VATICAN AGAINST GENDER CHANGE.

The Holy See against gender ideology: a danger to humanity. Sex is not a subjective choice

The intervention of the Vatican observer Auza at the UN in New York: “Concern over teaching ideologies to children”, but “no to discrimination”. In recent days, controversy over an alleged opening of the Vatican to the drug that blocks puberty
SALVATORE CERNUZIO
VATICAN CITY

A danger, a threat to the future – especially of children -, a step backwards for humanity. With explicit harshness the Holy See intervenes, through the Filipino Archbishop Bernardito Auza observer at the UN in New York, against the gender ideology, a theory claiming there is no difference between men and women and their sex can be chosen.

A controversial subject which, for years now, has been the subject of political and ecclesial debates between those who claim that this ideology does not even exist and that it is an invention of conservative fringes of the Church, and the large portions of Catholics engaged in public debate who instead see in this phenomenon a predefined project aimed at the destruction of the “traditional family” and of the “natural order” on which society and its future are founded, and who therefore seek to oppose its insinuations, especially in school education programs.

On more than one occasion the Pope had intervened on the gender ideology issue, explicitly pronouncing the term and stigmatizing it as “ideological colonization”. And on more than one occasion Monsignor Bernardito Auza had also addressed – en passant – the subject in his speeches at the UN headquarters. The speech given on Tuesday 20 March – and reported on the Vatican News site – was instead an in-depth focus that made the Holy See’s stand on the matter even more evident. The archbishop expressed “concern for the teaching of gender ideology to children, so that boys and girls are encouraged to question, from an early age of life, whether they are boys or girls, suggesting that “everyone can choose his or her sex”, but at the same time he strongly reiterated “the dignity and the right not to be discriminated of those who do not feel represented by their biological sex”.

Strong words that come a few weeks after the controversy, sparked and limited to the usual ultraconservative Catholic circles in opposition to of Francis’ pontificate, on an alleged “opening” of the Holy See to tryptoreline, a drug that blocks the development of puberty in adolescents who live the discomfort of “gender dysphoria”. “Opening” given by an interview with Professor Laura Palazzani, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who expressed in the Vatican media a moderate opinion on the drug and its administration, but that according to these circuli minores of detractors, is to be considered a real “betrayal” of the Pope.

Polemics aside, Archbishop Auza – taking the floor at the meeting in question entitled “Gender equality and gender ideology: protecting women and girls”, promoted by the UN to take stock of the situation of women in the world and their rights – wanted to review Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s statements on the issue. Starting with the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia, which in paragraph 56, states that the ideology of gender “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family”.

“This ideology – we read again in the papal text quoted by the Vatican delegate – leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female… It is a source of concern that some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised”.

“It needs to be emphasized that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated”, stressed the prelate in the wake of the words of the Pope. “On the other hand, “the technological revolution in the field of human procreation has introduced the ability to manipulate the reproductive act, making it independent of the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. In this way, human life and parenthood have become modular and separable realities, subject mainly to the wishes of individuals or couples”.

Auza recalled how once it used to be “clear” the understanding of being a man or a woman: it was a matter of chromosomes. “Today, this clarity has been undermined by the gender ideology that assumes a personal identity unrelated to sex. “It is one thing to understand human frailty or the complexity of life, and another to accept ideologies that claim to divide the inseparable aspects of reality into two,” the archbishop stressed. Substituting this gender identity to biological sex – he added – has strong repercussions “not only in terms of law, education, economy, health, safety, sport, language and culture”, but also “in terms of anthropology, human dignity, human rights, marriage and family, motherhood and fatherhood” as well as on the very fate of women, men and “especially children”.

The Vatican representative then quoted the encyclical Laudato si’, which, in paragraph 155, states that the acceptance of one’s own body “ is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift”, whereas “thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation”. “ Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology”, wrote the Pontiff in his “green” encyclical. “Valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different… Therefore, “It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.

Bergoglio had repeated the same concepts verbally to the bishops of Puerto Rico met in June 2015, pointing out that the complementarity of man and woman “is called into question by the so-called gender ideology in the name of a freer and fairer society. The differences between man and woman are not for opposition or subordination, but for communion and generation”.

