Categories
Uncategorized

ITS A SIN – CHANNEL 4.

CHANNEL 4 AND ALL 4 has recently released a five part ptogramme called IT’S A SIN.

It is a very moving and heart-wrenching look at the dawn of AIDS / HIV in 1981.

I watched all five parts of the series on Saturday evening.

It brought me right back to the 1980s in Belfast when I found myself ministering to several young men in the AIDS ward at Belvoir Park Hospital, Belfast.

I loked after two young nen especialky who were dying – Tony in his 30s, a brilliant actor and Jim in his 20s who went on to be a barman in London.

At that time it was a little understood illness and people thought you could contract it by drinking from a cup an AIDS patient had drunk from before you.

When we were visiting and ministering these patients we were made to dress up almost in space suits.

Everybody was really scared.

One of the big side effects then affecting AIDS patience was a cancer of the skin and lymph nodes calked KAPOSI’S SARCOMA

Wikipedia

Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) is a type of cancer that can form masses in the skin, lymph nodes, or other organs. The skin lesions are usually purple in color.They can occur singly or in a limited area, or may be widespread. It may worsen either gradually or quickly.Lesions may be flat or raised.  Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8) is found in the lesions of all those who are affected. Risk factors include poor immune function, either as a result of disease or specific medications, and chronic lymphedema.

The patients I looked after had KS.

They suffered horribly, phycically, in the last months abd days of their lives.

They also suffered terribly from the mental and emotional points of view and were cobsidered to be modern day lepers by ignorance people.

TODAY

The situation today is totally changed. Most people who contract HIV never go on to develooe AIDS.

This is mainly down to the drugs call ANTIRETROVIRALS.

Antiretrovirals (ARVs) are the cornerstone of HIV/AIDS management, as there is currently no cure nor vaccine available for HIV. If an individual with a non-resistant strain of HIV takes the appropriate antiretroviral treatment as directed, the replication of HIV will be effectively suppressed in about 80% of cases. Some individuals may have trouble tolerating ARV treatment due to side effects, or they may not work effectively for that individual, requiring them to change to a second- or third-line treatment regimen. If individuals do not take the medication as directed (for example, taking it occasionally or intermittently), it can increase the likelihood of resistance, where the HIV strain adapts to the treatment and make ARV medications ineffective.

ARVs have been consistently proven to reduce death due to HIV/AIDS and to reduce the development of AIDS-defining conditions. These AIDS-defining conditions are a range of infections, cancers and illnesses that can occur due to advanced stages of HIV infection. An ART regimen should be selected by a specialist doctor in consultation with the individual who has HIV. This ensures that ARV treatments are personalised to the individuals’ HIV strain (and any resistance it may have), as well as considering treatment effectiveness, toxicity, possible side effects, tolerability, dosing frequency, interactions with other medications or illnesses, financial cost and individual preferences.

The vast majority of patients who faithfully take their ARV’s will NEVER develope AIDS and will like everyone else into their 80s or 90s abd die of the things that kill everyone else – heart attacks, strokes, cancer etc.

INFECTIOUS

When a patient is properly taking their ARVs and are what is called: “undetectable” (tests cannot trace any HIV in their blood) they cannot pass HIV to anyone else.

The doctors call it U = U – UNDECTIABLE = UNTRANSMITTABLE

FROM HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

Today, about 1.1 million people in the US are living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). Every year, almost 40,000 people are diagnosed with HIV. A diagnosis of HIV was once presumed to be fatal, and many lived in fear of transmitting the virus to others. This contributed to decades of stigma for those living with HIV.

What is the U=U campaign?

U=U means “undetectable equals untransmittable.” More specifically, it means that people living with HIV who have an undetectable level of virus in their blood due to treatment are unable to transmit the virus to others.

The U=U campaign hopes to spread awareness that medications for HIV are extremely effective. If you are a person living with HIV and the virus level in your blood is suppressed by effective treatment, you cannot pass on the virus to others.

BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS LIVING WITH HIV.

Many priests and religious are living with HIV.

Many died with AIDS before ARVs.

I dont think we have the real figures because priests and religioys with HIV keep it hidden.

Many priests are secretly living with HIV.

Some priests have HIV, dont know it, and are having unprotected sex!

25% of the people with HIV in Northern Ireland have it and dont know!

I personally know priests with HIV.

ITS A SIN reminds us of what people suffered in the past.

Its a riveting and must see watch.

Thank God things have improved so much.

Quite literally, diabetes is now a more problematic disease than HIV.

127 replies on “ITS A SIN – CHANNEL 4.”

