Coffee House

Could homosexuality split the Catholic Church?

9 September 2014

3:53 PM

9 September 2014

3:53 PM

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the ebullient Archbishop of New York, has welcomed the ‘wise decision’ by organisers of the city’s St Patrick’s Day parade to lift their ban on gay groups marching under their own banners. He has ‘no problem with it at all’. His predecessor, Cardinal John O’Connor, who supported the ban in 1990, must be turning in his grave. More to the point, conservative American Catholics feel let down by Dolan, an orthodox and tribal prelate who likes to roll up his sleeves and jab in the direction of the snidely liberal New York Times.

Here’s the response of Deal Hudson, a leading Catholic Republican (and certainly not an anti-gay bigot):

Cardinal Dolan’s mistake, in this prudential matter, is precisely of the same kind made over and over by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops when it allows the Catholic Campaign for Human Development to invest its money in coalitions that contain organisations explicitly committed to ends such as abortion, gay marriage, and birth control. By giving Catholic money to such coalitions, the bishops are lending their collective moral authority to the work of groups who seek to subvert Church teaching. The US Catholic Church has become, to give it a name, ‘The Church With Blurred Boundaries’.

In May, the New York Times gloatingly predicted that its old foe – who despite his avuncular manner carries the whiff of a prince-bishop about him – would lose influence in the era of Humble Pope Francis. But now Tim Dolan has reached out to gay groups in a manner that proclaims (to quote his boss): ‘Who am I to judge?’ And the left-wing Catholics whom Hudson dislikes are jubilant.

Christopher Hale, a ‘progressive’ Catholic, used Dolan’s comments as the hook for a Time magazine article headed ‘Is the Catholic Church “Evolving” on Gay Marriage?’. Conservatives would say this is a classic example of what John Rentoul calls a QTWTAIN (Question To Which The Answer Is No). The Church insists that homosexual acts are sinful and, although it may eventually ditch the insulting label ‘intrinsically disordered’, it has no authority to change Christ’s teaching that sex outside marriage is always wrong. The magisterium of the Catholic Church is immutable on the big questions. You couldn’t reverse Paul VI’s absolute ban on artificial contraception or John Paul II’s declaration that women priests are a theological impossibility without, effectively, abolishing the office of Pope. And neither of these rulings is as blindingly obvious, from the perspective of ‘natural law’, as the sinfulness of homosexual genital acts.

[Alt-Text]


But Hale doesn’t ask whether the Church is about to allow gay marriage. He asks if its attitude towards it is ‘evolving’, a slippery concept. And he provides evidence to suggest that the answer is yes:

This closes a remarkable summer in which a number of high-ranking Catholic prelates have signalled that Pope Francis’s more open posture on gay issues has permeated through the Catholic world. In May, a top-ranking Italian bishop [the secretary-general of the Italian bishops’ conference, Nunzio Galantino, bishop of of Cassano all’Joniosaid] said that the Church should be more open to arguments in support of same-sex marriage. And just a few weeks ago, one of Pope Francis’s closest friends Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes said in an interview that he ‘didn’t know’ whether Jesus would oppose gay marriage.

This is indeed ‘evolution’ on the part of individual bishops. If Hummes and Galantino had said those things under John Paul II they’d have been hauled before the Pope. And they are influential. They are not representative of the majority of the world’s Catholics, most of whom share the hostility of traditional societies everywhere towards homosexuality. They are, however, in touch with the attitudes of many run-of-the-mill Catholics in America and Europe, whose anti-gay sentiment has dissipated almost as fast as that of Western society at large.

What we’re heading towards is exactly what Deal Hudson describes: a Church of blurred boundaries. No doubt this particular boundary would have blurred anyway, but Pope Francis has done his own smudging with the theological photoshop: the man who refuses to judge homosexual Catholics also believes that gay marriage as a proposition emanates from ‘the Father of Lies’ – that is, the Devil. Also, he supports civil unions. Probably.

Such confusion is as likely to lead to a Catholic civil war as it is to an officially sanctioned ‘evolution’ towards a gay-friendly stance – that is, the Church turning a blind eye towards gay unions, which is the most that its magisterium will allow it to do. No subject is as dangerous as this one. Just ask the Archbishop of Canterbury. Twenty years ago it seemed that women’s ordination would split the Anglican Communion. Instead, it was homosexuality. Justin Welby is terrified that, if the Church of England permits same-sex weddings, it will endanger the lives of Anglicans in Muslim countries.

Magnify the Anglican conflict a hundredfold and that will give you some idea of what might happen if the world’s senior Christian Church tears itself apart over homosexuality. Hudson is a moderate conservative; more hardline American Catholics are spitting tacks over Dolan’s concession. Yet another front is opening in America’s culture wars. And one dreads to think what African bishops would say if they were asked to soften their stance on anal sex (which is all that homosexuality means to them).

Gay Catholics are in a horrible position here. Their Church teaches (and will go on teaching, however it finesses it) that they can’t follow their natural sexual impulses without sinning. But are they right to direct their anger at the Vatican? Maybe the fight they ought to be picking is with Jesus of Nazareth, who said nothing about homosexuality but who was so rigidly opposed to divorce – a fact conveniently overlooked by every Church except that of Rome – that it’s very, very difficult to imagine him blessing gay marriage.

These are deep waters. Perhaps the argument will be rehearsed at the Synod of Bishops meeting in Rome in October to discuss the Family. Most observers think, however, that the Synod will run a mile from any formal ‘evolution’ in the direction of gay rights. And, practically speaking, it will be right to do so. Any further blurring of boundaries on this supremely toxic subject and all hell will break loose.

 

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • guest

    Only the sicks follow such religion!!!!

  • chris fung

    Please come out to my 3rd solo exhibition of 39 new paintings titled: O MOTHER MARY INTERCEDE FOR ME.
    ‘”Many times creativity will take us to the Cross.” (POPE FRANCIS)
    Mother Mary will assist me in my struggles with homosexuality, idolatry, obsessions and ideals concerning masculinity and femininity.
    GOOGLE: CHRIS FUNG ART SHOP for more details
    This Weds-Sat until Sept 20th, 2014
    Thank You!

  • Aliquantillus

    When Damian Thompson says that Jesus of Nazareth said nothing about homosexuality but was so rigidly opposed to divorce that it’s very difficult to imagine him blessing gay marriage, he is doubtlessly right. But it is a rather contorted way of reasoning to deduce Jesus’ position on homosexuality from his position on divorce. What nowadays is almost a consensus in the scholarly world of Jewish-Christian studies on the first century is that Jesus was completely at home and immersed in the normative currents of the Judaism of his time, and that his teachings never contradicted the Law of Moses. It would not only be very difficult to imagine Jesus blessing gay marriage, it would by utterly unthinkable. Jesus’ teachings emphasize the ongoing validity of even the least commandments (Mt. 5:19), and he condemns those who claim to follow him without doing the commandments as workers of lawlessness (in Mt. 7:23). The suggestion that Jesus on such a fundamental issue of the Law was out of touch with all of Judaism and would permit deeds that are called abominations only reveals how completely detached modern people are from biblical norms and biblical culture.

  • Nicholas I

    Is Dolan a hassock-lifter?

  • William_Brown

    ….it’s split many an alter boy

  • David T

    Of course, there is also the possibility he has changed his tune because gay priests threaten to out prelates. It worked with O’Brien.

  • stag

    The confusion is mainly in your head, Damian. There is no conflict between these two propositions: one, that we should not judge homosexuals (or indeed anyone); and two, that gay marriage is the work of the devil. Where’s the confusion?

    I do admit, though, that in general, Pope Francis has not been as clear as his recent predecessors in thought and word.

  • Solage 1386

    I am intrinsically disordered. This is a matter of some pride to me.

  • Solage 1386

    Homosexuality is good. Christianity is bad.

    • EschersStairs

      That’s just weird. Go back into your dark hole.

      • Solage 1386

        Satan is my master and the dark is my delight.

        • EschersStairs

          Not you, silly, whatever the animus was that you were channeling.But of course Satan is your master and you like sin. The only problem is that the pleasure of sin lasts only a short season, and then it bears the fruit of destruction and misery. You’ve probably already started to taste the latter. That’s why you should turn to Jesus and be forgiven.

  • Julian Range

    The usual bigoted rubbish from Thompson. Apparently he isn’t a very happy human being. In fact in an earlier post he stated that he thought he only had 3 years to live.
    Maybe he should up the dose of his anti-depressants until 2017.
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/music/9211771/listening-strategies-in-the-face-of-death/

  • JIMMYPALMIERI

    I think jesus would bitchslap anyone who denies the lgbt community of its rights. We are his children also. Hang your heads in shame when you preach about jesus with one face, then harm gays with another. The serpent did that also.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Sounds good, lad. You can start your own church of “Jesus of Nazareth the Bitchslapper”, and you should do alright.

  • timinsingapore

    Why do you describe the NYT as ‘snidely liberal’? I think you mean that it doesn’t agree with you. And for snideness, indeed venom, it is hard to beat the forces of illiberality, whether in the form of the Tea Party or of any other of the moral conservatives. It’s hard to watch Fox News for five minutes without being submerged in a sea of snideness.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Well, first, the NYT isn’t “liberal”, it’s leftist, snidely so. And it is the modern Left that is illiberal.

      • Marshal Phillips

        The NY Times is America’s most respected newspaper of record; and yes it is liberal and progressive in its editorial and op-ed pages with some conservative op-ed pieces published regularly.

        • Annie

          Au contraire. The Wall Street Journal is America’s most respected newspaper.

          • Marshal Phillips

            The WSJ is good for business and economic news; but the NY Times is older, has won way more Pulitzer Prizes in journalism, and covers the gamut of news and information.
            It’s America’s oldest, continuously covering All the News that’s Fit to Print.

            • Annie

              The operative word is “respect”. The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation. As they’re both high-end newspapers, it’s an apple-to-apple comparison. People read The Wall Street Journal and *then* The New York Times or The Miami Herald or The Chicago Tribune, etc. When the pedal hits the metal it’s the WSJ that people turn to to see how their little boats on the ocean are doing. The only other paper that gets that kind of respect is the London Financial Times.

              • Marshal Phillips

                The Walls St Journal is read for the economy and business reasons, hence it’s name.
                NY Times covers more subjects.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          No, the NYT is not the “most respected newspaper of record”, which is why its sales and revenues have been plummeting, and for years now. It’s been forced to go and have Carlos Slim, the Mexican oligarch, buy into it and support it and keep it from dying .

          People don’t want that rag. It’s being destroyed in the marketplace, and is nothing but a leftist propaganda outlet.

          It’s the equivalent of the BBC.

          • Marshal Phillips

            All print media is plummeting.
            Folks are getting their news and information on the internet.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              But you’re shrieking that the NYT is the “most respected newspaper of record”, when the statistics show that it is a disaster, and clearly nobody agrees with you on your shrieking. They scorn that leftist birdcage liner .

              It’s a leftist propaganda rag, and a Mexican oligarch is using it to broadcast his own propaganda, which is hilarious.

              Oh and fyi, the folks getting their news and info on the internet don’t go to the NYT site either, lad. What kind of a fool wants hard leftist propaganda?

              • Marshal Phillips

                It’s no more a disaster than any other print media.
                And, dude, NY Times has online subscribers.
                Media is moving to internet.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Except that you’re shrieking that the NYT is the “most respected newspaper of record”.

                  It’s trash and requires welfare payments from a Mexican sugar daddy in order to survive.

                  Oh, and people ignore the NYT on the internet as well as in print, lad. You really can’t make an argument, can you?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  NY Times will survive and continue, dude.
                  It has online subscribers, advertisers, and net readers who don’t pay for up to five articles. It’s a new ballgame today with print merging into the net. Try to keep up.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It may survive, if the Mexican oligarch pays them to propagandize for him. But it isn’t going to be what you claimed it is, the “most respected newspaper of record”.

                  It’s a leftist rag, and only survives on welfare benefits, like all leftist nuttery.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …and by the way, lad, why is it up uptick your own posts? You do realize that makes you look ridiculous, don’t you?

          • Marshal Phillips

            Dude, I like my posts.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Who knows why that might be, but it makes you look ridiculous in any event.

              • Marshal Phillips

                What’s ridiculous is your obsession, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you’re the one obsessed in here, lad. It’s somewhat amusing, but sad, too.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, seek help for your obsession.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Your projection isn’t a healthy sign for you, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  My health is just fine, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …no, not when you’re projecting your pathology onto others on the internet.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you forgot to uptick your post, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Thanks, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you still forgot to uptick your own posts, lad. Which is a good thing, because it makes you look ridiculous.

  • rockofritters

    it’s not just fantastically stupid because the Church’s position can not change on matters of Faith and Morals (or it wouldn’t be The Church), it is FANTASTICALLY stupid because we’re talking about all of society being cowed by 3% or less of its population. here’s an idea, rather than everybody else splitting apart over this. perhaps the 3 or less % should go off, form their own church and do whatever floats their boat. and good luck with that. Jesus Christ and His Church don’t have to come meet you. he offers the ordinary path to salvation through the sacramental life of the The Church. take it or don’t. its up to you, there’s no effort at coercion, salvation takes the paved way, something else takes the dirt road. but you can’t change the path’s end game because you don’t like it…. that’s ridiculous. almost as ridiculous as an entire society talking in hushed tones about the upcoming “holiday season” when 97% of that society either celebrates or isn’t offended by the celebration of Christmas or saying out loud “Merry Christmas”. and yet it’s happy holidays! so who’s forcing who’s views on who anyway?

  • fredx2

    A fantastically stupid article. The church’s position is clear and will never change. It always cracks me up when these people write these things, thinking that they are putting pressure on the church to change, or thinking that the “policy” can “evolve” in any way.