“When the natural and complementary duality of man and woman is questioned – Monsignor Auza observed – the very notion of human being is undermined. The body is no longer a characteristic element of humanity. The person is reduced to spirit and will and the human being becomes almost an abstraction”.

The Vatican representative also warned against the teaching the gender ideology to children, so that boys and girls are encouraged to question, from the earliest age of their existence, whether they are boys or girls, suggesting that “everyone can choose his or her sex”. “Why do they teach this?” he asked, quoting the Pope again in his speech to the Polish bishops in Krakow in 2016, “Because the books are provided by the persons and institutions that give you money. These forms of ideological colonization are also supported by influential countries. And this is terrible!”.

The prelate concluded his speech by calling for “safeguarding our humanity”, which “means first of all accepting and respecting it as it was created”. Our sex, as well as our genes and other natural characteristics – he said – “are objective data, not subjective choices”.

67 thoughts on “VATICAN AGAINST GENDER CHANGE.

  1. No words. Just no words.
    In years tocomethe people involved in this experiment will be part of a huge child abuse scandal of the future. It’ll be E.C.T., lobotomy, thalidomide, cranial bump reading, and all the other hocum combined. There is no science to this, just unethical practice. The Head of this department of the Maudsley, or wherever, resigned a couple of weeks ago as he couldn’t countenance what was going on.
    Very high over representation of children on asd spectrum among the children being experimented on. Shocking. The mental trauma of this age is finding expression under many guises.
    God bless and protect our children.

    Like

    1. 12.57: You raise serious concerns. As we rush headlong into all kinds of “sexual” experiments with our children and young people, it is imperative that we seriously ask the relevant moral and ethical questions. Humanity can be complex: we who are adults went through 9ur questioning phase about our sexual identity but got through it with careful mentoring, advice and counselling where necessary. But to be actively recreating gender identities or nine to children must surely raisecred flags. Is this not neatly packaged experimentation by an industry of professional psychologists, psychiatrists and profiteers? Children are not items for experimentation. When any child requires care and counselling about his/her sexual orientation or gender challenge, then they deserve professional support but not experimentation. What kind of confusion, anxieties, needless stress are we placing on our children? As a parent I am horrified about my children and their children’s future. What kind of Frankensteinian world are we giving them?

      Like

      1. No one is rushing headlong into all kinds of sexual experiments on our children. ‘All kinds’? Seriously?
        Imagination is rarely reliable as a source of truth, especially scientific truth.

        Like

    2. @12.57
      I should have said Tavistock Clinic above, not Maudesly.

      Like

  2. Obviously Pat, you know very little about these moral and ethical issues. You fall for anything and everything…you seem not to believe in any kind of Christian moral/ethical teachings. Thank God you don’t have children.

    Like

    1. How do you know I don’t?

      Like

  3. Ah here Pat, will you come of your moral high horse.
    Stop quoting flawed and biased tests and just stick to being a priest

    Like

  4. I have watched programmes where children are literally being tutored from 3 years of age by professionals to “be” what and whom they imagine themselves to be. There are children and ternagers who may have identity challenges but to be pro actively creating scenarios for young children and direct them into particular formats/mides/personae other than what they are at birth is ethically and morally reprehensible. This is an experiment with children, one that is dangerously abusive. Each child’s early childhood challenges at every level, sexual, emotional, intellectually, physically and other ways must be treated on a case by case basis but to be actively assigning particular directions for a young child is surely very questionable. Can we really countenance, ethically or morally, this experiment with chikdren?