“Quite literally, diabetes is now a more problematic disease than HIV.” What an amazing thing to say, Pat, given what went on back in the 1980s, Lord I remember it. This also gives us hope with that evil thing they call Covid. I am so sad to hear young people I know saying “what is the point in studying, there will be nothing after Covid.” No, Covid will not get the better if us. I do question how it all started, but this is not the place to go on about that. I do not believe it “jumped” from bats. Any case, thanks for the post. I’m just finishing off a bottle of merlot. Then I will be heading up to my old sack.

Like

Nice glass of red, Tommy. It will do you the world of good.
I’ve just finished a few odd jobs at home, glad I can put my feet up and rest now – my mammy said I’ve done a brilliant job.
I helped clean the house – we started right at the very top – then worked out way to the bottom!
I was always encouraged as a child to aim high, and I have always done that…
Having Attention Deficit is classed as a developmental learning difficulty, but mammy says ADD makes me good at what ever I put my mind to; exceptional in fact! Very fussy sometimes, where needs must.
I am really looking forward to the Spring and Summer now – I can’t wait for the sunshine. However there are very reassuring signs of Spring in the air… 🌞 🐣 🐦
God is good!
—-
I cleaned my fish tank out yesterday, cleaned the filter and I have noticed there are baby tropical fish in there 🐠 they are tetras and must have been born around Christmas ☃️ 🎄
It is a good job the lid to the aquarium is heavy glass otherwise Poppy and Pip, the cats, would be doing back strokes in there haha.
—-
Bishop Pat, what are you having for tea today? x

Like

It’s a cruel wworld at times. Thank God medicine and science have advanced in helping people with all kinds of life threatening viruses and illnesses. When human beings are afflicted with suffering our only response should be compassion. Likewise when we don’t live up to the ideals and expectations of others, a little kindness and understanding is required, not deliberate mockery, sneering and judgment. None of us know a what life holds for us any day: we should be grateful for what we have. This pandemic is – should be – a life changer. It certainly makes me realise the fragility of life having officiated at 3 covid related funerals in the last week. Can we not have empathy all the time? What a difference it would make!

Like

I await those opposed to modern understanding of sex to state that antivirals are to be avoided due to their biblical absence

Like

A significant, remaining problem is the RC definition of homosexuality as a ‘disordered state’. I am surprised Pope Francis has not challenged and changed that idea. By the way, Bishop John Keenan of Paisley Diocese seems to agree with the notion of disordered. Apparently, people with what he calls ‘same sex attraction’ need support to remain celibate. https://rcdop.org.uk/courage-chapter. Another good reason for Bishop Hugh to be appointed Archbishop of Glasgow.

Like

Anybody, any bishop, who is still talking about ‘disordered state’ in respect of other people and their sexuality, really has a problem themselves. It’s classic transference of self-loathing and self-contempt on to others. It’s more of the “It’s a sin” syndrome. I hear somebody using language like that and I challenge them, and tell them that it is a clear indication that the problem lies within them rather than with other people. They don’t like it, because it’s true. All that Courage stuff that Keenan touts is a load of unhealthy and dangerous nonsense, inflicted on people who are vulnerable and at sea. It takes advantage of people at their weakest and lowest. I think we call that manipulation and abuse, don’t we ?

Like

Perhaps he should focus more on misbehaving priests and students in his diocese. Priorities are all over the place

Like

Talking of taking advantage of people and manipulating them. Where I live when the weather is decent and there are no Covid restrictions, the local evangelical C of E church sets up a little tent on the High Street to offer ‘healing prayer’. I am very suspicious. They entice in those who are weak and vulnerable, pray over them, promise them all sorts of things are going to happen, are experts at playing on peoples’ insecurities and inadequacies – mental, emotional and physical – and generally take advantage of them, I believe. Their agenda is these peoples’ souls, and in order to get to them they offer all sorts of unsustainable incentives and attractions. It is at heart dishonest and manipulative. Generally, all these people want is some attention, some love, some warmth. Not unsubstantiated promises of salvation, spiritual freedom, redemption whatever. Religion is so often used as a means of manipulating people.

Like

11.02

I agree with some of your comments, but to refer to the suffering as ‘weak’ is wrong much of the time, and patronising all of the time.

Would you call Jesus weak during his passion?

Like

I agree with you completely. Keenan, I hope, will not be considered sufficiently enlightened to be Archbishop of Glasgow.

Like

@11:02: You rightly highlight the perennial manipulation tactics of proselytising religionists, namely to target the vulnerable. It was always so, especially among the more strident, though I’ve thought the CoE less so.
A quote from Sigmund Freud is worth considering.
“The religious impulse is essentially irradicable until or unless the human species can conquer its fear of death and its tendency to wish-thinking.”
I think these are the main imperatives driving the continuation of religion rather than its objective authenticity. Mind you I acknowledge that on a subjective basis it does provide succour to many, but that in itself doesn’t confer authenticity to its claims.
MMM

Like

MMM thinks the Anglicans aren’t proselytisers? He obviously hasn’t heard of the Achill Mission and other souper efforts.

