Categories
Uncategorized

FATHER MARSDEN’S EXPERT – ELIZABETH MOBERLY – THEOLOGIAN.

www.zagria.bligspot.com

Wikipedia

Elizabeth Moberly is a British research psychologist and theologian.

Moberly is the author of Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, in which she suggests several possible causes of male homosexuality and a therapeutic cure.

Moberly was involved in ministry to homosexuals as Director of Psychosexual Education and Therapy for BCM International. She subsequently became involved in cancer research.

————-

Moberly is a theologian and self-proclaimed psychoanalyst. She thinks that the primary cause of homosexuality is the failure of bonding with the same-sex parent, and that homosexuality is a reparative drive to repair this lack of affection. She advocates homosocial bonding instead. She implies that gay activists are basically dishonest.

She coined the term ‘reparative therapy’ to describe her therapeutic approach to restore one’s sense of gender identity. Where the failure of bonding is particularly severe, ‘a defensive detachment from the same sex implies disidentification: not just an absence of identification but a reaction against identification’. In other words, transsexuality is extreme homosexuality. 

Her research did not involve psychotherapy with any gays or transsexuals.

She simply did an extensive review of the previous writings of Irving Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer, and Sigmund Freud. No trained psychologist or psycho-analyst would restrict themselves to just these three writers.

She admitted that she had done no new research.

Her work was never peer-reviewed by any psychologists or psycho-analysts.

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics have all condemned reparative therapy as ineffective.

She was invited to speak at ex-gay conventions in the US in the movement that produced NARTH (National Association for Recovery and Treatment of Homosexuality).

Moberly’s opinions continue to be endorsed in Christian circles as ‘scientific’. 

She now works in cancer research. 

Elizabeth R. Moberly. Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity: London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1983.

Elizabeth R. Moberly. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clarke 1983.

Jeffry G. Ford. “Reparative Therapy is Neither”. http://jgford.homestead.com/Fordessay.html.

Elizabeth Moberly. “Homosexuality and The Truth”. Leadership U. March 1997.www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9703/opinion/moberly.html with reponses at www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9706/correspondence.html.

____________________________

I was unable to find a clear statement of what qualifications, if any, Moberly has. No writers claim that she has any qualifications in either psychology or psychoanalysis. The assumption is that she has a degree, a PhD even, in theology. Sometimes Cambridge is mentioned, sometimes Oxford. Or maybe she was a child in Cambridge.

PAT SAYS

No respected scientist or medic nowadays supports the designation “disordered” to homosexuality.

More interesting scientific study will be done into the whole area of sexual orientation and what determines it.

Father Marsden & Co must reach back 40 or 50 years to find “experts” that back their positions.

We must never allow our own, even unrecognised, prejudices to inform out theology or psychology.

From the theological and pastoral perspectives there are serioys and important questions to be asked about the development and presence of the homomafia in the church.

From the spiritual and even mental and physical health point of view the behaviours of some homosexual priests and seminarians is a very big problem that has to be addressed.

But the answer is not to be found in putting people back in societal chains or in telling them they are going to hell.

A NEW ORATORY RESIDENT

“To live in the House of the Lord all the says of my life”.

129 replies on “FATHER MARSDEN’S EXPERT – ELIZABETH MOBERLY – THEOLOGIAN.”

This issue never resolved itself.
I can only share my discussions.
One practicing Psychiatrist I once had a conversation with said Homosexuality is either in utero chemically caused or Relational/ Developmental. The Dysfunctional Developmental could be fixed if the patient wanted to. If motivated to.
We know now today there is no Gay genetic gene. If genetic it’s very very minimal influence, less than 1%.
I do think they need to not be recruiting 14 year olds for priesthood and barring teens from dating. 25years of age at the least. I do think optional Celibacy should be allowed.
I also think that irreversible gays need to speak out against grooming and gay Predation of youth passionately.
######

Like

3.09

Did the psychiatrist say whether heterosexuality occurred for one or other of the same reasons? Chemically in utero, or relationally/developmentally? I get the impression that he would attribute its genesis, well, to Genesis, that is, to human ontology, a derivative of the Judeo-Christian God. It is a pity you didn’t ask him.

If heterosexuality is, anthropologically, an innate characteristic of human nature, then why not homosexuality, and the rest? It seems to me that the failure to attribute the latter in the same way is religion rather than science talking, even in modern-day psychiatry, that is, chemically or relationally, homosexuality, unlike its counterpart, is considered an aberrhation/dysfunction and, therefore, unintended by God.

There is no being ‘born that way’. No way.

Like

Maybe I misunderstand you, Magna, but would you not agree that – regardless of the so-called gay gene – sexual orientation is to some extent innate rather than learnt or elective behaviour? It is so much bound up with our identity that I would say as we grew into maturity we negotiate a kind of deal with ourselves between self-acceptance and freedom of choice. Homosexuality is part of the human condition, and one of the bright spots of social change in recent years is that western societies at least have been comfortable with NOT having to tie human beings down with binary labels. Being gay is like having dark hair, but should you want to dye it blond, that’s okay too. Curious how people like Father Marsden get so vexed about this, but it’s their problem, not ours.