    Like

    1. Google the Kelsey Coalition, to find out what parents are up against.

      Like

  5. + Pat, you are spot on ! The Church is not the subject matter expert on these matters. It may have a valid view and express it as to how we should have a great respect for God given nature and life, and the Church’s view should be part of a wider consideration, but just condemning in a blanket way as it does is not valid or useful to the wider debate. The current stand of the Church simply denies the reality of so many people. The Church may want to stand up for “life’ and “nature” but you do not do that by ignoring the minority of people who have valid difficulties in these areas. The response of the Church needs to be much more nuanced and subtle, able to embrace diversity and difference. Instead, its response as in so many things is to just be black and white, and essentially get it wrong ! The usual get out clause is that the Church still “loves’ those who are different, but if they try to do anything about their difference then the Church condemns them.
    What the Church will find in all these matters is that people will listen to the Church, respect what it has to say, but then weigh that up with lots of other evidence and experience and their own thinking and conscience, and then make a decision that is right for them, and that often means ignoring what the Church is teaching. No wonder the pews are emptying, because people have seen through the Church, no longer trust it, and will not be bludgeoned by guilt in to following it blithely and unquestioningly any more.

    Like

    1. @10.41
      You think 3 year olds are ‘weighing all these things up’!
      You think 5 year olds are? And 10 year olds?
      ADULTS are both creating and facilitating this madness. Children will all have to be home schooled soon for their own protection.

      Like

      1. If it’s homeschooling on the curriculum of JPII’s Theology of the Body (This nonsense is what is driving Church opposition.), then kids really will need protecting from some of the most dogmatic gibberish ever to come from the mind of an ultramontane pope. And what a mind that was! It valued the human body so much that it protected vile paedophiles, like Maciel, while throwing the very youngest and most vulnerable human bodies to wolvine sexual predators.

        Like

      2. Ultramontane pope? Wow, what a completely amateur understanding of the term. What will it be next, a communist Bolshevik. Amateur historian at work.

        Like

    2. 9:30

      Don’t ya just love people who cast slurs or make criticism without providing any substantiation for it?😅

      Tell me: how is my understanding of ultramontanism ‘completely amateur’?

      Like

    3. Thought as much.
      Nothing to say for yourself.😅
      😆

      Like

  6. Pat, I wouldn’t send any person to you for counselling. All you offer is a purely subjective interpretation of human experience without reference to the science of psychology, psychiatry, human sexuality, genetic engineering and medical ethics. Anything goes for you in your very subjective world which is an injustice to the dignity of the human person…We should not experiment with the lives of children.

    Like

    1. When people come to me I listen.
      I tell them that I will journey with them.
      I refer and bring them to every appropriate expert and agency.
      I would never refer anyone to an expert or agency following RC teachings. That would be like referring a fly to a spider.

      Like

      1. That is precisely why I wouldn’t bring any person to you for counselling let alone any other reason.

        Like

      2. Good. We know where we stand!

        Like

      3. “11.41
        Every ‘expert and agency’ is operating out of a set of values and beliefs. There is no truly neutral information and advice under the sun.

        Like

  7. Pat please pray for all maynooth sems who as of April 2nd 2019 will undergo gender reassignment.

    Like

  8. Pat, the church doesn’t “always stand against modern knowledge and science,” as you suggest. Usually , it is the church only which warns against the repercussions of certain lines of thought on humanity. The promotion of gender ideology is resulting in a tyranny and is ultimately an attack on the Jesus. Probably part of theoretical atheism .

    Like

    1. You bandy about such phrases as ‘gender ideology’. Do you know what it means?😕

      Like

      1. Obviously not to the same degree as you do. Magna.

        Like

    2. 10:10
      Honest answer, if it were’t for the near imperceptible hint of sarcasm.😆

      Like

  9. 12.07: Pat, there are some excellent counsellors and experts of Catholic training, who offer superb advice – unbiased and objective, very caringly, people who are professional in the areas of psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, counselling, psychiatry and other redeemable therapies. I have benefited from such individuals who have the intellectual rigour to adapt and integrate their various learned discplines in a very professional way. To dismiss a professionals in these disciplines just because they are Catholic is utterly ignorant and bizarre. Pat, you have so biased and prejudiced a view on all things Catholic. Grow up….You prove why I’d never, ever turn to you for any kind of support or ever recommend anyone to you.

    Like

    1. I totally agree that dismissing professionals because they are Catholic is just ignorant and stupid. I’m sorry it says more about you Pat Buckley than anything else. Your arguments are without any reason or logic – it shows you up for the total shallow person you must be.