Like

1:27: Can you read, or does attention deficit hamper your memory?
He said “less so,” in relation to the word “strident” with respect to the CoE.

Like

The late +Auld Tarty had been a supporter of the Courage apostolate in Scotland, +Annie Walker too, so they say.

Like

The orders, congregations, societies and dioceses better be making financial provision for the redress schemes for those who were fed the ‘intrinsically disordered’ line.

Like

All I have to do is DREAM.
No problems in Paisley
Bishop Keenan next Archbishop of Glasgow plans are under way for September.
And not according to Jim S

Like

Because it is used to affirm the disorder of homosexuality. Same sex attraction is natural for millions of people. We now know that and the RC church needs to affirm it.

Like

Scripture condemns homosexual acts (buggery, et alii), so a Christian could scarcely call these acts ‘ordered’, could he?
The Church is right on this one, take it or leave it.

Like

Scripture encourages the secondary status of women; it affirms slavery and much else we now consider unsavoury. Come on, use your reason when reading scripture.

Like

1.15

Don’t be patronising. I’m aware of all the ‘iffy’ moral approbations in Scripture, along with those that are sound.

Use your reason? Understanding Scripture is more than a matter of mere reason: there is discernment, as well. The two are not the same; nor are they always in agreement.

Like

2.36. By “discernment ” do you mean ‘seeing things in a certain way?’
If yes, that explains a lot. Matthew 13: 9-16….” Them that have eyes to see………”
It’s always the same self selected few; the sheep not the goats; the many called but few chosen; the wheat from the chaff!
The same old routine of preferment and privilege for the “true believers.”
Will the cathbots ever get off their high horse of imaginary superiority?

Like

5.53

You expressed it very well indeed. I’m happy we agree.

God is not accessible by reason alone; therefore nor is his word.

Like

“Et alii?….” “The church is right on this one, take it or leave it.”
As right as your Latin grammar?
Thought so.

Like

9.58

Oh, dear! Wrong again. Informal usage of ‘et alii’ (or its abbreviation ‘et al.’) does allow for it to refer to things rather than people, its more common and formal denotation.

Leave the textbook grammar aside for a time to explore the novelty of colloquial Latin usage.

Like

10.51

‘informal usage,’
‘does allow,’
‘’leave textbook grammar aside,’
‘colloquial usage,’

One of these expression in an argument would be enough to alert the reader to the activity of an apologist for sham.

‘Alii’ is never acceptable to refer to things. You are a not-very-convincing bluffer.

Your grammar is flawed. Your reasoning equally.

Like

We have seen on this blog the sexual antics of modern day seminarians and priests. Rawhide Purcell for example. And others. The whys and wherefores of this sexually gay promiscuous clerical culture within the seminary and within clergy ranks has been talked about often on this blog. However, on another note, namely that of personal health and public responsibility, surely they should have learned by now, having seen what happened to so many, including priests, in the early decades of the Aids epidemic, that safer sex practices are very important ? Seems not for some of them. Probably not for a significant minority of them, perhaps even a majority ? I suspect the latter. Luckily, there is a second defence line against HIV and Aids and that is the wonderful array of antivirals that are available to arrest progression from HIV infection to Aids and to limit transmission (U=U) through using antivirals post infection; by PreP Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/prep/index.html); or PEP Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (post-esposrure prophylaxis https://www.tht.org.uk/hiv-and-sexual-health/pep-post-exposure-prophylaxis-hiv). Rawhide and other clergy who are still sexually active and engaging in unprotected and risky sex, for themselves and for their partners, seriously need to educate themselves in the basics of HIV and Aids avoidance and protection. I would say there is an even greater moral obligation for them to do that, greater even than the issue about them leading dishonest and hidden lives in contravention of their publicly taken vows and promises of chastity and celibacy. I think God, if he exists and where he might be, would have more to say about the former than the latter. So, Richard Rawhide and others, take this seriously and stop putting yourselves and others at risk, and thereby possibly causing much grief for you and for others; and, as a consequence, costing the health services a huge amount of money looking after you for decades if you do become infected. Take it seriously, please. By the way, if you don’t want to go to your own GP / family doctor, there are many clinics where you can go anonymously, or you can access anti-retroviral drugs on line these days (https://www.theonlineclinic.co.uk/PrEP.asp). Or just wear a condom, or avoid the riskier bits of gay sex. Do a bit of homework and make yourself safe.

Like

Whoa hold on right there.
PrEP will not protect against the other sexually transmitted infections which are becoming more difficult to treat.
In terms of the ‘less risky’ parts of sex, things like mutual masturbation would be very low risk, and while there is thought to be a lower risk of HIV transmission through oral sex it isn’t impossible.