    I’ve been reading these same articles for 40 years. The church is going to evolve on abortion, on women priests blah blah blah. It will not change because it is right.

    • Marshal Phillips

      the church has changed on doctrines and dogma before.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …so your aim is to change the church?

        • Marshal Phillips

          no

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …then why did you comment that it has previously, in reply to a poster pointing out that the church doesn’t change?

            • Marshal Phillips

              The church has changed on various dogmas and doctrines. I pointed this out. So what?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …so again, your aim is to change the church, even though you’ve denied that?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The church is the church; my comments are my observations.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The Church is the Church, and your aim appears to be to change it. Your observations are somewhat, er, void.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  My aim is to make observations on a Speccie article in a public forum.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, the Speccie article isn’t clamoring for the Church to “change”. You are. Then you claim that you’re not. Then you clamor for change again. It’s weird.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I post, you post, we all post.
                  I’m not clamoring for the church to change; I’m making observations, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you’re clamoring for the Church to change, lad.

                  Why not just be what you are? You’re upticking all your own posts where you’re doing the clamoring, so why split yourself off from yourself? Just be what you are . You seem to be about the business of soul murder… your own soul. The Church can help you with that, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, the church will do what it does.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and you’ll do what you do, lad, which appears to be clamoring for the Church to change and do what you want it to do, and then denying that that’s what you’re doing. It’s destructive and unedifying for you to do that to yourself, lad. The Church can show you another way.

    • Pat Conway

      The church can’t evolve because religion is still stuck in the Dark Ages.

    • LaurenceBoyce

      Arrogant and dangerous.

  • Annie

    “But are they right to direct their anger at the Vatican? Maybe the fight they should be picking is with Jesus of Nazareth . . .”.

    Nail. On. Head, Damian. The Catholic Church exists to protect, preserve, and pass on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Period. It’s not that the Church won’t change those teachings; it’s that it can’t because it didn’t create them. The CC is the messenger who keeps getting shot because it’s a lot easier to do that than to conform ourselves to Christ.

    • Kaine

      Except the church does pick and choose. Always has. Case in point, Dolan whoring himself out to the money-changers of Wall Street to restore St Patrick’s Cathedral. All that stuff about the futility of piling up treasure here on earth goes out the window then.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …what’s that got to do with the price of fish, lad?

        That rant has nothing to do with the post you “replied” to.

        • Kaine

          He said the church can’t choose its position on homosexuality to fit the times. I point out the church, and the specific person cited, has shifted the position on the primacy of poverty, so why not on sexuality?

          I await someone explaining the difference. Feel free to take a crack at it yourself darling. X

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Your rant about “primacy of poverty” is mush, lad. It means nothing, and certainly describes nothing of the church, or even of the one particular man you’re blathering about for that matter.

            Your arguments have nothing to do with the price of fish, lad.

            • Kaine

              Feel free to take that up with Frankie.

              http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#No_to_the_new_idolatry_of_money

              No to the new idolatry of money

              55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

              56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Nothing to take up with anybody, lad, and no need to read through more of your mush, or any of your strawman links. Your fantasizes about what occurs have nothing to do with the Church, even less to do with the one particular man you’re fantasizing over.

                Your arguments are ignoring the price of fish.

  • David Prentice

    Even if Jesus had preached about homosexuality would his listeners have understood? The more cosmopolitan Paul understood and explicitly condemns it, no?

  • Paddy S

    Something similar along the lines happen in Ireland last week with the emergance that St Vincent De Paul’s whose mandate is to help provide charity to the poor for some bizarre reason decided to fund a LGBTQ (whatever it is this week) center. I dont hate gay people but I resent money being stolen from the poor (both straight and gay) to fund the “equality” agenda which is nothing but a far left liberal fantasy (with totalitarian goals) forcing people who are indifferent to their agenda to support it. I refuse.

    • Kaine

      Except that’s not what happened.

      From SVP

      “The decision was made purely on the basis of need in the Galway
      area, in the same way as all requests for support are assessed. It does
      not signify any other motive.

      “The SVP objective is the relief of poverty, both material and
      emotional, in Ireland and abroad without differentiation on the grounds
      of race, colour, creed, ideology or gender.”

      But hey, if it’s really about stuff being “stolen from the poor” I assume you’re all for the church selling that artwork and feeding the hungry right?

      • Paddy S

        Ye this is a group which somehow managed to earn 45,000 which is dedicated to funding poor and those in most need. LGBT groups are prob best funded political groups in Europe.
        Speaking of charity why is it liberal atheists rank on the bottom of charity giving? Or volunteering?

        • Kaine

          I’m not a liberal, you’d have to ask them.

  • enness

    Having three popes at one time didn’t do us in.

  • John Bauer

    Ever hear of good old self control ?

    • EschersStairs

      Do you mean we are not all ‘victims’?

  • Pat Conway

    Father Lawrence C. Murphy raped hundreds of deaf boys but he was never brought to justice and when he died he was buried in his priestly vestments. How can an institution like the RC church preach about homosexuality when it turned a blind eye to paedophile clergy?

    • Laura Lowder

      Heck, the media has turned a blind eye to pederasty and pedophilia among school teachers and liberals, whose offenses far outstrip the problem within the Church (which was a gay problem, never forget that: the victims were overwhelmingly pubescent boy, not small children). So where’s your outrage over that bit of injustice?

      • Pat Conway

        All acts of abuse whether commited by teachers or priests or anyone for that matter are reprehensible and vile. Why did you try and make a distinction between minors and pubescent boys? It’s still the rape and abuse of underage children.

      • LaurenceBoyce

        Quick, look over there! There’s someone much worse than us!

        (Top tip: don’t try that one at the pearly gates.)

    • Paddy S

      How can atheists preach about tolerance and their progressive worldview when the 20th century was the most violent century in human history (worse than all others combined) and violence was done en masse by secular tyrants who believed in the old Enlightenment idea of creating a new man and purging society of those religious.

      • Pat Conway

        What has that got to do with my post on Father Murphy?

        • Andre Oqueli

          What has pedofilia got to do with homosexuality hmm?

          • Pat Conway

            It has nothing to do with homosexuality but the arrogance and hypocrisy of the church in matters of human sexuality is sickening.

            • Andre Oqueli

              These particular group of humans are no better than anyone else I’m afraid, including you, as much as you would want to think differently. For sure yes you would most likely never commit the heinous crimes some priests have done. But atheists can’t say they are saintly either, as plenty of their comrades across the whole world have and continue to commit massive amounts of crimes against humanity, such as in China, the economic economic nerve centre of the Earth, but at the cost of tens of millions of nameless human beings. The chap’s comment above states much the same as me here. Now you might be tearing your hairs out in frustration saying, WTF has any of this got to do with pedophile priests!!!
              Well think about it. These men have committed one type of heinous crimes, shaming my Church in the eyes of the world. But groups of atheists and peoples from other groups, Muslims, Jews, communists, fascists, economists, politicians, judges, police, soldiers, teachers, students, etc etc etc,

              • Pat Conway

                Then the church should stop preaching.

                • Andre Oqueli

                  If it does that, then I dread who will take it’s place. The government? Politicians? Economists? Etc etc etc? Oh wow the alternative is no better. Because the world’s governments have often committed ten thousand times the number of crimes, including those against children, that the Church will ever have committed in it’s 2000 year history.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Crusades, burnings, witch hunts et al.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …atheists have done far more murder come the 20th century, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, you can count the numbers of deaths by the church. It’s not rocket science. Blaming “atheists” is an absurd deflection. Atheists don’t go around murdering people in the name of atheism. Hitler himself was a Catholic.

                • EschersStairs

                  Stalin? Pol pot? Mao Tse Tung?
                  Hitler was a political Catholic. He had no regard for God, and was more a pantheist in reality.
                  No atheists do not go around murdering people in the name of atheism. Atheist go around murdering people in their own name, and a plethora of rationalisations to boot.

                • Pat Conway

                  “Atheists go around murdering people in their own name.” Stupid comment.

                • EschersStairs

                  Tell that to the millions of Chinese who died in “the Great Leap Forward”.

                • Pat Conway

                  Confusing Communism, a political ideology, with non belief in a god.

                • EschersStairs

                  Communism and atheism are the philosophical offspring of humanism. Separating politics from belief or religion is nonsensical. If your beliefs or religion mean anything then they will influence your politics.

                • Pat Conway

                  No. My non belief in god has nothing whatsoever to do with politics or any political movement or party.

                • EschersStairs

                  So you say. But that can only mean one of four things, 1. your claim in “disbelieving in God” has no meaning, 2. your political claims have no meaning, 3. you haven’t thought about the logical bases or conclusions of any of your beliefs, political or religious, 4. you are inconsistent.

                • Pat Conway

                  1. My claim of non belief is based entirely on the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. 2. Being a non believer does not make me a communist or socialist. I put politics alongside religion as the most divisive and dangerous man made constructs. 3. Don’t talk about logic and reason when a believer has to deny both to enable him or her to believe in an invisible man. 4. I am not inconsistent.

                • EschersStairs

                  1. Excellent, that means you have a lot of reading to catch up on. 2. Straw man. Most if not all communists and socialists are ‘non-believers’. What a coincidence. 3. What a puerile line of argument. You have no basis for first cause, no basis for morality, no basis for rationality and no basis for logic without a Creator. These questions can only be answered by ridiculous “just so” statements. 4. Probably not, but 3. looks more and more likely.

                • Pat Conway

                  Trying to tell me who I am. It’s laughable really. Your upset because I don’t share your belief in your imaginary god. Again don’t even attempt to use reason and logic when you believe in the supernatural. I have no basis for morality? Why? Because I don’t believe in the fairy tale of a creator?
                  Where is your evidence of this creator? Come on let’s see you provide some proof. That’s the problem with theists they can’t back up their extraordinary claims but will indoctrinate young children and claim non believers are evil.

                • EschersStairs

                  “Trying to tell me who I am. It’s laughable really. Your upset because I don’t share your belief in your imaginary god. ”
                  Okay, I don’t even know where that has come from. Perhaps you would care to explain?
                  “I have no basis for morality? Why? Because I don’t believe in the fairy tale of a creator?”

                  I would advise against calling your Creator a fairy tale.
                  I shouldn’t actually be explaining to you why your apparent worldview does not have a basis for morality. I have challenged you to produce a basis for your morality. But it goes something like this, morality is derived from right and wrong. What is moral is what is right, what is immoral is what is wrong. To define the boundaries between the two we posit that there is a moral law, i.e. murdering people without cause is wrong, or conversely, not murdering people without cause is right. But three questions naturally arise from this: 1. where have these moral laws come from? 2. Why should I or anyone follow them? 3. If we suppose that moral law is derived from the view of the individual and there are differences of view as to what is right, whose view is right?
                  And the corollary of the 3rd is, if we suppose there are two or more mutually exclusive views of what is right and right is derived from individual view, then we conclude that there is no such thing as ‘right’ from non-contradiction. It cannot be both right and wrong simultaneously to murder without cause, for example. To avoid contradiction it is pretty clear that we cannot rely on individual view as a basis of morality, moral law must transcend human view. Which brings us back to question’s 1 and 2.

                • Pat Conway

                  You were trying to pin my political views down to communism or socialism. Wrong. Do all believers share the same political views? Of course they dont.
                  You would advise me against calling my ‘creator’ a fairy tale. Why? What’s going to happen to me? Why do you have to speak on behalf of an ‘all powerful, supernatural deity? Why does an ‘all powerful god’ require mere mortals to defend him and speak on his behalf? Why does god require laws written by man to protect him?
                  If you want to talk about morality you would have to tell me why you would base your morals on the god of the Old Testament who carried out ethnic cleansing, genocide and infanticide on his ‘creation’.

                • EschersStairs

                  “You were trying to pin my political views down to communism or socialism. Wrong. Do all believers share the same political views? Of course they dont.”

                  I really don’t understand why you have persisted with this view. I have never said it, and I’ve made numerous attempts to deliver you of that mistaken view.
                  I would not presume to defend God, and you are quite right, an all-powerful God doesn’t need me to defend him.
                  God chooses to speak through human beings for the same reason you are not destroyed on the spot for your sin: Mercy. “No man can see my face and live”. But you will see his face one day Pat, and then your blustering won’t mean a whole lot.
                  Ethnic cleansing, genocide and infanticide ai? Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that death comes to all. God has not only the right, but the obligation to judge sin and to bring forward the date of our deaths accordingly. In the same breath you will also say, “If God is so just, why all the evil in the world?” Well God has given us free will, and has forewarned us of judgement, and yet you still choose to live in sin. But judgement must come otherwise he would be unjust.
                  If you want God to be soft and cuddly, he’s not. He’s righteous. He didn’t become a Christian between the Old and the New Testaments. There was an obligation on God’s part to do something about sin, which is why he sent Jesus to die in our place so that he didn’t have to kill us because of it. Now there is an obligation on your part to repent.

                • Pat Conway

                  Repent for what? Repent because some mythical pair of nudists in the ‘Garden of Eden’ took dietary advice from a talking snake and the entirety of mankind has since been condemned with ‘sin’. Sin is an imaginary disease invented to sell you an imaginary cure.

                • EschersStairs

                  Too bad your conscience tells you otherwise, no matter how hard you try to strangle it. And so your own conscience will condemn you when you stand before God.

                • Pat Conway

                  I won’t be standing before your imaginary god.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  That was NOT done under the banner of atheism, but communism.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, Hitler was not a Catholic. Neither are you, as you’ve stated.

