no use to man nor beast.

    1. nor choirboy.

  17. Hetero-pride.. Great 2B Straight!. 16 Apr 2012, 10:06am

    @ Flapjack
    “Punters in a gay bar aren’t usually occupied with encouraging a petition to limit the civil and human rights of Christians and/or non-gay people”

    Homosexualites in gay bars or anywhere else certainly ARE intent on removing the civil and human rights of religious expression an freedom of conscience. It is people human right and civil right topeacefully voice their concerns over what they consider deviant practices that harm society. The homosexualite disorder brigade would dearly like to remove that right.

    1. Can’t you make up your mind what to call yourself (or me, for that matter)? Getting a little confused are you, poor dear?

      1. Well, even if he can’t decide what his name is – I call him deranged.

        1. I think that’s definitely a majority opinion.

    2. Bless, he’s learned how to use a spellchecker. Told you playing spelling and grammar police was a bad move before.

      My point still remains:

      Care to back that up? And how do you possibly know what goes on in gay bars?

      1. I’m tempted to ask him which is his favourite gay bar – if only to make sure I frequent different ones!!

      2. Hetero-pride.. Great 2B Straight!. 16 Apr 2012, 12:35pm

        Hi butt buggerer
        Why not ask Rehan, he seems to know since he said…”Punters in a gay bar aren’t usually occupied with encouraging a petition to limit the civil and human rights of Christians and/or non-gay people.”

        1. No. Why not ask you? Surely the ex-gay conversion hasn’t been 100% successful – if it was, you wouldn’t be here ranting like a drunken piece of garbage.

        2. How old are you? – your use of infantile names to call yourself and to refer to others, makes you sound like you are still in Kindergarten.

          Its clear that you are merely after attention, otherwise you would not use such deliberately provocative name calling (I have heard better from 5 year olds!), nor would you (someone who is clearly homophobic) spend time on a gay news website.

          Or, if your antics serve any real purpose – perhaps you could share some examples of how your words have actually made a constructive impact on any one person – got to be worth a laugh to ask(!)

        3. Using the term I reported you for before. What a hard man you are. Tell you what, I will report it again. But before I do can you provide one statement of proof to back up the fact I am what you call me. I’ve not even stated my sexuality on here, but that has no effect on this. You are attempting to offend me based on a presumed sexual orientation(straight, gay or bi) so please provide facts to back up your use of such a term

    3. “The homosexualite disorder brigade would dearly like to remove that right.”

      Drunk again Keith, are we?

    4. And I believe I’m asking for your evidence as you’re the one who said “certainly ARE”, so presumably you have evidence to back this claim up no? Much like calling me a “butt buggerer” I ask you to provide evidence these are factual statements and not just bigotted remarks aimed to offend without any basis

      1. @Kris

        The more people who object to Keiths homophobia and hate inspired comments, the better. Its sheer harassment and based on homophobia.

        He is completely attention seeking, but doing so in a bullying and oppressive manner – that constitutes a hate crime.

        I can’t wait to see him in court.

        1. I’ll give him a chance to provide his evidence. If he can clearly show me admitting to having ever taken part in penetrative anal sex with another man or woman then calling me a “butt buggerer” would be a factual, albeit still offensive, term. Otherwise anything but asexualism is an assumption about my orientation.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all