Like

Yes @1016, you are perfectly right about other STIs, of course. And they can be quite nasty, and some variants hard to treat. So, I am not saying go out with gay abandon and shag anything you like without protection, just that at least HIV is less of a problem with the various anti-retroval treatments / opportunities now available. You have to be aware also of the other things like the clap, syphillis, and all sorts of infections that can be pretty nasty. Even crabs are not nice ! So, Rawhide does need to rubber up (his dick that is, not his rubber fetish – or is it leather ?!) when he goes out and about.

Like

@1122 – I agree, it would be preferable to Rawhide to abstain from all sex, especially given his public vow / promise to be celibate / chaste and his monastic vocation. But, he evidently enjoys a little extra curricular activity. Never mind the duplicity, dishonesty, hypocrisy and danger he puts himself and others in with his rawhide / bareback activities. Why don’t you write and tell him ?!

Like

12.23

No need to write to him: Purcell already knows.

God himself will confirm it one day, and doubtless will have a word with those spineless priests and monks who knew about it, but looked the other way. In the name of compassion and tolerance, of course. (I wouldn’t like to bet who he’ll be more pissed off with.)

Like

1:03
Soundsas if your god willbe spending a lot of his time ‘pissed off’ asyou term it. More than likely you have made God in your own image and likeness.

Like

Who wants safe sex these days dinosaur and killjoy @ 9.36am. Condoms/rubbers are so unnatural. The feel of raw bare is so much more pleasurable, try it sometime. You need to get out more because people will laugh at you advocating safe sex

Like

Who wamts to listen or even look at these useless overpaid windbags. Would rather watch Mr Bean, at least you get a laugh.

Like

Being queer, by definition, seems to mean ‘inevitably being sexually promiscuous’, or at least, ‘inevitably inclining in this direction’. Not to love, but to loveless lust. And this leaves queers open to all forms of STIs, including being HIV +. No wonder Scripture morally excoriates this filthy practice.

One has to wonder what Paul the Apostle was referring to when he said ‘men committing shameless acts with men AND RECEIVING IN THEIR OWN PERSONS THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR ERROR’. (Romans 1: 27) Could it have been an STI? A torn anal canal? Or faecal incontinence through too much ‘back-door sex’? In any event, something horrid. Which Paul seems to accept as divine punishment. I’m inclined to agree with him. Divine punishment through Natural Law.

Like

You display well the ignorance that leads to claiming homosexuality is contrary to natural law. Natural law needs to take into account the social context within which the writer of an epistle, like Paul, was living. According to you, a prejudice that homosexuals are promiscuous – and, by implication, heterosexuals are not – is sufficient to claim a natural law proposition. No, homosexuality was not understood in any way when Paul’s Epistle was written. Homosexuality had not been considered by scholars using biological, psychological or sociological evidence. We now know that homosexuality is not unnatural and we know that homosexual people are no more promiscuous that heterosexual people within similar age groups. We know that God creates people who are naturally homosexual and others who are naturally heterosexual (like me!). It is all too easy to use natural law as a shield to hide prejudice.

Like

12.18

You need a revision class or two in English comprehension. I did not state that homosexual acts were contrary to Natural Law, but from Paul’s musings, contrary to the divine wlll, of which disapproval is made known THROUGH (not by) Natural Law. This law is incapable of taking into account ANY social context, including Paul’s, since it is inanimate, not rational and sentient. Personification is a fiction for poetry. And you personified Natural Law.

Nor did I either state that gay promiscuity is sufficient to ‘claim a natural law proposition’ (whatever that means), or imply that heterosexuals cannot be sexually promiscuous. Seriously, did you read my post at 11.40, or another? Or am I right about your needing revision classes in English comprehension?

My claim of gay promiscuity came from a queer himself, unusually in my experience, an honest one. He said gay men are interested only in sex. I believed him. And he would have known, having cruised gay hotspots himself. Isn’t this why so many queers across the world died of AIDS-related illnesses in the eighties and nineties, because they had ‘partied too hard’ previously by humping like wild rabbits? Sorry to sound crude, but it seems to be the language queers themselves prefer. Well, it would, wouldn’t it, because sexual promiscuity, among those of ANY orientation, hardly leads to chaste and sophisticated conversation about sex. That’s just one example of the domino effect of sin: it rarely, if ever, stands alone. And it just keeps dragging a person into further, and deeper, moral self-degeneration.

As for your statement that homosexuality was not understood in any way in Paul’s time, well, I’m sure Paul would disagree with you, since he obviously considered himself sufficiently au fait with the subject to pronounce on it morally. Perhaps what you really meant is that Paul didn’t share YOUR opinion of it, which is another matter.