                  Atheists slaughter in volume. It’s what they do. It’s not a deflection, it’s what they do. Always, as the 20th Century demonstrated clearly, and far outnumbering whatever it is you’re whining about from “the church”, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude: Hitler was baptized, was alter boy and never renounced his religion; specifically targeted Jews not Christians for death. Nazis wore belt buckles Gott Mit Uns God With Us.
                  You’re very confused about what atheism is: it’s simply a nonbelief in 100s of gods and religions. Nothing more nothing less.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It doesn’t matter what rituals anybody goes through, lad. What matters is what you are, and Hitler was not a Catholic. He persecuted Catholics brutally, but you wouldn’t know that because you’re not interested in fact .

                  But your atheist buddies killed many more than Hitler, as we know. And no, I’m not confused on that. But you are.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Why? The thousands of child s e x slavers in Rotherham have done far more damage than a few sick priests, and only the child s e x slavers were enabled by government.

                • Pat Conway

                  And what influence does the Church have? Zero.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Au contraire, the Church condemns the child s e x slavers, in contrast to government, which enables them .

                • Pat Conway

                  Shame then for all their condemnation that the RC church could not deal properly with their own clergy abusing children. Hypocricy and religion go hand in hand.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  They’ve dealt with their problem clerics, and accepted that management had responsibility for them, unlike government, which appears to support the child s e x slavers. That would be true hypocrisy, in case you need to know, and you apparently need to know.

              • Pat Conway

                You forgot to add religion into the mix along with money and politics.

                • Andre Oqueli

                  Nah, true religion is not religion at all, but is actually spirituality. You are right about one thing though, religion or the nature of religious rules and principles a means of order, structure and control over one’s life, which can be a good thing if used correctly, but unfortunately has the double take of being used as a weapon by powerful people, much like money and politics, and scientific knowledge even sometimes, cough cough nuclear energy… In my humble opinion spirituality ought to take precedence over religion, as humans cannot control the spirituality of others like religious authority can. See my distinction now?

            • EschersStairs

              “It has nothing to do with homosexuality…”
              The truth is rather awkward.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    My comments have hit the cutting room floor, yet again. But then you don’t attract flak till you’re over the target. Damian’s rather sensitive since he came out of the closet and joined AA.

    • Damian Thompson

      I joined AA in 1994. When did I come out of the closet?

  • rolandfleming

    “Twenty years ago it seemed that women’s ordination would split the Anglican Communion”

    Didn’t quite a lot of people leave the Anglican church and become RC (with a special concession under Pope Benedict XVI to enable them to continue to follow the traditional Anglican liturgy) partly in response to women’s ordination? Or am I misremembering / misrepresenting events?

    • Peter Stroud

      You are right: and if I still professed Anglicanism, I would have defected. The Anglican Church professes to be Catholic, and though a celibate clergy has only formed part of the Catholic law for about a millennium: an all male clergy has been accepted doctrine since the very beginning.

  • ADW

    “who said nothing about homosexuality but who was so rigidly opposed to divorce – a fact conveniently overlooked by every Church except that of Rome – that it’s very, very difficult to imagine him blessing gay marriage.”

    How on earth does the one follow from the other? Surely Christ would not wish to deny gay people the same rights and fulfilment as everyone else, and would be against them divorcing in the same way he’d have been against others divorcing …?

    • https://belasariust.wordpress.com/ solly gratia

      Numpty, he didn’t have to say anything about homosexuality, since it’s non-acceptance was already accepted. Divorce was a contemporary liberalisation that Jesus henceforward rejected. So, Jesus was not a liberal, and not speaking about ‘my rights’ which is code for ‘I wants’.

      • ADW

        But he wasn’t really up for repression and treating people badly because of their nature, was he?

        • Laura Lowder

          The incidence of sodomy in Israel was probably just about zero because of the stringent prohibitions in the Law. Judaism was utterly intolerant of sexual depravities like sodomy, incest, bestiality, and consequently it simply wasn’t done — unlike the pagan world where decadence and depravity were the norm. He would have had to go elsewhere to have found it.

          • Laura Lowder

            Also — reading the Pauline epistles to the Gentile churches with an awareness of just who those Gentiles were — the Gentile converts to Christ underwent a MAJOR paradigm shift, embracing what would essentially have been a Jewish moral theology in their conversion. The whole “Be transformed by the renewing of your minds” — “Present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice” – counsel becomes vividly dramatic in light of what these converts were abandoning for the sake of following Christ.

            There were no accommodations for “nature” in a community devoted to following the Divine Nature. None.

          • ADW

            Not that it matters what someone said today or 2,000 years ago about right and wrong as such; what matters is the reasoning they offered in support

      • http://www.exclusivechurch.com/ Lorenzo Fernandez-Vicente

        ‘Divorce’ as you call it, or repudiation, was no such contemporary liberalisation in the time of Christ, it had been enshrined in the Torah for centuries.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    No.

  • Iain Hill

    Hope so, darling!

  • cremaster

    Could homosexuality split the Catholic Church?

    Very probably, given how little it has to do with everyday life.

    And Tony Blair’s “Faith Foundation”, which had so much to do with the “resignation” of Pope Benedict, and so much to do with the “election” of Pope Francis.

    • The Laughing Cavalier

      A sweeping statement, would you elaborate please.

  • AndrewMelville

    What horrible thing the Roman Church is!

  • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

    “Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the ebullient Archbishop of New York, has welcomed the ‘wise decision’ by organisers of the city’s St Patrick’s Day parade to lift their ban on gay groups marching under their own banners. He has ‘no problem with it at all’.”

    Why wouldn’t a Marxist Archbishop want to weaken the Catholic Church by allowing homosexuals march?

    For those not in the know, the Vatican was infiltrated decades ago by Marxists, hence the policy shift back in the early 1960s that allowed pedophile priests to remain in the unsupervised company of Catholic children, allowing for the massive numbers of pedophile attacks per pedophile priest.

    In fact, the KGB agent Quislings that controlled the Russian Orthodox Church before the “collapse” of the USSR are to this day still in control. They were never identified and thrown out of that institution after the “collapse” of the USSR. The same is true for all other religious institutions in the other 14 republics of the USSR, including East Bloc nations, proving not only co-option of those religious institutions, but that the “collapses” of the East Bloc and USSR were disinformation operations:

    http://sofiaecho.com/2012/01/17/1747052_eleven-out-of-15-members-of-bulgarian-orthodox-churchs-holy-synod-worked-for-communist-state-security

    The Bulgarian Files Commission also caught Soviet era state security agents in control of the political parties, military, bureaucracy, press, and other institutions throughout Bulgaria…

    http://www.novinite.com/articles/149908/143+Bulgarian+MP+Hopefuls+Exposed+as+Communist+Spies

    The Bulgarian government was politically forced into creating the Files Commission investigations due to the publication of a best selling book that noted the strange occurrence of Soviet era state security agents still on the government payroll. Otherwise there would have been no investigation, as is the case in the other nations that comprised the East Bloc, including those nations that comprised the Soviet Union.

    The same Communist strategy is taking place throughout the Soviet Bloc.

    • Pat Conway

      You are obsessed by Marxist infiltration.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

        “You are obsessed by Marxist infiltration.”

        Why aren’t you?

        • Marshal Phillips

          Today folks are more concerned with radical political Muslim beheadings.

          • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

            “Today folks are more concerned with radical political Muslim beheadings.”

            You mean the fake beheadings Moscow & Allies have tasked the co-opted West to perform, such as the fake Lee Rigby attempt at beheading, where the pools of blood were added to the sidewalk after the armed police arrived.

            • Marshal Phillips

              Nope, referring to real beheadings.

              • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

                “Nope, referring to real beheadings.”

                As the fake MI5 Lee Rigby incident illustrated, who do you think is committing those “real” beheadings? Do you know who Islamic State is and who created it, and for what purpose?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Not sure what your point is.
                  I’m aware of ISIS beheadings.

                • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

                  “Not sure what your point is.”

                  For those not in the know, the so-called Ukrainian “separatists” are actually Russian Spetsnaz and Guards Airborne troops, which is why a Russian colonel, Igor Strelkov, is in command and not a Ukrainian.*

                  These disguised Russian military units entered the Ukraine last February when the Ukrainian population, nationwide, revolted against the Communist government in Kiev,** the cause for the revolt being the weakened security apparatus within the nation, where most of the Ukrainian Army was in either Syria or Iraq, or preparing to enter Iraq from Turkey, pretending to be Muslim “Jihadists” (Islamic State). The Islamic State “Jihadists” wearing the silly masks are the Ukrainians, hiding their pale Caucasian/Slavic identities.

                  Moscow & Allies tasked the West to create Islamic State in southern Turkey (using Ukrainian troops to augment the fake “Islamists”) in order (1) to continue spotlighting the chaos the West causes around the globe, though it’s actually Moscow & Allies causing the chaos via their Marxist puppets in Western capitals; thereby (2) decreasing the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world; and (3) further weaken the United States Armed Forces via never ending wars per Moscow & Allies’ tasked “War on Terror”; the United States Armed Forces will be re-deployed to Iraq.

                  The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

                  Notice that not one political party in the West demanded verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

                  It gets worse–the West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested and detained the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

                  There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

                  Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

                  —————————————–

                  * http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9298982/the-frightening-face-of-russias-future/

                  **As hundreds of statues of Lenin were being toppled throughout the Ukraine, statues that were supposed to have been toppled back in 1991 if the collapse of the USSR were real and not the strategic ruse it is.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  OK, so?

    • Livia

      Jesus was a communist, son. He orders you to give all of your belongings to the poor. Begin with your computer and never look back. In other news, the Bishop is further right than you.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

        “He orders you to give all of your belongings to the poor.”

        Firstly, Jesus didn’t tell anyone to all of a sudden do perform any such imbecilic behavior, since that would lead to an implosion of the economy; and secondly, Marx champion Capitalism…

        “Marx sharply stresses the bad sides of capitalist production, but with equal emphasis clearly proves that this social form was necessary to develop the productive forces of society to a level which will make possible an equal development worthy of human beings for ALL members of society. All earlier forms of society were too poor for this” — Friedrich Engels, “Marx’s Capital,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Works, Volume I, pp. 468-469.

  • Mrs Josephine Hyde-Hartley

    But Christ doesn’t say anything about sexuality.

    And just because the Pope says ” who am I to judge?”, doesn’t alter the fact that what the Church normally does – namely; sacraments and mass, may most probably be done as they always have been done, for ever and ever Amen. That’s tradition for you!

    But otherwise, I don’t suppose the Catholic Church can either remove or add one jot or tittle to the things it normally does – though it might need to dismantle some workers from certain yokes they need not bear.

  • cambridgeelephant

    You mean it hasn’t already ?

  • mahatmacoatmabag

    Gay marriage is irrelevant , within 20 years , the UK will be a province of the Caliphate of the West

    • Livia

      It’ll be a corporate toy, like now, and ten years ago, and tomorrow. Relax, it’s what you always dreamed of.

      • stewart

        14,000 + children and their equally tortured families in Rotherham might disagree with your analysis.

        • Kaine

          It’s 14,000 now is it?

          Funny how we’ve had a Prime Minister who regularly spent Christmas with a child rapist, and endless stream of rich, white men and a facilitating establishment, and no ‘conservative’ wanted any questions asking until someone dark enough could be found.

          You don’t give a damn about the kids, it’s just a banner for your race-war w@nk fantasy.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …are you seriously apologizing for criminal gangs of child s e x slavers, lad?

            Seriously, you’re doing that?

            Thousands of these child s e x slavers, and many, many thousands of victimized little boys and girls, and you’re apologizing for the criminals who did it?

            That’s sick. That’s diseased .

            • Kaine

              Entirely the opposite. I, unlike the ‘conservative’ establishment, was against child rapists even when they were nicely spoken, rich, white men. It’s you Johnny-come-latelys who have held back from this problem until you found perpetrators who fit your biases.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                So your apologias for the thousands and thousands of child s e x slavers means you make moral equivalency between them and scattered pedos, lad?

                That’s diseased thinking.

                By the way, your favored child s e x slavers are still busily at work. Congratulations. You’re succeeding at your task.

                • Kaine

                  You think a paedophile network that went through the Cabinet, West Yorkshire Police, the BBC, Socil Services all the way to the Prime Minister’s dinner table was “scattered pedos”? Can’t stop yourself apologising for the elite can you darling? Thanks for proving my point. You don’t give a damn about working class kids.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  There was no pedo “network”, other than in the fantasies of a nutter like you, lad.

                  However, there ARE gangs of child s e x slavers operating as we speak, and you appear to be working to allow these criminals to continue to operate, by apologizing for their crimes, as they brutalize those children.

          • stewart

            ” no ‘conservative’ wanted any questions”

            meanwhile in labour controlled Rotherham under labour administration labour councillors and appointees turn a blind eye for more than a decade (but you and the rest of Student Wanker Party drones were all over it weren’t you?)

            whats up not fitting your Tory toff narrative you hypocrite ?

            • Kaine

              I’m fine with throwing every child rapist in prison and melting down the keys. Let me know when Leon Brittan gets arrested.

              And I, sadly, haven’t been a student for quite some time darling. But feel free to keep fantasising about me if that’s what does it for you.

    • EschersStairs

      I have heard a causal relationship argued between the two.

  • Julie

    – a local hospital has no (Anglican) Chaplain, because the recently “married” homosexual clergyman has now been turned down for the appointment and is taking the C of E diocese to court. Chaos.

    • MenAreLikeWine

      Well surely if he doesn’t agree with what the Church of England teaches that renders him wholly unsuitable to act for it?

  • LaurenceBoyce

    “Maybe the fight they ought to be picking is with Jesus of Nazareth, who
    said nothing about homosexuality but who was so rigidly opposed to
    divorce – a fact conveniently overlooked by every Church except that of
    Rome – that it’s very, very difficult to imagine him blessing gay
    marriage.”