Like

10.07
I apologise for not making myself clear.
Yes, I do agree with you. Totally.
The strange thing, to me, is that no one is preoccupied with the scientific genesis of heterosexuality: no one is looking for the heteronormative gene, or epigene. This is because, I suspect, that even in biogenetics there remains at least a vestige of the unspoken assumption that heterosexuality is, well, innate to human nature; no need to explain it, therefore (assuming, of course, that it could be explained scientifically, which I doubt).
The preoccupation with explaining homosexuality, on the other hand, comes from the obverse side of that coin: that homosexuality is not innate, but dysfunctional, and, therefore, in need of explanation.
Of course, as successive hypothesies on the etiology of homosexuality fail to gain acceptance, the prejudice that homosexuality is dysfunctional inevitably grows: if it cannot be explained, then it was never intended as an normative sexuality.
I once spoke with a young man troubled about his homosexual inclination. He told me that he never had a troubled relationship with either of his parents, that he had got on well with his siblings, and that he had never been sexually abused. However, from the time he was around eight years of age, he ‘awakened’ to the fact that he found other males attractive. He never, for one moment, thought this odd and unacceptable (This would be instilled in him later by his peers.), and he was completely comfortable with the experience.
I am convinced, like Freud, that homosexuality is a natural and normal point on the spectrum of human sexuality. I am persuaded, too, that the prejudice against it, and hostility to it, has historically come, not from any supernatural deity, but from the scribes of the three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Like

It is astonishing (Actually, it is frightening.) how much personal damage can be done, almost worldwide, by just one person’s unempirical, and unproven, pet theory on the cause of human homosexuality, and her prescription for its ‘treatment’, when this is facilitated by a religious and/or moral prejudice about the orientation, and a willingness among supposedly objective and rational human beings to believe, and to proclaim, the most outlandish and untested propositions against it.
We will never know just how many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender men and women, teenaged boys and girls, around the world have been harmed physically and psychologically, or driven to suicide, by the ‘ethic’ of Dr Elizabeth Moberly, and its promotion by such men as Father David Marsden, SCJ. It is practically unthinkable that Moberly’s homespun pseudo-science (she was neither a professional psychologist nor psychoanalyst when she wrote her book, ‘Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic’) would have garnered even a fraction of the ready acceptance and respect it eventually did were it not for a preconceived willingness among a certain public to accept her thesis with minimal or non-exisistent critique. Adolf Hitler’s book, ‘Mein Kampf’, was successful for the same reason, given burgeoning anti-semitic prejudice in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Very often, people believe what they want to believe, and require little persuasion. Moberly had a tailor-made audience for her vaudevillian ideas.
And be under no illusion about the damage that could be caused by Moberly’s self-styled ‘reparative therapy’. It’s potential risks, according to the American Psychiatric Association, ‘are great, including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior’.
The American Psychoanalytic Association was less reserved, and stronger in its criticism of the ‘therapy’: attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, it said, ‘are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytical theory and OFTEN result in substantial psychological pain…’
‘Reparative therapy’, and its etiological premises, are being increasingly rejected around the world. It has, for example, been disavowed by every reputable health organisation, mental and otherwise, in the United States, including the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Why, then, does a man like Marsden ignore all of this REAL sceince and instead plump for a lone and discredited, eccentrically unscientific voice on the subject, Dr Elizabeth Moberly? What is making him so desperate? And so reckless with whatever intellectual and personal reputation he might have left?
What indeed? 😕

Like

10.24

Okay, Bishop P. , I’m game. But give me a while: I’ll first have to obtain a copy of the book, and then to wade through the sludge of her reportedly difficult-to-decipher jargon.

I’ve noticed that people who lack professional qualifications and accredidation for their work often express it in a highly personal, high-falutin, esoteric language to hide the fact. Moberly, apparently, is no exception. 😨

Like

9.43
I agree: I believe she is a quack, but a highly articulate one.
Her book, ‘Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic” is still in print, and is available on Amazon (ebay, too, probably) for £7.00 plus delivery charge.
In my opinion, the book should be withdrawn from general sale, and made available only for academic reasearch and for discussion in university tutorials.
I recently watched the movie, Boy Erased, which is based on the autobiographical account of a teenager’s experience of ‘reparative (or ‘conversion’) therapy’ in the United States. No one should underestimate the personal damage that can be caused by this rogue pseudo-science.
In the end, Sigmund Freud, one of Moberly’s three sources for her pet theory on homosexuality, admitted that this orientation was, after all, just another point on the spectrum of human sexuality and, therefore, natural and normal for a particular demographic.

Like

Magna, as I read and summarised Marsden’s book for the blog why dont you do the same and summarise Moberly’s book for us?

Like

It’s clear that Marsden’s views on homosexuality and the priesthood are based on pop psychology with no serious academic or scientific foundation, and completely out of balance with modern day understandings of sexuality and homosexuality. Why was he even let near seminarians in formation and given the freedom to disseminate his discredited and damaging views ? We really should be depriving him of the oxygen of publicity, but keep up an awareness of his activities so that we can prevent him spreading his homophobic and damaging views.

Like

Excellent comments from Magna and M. Very curious how little is known about Moberley. She appears to have no professional profile, yet is cited as an authority by Marsden on unsupported crack-pot theories which were out of kilter even forty years ago. Marsden’s desperate determination to push this agenda raises big questions about his own state of mind and suitability for any kind of professional work – does he claim any expertise in therapy or psychology? However, no matter how right and proper it was for Mullaney and Oakley to get rid of him, the fact remains that his bonkers and toxic views on sexuality are indeed those of the Catholic Church. That is why day after day it is the work of this blog to expose the institutionalized dysfunction and indeed abuse enabled and supported by this morally and intellectually bankrupt organization.

Like

@9.48
When you refer to the views of the Catholic Church what exactly do you mean?
The Church in its self-understanding has always included the concept of how any of the beliefs it teaches has been understood and received by its members – the sensus fidelium, or the exercise of human reason. Recent examples of intellectual positions it has espoused which have not been received by its people include: artifical contraception is immoral (Paul VI); discussion of whether women may be priests is forbidden by law (JPII, Bendict XVI). The gay question is well on the road to becoming another.

Like

10.54 exactly true for most of history, but since the rigid wishy washiness imposed since John XXIII and JP II (as well as appearing to a far lesser degree rather intermittently before) there is no longer hope for this ethos.

Like

10.54

Worthy points. Correct, too. But in practice (ever the caveat) Humanae Vitae remains a pillar of Roman Catholic sexual ethics, despite its not being well and widely received by Catholics worldwide.

Like

12:42
I see what you are saying. However a an item of official belief in the face of an overwhelmingly negative reception by the faithful is hollow.