We know no such thing about homosexuality, that it is ‘natural’. This is merely an assumption from LGBT ideology. It isn’t objectively true, but merely a matter of opinion.

If you are right that God ‘creates people who are naturally homosexual’, then by the same reasoning, he must have created people who are naturally paedophilic..

You didn’t think that through, did you?

Like

Oh, dear me, @1141 – you really do seem to have a problem ! You’ve evidently investigated this thoroughly. Why ? Well, with people like you it’s usually because of your own issues. Which you then foist on to other people in an attempt to transfer and avoid your own inbuilt self-disgust, self-loathing and self-hatred. Rather than thinking about what homosexuals – queers as you like to call them – get up to, how’s about addressing your own issues first ? By the way ‘queer’ isn’t a derogatory word for we homosexuals, as I think you intend it to be. We have reclaimed it. We are Queer. By our own definition. You need to find some other words you can throw at us if you intend causing offence. Bender might do.

Like

Of course if we were relying on the gays there would be no babies and the human race would have died out millennia ago.

Like

Do you think that Vinny Nichols has had his jab ? Surely ? I mean, he is no spring chicken. If he does he should announce it as an encouragement to others to take it. There are still lots of traditionalist so called orthodox catholic nutters refusing to have it because of the foetal cells that came decades ago from an aborted foetus / child. We hear a lot about the BAME communities being reluctant to take the vaccine, but there are lots of these catholic extremist nutters who take a similar line. Ah well, maybe they really want to go to meet their Maker sooner than they need to ? Inshallah !

Like

I am wondering what these comments have to do with the subject of today’s blog. You seem to lack an ability to identify and respond to a stated subject.

Like

Oh, come on @1:12 – think laterally, think flexibly ! Don’t be so literal. We can bring Old Elsie in to any subject and she will fit in. She’d be so disappointed if a few days went by and she wasn’t mentioned. Just doing her a favour.

Like

You are well out of date. His eminence received the covid19 vaccination on 20th January. Photograph posted on archdiocesan web site.

Like

I well remember the whole panic about AIDS, not helped by the Thatcher Government’s frightening tv adverts of falling tombstones and the widespread fear that it was highly infectious. To their credit the likes of Princess Diana, Elton John and Elizabeth Taylor did a lot to dispel myths and to reduce stigma.

Given the fact that universities and hospitality businesses are closed because they are covid superspreading venues, it is surprising that Maynooth and other seminaries were not closed during the AIDS panic in the interests of keeping down the AIDS infection.

Like

Many years ago there was a sort of agony aunt column in one of the RC papers and I remember a letter someone wrote asking the priest who did the answers whether oral sex was ok. He replied that it was as long as the ejaculation ended up in the vagina/cervix where God meant it to. I remember thinking that it was a foolish thing to ask one of these celibate freaks.
His bizarre assumption that semen should only go in the vagina was wild.

Like

Ladies and gentlemen, take note.
John Keenan will NOT be next Archbishop of Glasgow.
At 55 he is much too young.
The COB has learned that if they appoint a man to a Metropolitan See and he falls short then they are lumbered with them for a long time. John is just TOO conservative
The COB and the Vatican know Cushley well. He is close to Francis. They are well aware the he has the skill set and competences needed to address matters in Glasgow.
He is a diplomat by training and ,more importantly, a very safe pair of hands.

Like

Now then, you are correct about Keenan but, I fear, incorrect about Cushley. Without doubt ,Hugh Gilbert will be appointed to Glasgow. I apologise to all readers who have read me on this for some time. The truth must prevail, however, and our thoughts must settle on the future Archbishop Hugh.

Like

Round and round the merrygoround we go again with the jocks speculating zzzzzz. Will someone appoint some poor bastard to Glasgow soon and give our head peace.

Like

They said the same about Amy in Armagh being too young for a major diocese and we are now stuck with the sissy for ages.

Like

You are right, he is a big sissy and everything he does and says is sissified. I can’t take him seriously. I’m sure, however, that he’s as straight as anything ?! Sure !!

Like

@2.22pm You wrote, ‘We know no such thing about homosexuality, that it is ‘natural’. This is merely an assumption from LGBT ideology. It isn’t objectively true, but merely a matter of opinion.

If you are right that God ‘creates people who are naturally homosexual’, then by the same reasoning, he must have created people who are naturally paedophilic.’

It is not an unfounded opinion but one based on scientific, psychological and sociological evidence. Neither is there an LGBT ideology. Stop thinking gay men are only interested in sex. If you have ever met gay men you will know that many love one another and live in lifelong partnerships.

Then you conflate two different categories. Paedophilia, we have learned, does great harm. We would not reverse the current view because we know of this great harm. Homosexuality is wholly different. Homosexuality is the basis of love and lifelong commitment between men. Like some heterosexual men, some but by no means all homosexuals, sex is central to their lives. Homosexuality does no more or less harm than heterosexuality. If you have known men in loving homosexual relationships you will surely conclude they are pleasing to Almighty God?