    Firstly, the church of Rome is perfectly happy to divorce people who have been married for ages and with grown up children. They just call it an “annulment.”

    Secondly it’s really very easy to imagine Jesus endorsing gay marriage. It would go something like this:

    “You have been told that marriage is between one man and one woman. But I say unto you blah blah blah . . .”

    • EschersStairs

      You seem to have forgotten the part where Jesus said “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

      Last time I checked, heaven and earth have not passed.

      • LaurenceBoyce

        . . . then we should put gays to death.

        • Fides_et_Ratio

          No. The moral law remains the same – it is eternal – but the *punishment* can change. Jesus inaugurated a regime of tolerance and mercy. See the story of the adulterous woman.

          • LaurenceBoyce

            Ah, a Bible lawyer.

            • Fides_et_Ratio

              What you wrote is “not even wrong” – it is not even a logical argument. You just tried to dismiss my argumentation with sarcasm, instead of actually refuting the idea.

              The fact is that we are Christians, and while we believe in the natural moral law described by the Old Testament, we don’t have to follow Jewish-specific practices. If we were Jewish, then you might have had a case.

              • LaurenceBoyce

                First you (or someone) tells me that not one jot or tittle of the law has passed away. Then in the next sentence you attempt to draw a distinction between crimes and their prescribed punishments. Sounds rather like the jots have been retained while the tittles have been abolished (or vice versa).

                So you are lawyering the Bible (a long hallowed tradition) and any attempt to explain why you are not lawyering the Bible will simply comprise further lawyering of the Bible.

                I should quit while you are behind.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Jesus was referring to the moral law, not to the punishments.

                  You don’t even attempt to refute arguments, you simply change the subject and engage in ad hominem – accusing us of “lawyering the Bible” even though we are not Jews, nor fundamentalist Christians, and we never claimed to follow Jewish punishments, *and the Bible itself says we shouldn’t follow Jewish punishments* (read the New Testament).

                  Your stance makes as much sense as accusing us of “lawyering the Koran” because we do not follow the Koran. Newsflash for you: we are not Muslims – nor Jews.

                • EschersStairs

                  Firstly, the Law was set out by God as the ideal means to govern a nation. But God also put in place the people who were designated to meet out that judgement. Christians on the basis of their religion alone are not entitled to meet out that judgement unless given that legal authority and the legal scope by the state.
                  Secondly, as Fides points out Jesus showing mercy to the woman caught in the act of adultery demonstrates quite clearly that consideration is made for mercy in judgement. The Law describes the extent of full powers in a judgement, and does not say that given specific crime that there must be a specific punishment. That would not be a rational interpretation of the Scripture.

        • EschersStairs

          Your dodging the point.
          If you hate God’s Law, that’s your problem. But may I suggest that he’s got his reasons for his laws.

          • Marshal Phillips

            There are 100s of gods and religions.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …sounds like you’ll have plenty on your plate then, lad, squelching all that thought and belief that infuriates you.

              • Marshal Phillips

                I belong to the clean plate club, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …all those hundreds of gods and religions for you to keep up with… no… you have a lot of squelching to do, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Nope, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …hundreds of religions… hundreds of gods… all to be exposed and passionately hated as necessary. My, you certainly do have a full plate, lad.

    • Fides_et_Ratio

      Marriages are annulled when solid evidence is found that they were never marriages in the first place – for example, one of the spouses was forced. This is different from divorce, where there was a marriage, but one spouse simply does not like it any more.

      • LaurenceBoyce

        That’s the theory. The practice (to which numerous people will attest) is entirely (and rather hypocritically) different.

        • Fides_et_Ratio

          Do you have non-anecdotal evidence for your accusation?

          That some errors occur does not mean the whole thing is invalid. Every human activity has errors. We don’t abolish the judicial system because it makes mistakes. We don’t abolish medicine because doctors make mistakes.

          • Marshal Phillips

            Yah, the church dismisses marriages for cash.

            • Fides_et_Ratio

              Except, of course, that you are utterly unable to cite solid, reliable, accurate evidence to back your attack. It is just a baseless attack on an institution you hate. Your attack has zero credibility.

              • Marshal Phillips

                ROFLMAO!
                I don’t hate an institution; I hate hypocrisy and cant.
                The church has a history of selling indulgences and divorces.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  You are utterly unable to cite solid, reliable evidence for your attacks, and when repeatedly called on it, you simply make more baseless attacks. This speaks for itself.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  ROFLMAO
                  You might want to study a bit more church history on indulgences and divorces.
                  You’re an apologist for church hypocrisy and cant.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Once again, after repeated calling, you are utterly unable to provide logical evidence four your emotional outburst. So you ridiculously tell me to find the evidence myself. Fail; the burden of evidence lies on the accuser. You can’t make baseless attacks and then tell *me* to produce the evidence.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Once again you’re ignoring church history on indulgences and divorces; knee jerk apologist for hypocrisy and cant. Study church history, dude. Seriously. I’m hardly making baseless attacks for just referring interested readers for a church history lesson in truth and honesty.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Your utter and repeated failure to provide solid evidence is itself strong evidence that the evidence either does not exist, or at least you are not aware of it. Either way, your attack is baseless.

                  The principle “the burden of evidence lies on the accuser” is beyond question. Your dismissal of it speaks for itself.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Another knee jerk response to church history. LOL

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  So you are utterly unable to refute my ideas, and therefore you attempt to dismiss them by labeling them. Actually answering my request should having been easy, unless, of course, your attacks are as baseless and emotional as they seem.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You are a self appointed Grand Inquisitor a la Tomás Torquemada come to life on Specie comment blog.
                  ROLMAO!!!
                  Read church history, dude; get real.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Once again, utterly unable to provide evidence for baseless attacks, utterly unable to respond to ideas, and attempts to dismiss this failure by labeling and name calling.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Torquemada come to life! LOL

                • Marshal Phillips

                  ROFLMAO at your feigned ignorance of church history on indulgences and divorces.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  If solid and relevance evidence existed, you would presumably be able to provide it. Your utter failure is strong indication that your attacks are baseless.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Read church history, dude.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  The burden of evidence lies on the accuser. No amount of name-calling will get around that unquestionable fact.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I have NO BURDEN!
                  History speaks for itself.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  You have just admitted that you are making baseless attacks. You have amusingly denied the basic and utterly unquestionable fact (one that is at the very foundation of the entirely civilization) that the burden of evidence lies on the accuser.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  “baseless attacks” ROFLMAO
                  Church history speaks for itself.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  If it did, you would be able to show it. Yet you cannot.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. LOL

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Denial is rejection of evidence. If one side is utterly and amusingly unable to provide evidence, the other side has nothing to deny.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Yup, you’re in De Nile.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  You are unable to provide evidence for your emotional outburst and you try to hide it with name calling.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Desperado.

              • Marshal Phillips

                The church has a history of selling indulgences and divorces.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …but again, you refuse to prove your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  More deflection from your homework, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …it’s your homework, lad, as you’re making the unproven claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  No excuses, dude; do your homework.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, nothing for me to do in proving your unfounded claim, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, you’re obsessed with avoidance.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Nope, and your distractions simply don’t provide evidence to support your claim, lad.

  • markdowd

    The actions are described as intrinsically disordered, but the 1986 document does suggest that the orientation itself is “objectively disordered”, it says:

    “although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
    So those who want to suggest that the Church condemns the sin but not the sinner are not quite right…it is more nuanced than that.
    Best discussion is by James Alison….

    http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/03/23/alisondoes-objectively-disordered-mean-anything-at-all/

    • Colonel Mustard

      I find it difficult to believe that those who wrote that document were anything other than heterosexual in inclination therefore their judgement is an oppression of people who are not like them. Surely the overriding inclination should be the love between human beings rather than the acts done to express that love. The moral line should be consent and for the church (and government) to stay out of the bedroom.

      • markdowd

        There is another view. That the people over seeing the doctrinal pronouncement are themselves gay, but deeply in conflict about it. The language employed then becomes a subconscious account of unresolved personal issues which find their reflection in public statements. There is many an “out” gay Catholic who believes they have been asked to pay the price for the denial and dysfunction of senior clerics in the hierarchy.

        • Colonel Mustard

          A valid point.

      • Fides_et_Ratio

        The Church is already out of the bedroom. One thing is to teach that an act is evil, another thing is to investigate people and punish them for that act, which the Chruch does not do. Do not attack straw men.

        • Colonel Mustard

          You think that teaching that something is evil is not without consequences for those it targets?

          • Fides_et_Ratio

            Never said that. If a vegetarian teaches that eating meat is evil, it may have consequences for me. But he still has the legal and moral right to express his ideas and if I disagree, I must refute his ideas, not launch an emotional campaign against vegetarians.

            • Colonel Mustard

              A vegetarian expressing ideas is one thing, a church laying down moral certainties about the sexuality of others is another. Oppression is oppression.

              • Fides_et_Ratio

                Straw man. The Church does not judge individuals, she judges abstract acts. We have the same right to say “sodomy is wrong” as a vegetarian can say “eating meat is wrong”.

              • EschersStairs

                What you are actually saying is “I disagree with ‘the Church’ and feel oppressed that they are allowed to disagree”. So what?

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t feel oppressed because I am not gay and I am not a Catholic.

                  Disagreement and judgemental moral pronouncements by an institution that seeks control over its members lives are two rather different things. So how many gay people are perplexed and troubled by those pronouncements? How much misery do they bring to young people?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It’s hard to call this an effort to “seek control”, as all are free to leave membership.

                • EschersStairs

                  What I don’t think you have included in the Utility equation is the oppression of choosing to be homosexual is in the absence of allegiance to an institution. You’ll probably deny this as a possibility. But you would also deny that God created us, and created us with a purpose in mind and so consequently when we deviate from that we will be oppressed by our own conscience. But I can’t help your assumptions.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t know whether God created us. I’d like to think that he did. But when I look around this world I find it hard to believe that love between two people of the same gender would be high on any list of his aberrations. Can’t see that in the Ten Commandments.

                  No, that list has been created by (some) Men. The conscience you write of has been implanted by an institution over many centuries of peddling guilt to secure power.

                  Why should one have allegiance to an institution anyway? Can I not believe in God without joining a tribe?

                • EschersStairs

                  CM, no one ever made this just about the ten commandments, although it is demonstrable implicit in them. It is also implicit in the two greatest commandments “you shall love the Lord your God…” and “love thy neighbour as yourself”.
                  Homosexuality is not “love”. It is oppression of those involved, and fear. Most of those that I have spoken to felt they were trapped in it and that they didn’t have the power to choose. Which is why arguments about it being genetic and that ‘you don’t/can’t choose’ are so aggregious.
                  They are branded with the homosexual label from when they were young because they talked a bit effeminately and funnily enough they start to think “maybe I am”.
                  Well I for one refuse to accept that. They have dignity and the power of choice because that’s what God gives them, and anything less is demeaning.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Given the gay movement and its achievements your perception of homosexuality is preposterous. I simply do not believe that people become homosexual because they are branded as such or that effeminate behaviour is universal to their sexuality.

                • EschersStairs

                  I can only conclude that your views have been formed while you were sitting at the computer. Mine were formed while talking to real people on the streets.

  • Pat Conway

    Why any gay Catholic would think that they are ‘sinning’ is beyond me. The very idea of ‘sin’ is an invention. Once again we see religion and the church using guilt and ‘sin’ as a means of controlling its members.

    • Ben Trovato

      Catholics have this odd thing about believing what Jesus Christ taught. And he was not shy of condemning sins (though compassionate, of course, to the sinner).

      • Pat Conway

        The teaching on homosexuality comes from the Old Testament.

        • Ben Trovato

          And also the New. Christ was more rigorous about sexual morality than the Old Testament, not less!

          • Marshal Phillips

            Jesus said NOTHING about gays or even lesbian commitment ceremonies. He did speak against divorce, when asked.

            • Ben Trovato

              He also didn’t mention atom bombs: and for the same reason. None of them had been invented. The idea of a gay person or a lesbian person is a very modern construct. Christ was, however, very clear about sexual morality.

              • Marshal Phillips

                Yes, indeed he was; when asked about divorce he was against it except in cases of adultery. So why do so many so-called Christians campaign against secular civil gay marriage equality instead of campaigning to ban divorce in civil law?

                • Ben Trovato

                  You are right that divorce is a great evil, and whilst the Church has always stood firmly against it, many Christians are less clear. However that does not mean that Christians should not also witness to the rest of the truth about marriage. To talk about marriage equality is to bandy a slogan empty of meaning. There is no equality between marriage, which is ordered to the procreation of children and the mutual love of the couple, and gay unions, which are only ordered to the love of the couple; they are different things and to pretend they are the same thing is intellectually dishonest.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Marriage is a word that is defined by law in the jurisdictions where it applies; and that includes gay/lesbian marriages in many US states and other countries around the world. Gays and lesbians also have families with children; and many traditional marriages have no children.

                • Ben Trovato

                  Yes, that is where we differ. Marriage is not some legal construct that can be re-constructed by legislators to suit the mores of different times. Rather, it is a human institution, foundational to civilisation pre-dating legal systems, which the law should recognise, and which we toy with at great peril.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Biblical marriage included one man and many women; marriage was traditionally all about property rights. Today marriage is defined by law; and yet many couples choose not to marry, while gays and lesbians are choosing to marry where they can.
                  Marriage has always been defined by the cultural context of the society where practised. Morality is what society agrees is appropriate and acceptable; and does change on things, slavery, for example; and women’s rights. Today mainline churches and more accepting of gays and lesbians and even some permit gay marriage ceremonies where state law allows. Do we really want to go back to Iron Age morality? http://www.evilbible.com

                • EschersStairs

                  Marshal what’s your story?
                  Why you are so against the church and the Bible?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I’m against Iron Age bigotry and prejudice. But I love humanity.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …not all of it though, as the Church does .