No one know this better than the church’s teaching authority.

Like

In relation to ‘real science’, the psychiatric industry considered homosexuality a psychopathology. Homosexuality was finally removed from the DSM in 1987.
The psychiatric industry are responsible for frightening harm done on all levels.
See psychiatry’ s role in the holocaust by Dr. Peter Breggin.

What sometimes appears to be science is simply ideology.
See breggin.com for psychiatric abuses occurring today.

Like

9.47

Precisely. It is indeed ideology speaking on this matter, from the perspective of Moberly and Marsden, since there is no mainstream science to accredit their views on homosexuality.

It amuses me when Pope Francis or the Vatican speaks of ‘gender ideology’ and ‘gender colonisation’ in relation to LGBT issues when they fail to recognise the log of homo-ideology (the strict sexual and moral binary) informing their own.

Like

Poignantly there weren’t the stereotypes in my infancy. People were just people. I never got told I needed a badge, to beg permission to be unique, neither did the neighbours (that I was aware), or the kids in the playground, or my parents.

Like

12.33

Maybe that was because you were expected to fit, or pretend to fit, a heteronormative stereotype.

Like

Quite so @9:47, it is sobering to be reminded of the medical profession’s shameful collusion in the persecution and torture of gay men such as Alan Turing. Curiously back in the fifties Churchmen including Westminster’s Cardinal Bernard Griffin were in favour of decriminalization on compassionate grounds. However, while the Church was able to cope with gays as victims in and out of the confessional whilst living suitably with loneliness and shame, the tone changed with gay liberation and agitation for equal rights.

Like

While not knowing much about Griffin I imagine his compassion was also for world intellectual sanity (logic and honesty, which reportedly used to be “catholic” values up to a little before my time – away from orphanages) and not just for loneliness and shame. The modern day religious-materalist monolith having abolished logic and honesty, has to “confect” some loneliness and shame to have “compassion on”. Even by the standard of the time Turing should have just been fined a few shillings.

Like

Does it matter whether a person’s sexual orientation is caused by chemical, in utero, circumstances, or environmental, developmental, relational causes ? The simple fact is that the person is the person, no matter what sexuality they present with and for whatever reason. That is who they are. So, that person should be accepted as he/she is, rather than as we would like he/she to be so that the person conforms to our own prejudices and wishes. We do not accept that we can discriminate against a person because they have a particular colour of hair, or skin, or eye shape, or one leg or arm, or have a particular psychological or emotional makeup – all of which can be caused by a variety of reasons. So, this notion that de facto a homosexual person cannot be a priest simply because he is homosexual is not tenable. It might be more productive to say that a homosexual person cannot be a priest because he can’t keep his todger in his pants, given the mandatory requirement of celibacy for clergy (itself questionable, and in many circumstances damaging), just as it would be for a heterosexual person. We should just reject the views of the likes of Marsden, and move on to more important issues. Let Marsden and his kind wind themselves up about this single issue, but he should not be allowed to wind us up. Two seminary rectors, I am presuming with the approval of their bishops, have kicked him out of seminary formation involvement, which indicates that the more sane and sensible wing of the Church rejects his views. He should not be allowed back in to seminary formation, nor should he be allowed to dominate the argument.

Like

10:00 a.m.
How would you deal with the question which follows logically from your well-made argument of where pedophilia fits into your schema?

Like

I certainly agree, Pat, but the problem is that they persist in a morally bankrupt system, which rewards their perverse and duplicitous behaviour. How much happy and respected Gorgeous is now that he is out of it and getting on with his life. Rather than constantly holding him up as an example of what goes wrong in the clerical system, why not now recognize him as someone who went through it and came out into a more honest and integrated life. Not that he was ever the worst: he was always up front about his sexuality, and had the courage to stand up for himself and others. I for one am glad that he got some positive validation in yesterday’s posts.

Like

I am happy, very happy, to acknowledge that MJB appears to have moved on in life and is now doing excellent work as a lay chaplain in the Irish health services.
He does go into seminary at 19 – and we were all very immature at 18 or 19. Indeed when I received my own papers recently through the hood.officer of Diarmuid Martin I discovered that the seminary’s only concern about me was my immaturity. And, as I wrote to DM, “what would you expect from an 18 year old but immaturity”.
We must also remember too that MJB, apart from his own actions, was used in many ways by others.
We can only wish him well in his new life.

Like

Yes, I do accept that. I am clear that as long as the Church insists on celibacy for its clergy, then anybody who puts themselves forward for priesthood and makes public promises about celibacy should be expected to observe them. The issue at stake here is one of integrity and honesty. I do not care about celibacy per se, I care about people being honest about how they live that promise. In fact, I am of the view that celibacy, except for those who have a particular calling and charism, is fundamentally damaging to the vast majority of priests who are required to promise it. But, if they decide to make that promise, then they should be expected to honour that promise. There are some seminarians and priests who are particularly promiscuous, with each other, out cruising, keeping numerous sexual relationships going at once. They fall in to the category of lacking integrity and honesty that I have talked about. More than that, they are living lives that are damaging to them and to the Church, and when uncovered they should be dealt with robustly rather than the silly nonsense we see of sending them off for ‘treatment’, and giving them numerous chances to live the promise they have made. Which they don’t. In any other walk of life or profession, if you transgress the accepted and agreed mores of that way of life, you are disciplined and terminated if you do not conform. So it should be with clergy who brazenly and consistently transgress against their promise of celibacy. Even though, as I have said, celibacy itself is not something that I believe priests should be forced to promise. But, as long as they are, and as long as they freely undertake that promise, I don’t think it unreasonable to expect them to keep it.