      Like

      1. I did not say because they were Catholic.

        I said if they did their work according to RC beliefs and teachings.

        Like

  10. In yesterday’s comments there was a link to the following Facebook page:
    https://m.facebook.com/stmalachysabuseuncovered/
    Abuse and cruelty at St Malachy’s College, Belfast, has often come up on Pat Buckley’s blog.
    A social media group, dedicated to persons who suffered at SMCB,would be be helpful as a means of coordinating such persons – for their voices to be heard and their stories to be told.
    However, should we not know what person or persons is behind this group?
    If you are expecting people to identify themselves to you – and confide in you their stories – shouldn’t they know the identity/identities of whoever it is to whom they are talking?
    Also, you should write to local media and give details of your Facebook page to get a wider catchment.
    Just a few observations from an SMCB survivor.

    Like

  11. I’d like to repeat my request for prayers as there are big changes coming in tomorrow in Maynooth. Gender changes.

    Like

    1. At 4:54pm – Our prayers are with you luv. Is it a strapadictomy or a lobabolochov? Is the trolley dolly having the snip?

      Like

  12. 3.29: Pat, you’re all confused. Surely your ‘pastoral’ spproach through advising/counselling/helping others must be influenced by your Christian faith, by the principles of care, compassion, empathy and genuine listening. What about the Catholic writers like Henri Nouwen, Richard Rohr, Ron Rolheiser, Daniel O Leary (R.I.P.), Sr. Joan Chichester…I read much of their writings and I’d have great faith in their counselling. They, all of them religious, professionally trained and accredited counsellors ar notable and highly recommended. So, it’s a pity that you have such ignorant bias and infer so negative a judgment on Catholic professionals.

    Like

    1. The most important element in counselling by a Christian is his or her love, compassion…and the humility to acknowledge lack of reliable information in such controversial and delicate areas as sexual gender. It is not helped by relying, unquestioningly, on doctrinal, theological abstractions, without credible grounding in scientific facts.

      The most important source for this knowledge is not churchmen, like that Pole, or even, in the first instance, medical scientists themselves, but people who matter far above any of these (especially scientifically ignorant Roman Catholic Churchmen). And these are the very souls experiencing this ontological distress.

      Have you actually ever spoken to any of these? I have. And believe me, your reaction is completely irrational. It is to this level of human consciousness that most of these Roman Catholic Churchmen, like Auza, appeal. Why? Because it is from this primal level that they all, generally, speak.

      Like

    2. Not one of that list is actually a Catholic writer.

      Like

  13. I read today’s blog with a mixture of amusement and disdain. There is always amusement when the clericalised representative (Archbishop Auza) of an organisation with centuries of lethal disrespect, not just to the human body but to human sex and sexuality, has the brassneck to lecture the UN on these very topics with moral opprobrium. The disdain quickly follows from lack of acknowledgement by the Church of its utter historical hypocrisy in these matters.
    Is there a cardiovascular ideology? Is there an ideology of psychiatric pathology and treatment? And so on? No, of course there isn’t. It is only when it comes to human issues that clash with the Pole’s ‘Theology of the Body’, and its dogmatic insistence, courtesy of Hans Urs Balthasaar, on the complementarity of strictly biological sexes that we have such words and phrases as ‘ideology’ or, more silly, ‘ideological colonisation’ brought out, without a sliver of evidence, to bash progressive human science.
    Where is the evidence that young children are being told that they can choose their sexual identity, regardless of their biological sex. I am aware thst children are being reassured, necessarily, that how they feel about themselves in terms of sexual binary may not always coincide with what is between their legs, but that this is alright, and that they shouldn’t feel ashamed or concernerd by it . This is compassion. This is love. Because there ARE such children, and they can be deeply unhappy, deeply distressed. And how does the Romanist church behave towards those who would help them? Typically, it tries to demonise them, without any credible science whatever, and to turn against them on a purely affective level, the kind of irrational posters I have found here today.
    If there is any organisation that is into ‘ideological colonisation’ ( Pope Francis’ banner cry) it is institutional Roman Catholicism…and it has left in its wake not just broken bodies and minds, but damaged or destroyed souls as well.😕

    Like

      1. Sums Pat up to a tee. One day criticises and curtails MC and the next day pats him on the back. You couldn’t make it up.