                • Marshal Phillips

                  ROFLMAO
                  Church is man made hypocrisy and cant.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, you hate, that’s obvious. The Church can help you with that, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The church, dude, is not for me.
                  I have my own philosophy.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and it seems to include hatred, with passion. Again, the Church can show you another path.

    • Fides_et_Ratio

      “controlling its members” to the advantage of whom? Bishops live relatively modest lives, if they wanted money and pleasure they would never have chosen the priesthood.

      • Pat Conway

        Reigion is all about control.

        • Fides_et_Ratio

          You evaded the question. Who, exactly, controls whom, to what purpose?

          Bishops live a live of greater austerity than they would have with a secular job.

          Besides, do you have actual evidence for your accusations, or is it just cheap ad hominem? Anti-theists like to posture that they are logical and evidence based, but in my experience they love to maintain their worldviews through prejudice and logical fallacies.

          Notice that I say “anti-theist”. Because normal atheist people can be perfectly fine. The problem is the anti-theist militants who despise people of faith.

          • Pat Conway

            The purpose of religion is to rule with fear. Always has been that way. To teach cchildren about hellfire and damnation is child abuse. To teach children about a god for which there is absolutely no evidence is very wrong. Religion doesn’t deal with reality it deals with conjecture and trickery.

            • Marshal Phillips

              read the radical extremist texts in the Judeo-Christian http://www.evilbible.com

            • Colonel Mustard

              But you probably think it’s ok to peddle socialist cant to children which also relies on quasi-religious, un-nuanced cant. Socialism is also all about control. If it wasn’t socialist missionaries would not bother hectoring this site.

              • Pat Conway

                I don’t indoctrinate or brainwash anyone. I prefer if children were allowed to form their own thoughts, not to have their minds filled with lies.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You should complain about the NUT then.

    • https://belasariust.wordpress.com/ solly gratia

      Ah, the old psychopathology of religion argument again, quietly ignoring the fact that no-one is obliged to be Catholic; but being Catholic means acceptance of the rules, just as being a member of a Tennis club means you don’t try and play football on the courts. And how can you be controlled by something you can leave? there’s always the Church of England or the Quakers.

      • Marshal Phillips

        Gays and lesbians march under their own banner in Dublin, Ireland in the St Patrick’s Day parade.

      • Pat Conway

        The vast majority of Catholics were indoctrinated from childhood. Tell me just how many Catholics accept the teaching on contraception?

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …so you agree, they’re not being “controlled”, as you’re claiming.

          • Marshal Phillips

            They seems to be resisting attempted control.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              No, other than in your fertile imagination. There is no proof of that.

              The only thing that is demonstrably proven is that they are not being “controlled”, as your buddy claimed.

              • Marshal Phillips

                Yah, members ignore the dogma! LOL

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, the only thing that is is demonstrably proven is that they are not being “controlled”, as your buddy claimed.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Not my buddy.
                  I post my own views.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …of course he’s your buddy, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Never met whoever it is, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No need, he’s your buddy, obviously.

                  And so for both you and him, let’s acknowledge that the Church isn’t “controlling” anybody.

  • tolpuddle1

    It’s beginning to look even more as though the Synod next month could be lively; a High Noon between the two main rival views of the Church.

    • MenAreLikeWine

      Well between those who uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ and those who think they know better.

      • EschersStairs

        Exaaaactly

  • Pat Conway

    What is wrong with birth control and contraception? The Catholic Church needs to move on and embrace the 21st century. The issue of homosexuality is one the church ought to embrace also and not denounce as unnatural.The idea that many have of homosexuality as a ‘choice’ just shows how truly ignorant they are.

    • tolpuddle1

      Homosexual acts are, like heterosexual acts, a choice, something that people enter into freely; and not as a duty, but with pleasure in view.

      If sexual acts were performed with gun barrels pointed at the two participants, they might not be a choice.

      As the 21st century bids fair to be Islamist and post-Western, rather than liberal, should the Church toughen its stance against contraception and homosexuality ?

      • Pat Conway

        When did you choose to be straight?

        • tolpuddle1

          Nobody chooses his or her sexual orientation.

          Any sane person chooses his or her behaviour.

          • Marshal Phillips

            and it’s perfectly normal and natural for people to behave in romance and love according to their orientation, straight or gay.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …it just doesn’t automatically get them into the good graces of the Catholic church .

              • Marshal Phillips

                The good graces of the Catholic church? The church doesn’t have good graces for gays and lesbians; only iron age bigotry and prejudice.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, they have good graces for all, lad.

                  They condemn sin. You apparently don’t.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The church doesn’t have good graces for gays and lesbians, it has Iron Age dogma. Sin is a church constructed dogma. But the church certainly ignores crimes: http://www.bishopaccountability.org http://www.snapnetwork.org

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, the Church has good graces for all. You don’t, obviously, as there are people you hate very much, apparently.

                  The Church condemns sin. You embrace sin, apparently.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I don’t believe in the construct of sin. The church has an ancient history of hatred.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, the Church doesn’t hate, lad. You do hate, obviously.

                  And yes, your types never believe in sin. You embrace sin, in fact. That’s why you hate the Church.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I hate hypocrisy, cant, bigotry, and prejudice, Dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You hate, yes, that’s obvious.

                  You need to find the Church, lad, and love all.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, church love? ROFLMAO

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, the Church has love for you, lad. You should drop the hate and embrace that love.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  LOL, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you’re not laughing, lad. Hate doesn’t allow that.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, the church doesn’t have “good graces” for gays and lesbians; and it sure does ignore its own sins when convenient: http://www.bishopaccountability.org http://www.snapnetwork.org

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, the Church has good graces for all. It condemns sin. You don’t.

                  No need to bother with another of you weird links, lad. They’re worthless. You have no arguments.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, ignoring valid links is unpersuasive.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You have no valid links, lad. Propaganda is never valid.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, you’re in De Nile.
                  Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Is that what your propagandists tell you, lad?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Don’t have propagandists, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Of course you have propagandists. You post their links constantly, lad .

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Your a propagandist for the church, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, I don’t propagandize, lad. The Church is not about that. You come to the Church, it doesn’t come to you. Go see the islamics if that’s what you want.

          • Pat Conway

            So you agree that you are born homosexual. It is not a choice.

            • tolpuddle1

              Born, I doubt; but made homosexual by any of 10,001 possible damaging experiences in childhood.

              Which makes homosexual orientation a misfortune, especially as homosexual sexual behaviour / lifestyles can never be the equal of heterosexual ones.

              • Pat Conway

                What damaging experiences in childhood? You are born heterosexual or homosexual. How can you say that a homsexual ‘lifestyle’ can never be equal? Their are celibate homosexuals as there are heterosexual. Why is homosexuality a misfortune?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Same-sex attraction is only a misfortune if bigotry and prejudice is a problem. It’s like being born left handed.

                • tolpuddle1

                  There’s little evidence for a genetic element in homosexual orientation, so “born” homosexual is probably wrong.

                  Obviously, a person of homosexual orientation has a choice
                  – to be celibate (often rewarding, but a challenge)
                  – to lead a sexually-active lifestyle; and the evidence shows such gay lifestyles are physically and emotionally damaging; spiritually damaging also, if Christianity (or any other mainstream religion) is to be believed.

                  “Misfortune” ? Sadly, for many, homosexual orientation is. For most people, the best chance of happiness in adult life is a stable heterosexual marriage.

                • Pat Conway

                  Spiritually damaging means nothing. Human sexuality has nothing to do with spirituality or superstition.

                • tolpuddle1

                  CS Lewis pointed out that sexual pleasure has been created by God. In human beings it cannot be separated from spirituality, since sexual activity is the most intimate (and therefore spiritually-connected) activity that anyone can be involved in, especially as sexuality (which is much wider than sexual activity) is so deeply-rooted in an individual’s nature (male and female handwritings are different, for example).

                  Spirituality – inescapable, even for a convinced atheist – is either good or bad; it cannot be neutral.

                  Nor can God be left out of the picture.

                • Pat Conway

                  Primitive man created god through fear and ignorance.

                • tolpuddle1

                  If it weren’t for God, man – primitive or otherwise – wouldn’t exist in the first place.

                  Pagans worshipped gods that were personifications of natural forces.

                  Followers of the Abrahamic religions worship the God who created Nature, thus escaping from fear and ignorance. No advance in knowledge has – or can – challenge this belief.

                • Pat Conway

                  Man has worshipped thousands of gods. All creations from the mind of man.

                • tolpuddle1

                  But man is merely an invention of the mind of God.

                  Man is a nothingness held in being only by the will of God.

                  And – I hate to tell you this – people nowadays worship God; the thousands of “gods” you mention are dead and buried.

                • Pat Conway

                  No. God is merely an invention of the mind of man.

                • tolpuddle1

                  Nature created the mind of man. God created Nature.

                  You’re starting from the wrong place on the map – God is real, but we’re not, except as God permits.

                  Neither we, nor anybody, nor the universe itself, can hold themselves in being by any act of will or intelligence – we and they are wholly dependent on God.

                • Pat Conway

                  We are real, god is not. We are not dependent on a supernatural being or force.

                • tolpuddle1

                  We are certainly wholly dependent on Nature.

                  Nature is wholly dependent on God – Nature didn’t (and couldn’t) create itself, nor can it hold itself in being. Like ourselves, it is wholly at God’s mercy.

                  Our Western power and affluence have deluded many into believing in “human autonomy”, human independence.

                  They won’t for much longer. Atheism is a particularly foolish (and evil) form of human pride – which goes before a fall.

                • Pat Conway

                  What is so ‘evil’ about non belief in a god? It has nothing to do with pride but everything to do with a complete lack of evidence for a deity. If you are so convinced by the existence of a god then surely you must have concrete evidence to back up your extraordinary claim of a supernatural being.

                • tolpuddle1

                  The First Cause of the universe – a very intricately, beautifully functioning universe, obviously – MUST be either God or Chance.

                  Atheism makes the extraordinary claim that the universe came into being – and continues functioning – by chance, by accident. Woffle about scientific laws causing this, begs the obvious question; what caused the scientific laws – answer: God or Chance.

                  Therefore, the existence of God – backed by the incontrovertible concrete evidence that anything else exists – is self-evident.

                  It is of course a long way from philosophical Deism to actual religious faith, but I can’t see how the basis of the Abrahamic faiths – that God is Compassion, that God CARES – is so very dreadful, except when poisoned by fanaticism. Voltaire accused Christianity of being fanatical, but was himself far more fanatical than most Christians (though not as fanatical as the French Revolutionaries who revered him and followed in his footsteps).

                  I realise that individuals have many reasons for being atheist – my childhood experience of the grim, hellfire Catholicism of yesteryear turned me against traditional religion for years – but I do think that the West has been collectively arrogant (in sneering at religion and denying God’s existence – and in many other ways) since about 1700, when the Christian clergy were replaced as the clerical caste by the Philosophers (e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud) with two world wars, fascism and communism resulting.

                  But that “freethinking” West is now disappearing.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    You’re confusing the tradition of a New York City public parade, historically an excuse to dress up (often in drag) and get drunk, with a religion and its theology. That would be a mistake.

  • terence patrick hewett

    It has split the Conservative Party.

    • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

      good point

  • Ben Trovato

    You are quite wrong to say that the Church describes gay people as ‘intrinsically disordered.’ It does no such thing. It describes homosexual acts in that way. Read CCC §2357-2359. The Church is far more compassionate to people than you suggest.

    • DTNorth

      Not in my experience.

      • MrsDBliss

        What is your experience?

        • In Spiration

          Anecdotal at best.

          • MrsDBliss

            Probably. People like to ‘borrow’ victim status for a bit of power.

      • DTNorth

        Raped by a priest when I was 5.

        Whats yours?

        • Andre Oqueli

          Knew of a young priest in El Salvador during their civil war from 1981-1992 who was held by the “Death Squads” (right wing militias), gang-raped and burned alive for hiding boys whom the militias and the Salvadoran army chased after to recruit into the army (and into a potential hotbed of abuse). Another local priest had his head slowly crushed by a tank for speaking against the enormous crimes against humanity committed by the Salvadoran government, and under the full patronage of at least 3 successive American administrations. Not all priests are evil men, of the type you unfortunately experienced.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Who was this “young priest”?

            Who was this “local priest”?

            I’d be interested in some names and support for these tales.

            • Andre Oqueli

              I dont know everything about these two priests, or their names. I can ask my grandfather, he knew one of them. The one who had his head crushed by a tank.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Good. Ask him for a name. That would be a good start.

            • Andre Oqueli

              Oh and evidence to support these accounts an be easily found in books and documentaries related to the Salvadoran civil war. Research it my friend.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                So you cannot provide names and support for these tales?

                • Andre Oqueli

                  Did I say I can’t provide evidence? No I just said I can’t recall right now the names of them. That doesn’t mean I won’t or can’t go back to my sources, which are namely books I have about the war. When I find the names I’ll write them on here, is that ok?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Certainly, I’d appreciate that. It’s always better to have support for these kind of tales.

                • Andre Oqueli

                  Of course, but I’m currently out of home, I might not write back till later in the day

                • Andre Oqueli

                  And just a question: if I do provide names, what then for you? It’s because of the testimonies of these two brave priests that I get furious when people call ALL priests pedos

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I don’t call priests anything.

                  I’m just asking for some support for these tales you’ve spun .

                • Andre Oqueli

                  Did I say you in particular were calling priests anything? I was talking about people in general who love to call all priests pedophiles because of the actions of some.

        • stewart

          I’m truly sorry to hear of your terrible experience

          But let me understand ,is your position that the catholic church is too accommodating of homosexuality?