Like

10-02am
It appears to me a number of different but interrelated issues are conflated under the umbrella issue ‘homosexuality in the priesthood’ I agree with 10 am. The person is a person, that is who they are, their ‘being in the world’.
The problem is, as the late journalist, Tim Russert pointed out in a tv interview in 2003,
most priest-offenders of child sexual abuse acted out against teenage boys. “They are not, strictly speaking, pedophiles but ephebophiles. What’s the link between ephebophila and homosexuality” ?
Donald Cozzens, one of the panelists and once a rector of the diocesan seminary in Cleveland replied, ” I’m reluctant to raise the issue. I want to be kind to gay seminarians and gay priests who are leading celibate lives. But we have to ask the question, when we find that 95% percent of the victims are teenage boys.” (See prologue in : ‘ Whistle: Tom Doyle’s Steadfast Witness for Victims’ by Robert Blair Kaiser).
In any other profession abusive, bullying, sexually promiscuous behavior, particularly in a professional training context such as a seminary, would not be tolerated for a variety of different reasons. That doesn’t seem to be the situation in the catholic church seminary training/formation system.
Finally, how does a man like Mr. McCarrick rise so high up the government of the church, acts as a roving ambassador and is eventually defrocked following public scandal?
Apparently, many of his colleagues knew of his behaviour but remained silent.
What does their complicit silence suggest? It stinks!

Like

Perhaps the real question might be whether there is a connection, or not, between the repressed homosexual priest or seminarian and an attraction to the classic “twink”?

Like

11.29
What’s the link between ephebophilia and homosexuality? Precisely that between ephebophilia and heterosexuality.
If you believe that heterosexual men don’t find underage, post-pubescent teenaged girls sexually attractive, you are either seriously self-deluded, or an out-and-out liar.
This may sound horrible, but there is saying: ‘Old enough to bleed (menstruate), old enough to breed’. Indeed, the Catholic Church once sanctioned marriages between grown men, and little girls, and permitted intercourse when it considered the girl anatomically developed enough to bear children (around thirteen years of age).
Of course, because this attraction exists does not mean that men will act upon it, but it does exist.
Laws governing the age of consent for consenual sex may have evolved, but that primal urge remains, though taboo.
What is different about priests offending sexually with underage, but post-pubescent teenaged boys is, I believe, the insidious effect of clericalism in the Church. The sense that one is superior to others, and has power over them, along with the belief that the clerical structure will provide unaccountability is a powerful temptation and aphrodisiac; and sometimes it is succumbed to with total lack of emphathy, and great cruelty.

Like

2.44, Magna, you are right, but an unfortunate variation is the flaunting (accompanied by grins and cackling) of “not having acted out” in the group confessions.

Like

10.00

I’m afraid it does matter, very much indeed. Until quack theories on the etiology of homosexuality are throughly discredited, we will continue to have quack theorists, like Dr Elizabeth Moberly.

I have lost count of the number of such theories I have come across, and all were expounded from one, very simple (and I do mean ‘simple’), unproven but widely accepted premise on homosexuality: that it is unnatural, and therefore not gifted by God.

The ‘science’ that informs this premise is predominantly biblical, which is, in many respects, as fsr removed from the real thing as it is possible to get.

Like

2:47
Re set of brakes:
Apparently, studies in various countries consistently show between 10% and up to 25% of psychiatists, psychotherapists, psychologists, counsellors etc, abuse their positions of
professional power including the manipulative sexual exploitation of clients.

Like

Father Marsden’s reign of terror in seminaries is over! He should never be allowed to be around vulnerable young men with that psychobabble destructive crap. He had an agenda and pushed his unverified personal ideas because he MUST struggle with his own sexuality.

It’s ok to be gay

Like

11-33 am

That may well be the case. But what about those such as McCarrick?
What about the ‘playing the game’ to be ordained? Morally corrupt?
If so,how extensive or widespread is such behaviour?

Like

Unfortunately, irregulars such as the SSPX and that Transapline shower on Papa Stronsay would no doubt be open to Miss Marsden and his psychobabble. Also, Sadie, the Lady Farnborough and Abbess of St Michael’s Abbey would probably be another devotee to the shaman’s ramblings. All have young queer trainees.

Like

Sadie is so fractured, she would be pro and anti Marsden depending on the way the wind was blowing.
She espoused a very liberal agenda when she entered Farnborough, and look at her now!

Like

I have a different point of view from Fr Marsden about sexuality but I dont dispute his account of the serious problems in Oscott College which were completly denied by the Rector now Bishop Oakley and the Archbishop of Birmingham and I dont think that Fr Marsden’s own views or prejudices alter anything about the facts of the lives of the students and staff in that place supposedly set apart for the formation of celibate priests. Everyone knows exactly what goes on but the silence is more shocking.

Like

Eyewitnesses passed the word on, big time. There is now a picture of a whole underground railroad, Valladolid or Maynooth – Oscott – Allen Hall and / or Wonersh and / or direct into dioceses. It involves less than half of faculty and inmates but “enough” to have a significant bad impact, overall. The same pattern has occurred throughout the States and Italy, and in the “sodalities” and orders. The cause is because the Vatican took its eye off Jesus and Holy Spirit and insisted the focus be solely on the meme. Remedy: not PR but ditch the two idols, Rome and eucharist.

Like

Err reading this blog perhaps? Sorry Father I should have said Fr Marsden is an evil self hating homophobe who makes up lies and that the young men at Oscott are servant leaders who may have their individual flaws but don’t we all?

Like

When the credits roll at the end of “Boy Erased” we learn that the bogus quack therapist who ran the “conversion” centre himself later came out as gay, left the “profession” and got married to another bloke. Maybe there is hope for Father Marsden.

Like

Why is it that Fr Marsden could only hold his views because he’s supposedly a repressed homosexual himself ? You seem to think that heterosexual men could never be homophobic, do you know any straight men? Most are not gay allies supporting Pride they are either not interested to the point of contempt or extremely derogatory, who do you think uses the word gay to mean rubbish or inferior only repressed self hating gays? I don’t agree with Fr Marsden by I don’t need to see him as a repressed self hating gay man who just needs to go to gay bar and then all his views would change

Like

10.51

KO’Brien is the highest-profile to posture publicly the views peddled by Marsden, but not the only one. Anyone publicly espousing the ‘intrinsically disordered’ line would want not to have any skeletons in the cupboard because it’s the first thing that springs go mind when someone utters it. It’s a weak diversionary tactic which inevitably returns to bite.