Like

3.22
I conflated nothing. I know that homosexuality and paedophilia are completely different, and my earlier post indicates absolutely nothing to the contrary. You read into it what you chose; that’s called ‘bias’.
The natural/social sciences cannot rule on the morality of anything, including homosexuality; they can do so only on its existence.
Monogamous homosexual relationships, like their counterparts, can generate much good, both for those directly involed, and for others. I’d even go as far as claiming that all homosexual relationships, just like their counterparts, can be the ground in which holiness can take root and grow. But these relationships themselves, by their very being, are not morally self-validating: this depends on what happens in them. Scripture is absolutely clear and unequivocal: same-sex intercourse, of any kind, is morally wrong. For a Christian, this is the gold standard, because it is the one by which they will ultimately be judged.

Like

I am glad you abide by a view that everything translated into scripture is absolute truth and try to live by that truth. Women subservient; slavery OK; so one could go on. As for gold standards – your opinion about scripture.

Like

4.26

(Sigh) Where do I claim that everything is Scripture is true and that I abide by it?

Dont be that silly; you’re too old.

Like

The other difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is that paedophilia frequently isn’t a life-long ‘orientation’. Many paedophiles are also married.

Like

4.19
It’s not at all correct to say scripture is absolutely clear and unequivocal…….
If you want to interpret the very limited number of passages which deal with same-sex sexual activity using the historical-critical method the primary question to be asked is: what did the author(s) intend to say?
None of the biblical authors had our modern understanding of the word ‘homosexuality.’ They did not have the concept of sexual orientation apart from believing that every human being was attracted to the opposite sex. Ergo, same-sex sexual activity was wrong because, as they understood it, people who were attracted to the opposite sex were having sexual relations (against their nature) with people of the same sex.
Today, we know from science that it is necessary to differentiate between sexual orientation and sexual activity and that for a significant number of human beings their natural sexual orientation is homosexual. Where does natural homosexual orientation come from? Is it nature’s response to overpopulation of the planet? Whatever the reason, it’s here to stay. And the church needs to integrate the experience of millions of its members into its teaching.

Like

9.35
If the ancients had any concept of sexual orientation, it was that each sex was CUSTOMARILY (or mostly) attracted to its counterpart. They were, of course, aware of uncustomary exceptions, which, presumably, is why homosexual acts are referred to six or nine times in the whole of Scripture.
In light of this, it is crass to believe that the ancients thought men should be attracted only to women, and vice-versa. They weren’t as worldly unwise as you prefer to believe,
The ancients knew that there was no such thing as a strict sexual-attraction binary. You show a lack of common sense to believe otherwise.

Like

‘If the ancients had any concept of sexual orientation….’
They didn’t. They knew only actions. The concept of sexual orientation is a modern one. The word ‘homosexual’ in its modern sense first appeared in German in 1880 and in 1892 in English.
When your premise is false your conclusions collapse.

Like

Does any body ever think or see if the bible was written by a woman for the sake of an argument. I’m sure sex won’t be mentioned nor did the bible mention it a lot. It dawned on me that rcc treated women and other lower class such as people with disabilities as second class. They aren’t interested except for money. Rcc huge obessession with sexuality leaves us wondering as to what are rc so fussing about sex in all sorts? Noted that bible emphasised on sin more. Rcc reduced almost everything to second class except for themselves as special or whatever. Rcc seems to have a great fear or put huge store on women. Once woman are ordained and married then church assets would decline. Celibacy came to being cos women made claims to their spouse priests assets. So rcc had to think how to prevent this and that et al. Its a man made law re celibacy doesn’t it? Nowhere in the bible does it say that? Appreciate any feedback on this and thank you.

Like

Deaf guy, celibacy came to prominence in the Church (and with this, its eventual overvaluation) by a serious error in its history. Jesus early first-century followers firmly believed that his return was imminent; therefore some, notably Paul the Apostle, considered marriage and family a needless distraction. Paul makes this clear in at least one of his letters, though he was sensible enough to make an exception for those who ‘cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion’. (1Cor 7:9) By and large, Paul didn’t see the point of marriage, sex and kids, if Jesus was going to pop his head round the door any time soon and say: Honies, I’m back! Perhaps this explains Paul’s single state rather than Bishop John Shelby-Spong’s suggestion, that Paul may have been a repressed homosexual.
They all were wrong about Jesus’ imminent return, these early followers; obviously so. But the inflation of celibacy as the preferred human state did not, unfortunately, die along with the error.
And we’ve been living with the fallout ever since.