          • Marshal Phillips
            • stewart
            • the viceroy’s gin

              Again, you’re not a Catholic, as you’ve acknowledged. Why would you bother with their internal personnel matters, and how do you even know what they are in any event?

              • Marshal Phillips

                One doesn’t need to be a Catholic to comment on Speccie articles in a public forum.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You’re whining about internal personnel matters, of which you have no knowledge. You’re also not a Catholic, so you’d not even have a working knowledge of normal Church procedure. Comment away, lad, but it’s pretty much worthless comment, given all that.

                • Marshal Phillips
                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No reason to read your propaganda either, lad. It’s a waste of time and as uninformed as you are.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Not my propaganda, dude.
                  It’s church members complaints.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, it’s your propaganda, lad. It’s a waste of time.

        • MenAreLikeWine

          While you have my sympathy and compassion you can’t judge the Church on the actions of this priest.

        • leveria loveless

          explains a lot-

    • Damian Thompson

      Tried to respond to this earlier. Distinction noted and copy amended. But…

      • Damian Thompson

        … if homosexuality is genetic, then describing natural sexual inclinations as intrinsically disordered is very close to describing gay people as disordered, too. And mandatory celibacy as consequence of an accident of birth is hard to justify.

        • Ben Trovato

          It is not the inclination, but the act. It is also not insulting, if read intelligently: the Church’s teaching is that sexual acts are ‘ordered’ to procreation and marital love; acts that are not are ‘disordered’. Misrepresenting that and using the language of insult and hatred helps nobody.

          • Tom

            I find it insulting to judge sexual acts as immoral or moral based on their procreative capacity. It is insulting because it effectively denies that same-sex sexual acts are loving, which is a slight against the very real emotion and sentiments that gay couples feel about engaging in these acts.

            • Ambientereal

              I believe the gay people have somehow exposed themselves and attracted negative public opinions for things that are strictly personal. No one judges for instance the people for his drinking preferences. Everyone drinks what he likes. In the same line, sexual preferences shouldn´t be discussed. But the homosexual persons are determined to expose themselves and then are hurt by what they get in reply. A man who likes men try to disguise himself as a woman and tries to force the others to see him as he sees himself. This causes of course a negative reaction that damages him and the pubic consensus about homosexuality.

              • Tom M

                “…No one judges for instance the people for his (sic) drinking preferences. Everyone drinks what he (sic) likes ….”
                Really?
                I hear people being castigated daily for their drinking habits. Tell me you have never seen the Government’s publicity on the matter or the “abuse of alcohol” warning labels.
                As far as sexual preferences go I look upon gays in the same way I look upon anybody else that exhibits a psychological personality eccentricity. As a matter of fact in much the same way as I regard anyone who drinks himself regularly into a stupor and thinks it funny.

                • red2black

                  “…No one judges for instance the people for his (hic) drinking preferences. Everyone drinks what he (hic) likes ….” (tee hee)

                • Ambientereal

                  Thank you for the answer Tom, actually you showed me another quite interesting interpretation of my words, that I didn´t have in mind when I wrote them. When I said “drinking preferences” I didn´t thought of amount but of kind (say vodka, wine, juice or soda). I didn´t want to punctualise drinking alcohol in excess. I could have said “dressing preferences” or “travel preferences” as well.

            • Tom M

              Insulting to you it may be however it is Society which creates the boundaries of Moral and Immoral not you.
              And careful with claiming “loving” surmounts all. I read of many strange people who claim to be
              “loving” when engaged in some very unacceptable sexual acts.

              • Tom

                Well, I would say that consent is required. A rapist may “love” their victim, but that is not loving but abuse, because mutual consent is lacking. The requirement for consent obviously rules out pedophilia (one of the definitive features of a child being their inability to consent to such activity), and bestiality (since animals are unable to consent by virtue of mental limitation). What unacceptable sexual acts did you have in mind?

            • ThereseZ

              Sexual acts have an end in mind – the creation of a new being. So why is it insulting if misaligning those impulses in some other physical way is considered disordered? That’s a neutral word – EVIL would be an insulting word.
              Tab A, Slot B, baby sometimes. Putting Tab A anywhere else or putting anything else into Slot B because it feels good is fruitless, pointless, disordered. Harmless when indulged in as play. But “marriage” dignifies these actions into a unique bond between the people when it is clearly not.

              • Ambientereal

                The point is not what you put where, but what you want to be called and treated when you do so. When a man in his right like men, no one complains (or at most very few). The point arises when that man disguises himself as a woman and want to force the others to see him as such and even to get the same law treatment as a woman. We all know what a woman is but it seems that a precise definition is necessary. Even the concepts of marriage, bride, bridegroom, father mother etc. are being bastardized, and what is more serious, the women are losing rights because they have to share theirs with such individuals. For instance in sports they have sometimes to compete against someone male born, that calls himself a woman because he likes men.. Note that I am not talking about women that like women because the are much discreet.

        • https://belasariust.wordpress.com/ solly gratia

          It’s not genetic. there is no evidence whatsoever for this idea, and even Tatchell denies it – when its convenient.

          • Chris Morriss

            It’s just fashionable, and attracts the same sort of people who buy products from Apple, instead of superior alternatives.
            (I retreat into my blockhouse now after saying that!).

          • Kaine

            There is evidence, such as studies on twins and families showing some element of correlation. However, like most things, it’s complicated.

            What we’re pretty damn sure of is that attraction isn’t a choice. If it were, you could choose to be gay.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Fall has made us all disordered.

          • Pat Conway

            The ‘Fall of man’ in the Garden of Eden due to Eve being deceived by a talking snake. Yes, makes perfect sense. Fairy tales for grown ups.

            • EschersStairs

              Don’t be absurd. The fairy tale is macro-evolution. Eye-witnesses trump conjecture every time.

              • Pat Conway

                Where is your evidence for a creator?

                • EschersStairs

                  You can’t be convinced against your will but heres a few,

                  First Cause is one.
                  Irreducible complexity is another.
                  Elegance of Creation.
                  Overdesign of Creation.
                  Anthropic principle.
                  Anakalypsic principle.
                  Historical evidence.
                  Revelation.
                  Prophecy.

                  Now, where is your evidence that there is not a Creator?

                • Pat Conway

                  That is not evidence.

                • Kaine

                  What created the creator?
                  That things cannot exist independently anymore does not mean they couldn’t originally.
                  Observation bias, our view of ‘elegance’ is determined by the world we find ourselves in.
                  Entirely explainable by mutation and natural selection.
                  There’s no one in the other ‘non-anthropic’ universes to remark upon it.
                  There is plenty of life out there that isn’t male or female.
                  The bulk of historical evidence is against the Bible, the total absence of Exodus from Egyptian records for one.
                  I don’t believe in magic, sorry.

                  What else you got? And it’s up to you to prove your claim. And remember, you’re not just proving a ‘prime mover’, you need to prove it’s the desert genie of the ancient Hebrews as opposed to, say, Brahma.

                • EschersStairs

                  “What created the creator” A logically fallacious question. You imagine all things are subject to space-time, and so your universe can have no origin. Reductio ad absurdum.

                  “Observation bias”. Complete nonsense. People are very capable of hating everything around them, but such people

                  “Entirely explainable…” What rubbish, you evidence lack of understanding that evolution just as happily removes things that are not reproductively advantageous.

                  “There’s no one…” Firstly its not binary. Secondly, by saying “it’s what it is” does not explain *why* it is what it is, that’s the point of science. Your position is fundamentally unsound.

                  You have failed to address yourself to why the conditions for life are also the conditions for scientific discovery.

                  “There is plenty of life out there that isn’t male or female”. Please explain why this statement is relevant.

                  “The bulk of historical…” So you say, and probably copied and pasted that statement from someone else. Talk to Tacitus, talk to Josephus, talk to Pliny the Younger as to the Historicity of Jesus. Or perhaps you don’t know that the Bible has been regarded as authoritative in regards to history up until very recently. Now history hasn’t changed, but public opinion does for unrelated reasons. Go figure.

                  “I don’t believe in magic, sorry”. I’m not going to pretend that this relates to any argument put forward.

                  You missed out “Revelation” and also “Prophecy”, presumably because you have ruled these out as evidentiary based on a preconceived notion that they are not true. That is also a logical fallacy, you assume conclusion.

                  You are a statistic. Philosophically lazy.

                  “What else you got? And it’s up to you to prove your claim. And remember, you’re not just proving a ‘prime mover’, you need to prove it’s the desert genie of the ancient Hebrews as opposed to, say, Brahma”

                  Quit reading Richard Dawkins and his ilk, he’s making you stupid.

            • Fides_et_Ratio

              You don’t talk like a grown up. And you are attacking a straw man – Christians have since the first centuries regarded the first 11 chapters of Genesis as metaphorical.

              • Pat Conway

                How can any grown up believe in the supernatural?

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  What you said is “not even wrong” – it isn’t even a logical argument. Anti-theists should used their intellect instead of just boasting about it.

            • tolpuddle1

              If you doubt the existence of the Fall, of original sin, watch the News.

              The News proves that even if God is Dead, Satan – the primordial serpent – is alive and well.

              The fairy tales of Genesis are true, whereas the fairy tale of Atheism is false (like all other secular fairy stories – Progress, Humanity, etc).

              • Pat Conway

                Satan does not exist. For many centuries religion stifled progress. We would still be stuck in the Dark Ages if it wasn’t for science and the advances in medicine.

                • Paddy S

                  You really should read something about that period instead of bloviating on a subject you obviously know nothing about.

                • Pat Conway

                  Religion has always stood in the way of progress.

                • Paddy S

                  You mean the myth of progress. Modern science is a direct result of the idea that universe is a rational ordered place which owes its origins to the Judeo Christian worldview. Most of the greatest art, literature, music, architecture owe their own progress or inspiration to people who believed in God. Owe and almost all hospitals and charity centres owe their origin to Christendom. Not to mention the great schools of Europe.

                • Pat Conway

                  What is so progressive about the Vaticans teachings on contraception and homosexuality?

                • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiam

                  If you’re going the wrong way, then the progressive thing to do is to turn round and go back. (Not mine. C.S. Lewis, I think.)

                • Pat Conway

                  What is so wrong with contraception?

                • fredx2

                  A recent study indicated that it causes cancer.
                  One of every four young women has an STI.
                  Largest longitudinal survey indicates women are more unhappy now thann they have ever been.
                  The Europeans are disappering as a society because they love to contracept. Muslims will be the majority by around 2100. Societies that contracept die, and their social security systems fail. Any other questions

                • Pat Conway

                  Yeah, hundreds. But I know you wouldn’t be able to answer them.

                • greencoat

                  He (or she) hasn’t done badly so far!

                • Kaine

                  Islam doesn’t forbid contraception, indeed it allows abortion up to the 120th day.

                  But if your message is you want women to go back to being barefoot and pregnant so you can win your race war, well, I’d invest in a cricket box before you start proselytising.

                • stewart

                  Ypou seem to have a thing about ‘race war’ something you wnat to share?

                • fredx2

                  the fact that they are true.

                • little islander

                  Fewer babies = progress in western arts and sciences. Homosexuals contribute too. The Vaticans don’t teach. They appropriate.

                • Kaine

                  Or at least said they did. Pretty sure Bernini’s statue of Saint Theresa relied upon rather more temporal experiences to get that look of ecstasy just right.

                  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Teresabernini.JPG

                • fredx2

                  Another dumb atheist statement Completely not true. Copernicus was a Catholic canon. His archbishop urged him to publish his work. Copernicus did not want to do so, because those in the universities would have crucified him.

                  So many dumb atheist comments.

                • Pat Conway

                  And Galileo who challenged the Church. He was charged with heresy and put under house arrest for the rest of his life.

                • fredx2

                  Why is it that atheists are so ignorant? They just keep spouting things that are not true, are demonstrably not true, but they show up blathering them, and then they say they are so scientific.

                • Pat Conway

                  Only the very dumb believe in Satan. Shame you can’t tell reality from fantasy.

                • little islander

                  tolpuddle1 watches the News too much. He should get out more. My Christian friends love to share their blessings with me. Yeah, they just love the whole world to know how blessed they are. Meanwhile, me and my atheist friends aren’t doing too badly as far as I can tell. Sounds like Satan is not doing his rounds much.

                • EschersStairs

                  Actually, if you’re fine with how you are then Satan has done his job perfectly.

                • little islander

                  that’s alright by me. not sure the hostility, antagonism and ill-will you harbour is good for you though. you remind me of one of my christian classmates who told me to watch it as i’d be struck by lightning while out on the streets when i decline their invitation to be a convert.

                • EschersStairs

                  Throw away the victim badge. I challenged a comment that you made, that does not constitute a personal assault.

                • little islander

                  i didn’t say or imply you were being personal. neither did i take my classmate’s curse seriously or personally. i read your other posts here (to Pat Conway’s) and sense in your replies the kind of resentment in a few of the christians i know towards pagans like me. these people, fewer than a handful, are mental. they aren’t bullies, for sure. so, i just check again, no i didn’t think i was victimised.

                • EschersStairs

                  Fair, I didn’t realise you were referring to other posts. So I retract.
                  But nope don’t feel resentment. Frustration yes, but that’s probably my own fault for reading posts.

                • tolpuddle1

                  You and your friends appear to be living in a dream world.