Like

Another rubbish comment at 10:51.
Produce the evidence for your outrageous generalisations ‘contempt’ and google ‘projection’.

Like

You have answered your own objection @10:51. Those straight men who are not interested in gay rights, are not interested in gay issues tout court, so Harry Redknapp said on TV last year that he thought John Barrowman was the first gay guy he had ever met. However, that did not mean he thought JB was intrinsically disordered – even when he owned up to a crush on Harry’s dishy Premier League football son. It’s Father Marsden’s relentless interest not indifference which raises questions.

Like

My friend’s 9 year old came home from school saying he was being called “gay”. My friend had to tell him not to take it seriously.

Like

12.04

Poor advice from an emotionally absentee parent. Neglect is not good.

He’s a nine-year-old kid, for heaven’s sake.

Like

12.31, what? Not emotionally absentee. “Called”. Air of “authority” (assumed by others). An attempt by others by propaganda to back him into a corner. Because you are contradicting your own position (like the Romanists), we don’t know where you are coming from.

Like

10.51
But don’t you wonder why Marsden has such a ‘beef’ with homosexuality? Why he pokes around in the pseudo-intellectual muck for something, anything, to attack it with?
Doesn’t that make you wonder, even a little, about what is driving the man to such self-discreditng lengths?
I find the subliminal psychology of Marsden fascinating. So too, by the way, would Pope Francis. Didn’t he, in fairly recent times, link rigidity in such matters to personal self-ambiguity?

Like

2.09 Magna, PF is no credit to the issue, the arch ambiguous one, the employer of Mr McCarrick (of the public scandal about the public scandal about the public scandal, which two HUNDRED bishops / VGs / seminary staff brazened out for THIRTY years), and disguising brutal rigidity in bendiness doesn’t take much cleverness.

Citing such an ueber cynic might even come over as – erm – ueber cynical.

Since lockdown, hell has been deprived of her children! (Touching a raw nerve with Littleton.)

Like

John Barrowman has a very sleazy Predatory reputation, I don’t know how any father reacts to someone saying how much they fancy their son or daughter, how would your father have responded ? Mine would have knocked him out cold

Like

clerical caste as it is understood by even (and especially) the handwringingest of the Hierarchy = Rome + eucharist, precisely

The sole and ultimate twin shibboleths on which we all must be immolated

No independence of mind. No proportion. No respect. Reifying nominalising, solely.

Like

12.13 reputedly Queensbury blamed those “like Rosebery” for corrupting the dead brother of Alfred Douglas.

Like

10:39am
That post has just made me howl.
Incidentally, on a serious note: Genesis 1:31 says…
‘And God looked upon His creation and said: ‘Behold, it is beautiful.”
Therefore, could the answer to these scientists, biologists and psychologists questions be all around us in His beautiful creation? That includes, YOU and I. Even beneath the unsettedleness of this world there is love, beauty and justice, yearning and groaning, travailing even, to reveal itself. Maybe we just have to open our eyes more to see it x

Like

Off topic, but interesting nevertheless about priesthood and celibacy.

I have just learned that a group exists in America and/or Canada for involuntary celibates (‘incels’, for short). These are people, men and women, who want (And how! 😨) sexual intercourse, but can’t perform the deed. Seemingly, the experience can leave some of them highly frustrated (as, of course, it would 😕), but worse, with a simmering resentment that can boil over in lethal violence against those capable of doing what they can’t.

Now I know that priestly celibacy is supposedly voluntary, but is it really? Priesthood, yes. But celibacy? Isn’t there constraint here, too: no vow or promise of celibacy, then no priesthood.

The madness continues. 😨

Like

Ah but why priesthood? You yourself used to say the time has gone when Romanism had any use? To my family it looked like a step down, all along – less useful than the coalman and barely more reputable than the dentist.

Like

10.55
Because priesthood is top dog (in terms of personal ontology, deference, and privilege) in a traditionally ridgid, hierarchical church.
When you combine such a narcissistic, demi-god self-conception with a burgeoning sense of sexual privation over the very people, the laity, you consider inferior (though, of course, you would never publicly admit this 😇), there is a rumbling cognitive dissonce that, without Christlike self-discipline (And where is that when needed?) can erupt in fiery self-relief, and, like Vesuvius on dear old Pompey, destroy everything in its reach, including children.
It’s amazing the things done, and the moral rationales for them conceived, when the interaction of sexual privation and aggrievement over it is heightened by the catalyst of opportunity to offend. And priests, with that rigid hierarchial structure supporting them, were never short of such opportunity.

Like

Yes I know – especially in “orphanages”. In my native region a chance was missed, years ago. Though the churches were packed, priests (and catholic schools) were few and far between. We didn’t happen to have become Methodists or congregationists, and the C of E vicar was a bit “loud”. Only my Dad (an ex “knight” and I do stress ex) was a less infrequent “communicant” than mum & us. I think most families in our neck of the woods were similar minded at that time. Most of my RE was from the totally secular school. Now, religion has to equate to hysteria and mysticism – a big step backwards. We used to do things because they were simple and solid – not because they had been plugged on telly by a Paul VI or a Cliff Richard.
It doesn’t matter to the goons what the matter “is” or “isn’t” supposed to be – as long as they can turn everything INTO not only AN issue but preferably as many conflicting ones as possible!
Like the other commenter I thought it was ordinary for a boy to like other boys, and in our deep and wide mental scheme that of course didn’t pin us to funny schemes. Everyone is basically attractive to everyone, taken together. I know I’m lucky not to have been targetted by ideologues (except I’ll tell you a story). A bloke that didn’t get round to marrying yet (if at all) was a bachelor, we didn’t need special permission.

