Categories
Uncategorized

THE BIBLE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PRESENT DAY PHENOMENON OF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS TYPIFIED BY LOVE, LOYALTY AND COMMITTMENT.

FOR ME, the most enlightening work on homosexuality, the Bible and the church is J J McNeill’s book THE CHURCH AND THE HOMOSEXUAL.

This books points out that:

1. The biblical authors had no understanding if homosexuaality like as do today.

2. The word homosexual only came into use in the late part of the 19th century. The men who wrote the bible would not have had the concept of homosexuality.

3. The biblical authors would have only understood it as the phenomenon of heterosexual men turning their back on their women to have sex with other heterosexual men.

4. The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as such ( as that concept did not exist ) but things like male temple prostitution offerings, dishonouring other people and showing contempt to defeated military enemies.

5. In Matthew 10:9-15 Jesus makes it very clear that the sin if Sodom was inhospitality.

6. The limitations on the use of biblical data.

7. Vatican II’s call to interpret scripture.

8. Paul writing in Roman on the whole question of NATURE.

We Christians should believe that JESUS not the bible, is the WORD OF GOD.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God“.

SOME THIUGHTS FROM FATHER MC NEILL’S BOOK:

For them, men having sex with men meant heterosexual men turning away from women to have had sex with other heterosexual men.

This is what the story of Sodom is about. It is heterosexual men wanting sex with other heterosexual men in order to dishonour them. Their actions were sins of pride and inhospitality.

Jesus himself connects Sodom to tge sin of inhospitality when he said;

MATTHEW 10: 9 – 15.

Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave.  As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.  If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment  than for that town”.

Jesus is clearly indicating that the inhospitality of a town rejecting the disciples would be more greatly punished that the inhospitality of Sodom.

THE LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF BIBLICAL DATA:

There are, however, two limitations to the use of biblical data.

First, the Scriptures are “historically and culturally limited,” so that one cannot merely transpose a text of Scripture to the contemporary circumstances of life.

Second, no thesis would be acceptable which would develop its argument only in terms of individual texts taken out of their context.

VATICAN II ON THE INTERPRETATION IF SCRIPTURE:

We would do well to recall here the words of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council dealing with the interpretation of sacred Scripture

Since God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in a human fashion, the interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. (No. 12)

SODOM AND GOMORRAH:

Some of the best scripture scholars agree that the sin of Sodom was about inhospitality.

First it says ALL THE MEN OF SODOM wanted the strangers out to abuse them.

That would require us to believe that EVERY MAN IN SODOM was a homosexual man wanting sex with other men. That would be a ridiculous assertion.

ROMANS: 1:26

The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity as intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this phrase has been “against nature.”

As John Boswell notes: “The modern reader is apt to read into that phrase a wealth of associations derived from later philosophical developments, scholastic theology, Freudian psychology, social taboos, as well as personal misgivings.”

Opnce again it is difficult to ascertain what this phrase meant for Paul. The same phrase in Romans 4:18 is used to express the idea that God himself is acting para physin in grafting a wild olive branch (the Gentiles) onto a cultivated tree (the inheritance of the Jews). This usage makes it clear that the phrase itself does not necessarily imply a moral judgment on the action as wrong.

Consequently, two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase.

It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasures.

A strong argument for this interpretation is the explicit reference to the pagans having “abandoned” the “natural uses” of their sexuality for that which is “beyond nature.”

The use here of the aorist participle (aphentes) considerably strengthens the image of a conscious choice of a type of activity contrary to their normal inclinations.

Paul apparently refers only to homosexual acts indulged in by those he considered to be otherwise heterosexually inclined; acts which represent a voluntary act contrary to their ordinary sexual appetite.

William G. Thompson, S.J., is inclined to agree with this interpretation: Concerning the Pauline material, you have come to the same conclusions I have concerning the meaning of “homosexual.”