                • little islander

                  Many are christians. A few are waiting for the Rapture or Armageddon. The first who told me about it was at the start of the 1st Gulf War (snr Bush). He was estatic. He had just left his 10-yr lucrative banking career to become a poorly-paid pastor, married with children living in a city-state where the governing party’s nicknamed ‘Pay And Pay.” He wasn’t so ecstatic anymore when I asked him if it was because he was going to meet his Maker or his ‘friend’ me was going to h*ll. Was he not having a schadenfreude fit? One at present however is not ready. I was told by a mutual friend it’s because she hasn’t acquired enough brownie points. My take is she needs more time to spend her money. My former French Catholic boss told me he is treated like a pagan in the church he went to here early this century. I’ve been told the christians in the west had been led astray (by Satan?), so you may be right the west is going off the cliff. You may need to rescue your whatever that’s been hijacked and kept here in the East. What is rather confusing to me is if you are sure to meet your Maker, why do you bother if the West (or the East for some) went to the boondocks? Blaise Pascal had his bet right. He is covered if indeed there’s God. As you might know, he bet his entire farm. Why not put your foot where your mouth is, like Mr Pascal, Mr tolpuddle?

                • tolpuddle1

                  Like most Christians, I don’t believe in the Rapture. As for Armageddon, it’s on its way, but hasn’t arrived yet; meanwhile, there are death and taxes.

                  An obsession with the End Times to the exclusion of all else, isn’t true Christianity, nor is an eagerness to consign non-believers to everlasting fire: “God wants everyone to be saved” (1 Timothy). Nor can one earn Heaven by acquiring brownie points; Heaven is a free gift from God to those who have sincere (i.e. compassionate) Christian faith – which includes all people of sincere goodwill (who have unconscious Christian faith).

                • tolpuddle1

                  “Satan’s best trick is to convince you that he doesn’t exist.” (Charles Baudelaire).

                  The advances in science and medicine are a direct result of Europe’s Christian civilisation. To say that “religion stifled progress” reveals your ignorance of Western history.

                  “Progress” is forward movement – now that the West is no longer Christian, it is progressing over a cliff.

                • Pat Conway

                  Satan only exists in your imagination.

                • tolpuddle1

                  There is spiritual evil in the world. It must have a source.

                  Satan is that source.

                • Pat Conway

                  No. There is evil but it has nothing to do with Satan. The supernatural does not in any way interfere or play a part in our lives.

                • Pat Conway

                  Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination.

              • Kaine

                Satan wasn’t the serpent. There’s nothing in the text to support that, and it’s a relatively modern idea. In most medieval art the serpent was depicted as a (female) naga.

                If you’re going to proclaim the fairy stories at least stick to the original.

            • nowistherighttime

              Your the one who’s talking like a child

              • Pat Conway

                I grew out of fairy tales when I left childhood.

            • little islander

              Men are all fallen and disordered then. Blame Eve, avoid women. Become gay. Makes perfect sense, LOL.

        • M. J. P. Simison

          Hardly, as it is not a judgement on the person but on the a sinful act. Masturbation, which can only be considered a response to ‘natural sexual inclinations’, is too described to be ‘an intrinsically and gravely disordered action’. Is the Church thus describing every man and woman as intrinsically disordered by implication?

        • ed77

          Damian homosexuality definitively *not* genetic, hence ‘can’t follow their natural sexual impulses’ is at least a slightly dubious phraseology.

          • Marshal Phillips

            All sexual orientation straight, bi, gay, lesbian, transgender is genetic; probably in the mother’s womb. Sexual orientation is discovered by all when sexual maturity is reached; it’s not chosen by anyone straight, bi, gay, lesbian, transgender. Science, biology, medicine, psychology etc trumps iron age knowledge. AND by the by: Jesus said NOTHING about sexual orientation or gays etc. But he did speak against divorce when asked.

            • CleoQc

              Transgenderism is *not* a sexual orientation.

              • Marshal Phillips

                It’s transgender, not “transgenderism”; and depending on the individual it does involve an orientation.

            • Paul M.

              “All sexual orientation straight, bi, gay, lesbian, transgender is genetic” -Cite your evidence

              • Marshal Phillips

                That is my opinion based on the latest science and biology of sexual orientation which suggests that orientation is something that probably occurs in the mother’s womb. But conduct a field poll of your gay and straight friends and acquaintances and ask: did you choose your orientation or was it something you discovered? The science of why most animals and humans are born straight while a few, but recurring, minority of animals and humans are born gay/bi/trans etc is similar to why most humans are born right handed while a few, but recurring, minority of humans are born left handed. No definitive answers yet. Use a good science search engine and read for yourself.

                • EschersStairs

                  “But conduct a field poll of your gay and straight friends and acquaintances and ask: did you choose your orientation or was it something you discovered?”

                  Sorry, but people have a vested interest in abnegating responsibility. All you are demonstrating by that form of questioning is that your ultimate philosophical goal is to disconnect man from his morality.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Asking a simple revealing question of people — straight and gay alike — to think about whether they have chosen their orientation or discovered it is a way shedding light on an important question. Knowledge is power. Morality is something that society decides; but first society must be very well informed.

          • Kaine

            Definitely not? Prove it. I assume you have the peer reviewed sources to hand?

            • EschersStairs

              Its called common sense.

              • Kaine

                So no proof for your statement. Just checking.

                • EschersStairs

                  “your statement” is a misappropriation. The statement came from ed77.
                  Essentially you are putting forward the notion that a human being has no free will. But because no one made you think that notion, you are your own counterfactual.

                • Kaine

                  Attraction is not a matter of will, so ‘free will’ doesn’t come into it. Unless you believe one can make oneself attracted to someone or stop it at will. If you think that I’m rather sorry for you as you’ve clearly never been in love.

                • EschersStairs

                  I’m sorry, but that is a grotesque mis-characterisation of love.
                  Attraction is not love, it’s desire, and if it is for someone other than your spouse it is lust. Desire/lust is a physical impulse that is either overruled by the mind or it is not. If we don’t overrule our impulses than we have decided we are no better than animals. I don’t accept that for myself, you must make your own decision.

                • Kaine

                  You’re not attracted to the person you love? You weren’t attracted to your spouse before you married them?

                • EschersStairs

                  I should probably concede first that not all attraction is lust. So of course, in fact its important that you are attracted to them. But what I am saying is that the attraction itself can be overruled, say because you want to save yourself for marriage. If it can be overruled, then it can also be denied completely, if you hold that such impulses are wrong.

              • Marshal Phillips

                Common sense is not so common. But bigotry and prejudice are very common.

        • enness

          I have a friend who is legally unable to drive because of an “accident of birth.” She’s epileptic. Does that seem unfair to you? I know it’s a source of frustration to her, but would you prefer to have her put herself and others in physical danger? Spiritual danger is not less real.

          Celibacy can seem like a prison sentence if it is not viewed as a unique opportunity for intimacy with God. That may sound glib, but I in no way mean to diminish the difficulty and the challenge. But what did Jesus say to the man blind from birth, who everyone thought must be under some sort of curse? It was so the glory of God might be shown to the world through him.

          • Marshal Phillips

            Epilepsy is not a sexual orientation. Jesus said NOTHING about gays or their marriages; but he did speak about divorce when asked and he was against it except for adultery. So why do so many Christians try to ban secular civil gay marriage instead of trying to ban divorce in secular civil law?

            • Paul M.

              “Jesus said NOTHING about gays or their marriages”-
              How do you know this?

              • Marshal Phillips

                Cite your evidence.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You’re claiming Jesus didn’t speak of it. It’s up to you to cite evidence to support your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Absence of any texts in the bible with Jesus speaking about gays or their marriages. Are you nuts?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, I’m not nuts, but I’ll take that insult as your admission that you cannot support your claim. You should stop making it.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  It’s an expression of disbelief in your post, relax.
                  The absence of texts of Jesus speaking about gays or their marriages shows he said nothing of either.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, it doesn’t. But if you can support your claim to the contrary, do so.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Show me a text of Jesus speaking of gays or their marriages.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Nobody’s made that claim, lad. You can cease that distraction now.

                  Now then, do you have any support for your claim that he didn’t?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The support is in reading the texts.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, that doesn’t provide conclusive support for your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The texts tell the tale.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, they don’t.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  They speak for themselves.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Of course they speak for themselves. They just don’t prove your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Read them.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I have. They don’t prove your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You’ve read the texts?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You’re asking a pointless question, and the information is available to you above, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, the question is very relevant; if you’ve read, you’ll know the answer.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, the question is irrelevant, as the information is available above.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Read the texts, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Already read, lad, but suggest you do so.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Then you have your answer, dude.

                • finzi_holst

                  Mr. Phillips-

                  Yahushua is the Word. If you believe in Yahushua, you believe that. As such every word of inspired text is by His inspiration, under HIs Father, which is why He said he did not come to change the law or the prophets. In His word, homosexuality is sin. He was perfect and did not sin. Aside from the clear mention about homosexuality in the law, Paul writes about homosexuality, very clearly. Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, under Yahushua. In fact, Paul was chosen by Yahushua. So in the “texts” Yahushua clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, as is sodomy. And often when He healed, He said go and sin no more. So, actually as the Word, Yahushua mentions His take on homosexuality in both the old and new testaments.

                  You will receive understanding when it is time. See John 6:44. Understanding comes from the Father, by His Spirit, through the Word.

                  Interesting, as an aside, that Mr. Thompson believes homosexuals are born that way, but he does not believe that alcoholics are — even though there is far more genetic evidence for the latter disposition.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Jesus said not a word about gays or their marriages; indeed in the entire bible the subject of sexual orientation as a concept is not addressed as it is something modern like science, biology, genes, DNA, same-sex attraction, sexualilty and gender issues like transgender etc.Yahushua clearly does NOT state that “homosexuality is a sin” because the word itself is a modern construct of the 19th century.

                • EschersStairs

                  Wrong.
                  Matthew 15:19 “[Jesus speaking] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:”

                  The word “fornications” is the Greek word porneia, which means any unlawful sexual act, which includes homosexuality.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The Greek word porneia is rooted in “to sell” and relates to prostitutes and prostitution. Nothing to do with gays and lesbians and a word not yet in existence when the manuscript Matthew was written. Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic.

                • EschersStairs

                  Perhaps, Marshal, you did not know that the Septuagint was written in 300BC, and Greek was an international language in the time of Jesus. It is quite possible that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and also Hebrew, and also Greek (“how does this man know letters, having never learned”).
                  That the word for unlawful sexual acts was not around before that time is a ludicrous assertion.
                  “To sell” is puleo.
                  Porneia on the other hand is an unlawful sexual act more generally, and does include prostitution. Porneiu is to prostitute one’s self, or to give one’s self to an unlawful sexual act.

                  Also, to assume that ‘prostitution’ was somehow a uniquely heterosexual act is to misunderstand the morality, or lack thereof, of Greek culture.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You are conflating modern words with Iron Age writings; Jesus spoke Aramaic, no contemporaries wrote what he said, his teachings were written many years after his existence, no original manuscripts are extant, translations were Greek. At that time the word porneia was rooted in the Greek verb to sell which was commonly used for prostitutes and prostitution. Sexual orientation is a modern construct as is the word homosexual. You are assuming a lot just to show animus to gays and lesbians who today form partnerships and marriages where available. Stick to the basic Greek words and original meanings without modern adds ons and assumptions.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  By the way, lad, you may want to rethink your language manipulations, as you appear confused:

                  http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Lad, you need basic lessons in exegesis.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You’re getting defensive, lad. Not a good sign for you.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I am very well informed on biblical exegesis. You are conflating Iron Age writings with modern words and constructs.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you still haven’t proven your claim, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, you can read the texts for yourself. You haven’t proven your claim.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I’m not making any claim, lad, you are.

                  You still haven’t proven it.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, you’re a broken record; read the texts, come back with a text; in the meantime read these: http://www.evilbible.com

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Dude, you’re a broken record. You haven’t supported your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Lad, you haven’t supported your claim; read the texts.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Long read, lad.

                  I’m not making any claim, lad. You are. You haven’t supported your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Your gibberish isn’t going to support your claim either, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  More denial.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Nope, you’re still not proving your claim, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, show me the texts.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You have the burden to show proof for your claim, lad. You haven’t.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You’re claiming Jesus spoke about gays and their marriages? Prove your claim, dude!

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, I’ve made no claims, so again, you should cease your distractions, lad. You have made claims, and you haven’t supported them, as mentioned.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, read the texts.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Already read, lad.

                  You still haven’t supported your claim.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Me too; Jesus didn’t speak of gays and their marriages.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Prove it, lad .

                  You haven’t, still.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Lad, can you read?
                  Show me the texts where Jesus spoke of gays and their marriages. You can’t.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Nobody’s made that claim here, lad. That’s your strawman.

                  Now, have you figured out how to prove your false claim yet?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You’re your own straw man, dude.
                  The texts tell the tale; but no mention of Jesus speaking of gays and their marriages.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Nobody’s made a claim of such a “no mention”, lad. That’s just your strawman.

                  Now then, have you found any proof of your claim?

                • fredx2

                  The Apostle Paul clearly condemned it.Nobody ever said that Christians only follow the things that Jesus had said something about. What an idiot.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I was posting about Jesus.

            • fredx2

              Jesus said nothing about pedophilia. Does that mean it is right? Don’t be an idiot.

              • Marshal Phillips

                Jesus said nothing of DNA, sexual orientation, or computers.

            • little islander

              Because like many atheists, these Christians have an aversion to the homosexual act. It’s ok for them but not ok for homosexuals who have an aversion to women’s body parts.

              • EschersStairs

                That’s called equivocation.

        • fredx2

          The same thing applies to alcoholics. Somehow they get that way and have to abstain. You would say gee, mandatory sobriety is hard to justify.

          • Marshal Phillips

            Gays and lesbians are not alcoholics as a group anymore than straights are drug addicts as a group.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you really just thick?

              • Marshal Phillips

                Insults aren’t persuasive, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No insults, lad, merely pointing out that your being obtuse, and obviously so.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, more insults, obsession, and denial.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, no insults, lad. You’re being obtuse, is all.