Like

12.50 your vesuvian landscape reminded me (despite myself) of a loose-tongued one (ex Valladolid), good job there are vacancies in beach evangelising for some to relish!

Like

IN TWO PARTS:
1. Father Marsden’s psychology of homosexuality and its relevance to suitability for priesthood is reprehensible, and has rightly been called out on this blog. At the same time, Fr David Marsden SCJ did put his finger on a rather inconvenient fact and truth about culture in some of our seminaries, in his open letter to the bishops. It was conveniently sidestepped by Oakley and + Longley, but to any careful observer there is no doubt that Marsden was highlighting something that is a reality. To what extent, I am not sure, but from what I see and hear, both of seminarians and newly ordained priests, I am sure that in most of the seminaries in England, Ireland and Scotland there is a culture of gayness and associated lifestyle which persists in many forms – it may be out and out promiscuity, a sexualised culture, language etc., excessive use of alcohol or interest in the fripperies of clerical life like lace and vestments, the use of feminised names, or even the right wing orthodoxy of some for whom liturgical and moral theological rigour is a good cover for their own lack of integration and psychological health. I think there is sufficient evidence to warrant some kind of questioning about this culture in our seminaries, rather than just denying it and brushing it under the carpet.
The big question here, which + Pat keeps asking, is the predominance of homosexual orientation, behaviour and culture amongst priests and seminarians. Why is this the case ? It is a phenomenon, I think, largely of the last 40 years or so. Before that, whilst evidenced in some small numbers, by and large homosexual behaviour was very much a taboo matter, both inside and outside the Church. Societal, as well as Church, restraints kept it under wraps. What has happened in the last 40 years is the acceptance – quite rightly and justly – in society at large that homosexual orientation and sexual activity is not something that is a dysfunction but a normal and healthy way for some individuals to express their sexuality. That change has brought much more of the positive than it has of any negative, both for society as a whole and for individuals. It is not surprising, therefore, that this ‘acceptance’ is reflected in the Church, and young men who have been brought up in this open and transparent society will reflect that, if and when they enter seminary. Some will take seriously the celibacy / chastity culture as part of their lifestyle, others will not. It is the latter group who by and large present as being out of step with what they, the seminary authorities and the Church profess about life as a priest and seminarian. For whatever reason, this dislocation has been allowed to exist in our seminaries, indeed in the priesthood in general, partly because by this stage those very people have themselves become the authorities, rectors, bishops. And so we find ourselves where we are now.

Like

Hey there “in two part” ever heard of effing paragraphs??? Whose going to read a dense post like your two posts? So you’ve wasted your time.

Like

Actually, there are four paragraphs in the piece. It’s just that the post doesn’t seem to render them very well. In Part 1 the paragraphs begin: a. Father Marsden’s psychology…… b. The big question here. In Part 2 the paragraphs begin: a. I have worked in sector ministries…. b. the Church is entitled rightly or wrongly…. Now, if you want to read the piece, and then make some constructive comments, and perhaps contribute to the debate, that might be helpful and you might be able to illuminate us with your argument. Okay ?

Like

Well I am surprised at Marsden as sending it to the key holders was madness in itself.
Especially when Rome has been looking at Seminary Education so he should have sent it straight there instead Oakley gets appointed a Bishop.
Poor thinking on Marsdens part.
He will be a loose odd ball in the SJC order and they will be stuck what to do with him as it is only the Congregation of Religious that can remove him.

Like

IN TWO PARTS:
2. I have worked in sector ministries pretty much my whole priestly life. I can tell you that in those ministries – industrial, prison, hospital, military etc – the prevalence of homosexual priests is obvious, with a good number of them actively homosexual. I would say that the prevalence of actively homosexual clergy in these sector ministries is proportionately larger than in the general clergy. This should be no surprise, as these kinds of ministries set the priest somewhat apart from the usual cultural oversights that one would find, say, in a parish. They have more independence of action, more distance from Church authorities, and usually more material resources so that they are financially independent. From my experience, this state of affairs is tolerated in these kinds of ministries. The institutions / organisations that employ these priests are by and large hands off when it comes to issues of sexuality, and generally will have very proactive and positive inclusion and integration policies. They simply do not interest themselves in the sexuality, or even sexual behaviour of their employees, as long as it is legal and consensual. Also, the employment status of the priest in these ministries is by and large with the institution rather than with the Church, and that gives them a certain independence and latitude of action. Father Despaired has illustrated this culture in military chaplaincy, and whilst there is much about his book that is questionable, I would suggest there are elements of it which illustrate an inconvenient truth about homosexual culture and activity in some sector ministries / chaplaincies.
The real issue here is not about orientation. It is about behaviour. All of these priests will have been asked to make a promise or vow of celibacy. They have freely done so. It is not unreasonable to expect that they observe this promise / vow. Not to do so simply means that they are living a life of lies, duplicity, dishonesty, and lack of integrity. That is not good for them or for the Church or for the people to whom they minister. I make no moral judgement on their sexual orientation, or indeed on the sexual activity itself, which I perfectly accept in other circumstances is legitimate and honest. I only make a judgement on the duplicity and lack of integrity involved in their behaviour when set against their promise / vow of celibacy. I do not think that is unreasonable. If they are not able to keep their promise / vow of celibacy then it is perfectly acceptable for them to go and do something else. That is why, as + Pat is now saying, MJB can be viewed as someone who is living a life of integrity and honesty, now that he is (I think ?) formally outside the clerical state.
The Church is entitled, rightly or wrongly, to set out its teaching on sexuality and sexual behaviour. It is perfectly allowable for it to have a mandatory requirement for celibacy for priesthood. I happen to think it is wrong on both counts, but that is another debate. However, I also think it perfectly acceptable that the Church is able to expect that those who freely take on these obligations of priesthood then live them out with as much honesty and integrity as possible. If I have a moral point of view, it is about honesty and integrity or the lack of it, rather than about sexual orientation or behaviour.