        Like

      2. I reserve the right to censor and commend any poster.

        Like

  14. 6.01: You, Magna, obviously haven’t read much about or observed the strident “be what you think you are” ideology that is infiltrating modern thinking around sexual identity issues. You make an argument, not for intellectual purposes of enlightenment, but to castigate, belittle and shut out all Catholic discussion on moral and ethical issues. You have such moral disdain and hatred for Catholicism that you, like Pat, your wee poodle, can never accept the intellectual learning and rigour that Catholic teaching can bring to these issues. Despite the church’s moral failings, it must preach the TRUTH which it believes is revealed by God in upholding the dignity and sanctity of the human body. We cannot be experimenting with children’s perceptions or confusions about their lives. Yes, we need to understand, help and care for those individuals who have a crisis of sexual identity but it is wrong, I believe, to lead a child of 3/4/5 years of age in a direction that ultimately may be harmful. Adults should never live out their unfulfilled realities through their children. We rightly condemn all abuse inflicted on children, so I think it’s both reasonable and responsible to move very compassionately, cautiously and carefully with children who present with sexual identity “challenges”. Recently I watched an American documentary re: these issues and I am shocked at the aggressive agenda of certain professionals who accept that it is legitimate to believe a 3/4/5 year old, even though they can barely articulate. The sexual revolution should not be foisted on any child.

    Like

    1. The RC church says a child reaches the use of reason at 7 ???

      Like

      1. 6.38: Yes, you are right, but we’re talking about 3/4/5 year olds re: sexual identity crisis. Let’s protect chikdren in every way. Let’s protect their vulnerability, dignity and innocence. Let’s not experiment with them.

        Like

      2. My understanding is that in this country at least these matters are worked on from puberty until early 20s?

        Like

      3. When did you ever regard or consider what the RC Church says on anything- utter hypocrite you are.

        Like

      4. Where does it say that? Chapter and verse!

        Like

    2. 6:36
      Telling a child that it can be the sex it ‘thinks’ itself to be is a far cry, intellectually and ontologically, from telling that child that it can ‘choose’ its sexual gender, regardless of strict socio-cultural norms on the traditional, sexual binary.
      As for teaching truth, let’s be honest about this. Historically, the Romanist church has generally favoured only one source for ‘truth’ over all others: its collective, magisterial mind. And what a dry well this has proved itself to be. Relying for centuries, not on Scripture with its clear moral admonitions against the death penalty, on itself, it morally approved the taking of human life as punishment. Now it has performed a moral volt face on this, but it hasn’t the humility to acknowledge that it was wrong on this matter all along, only that its teaching ‘evolved’.
      No one is experimenting on children. This attempt to Nazify health professionals is a disgrace.
      The Romanist church never goes to those who have more knowledge of these issues than anyone else on the planet. Instead, it retreats inward, to that collective magisterial mind, which so often in its history has been the source of prejudice, and pig ignorance.😆

      Like

      1. @ 7.04
        You and Pat obviously have little knowledge of children and their development. As a toddler my child insisted we call him ‘(his name) Bear.’ Should we have fed him honey and let him poop on the floor? He was identifying as a bear after all.

        Like

      2. 6:36
        Your commentaries are not reliable.
        The language you employ is peevish, full of resentment and vindictive.
        You are not correct when you claim a one-source theory for the church’s basis for truth. There are at least four: scripture, tradition and reason and the church’s own teaching ministry (magisterium). Sola traditione or solo magisterio were never church principles.

        When it comes to scripture, you are also misguided. The moral teaching of scripture is found as much in its narrative elements as much as in its moral norms. It’s full of examples where people have been put to death by legitimate authority and by codified norms of the Torah.

        What you write is so patently untrue as to be irrelevant.