        • LakersTrent

          Nonsense, separating the act from the desire is very common. Mandatory celibacy is mandatory for straight people too- before marriage, after, if they don’t marry, and in many cases during marriage (for health or relationship reasons).

          By saying adultery is disordered, one would not be saying that it’s disordered just to think someone other than your spouse is attractive. The important thing is that the individual chooses how to act on the desires that come to them- we can’t control desires but we can control actions, and Christianity demands that we do so in many areas of life regardless of preference or natural inclination.

          • Marshal Phillips

            It is normal and natural for straights as well as gays to act upon their innate sexual natures of expressing love for their partners.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …homosexuals can’t just have their behaviors approved by the Catholic church, is all.

              • Marshal Phillips

                Gays and lesbians will continue to live their lives despite what the church approves or not; BUT church members increasingly do accept gays and lesbains as a part of their families and friends. Just like the vast majority of female Catholics of child bearing years ignore the teachings on birth control.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The church accepts everybody, lad, so you’re not describing anything new.

                  They don’t accept sin. You do.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, you’re a broken record of animus towards gays and lesbians. Sin is a church construct of dogma which church members today ignore. Even the church heirachy ignores sin when convenient: http://www.bishopaccountability.org http://www.snapnetwork.org

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Dude, you’re broken record. The Church accepts everybody. You don’t. You’re a hater, as is clear .

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Lad, the church has an ancient history of murdering Jews and Muslims; and lately of demeaning gays and lesbians. I hate intolerance and ignorance; but I love humanity, my religion is truth and kindness.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The Church accepts everybody, lad. You don’t. You have extreme hatred in your heart. You exude hate. You should see yourself.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, your church serves no purpose re gays/lesbians other than to lessen the status and human dignity of them by bigotry, prejudices, and lies.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The Church serves the purpose of loving and accepting all, lad.

                  Your hatred is going to burn you up someday.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, I love my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; I have no hate for them; but, yes, I do hate hypocrisy, cant, bigotry, and prejudice.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You hate with a passion, lad, I agree.

                  Suggest you love all, as does the Church.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, I hate hypocrisy, cant, bigotry, and prejudice.
                  The church? LOL

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, you hate, and passionately.

                  The Church can show you love, lad, and the path to love all.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Dude, no thanks for church “love”. LOL

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It can release you from the bondage of your hate, lad.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      “We hate the sin. We love the sinner.”
      Oh sure. Catholicism reserves a special place of condemnation for homosexuals in its hard little heart.

    • Iain Hill

      Simple sophistry. Equal rights, not compassion, are wanted. Nor hypocrisy as priesthood includes many gays!

      • Fides_et_Ratio

        There are already equal rights. And how many active homosexuals are there in the priesthood? More than 5%? Give scholarly evidence.

        • Marshal Phillips

          How many to be significant for you? Gays/lesbians do not have equal rights in the church. The church dogma heaps scorn on them; indeed goes out of its way to make them feel bad about themselves. Sexual orientation is not chosen, but bible based bigotry based iron age information about sexuality is chosen.

          • Fides_et_Ratio

            > How many to be significant for you?
            Just answer the question. It is inappropriate to attack vaguely “hypocrisy as priesthood includes many gays” without being specific or providing solid evidence.

            > Gays/lesbians do not have equal rights in the church.
            They have.
            > The church dogma heaps scorn on them; indeed goes out of its way to make them feel bad about themselves.
            No, the Church teaches them that they are children of God and called to sanctity.

            > Sexual orientation is not chosen
            Sexual behavior is undeniably chosen, except in specific pathological cases (compulsive behavior).

            • Marshal Phillips

              Let academic and ecclesiastical research be your friend with these two web sites: http://www.bishopaccountability.org and http://www.snapnetwork.org And you might also take a very basic course in human sexuality and biology based on science, not iron age church dogma. Faith based dogma is chosen; sexual orientation for all of us straight, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender is not chosen but discovered. Did you choose your orientation or did you discover it?

              • Fides_et_Ratio

                > http://www.bishopaccountability.org andwww.snapnetwork.org
                First, these sites are not academic. They are activists, like Greenpeace, not scholars. Second, you should link to specific research that shows which percentage of priests are homosexual.

                > sexual orientation for all of us straight, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender is not chosen but discovered.
                The origins of sexual orientation are not clear, but *sexual behavior* is undeniably chosen. Stop changing the subject from *behavior* to orientation.

                > It calls them intrinsically disordered.
                You have lied. Homosexual *acts* are disordered, not homosexual *people*.

                > Homosexuality has been observed in nature among 100s of animal species.
                Just like murder, cannibalism, infanticide, polygamy, promiscuity. I follow a better moral standard than animals, thank you very much.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I have no idea how many priests are gay and don’t care and didn’t first bring the subject up. Stop changing the subject from orientation to behavior. If someone is straight or gay they will chose to act upon that or not; but if they do behave as nature assigned them, that is perfectly normal behavior for them straight or gay.
                  I have NOT lied. That’s a distinction without a difference. Ask your gay and lesbian friends about how the church has treated them! Murder, cannibalism, infanticide, polygamy, promiscuity has been observed among humans as well as animals: nature bloody, in tooth and claw. Humans are also animals. We’re all in the same boat together.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  > Stop changing the subject from orientation to behavior.
                  But the subject of behavior is what really counts for morality. A man who killed another in a bar fight could hardly justify his actions by saying “I never chose to have testosterone”. The judge – and common sense – would reply “what matters is not your instinct or inclination or emotion, but your choice.”

                  > I have NOT lied. That’s a distinction without a difference.
                  Undeniably false. If I say to my son “I hate your addiction to drugs”, I am a good parent. If I were to say “I hate you because you are a drug addict” I would be a bad parent.

                  > Murder, cannibalism, infanticide, polygamy, promiscuity has been observed among humans as well as animals: nature bloody, in tooth and claw.
                  The point is that not everything animals do, we *ought* to do. It is bizarre to base normative morality on the descriptive study of animals.

                  > Humans are also animals. We’re all in the same boat together.

                  Humans have far higher intelligence, as well as conscience and free will. We are better than other animals.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Homosexuality is a normal occurring sexual orientation among humans and animals. The more I get to know my dogs the more I value animals over some humans. The church has treated their gay/lesbian children like dogs. Ask your gay/lesbian friends, associates, church members, neighbors, colleagues et al. etc about how the church and society has treated them.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You should find another church, if you feel so put upon at your current one.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I attend no church.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Then pass on the message to those for whom you’re doing the special pleading .

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I’m posting same as everyone else here is posting.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you’re not posting, you’re doing special pleading for a group, and you describe the group specifically. I’m giving you a simple solution to your group’s special pleading, for you to pass on.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I post, you post, we all post who want to post.
                  Let the chips fall where they may.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Apparently, you don’t want them to fall where they may. You want to plead for them to fall specially.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I’m quite content to let all posts speak for themselves.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  And yours speak special pleading for a group that you seem concerned with.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You seem to be obsessed with my posts.
                  I usually take the side of the underdog.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I’m not obsessed with anything, lad, although you seem to be quite obsessed with your special pleading for your chosen group.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Your posts show otherwise, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, but yours do.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Readers of posts can decide for themselves if they care.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Sounds good, lad.

                  Pass the word on to your adherents though. They should move on, if they feel unwelcome in their current church .

                • Marshal Phillips

                  I don’t have adherents, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I see, maybe it’s the “readers of posts” you reference.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Nope.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It must be, as you referenced them.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  referenced no adherents, dude

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Of course you have, you’re going on and on about “church members”.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  certainly not my adherents, dude

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you seem to want them to be, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Nope, mistaken, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you do appear to be on a crusade, as you’ve acknowledged. You have a whole lingo describing those you hate, and why you hate them. It’s not going to bring in the numbers though, lad. Hate never does. Try the Church. They love all.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …not to mention the “readers of posts”.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  readers are not adherents, dude

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you’d like them to be though, eh lad? In order to pry them away and into the hate orbit?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  nope, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It won’t work though, lad. People just aren’t attracted to hate. Preach love, and you have a chance. Hate drives them away.

                • little islander

                  yes, he’s obsessed with your posts. hounding you, out of the boat you and i think we’re in together.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  > Homosexuality is a normal occurring sexual orientation among humans and animals.
                  It occurs among animals – just like cannibalism, murder, incest…
                  I repeat: that something occurs among animals, and even among people (like all crimes) does not make it OK.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  It is NOT a crime to be gay/lesbian. duh!
                  It’s cruel and absurd to compare murderers, cannibals, and incesteous behavior to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Your ideas compare with the Westboro Baptist Church and some primitive African countries like Uganda: vicious, inhumane, barbaric expressions of pure hate.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  > It is NOT a crime to be gay/lesbian. duh!

                  Never said so. Learn the difference between analogy and equivalence.

                  The point about murder, cannibalism, etc. was modus tollens. I never said they were morally equivalent to homosexual acts.

                  Please stick to logic, stop the tantrum.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The church is the MOST activists’ organization; hardly either academic or scholarly regarding the science of bishops covering up crimes against children in the churches. The sites I cited are fact based.

                • fredx2

                  Activists sites.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Fact based.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  > hardly either academic or scholarly regarding the science of bishops covering up crimes against children in the churches.

                  A very small percentage of priests committed crimes, most 30-40 years ago. The percentage of criminal priests is smaller than the percentage of criminal public school teachers. Will you now dismiss public education?

                  > The sites I cited are fact based.

                  Like PETA is fact based. I asked for academic research, not emotionally-charged collections of anecdotes and accusations.

              • fredx2

                Again, alll wrong .Guy does not know anything at all about Catholicism.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Know enough.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You do not belong to the Catholic church, so you said below. Why do you involve yourself in it, and how much could you know about it?

                • Marshal Phillips

                  It’s been around awhile. Speccie article and others sources.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  That is unresponsive, and doesn’t answer my question, lad.

                  You do not belong to the Catholic church, as you stated. Why do you involve yourself in it, and how much could you possibly know about it?

          • fredx2

            Yeah, all wrong, once again.

            • Marshal Phillips

              Yeah sure, keep telling yourself that. Science trumps iron age mythology and Catholic dogma.

        • Mike Power

          Scholarly evidence?
          I’ll just consult the answers to the survey sent out to all Catholic priests. Ah yes, here it is…

          Question 27: Are you an active homosexual? YES/NO/
          Question 28: If you answered YES to question 27, are you a “giver” or a “taker”. YES/NO/UNDECIDED

    • Marshal Phillips

      That’s a distinction without a difference.

      • Fides_et_Ratio

        Saying to a person “I hate your use of drugs” is fundamentally different from saying “I hate you because you are a drug addict”.

        • Marshal Phillips

          Gays and lesbians are NOT drug addicts.
          Stop linking the two with specious bigotry.

          • Fides_et_Ratio

            Except I did not say that. You are either dishonestly attacking straw men, or you are intellectually unable to differentiate between analogy and equivalence. Either way, you are unable to refute ideas.

            • Marshal Phillips

              You’re the major Mr Staw Man, dude. lol

              • Fides_et_Ratio

                Once more you are unable to refute ideas so you call names.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You’re the one trying to demean gays and lesbians, dude.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  That was just ad hominem. I explained that analogy is different from equivalence, and you are predictably utterly unable to refute it.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  You specialize on ad hominem attacks on gays and lesbians.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  You assert that without evidence.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Your posts are evidence.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  If they were, you would be able to be specific.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Your posts are specific, dude.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Yet you cannot cite one.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Scroll through your posts, dude.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Once more you show that your attacks are baseless. You are utterly and repeatedly unable to cite *one single simple example* of what you claim to be true.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Your posts and church history speak for themselves, dude.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  That is not evidence. That is just your personal opinion.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  The evidence: your posts and church history.
                  Denial is your game.

                • Fides_et_Ratio

                  Evidence is necessarily specific. I cannot accuse the Queen of murder and say “the evidence is the Queen’s life”. I have to actually specify “the evidence is this photograph of the Queen committing murder”.

                  When asked to provide evidence for your emotional outburst, you ridiculously say “the evidence is the history”. This means precisely nothing.

                  If there was specific evidence, you could provide it.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Further and deeper in De Nile.
                  And now dragging a poor queen into your problem.

      • Ben Trovato

        On the contrary, it is the core of Christian morality to distinguish between people and their actions: love the sinner (which is all of us, in our different ways) and hate the sin (which we all commit, in our different ways).

        • Marshal Phillips

          It’s at the core of bigotry and prejudice to target gays and lesbians with spiritual abuse and tired cliches of barely concealed holier than thou rote phrases of dubious distinction.
          Today modern science, biology, psychology, and medicine accept sexual orientation without Iron Age dogma.
          Judge not, but if you do judge, you yourself will be judged.
          Live and live and leave the judging to whatever god or gods you believe. And learn to love without throwing stones, finger pointing, and falsehoods against your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
          As my Kansas grandmother would say, “Tend to your own damn knitting!”

          • Ben Trovato

            So to disagree with you is judging, bigotry, abuse… I have said no ill of anyone, I wish nobody any ill; I just fail to accept your view of anthropology, theology, history and indeed logic.

            • Marshal Phillips

              On the instant subject of gays and lesbians, which is the focus of this blog: gays and lesbians ARE targeted with spiritual abuse, bigotry, and prejudice… AND you added your snark as well with the hackneyed love the sinner, hate the sin mantra of the Pharisee. Judge not, but if you do judge, you yourself will be judged.

              Love is all. Let kindness be your guide. No need to pile on with cliches of scorn.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                You seem supremely focused on hating those you disagree with, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  Lad, you’re obsessed.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, but you are, lad.

                • Marshal Phillips

                  LOL, dude.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You seem sad, lad. I don’t think you’re laughing.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here