Like

12.24

The other day someone wisely said that when faith in God goes, so, too, do morals. And faith will go, and go quickly, in the absence of personal spirituality: a personal, daily relationship with God, nourished with regular, consistent prayer.

Anyone who presents himself for priesthood who isn’t spending at least two hours daily in prayer is asking for serious trouble, as is the bishop who will ordain him.

And any seminarian who is too gregarious (for example, uncomfortable being on his own for too long and in and out of other students’ rooms too often) is neither spiritually nor psycologically suited to priesthood, and must not be ordained. I don’t give the proverbial whether he is homosexual, heterosexual, pansexual, or asexual (the last might be a considerable advantage, mind 😕).

Like

12.23, 12.24 and 1.25 – spot on, the beer swilling and the superficial ideology now have to trump everything.

Like

12.24 My I am worried now as there is two suppose to be first class chaplains in the Forces belonging to a Diocese that are due back to the diocese.
However I should have clicked on as they were Kitty’s and Mattie’s friends and still visit Mattie.
One in his 50’s and other early 40’s but I hope they are left in the forces now.

Like

Mcleadership Mcuniversity are also plugging Ravi Zacharias, by some curious coincidence also unqualified, in the name of – wait for it – of course – “apologetics”.

Zacharias traded on his Billy Graham looks. Was Moberly posing as an alter Anscombe or Foot?

Because the RCC doesn’t do as suggested here recently – send candidates to a standard theology location then knock ’em into shape in parishes – as even the C of E does – instead opting for all this conditioning – the “catholic” church in England and elsewhere isn’t used to critiquing theology. She appears to have acquired hers just after Rome insisted we embrace “mass media” as substitute for relating.

Like

Just a few points:
Apparent homosexuality is seen in other animals than humans – apparent because obviously we can’t ask their opinions!
I have a pet theory of my own which is that the incidence of permanent homosexuality is likely to increase as the world’s population increases, in an attempt to maintain homeostasis.
However of course Kinsey famously observed that sexuality wasn’t as fixed as it is thought to be.
I have two things which make me wonder what the hell is going on –
In societies where a different sexual behaviour from ours is the norm – for example intimacy between men and boys in ancient Greece – the majority seem to follow that behaviour which makes me wonder how fixed sexuality is.
And the fact that homosexuality used to be attributed to an excess of heterosexuality just blows my mind every time.
And yet despite that my own sexuality is firmly fixed and the thought of having a go for the other team is bizarre to say the least.

Like

“Apparent homosexuality is seen in other animals than humans – apparent because obviously we can’t ask their opinions!” A small point but probably of its own importance somehow – this is “dominant” and “submissive”. Ideologues would like us to reduce our capacity of informed consent to an animal level. I think this is separate from the rest of your acceptable argument.

Like

Indeed at 12:27 pm, sexuality is a rum and complex business. Though I share the view that sexual orientation is fluid or at least on a spectrum, I too am atypical in that my own orientation is pretty well fixed, so that, like you, I have no inclination to bat for the other side. Despite the scientific leaps in medicine, physics, IT and so on, why we are as we are is still largely unknown – viz consciousness and the working of the brain. It is therefore all the more absurd that somebody such as Father Marsden or any other crank or quack should pronounce with such confidence on matters they have no way of verifying.

Like

This sexuality stuff is causing a mighty ruckus hi. How does one explain church deviancy through the ages. Was on thauld Netflix last night. Fictional film but a great quote is “the church invented hell to keep the people in fear” When asked about Gospel Values the Cardinal replied God is up there I’m down here…..

Like

Hi Flyagwa but hi, the Church didn’t invent hell hi. Jesus told and warned us about hell but numerous times hi but.

Like

The fake ones are the convenient distraction from whatever truths get obscured, about the real ones, by the ever decreasing circles. At all at all.

Like

Pat how can we get your videos on a normal computer?
Can we get sound track only (if it’s easier)?
And is there any difference between bishoppatbuckley.org and podbean?

Like

The http://www.bishoppatbuckley.org is a live video without recording facilities.
The podbean is the voice only recording of the homily.

In order to have a regular church webcam with live and recorded the set up is £3,000 and I cannot afford that. Sorry.

Like

Littleprick seems to be getting off lightly today. Have we moved on ? What a shame if we have, because there is so much more mileage in Littlewank and his antics. Trust me ! He was around the seminary system for nine years. I was only there for five. But our paths crossed and, oh, there are so many little stories to tell, Auntie !

Like

Perhaps we could leave off the offensive name-calling. Do I infer correctly that your experiences relate to Wonersh? If you have anything of substance then you should disclose them – without giving names if necessary. But I don’t think it is really acceptable to imply misconduct to an identified person without content. The same goes for the young Leeds priest concerning whom all kinds of stuff has been suggested, so readers are left to imagine whatever takes their fancy.

Like

1.32, genuine bean spilling is always delivered in a middle of the road tone, did you notice.
There are mature readers here who have made mature critiques. If you are not willing to join in, are you trying to paint us as otherwise? No doubt you are on the side of the actual predators like those who were posting comments several months ago.
That a fellow predator may also fall victim to you, doesn’t make it right.

Like

Two things I am delighted that the formation team must have found you unsuitable and asked to leave.
So you constantly pick on Father Littleton and if anything it is very unchristian of you.
Secondly if you have any concerns or any information that is factual give it to Archbishop Wilson or if you want to remain anonymous send it to Bishop Pat who would raise your concerns.
Or do you just like keep bitching about Father Littleton.
After watching the You Tube I have raised the concerns with Archbishop Wilson and hope he takes appropriate action.