        Like

      3. The post at 9:38 is addressed to the post of Magna Carta at 7:04.

        Like

    3. 8:41

      I wasn’t going to bother addressing your post, but then…😆

      Is your child still insisting on (as you put it) on identifying as a bear? Your post suggests not.

      Can you draw the obvious lesson here? You weren’t comparing like with like, but were just being, well, silly really.

      Trans people don’t go through developmental phases, like your toddler.😕

      Like

      1. And how would you know, Magna?

        Like

    4. 10:12
      I know because I learned it from trans people themselves, not from the Vatican.

      Like

    5. 9:38
      In practice, the Romanist church has frequently upheld magisterial ‘teaching’ over the teaching of God in Sacred Scripture. The example of, until very recently, its moral approval for the death penalty is just one such. That ‘teaching’ exposed its fundamental disrespect for the sanctity of human life and, in my opinion, contributed significantly to burgeoning support for abortion, not just in the Republic of Ireland, but much farther afield.
      I note that you refer to the Torah for your defence of the death penalty, but you ignore New Testament teaching on it. The New Testament is called ‘New’ for a reason: it is supreme in its teaching on the divine will since in Christ we have the perfect revelation of God. And what did Christ say about the death penalty? If you are without sin cast the first stone. It was a figurative and universal and irrefutable prohibition on executing fellow human beings. But the Romanist church has traditionally ignored the command of Christianity’s founder…in order to take its OWN magisterial counsel.

      Like

      1. 4:48
        1. The level of your lack of familiarity with biblical and theological fundamentals is revealed most clearly in your choice of the story of the woman caught in adultery for your simplistic claim that scripture is against the death penalty.
        2. Far from expressing support or defence for the death penalty, I am implacably opposed to it. However, I recognise that the scriptural evidence is not at all unambiguous on this question.
        3. You reveal Marcionite tendencies in your setting up an opposition between the testaments.
        4. ‘(The NT) is supreme in its teaching on the divine will.’ Risible second-rate, second-level religious-studies ‘argumentation.’
        5. ‘Irrefutable’ that The story of the woman taken in adultery is a universal prohibition of the death penalty. Ditto.

        Like

    6. 10:18

      My comment on Jesus’ words to the woman caught in adultery are ‘risible second-level religious studies “argumentation” ‘? Really?

      The institutional Romanist church wouldn’t agree with you on this, since it has, just recently, overturned centuries of misteaching on the death penalty, declaring this punishment an affront to human dignity. Which is precisely what Jesus was doing in that gospel scene with the adulterous woman, 2000 years ago; but neither you, nor the Romanist church, paid him any attention, did you?😆

      As for Marcionism, your post reveals ignorance of this, since Marcion rejected the entire Hebrew Bible from his canon of Scripture. I make no such rejection, and you would have known this for yourself had you read my other post more carefully. Instead, you have to endure the embarrassment of my having to spell this out, as though you were some obtuse Year 11 student.

      I’ll make this as simple as I dare: only God knows God, fully and perfectly. As Jesus was also God, then only Jesus could reveal the Father in this way; certainly, then, no prophet, or scribe, or preacher in the Old Testament period could do likewise. Which is, logically, why the New Testament is more reliable in its revelation of divine will than the Old. This does not render obsolete the Old Testament, however, because the synchronicity of the divine will with what is revealed in the New Testament is clearly there. But there is, too, in the Old Testament error through human misrepresentation of that will, expressing more socio-cultural attitudes and mores as much as (if not more) than divine guidance.

      The New Testament is the fulfilment, perfectly expressed and consumated, of what was promised in the Old. The Old points to Jesus, the consumate revelation of the Father. Logically, the New Testament does something the Old could not do, through incarnate abscence of Jesus.

      This all will probably go right over your head, and under your heart.😕

      Like

      1. Amateurish nonsense. Clearly you didn’t get as far as First Divinity before you got your walking papers.
        The church’s evolving position on the inadmissability of argumentation in favour of the death penalty (a phenomenon greatly clarified by JHNewman) has absolutely nothing to do with the pericope of the woman taken in adultery.
        The punishment of death by stoning was a Torah norm, a religious stipulation, which was hardly ever practised in Jesus’ time. Pio IX’s signing of death warrants for criminals who were citizens of the Papal States was bt virtue of his being the sovereign of that entity. That is to say, a civil natter, worlds removed from the Johannine narrative you cite.
        Wikipedia-fuelled Marcionism and amateurish religious knowledge haven’t got you ver far.