Like

How do you know Paul was single and not married? @ 5.06 Most Jewish men were married by the age of 20 in Saul’s time.

Like

9.40
There isn’t a single reference, or allusion, to a wife in Paul’s case. And 1 Cor 7:8 explains why: ‘To the unmarried…I say that it is well for them to remain single, as I do.’

Like

At 9:54
1Cor 7.8 groups unmarried and widows together. So Paul could have been referring to the fact that he was widowed at the time of writing. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor read it this way.

Like

That programme was quite good until we witnessed rimming. Why on earth would anyone want stick their face in there?’

Like

Married blokes love being rimmed – fact. They also like oral because the Missus refuses to do neither. Gay guys are better at giving both.

Like

Pat, I have been in tears reading how you cared for those two young men dying of AIDS. All this in the context of your own diagnosis with +HIV.

You never cease to inspire, move and amaze people like me. You are cut from the same cloth as Damien of Molokai. He too I hear didn’t take too kindly to bishops at times.

The story is told of how St Damien communicated that he too had caught the disease. He turned around from the altar to address his congregation and said, “Fellow lepers ….”

Was there a moment like that in your own ministry, Pat? Surely you embody the compassionate solidarity of Christ with all who have AIDS.

Like

I looked after those men in 1980. I was not diagnosed with HIV until 2021.

Like ministering to divorcees I just dont minister to people with tgecsamebissues as me.

Like

There’s a huge difference between “St Pat” and St Damien.

Damien didn’t bareback ride the lepers. How do you think Buckley ended up HIV?

Like

Are there RC priests with Aids living in the North Pat? Surely their congregations should be alerted from a moral perspective and incase they pass it on.

Like

The priests I know with HIV are all on meds and CANNOT pass it on to anyone as they are healthy and well and UNTRANSMITTABLE.

Like

Oh God another idiot.
Even if you have full blown AIDS you still won’t catch it from them.
Did you actually read the post today? And have you read anything about HIV/AIDS since 1984?

Like

If you have “full blown AIDS” you are NOT UNDETECTABLE and can infect others, sadly 😪

Like

By Post Author

@Pat yes of course and I should clarify that you would not infect other people in a parochial setting. You would need to have running sores and the parishioners to have open cuts.
Transmission would be by sex or IV drug use etc.

Like

Only an ignorant person would think negatively about these things.
In the Spring I’m coming over don’t forget.
Your Son in Christ Jesus,
Peter

Like

That’s their own business 5:29 pm.
They can share it if they want to — or not.
Now, if they were going round hurting innocent people, then their congregations and Bishops certainly do have the right to be informed, as do the authorities x

Like

@3.38pm Who could ever take the present Archbishop of Armagh seriously when he opens his mouth or issues dictats and therein lies the problem. He is surrounded by a spin doctor. He is weak, he is totally out of his depth and he is inept When he tried recently to blame the mother and baby home scandal as a societal issue he abused all those affected all over again by not dealing with the Church’s involvement and that was totally shameful.

Like

Patsy it’s clear you minister with clergy who are hiv positive and are on treatment as you claim. What I find sad is these same clergy can’t tell their own bishop or confide even in the VG. I hear some bishops have no duty of care whatsoever here in Ireland hiv or not. A priest colleague in an English diocese told me recently that he told his Bishop he was diagnosed with Hiv. The bishop told him to his face, “get to fuck out of my diocese” and I can prove that. Awful.

Like

Most priests are afraid to tell their bishops they are HIV.

I think there are at at least 50 + priests in Ireland – probably higher.

Like

By Post Author

5.39: If you read the Report fully, which you obviously haven’t, you will find the TRUTH as outlined in the Commissioned Report. If you depend on this blog or anti church narratives, you will not get the FULL truth. So, I suggest you READ the Report in full. Then you won’t make such ignorant comments.

Like

These are your own words. ‘Scripture is absolutely clear and unequivocal: same-sex intercourse, of any kind, is morally wrong. For a Christian, this is the gold standard, because it is the one by which they will ultimately be judged.’
If that isn’t the fundamentalist view, I give up. Many people who you define as ‘old’ are pretty intelligent. Anther one of your prejudices. The end!

Like

You gave up long before you posted that comment.
You may hear the Word, but you are not obliged to heed it; that is your choice alone.

Like

6.45 From time to time I criticise Bishops, but you are a liar and a fraud. No English Bishop would have acted like that. Post evidence or shut your mouth.

Like

You really are a fool. Apologist for whatever bishop you are trying to cover up for. Classic response from a cleric trying to keep the Boss happy.

Like

I will only give the evidence to Bishop Buckley and not you gutter snipe. You will run to the bishop with my info. As Bishoo Pat said the other day the worst thing you can do is inform the bishop and gossipers to the bishops like yourself. You are irrelevant and call me a fraud etc, I couldn’t care less.