Like

Well done you ! But don’t expect much to happen. You certainly won’t hear about it because + Wilson will not want to be seen giving in to or taking notice of complaining laity. If anything is said or done it will be all done on the QT. We might see Litteprick’s videos and blogs removed, and that would be a wise move on his part. Out of sight, out of mind. Silly little twerp has brought this all on himself by putting himself out there in such a ridiculous, self-satisfying, limelight seeking way, immature idiot that he is. What did he expect ?

Like

I wonder why his PP hadn’t twigged that this nitwit was prancing around the place making such a fool of himself and grandstanding in the name of tradition and orthodoxy. He really should have put a stop to this guys antics in the first place. If I was + Wilson, I’d be having a word with him as well as with Littlewanker.

Like

I see you are taking your own advice and contacting bishops, archbishops, cardinals and nuncios.
Get someone to proofread it.
4:39

Like

1.32 You seem to be holding a right grudge for Fr Littleton. Do tell about your 5 years in seminary, where they all spent with Littleton or were you like ships passing in the night? What’s your beef? You sound a little repetitive and therefore boring. So put up or shut up!

Like

Pray, do tell @ 1:32pm
Creeping floorboards and funny noises, Tocatta and Fugue bellowing away from the pipes of the chapel organ at all hours.
Come on @ 1:32pm! You can’t tease us all like that then say no more.
Bitch! x

Like

That’s a Neanderthal comment at 12:13 and also a rather unpleasant slur on John Barrowman. Jamie Redknapp would have been aged about forty at the time, and would hardly have needed his dad to knock anyone’s block off; morever, he has always cultivated a metro look, so would more likely have been rather flattered, or at least taken it with good humour.

Like

Did your father sit around watching the celebs on the telly as much as you do? Jamie Rednapp is straight he’s not ever going to fancy John Barrowman back so why say it? What about a straight man saying your son’s wife is my secret crush ? What would your mother say if a gay man said your father is his secret crush ? No the reality is you have a different standard to gay men’s lusts to anyone else’s, all gay sexual harassment is just a compliment or light hearted that’s the first step to tolerating abuse no one needs uninvited sexual comments at any age, you’ve obviously not been on the receiving end of any Father

Like

2.36
Absolute nonsense.
John Barrowman’s lusts? Is that what you do when you fancy someone your sexual opposite? Lust? Or are you just being human?
I’m not gay, but if John Barrowman told me he found me quite fanciable, I’d take it as a bloody compliment, even though I couldn’t return the attraction. Sure, if he crossed a boundary and touched, say, my butt, he’d likely get a smack in the gob.
I always wonder about alledgedly straight people when they express high dudgeon at a complimentary remark from a gay or lesbian person. What’s the matter? Are they afraid that a closet door will be wrenched open?

Like

The Oratory Society does not go looking for vocations. We are open to people approaching us and we try and discern vocation with them.
We would want to look at a persons physical and mental health, their knowledge of theology and scripture, the presence of a strong spirituality and prayer life, their desired ministry etc.

Like

Pat are you open to ex Maynooth Seminarians possibly discerning in your Oratory Society of Prayer and Ministry.

Like

Pat, a word to the wise. Don’t accept ex-seminarians. They have more baggage than a pre-lockdown jumbo jet.

Like

I’ll be in touch about this, +Pat, once I’ve finished prunining and sprucing up my Father’s garden at home. Gardening is a real labour of love.
Lots of weeds… entangled… but after a few gentle tugs they finally begin to loosen their grip from the earth bed revealing the rich and healthy soil beneath.
I am certain that gardening will always be for me, but I have been known to get a tat carried away with the weeding part. Maybe you are the Bishop to help me harness this.
Eitherway, your faithful servant in Christ Jesus

Like

I’ve got a spare professional Dell mini pc here with an HD cctv camera. You can get really good software free offline which is quite easy to use.
I can send over in post if you like?
Can even install if you don’t know any techies by your end…

Like

That’s an extremely kind offer. Can you explain how it would work, the software involved and the need for web hosting etc.

Like

Hi +Pat, I will have a look at the name of the software this evening, but it basically allows you to record (or go live) edit etc. from a Windows pc. You could host the link from your current website / IP address if it is static.
But once the Masses or talks are recorded, they can sit on the pc/acting as a mini server (I’m assuming you don’t have a server because this site is possibly maintained remotely by a company), so peoole can choose and view at leisure.
I’ll sent a link possibly on YouTube tonight.
Ps sorry if it seems a bi too techy 😂

Like

BCM International describe themselves as a “family of ministries” i.e one of those self-referential smorgasbord thingys.
Sadly the Ford essay doesn’t seem to be at that link.

Like

A lot of dirt. Father xxxxx held a now infamous homily at a Sunday mass at Wankers back in 2018 where he openly bragged and boasted about all the bottoms he had had in his life.

Like

In 2011, an Amazon reviewer of the book describes, “This book was stock reading in the late eighties and early nineties. Me and my ex-gay friends lapped it up eagerly as we discovered the reasons for our sinful desires. I began to hate my father for the things he had supposedly done, or not done, to me. I also had a series of extremely harmful close-friendships with male Christian friends in an attempt to ‘top-up’ my masculinity and make me straight. This resulted in a serious break-down which still affects me years later. I first started to ‘see the light’ when my best friend from university told me that he had had a bad relationship with his father but that hadn’t made him gay.
This woman needs exposing as a charlatan. She has messed with the heads of many serious Christian men and women and seriously screwed us up. As far as I’m aware she only has a doctorate in theology and so her attempts in the psychological world are not informed by any foundations in psychology. Apparently, she has gone into cancer research now, presumably expounding the belief that cancer is caused by having a bad relationship with the family pet in childhood and can be healed by buying a dog in adult life!”

Like

Carta, it’s actually quite a boundary crossing to use intense language, especially from one with influence. Who have you been trying to chat up then?

Like

The Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, +Amy Turtle, said today that in order for churches to reopen for worship, young volunteers would be required to assist with cleaning, giving readings and the general ministering of the Eucharist.

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