        Like

    7. 10:41
      Hah, hah, hah 😅
      Told you my post would go right over your head. And how!😆

      Like

  15. Fly On Th Wall 1st Apr 2019 — 8:05 pm

    Tis a quare world we live in hi. Suretwas flat till the Pope apologised. Still tis equally dangerous to go too far totter way either. Giving children gender neutral clothes Load a rubbish. Let children grow into what God wants them to become Not what we tell God they should be and fob it off as His word.
    Sexuality’s a serious part of human make up hi. Sooo don’t treat it like flavour of the month luvvy/mate or should it be mate/luvvy. Time for a Christy Moore song but

    Like

  16. 6.35: Pat, you blow with the wind. You censor when it suits you. You use Magna when convenient. He speaks your narrative in all its’ ugliness, disdain and abusiveness. Why don’t you express intelligently your own arguments instead of shallow soundbytes and putdowns. Is it beyond your capacity?

    Like

    1. I do that in the blog text.

      Like

    2. 9:05
      Your comment is ludicrous.
      Obviously, the blog administrator, and anyone else for that matter, is going to evaluate a poster’s contribution on a comment-by-comment basis. What other rational way to proceed is there?
      The alternative, which you appear to be espousing, is a blanket ban or a blanket approval of any individual.

      Like

  17. Nothing like good old MC to ensure the number of posts increase on yet another dreary blog. MC is good for the ratings – give him another pat on the head Buckley.

    Like

    1. MC is indeed ‘good’. But he ain’t ‘old’.😆

      Like

  18. 6.27: Magna, I’d turn to Pooe St. John Paul 11 for my guidance than take any advice from your deeply damaged mind, heart or soul. You have too much hatred and anger in you to be of sound mind, to be a balanced comnentator. Leave your childish, unresolved issues out of your comments. If not, go for guidance.

    Like

    1. You may turn to whomever you choose. But I wonder whether you would, really would, turn to such a hypocrite as the Pole for the protection of your son or grandson from sexual molestation by his priests. This man’s record clearly shows that he valued his priests more, much more, than he would your son or grandson. And shows, too, that he would have risked, without a scond thought or conscientious quibble, putting them in danger again if it meant shopping one of his dear priests to law enforcement agencies. Why, he even promoted that Christ-betrayer, Law, once he hightailed it to Rome to avoid uncomfortable legal repercussions for protecting paedophile priests, dozens of them, in the Archiocese of Boston.
      This was a pope whose theological hobbyhorse was his Theology of the Body, and its pretense of valuing the complementary and co-equal dialogue between male and female. And it was a pretense, as abstract as one can get, since it never valued the body at all, unless it wore a clerical collar or religious habit

      Like

      1. 10 41: Magna, a comment motivated out of an extremist ideology of hatred for Pope St. John Paul 11. I have great most of his encyclical and studied his Theology of the Body. I find all his writings, poetry and plays to be thrlingg, intellectuly enriching abd very thought provoking. Yes, Pope John Paul was not perfect: he had flaws: he made mistakes but he was a giant of a scholar, communicator and intellectual. For me, a truly Great Pope. Where did you find the commentary review of his book, The theology of the Body? Read similar comments recently in a theoligical review book!!

        Like

      2. Many would agree that the theology of the body has nothing to say to contemporary Christians, that its direction, to the extent that it wishes to obstruct change in the area of sexuality,
        is fundamentalist.

        Like

  19. Fly on Th Wall 3rd Apr 2019 — 8:28 am

    All this gender stuff seems the new flavour of th day hi. I do think that pink for girls and blue for boys is daft hi. Let kids grow into what God wants them to be. A shovel for the girl A doll for the boy So what ,.. but

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close