Like

5:39. I think the Archbishop was referencing part of the conclusion of the report. He was not making it up but stating a fact. He apologised sincerely for the horrific situation many young women were put in, for the total lack of respect, mercy and compassion afforded to them by the orders and by society. It would be very easy to use religious orders as a scapegoat and be blinded to all the scandalous heart breaking facts. Instead of pointing fingers, may the church, society, families, communities all learn from the sad lessons of the past so that they may NEVER be repeated again. That is my prayer 🙏🙏

Like

As said before @ 7.06pm he employs a spin doctor. You trying to justify him and the awful abuse says more about you. You are disgusting trying to make excuses for the pathetic excuse of a man in Ara Coeli.

Like

7.06

You misuse the word ‘scapegoat’. A scapegoat is someone morally blameless, but who nevertheless is held responsible for the immorality of others. To put it another way in part, a scapegoat is an innocent person.

The religious who operated those hellholes for children cannot be considered scapegoats, since they did, ACTUALLY, sexually and in other ways, abuse those poor children.

When you describe them as scapegoats, you are, in fact, telling an untruth/lie, and you are helping Archbishop Eamon Martin to perpetuate the untruth/lie that religious orders here were nothing more than injured innocents.😢

The institutional Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, as the largest and most influential denomination, set the moral tone for the country. Not one of Eamon Martin’s predecessors at the time broke ranks with his fellow bishops and condemned the treatment meted out to those unfortunate and vulnerable children.

Eamon Martin has gone as far as he thinks he can in condemning what happened, but he has also engaged in damage limitation by trying to spread the blame for misconduct for which his church was actually and primarily responsible.

Martin is a deceiver and a coward.

And so are you.

Like

7.45: Magna, have you read the full report? Obviously not. You should do so immediately and take note of the conclusions of the Commission’s Full Report. You are simply spouting your anti-Catholic hatred. Simple as. When you read the FULL report, come back with the TRUTH. it won’t suit your agenda but it is a fair, balanced and considered report. We have a right to say that many agencies of the state were also involved in running these homes. Many others, including your forebears, are also responsible by their SILENCE – and undoubtedly, YOUR silence too…Tuam County Council apologised for their past and present neglicence…You are a hateful, biased and prejudiced revisionist, therefore unreliable in giving a balanced analysis.

Like

There is clearly a hierarcy of responsibility here, and at its apex is the institutional Roman Catholic Church.
In an age of deep and widespread clerical deference, Catholics in Ireland followed the lead of their priests in these matters. Roman Catholic clergy, principally bishops, bear fundamental responsibility for how Catholics in general regarded unmarried mothers. These men could, at any time, have set a more humane (a more Christian) example, but they CHOSE not to.
I am not the one revising history here; it is morally spineless fools like you.

Like

I have to apologise for my being inconsideration today guys.
I did not fully read the blog opening this morning and I do feel I should have done so.
I have been having issues sleeping lately and am very much still hurting over the ongoing issues.
I apologise.
Having attention deficit is manageable, but my ptsd has been different.
I know you guys understand my heart x

Like

Dear Peter @ 7:25pm
May Angels surround, comfort and minister to you….as I’m sure you do and will do to others as the Priest you are, written on God’s heart since before the foundation of the world and despite the shameful setbacks by those charged to do so much better, yet in time God’s will be done! New wine for new wineskins x

Like

Am sorry 7.17pm I don’t know the man only to see him on tv. I hear your anger, am angry and horrified too at what happened to the young women from all our communities. What he said was actually from the report itself. He didn’t need any spin doctor. The independent commission wrote it for us all to hear and read our sad past and more importantly to learn from it. As I said, so that it NEVER happens again. That is my heart felt prayer. 🙏🙏

Like

Didn’t the London Oratory have a HIV positive priest who was also a predatory homosexual?Ordained by Hume who knew all the facts

Like

Yip indeed but he was on loan to Meath and then was incarnated into Dublin by Cardinal Connell. He not predatory, just a chaser

Like

There is an Irish Dominican priest who is HIV+ and who has the reputation of being morally conservative, at least in public.

Like

In my experience, most active homosexuals are unhappy anyhow – even with all their “liberation” today. If a “gay” perceives or imagines that someone has looked crooked at him/her that person can get into a lot of trouble. A lot of them (gays) are addicted to their own pathos and they can be incredibly vindictive and nasty. Yes, whether they like or not, predatory too. A lot of these “rainbow warriors” will never be happy. They are in your face. Those “gay pride” parades are an excuse for obscenity and you have idiots bringing little children along as if it was a harmless carnival. The whole LGBTQ ideology is clearly disordered. Little Britain’s Dafydd “the only gay in the village” sums up the absurd drama.

Like

Leave a comment