Let me quote Fr. Fitzmyer’s comments on Romans 1:26: “The contrast between ‘females’ and ‘males’ (1:27) makes it clear that the sexual perversion of which Paul speaks is homosexuality (specifically Lesbianism). The depravity of the perversion is the merited consequence of pagan impiety; having exchanged their true God for a false one (1:25), pagans inevitably exchanged their true natural functions for perverted ones . . . (Jerome Biblical Commentary, Article 53, Number 26).” It seems clear that the situation is one of perversion rather than inversion, as you indicate. Hence the passage does not touch the contemporary issue of homosexuality understood as inversion. Paul simply does not speak to that question.

BIBLE CONDEMNING BRINGING PROSTITUTION MONEY AS OFFERINGS.

Deuteronomy 23:17:

None of the Israelite women shall become a temple-prostitute, nor shall any of the Israelite men become a temple-prostitute. You shall never bring the gains of a harlot or the earnings of a male prostitute as a votive offering to the temple of the Lord your God; for both are abominable to the Lord your God.

HOMOSEXUALITY AS SCORN AND AS A WAY OF DISHONOURING DEFEATED MILITARY ENEMIES

Calling attention then to the common practice, especially of the Egyptians, of inflicting sodomy as a punishment upon a defeated male enemy as a symbol of domination, Brun suggests that the principal reason the Israelites regarded homosexual practices as an abomination was that they too viewed sodomy as an expression of scorn; and in a society where the dignity of the male was a primary consideration, voluntary acts of a homosexual nature could not be tolerated. Both parties would then be undermining the very foundations of a patriarchal society; the one because he uses another as a woman; the other because he allows himself to be used as a woman. The dignity of the male is dishonored by both.

THE OLD TESTAMENT EMPHASIS ON NOT DISHONOURING OTHER PEOPLE:

T. C. DeKruijf’s study, The Bible on Sexuality. DeKruijf concludes his survey of Old Testament texts concerning sexual morality by pointing out that the primary message of the Old Testament concerning sexual morality was that love, including sexual love, requires respect for the other person; and the sin which one can commit in sexual conduct with another consists in disperson of a fellow human being. “If one does not acknowledge the only true personal God, it follows unavoidably that one will also not acknowledge one’s fellow man as a person who has a value of his own.”41 As we have seen, J. Edgar Brun found an identical reason for the condemnation of homosexual activities, since in the cultural and historical context of the Old Testament such activities could only be envisaged as expressions of hatred and scorn. The essential evil of homosexual activities appeared to be the dishonoring of a fellow human being.

PAT SAYS

Fr McNeill’s book is a MUST READ.

His views represent the views of the author of this blog on this question.

261 replies on “THE BIBLE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PRESENT DAY PHENOMENON OF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS TYPIFIED BY LOVE, LOYALTY AND COMMITTMENT.”

I totally agree, but just have two points.
The Jewish Bible Commentary says that the sin of Sodom is both sex and inhospitality. Exegesis about homosexuality in the Hebrew bible can be notoriously biased and I think we have gone too far away from seeing homosexuality. This is I think, in reaction to much conservative exegesis which tends to see homosexuality where it plainly is not (for example the temple prostitutes referred to as Sodomites in the KJV.
The passage from Matthew you quote is also not purely about hospitality – in a mirror of the dual sin of Sodom it mentions both hospitality and a failure to listen. This implies even if the place they go to is hospitable, the disciples should still move on because the point is the kerygma, not the hospitality per se. The comparison with Sodom is precisely because the Sodomites were inhospitable and also wanted rumpy pumpy.

Like

11.07
Well, they may be committed to each other, but they aren’t committed to Christ, otherwise they wouldn’t be humping each other, sonething Scripture expressly forbids.

Like

They are committed to multiple anonymous, often silent, meetups with random strangers arranged via apps, the modern version of the Gents or Hampstead Heath.

Like

11.09 and 10.21
You are as obtuse as you are needy and attention seeking.
Speaking about sexual orientation is an anachronism where sacred scripture is concerned.
As the material quoted by Pat above substantiates, biblical authors had no conception of sexual orientation. For them men and women were by nature sexually attracted to the other sex. So, same-sex sexual activity was considered by them as a perversion, literally. People attracted to one sex being sexually active with the other.
It’s clear that all of the biblical information you replicate here is transferred from Google and Wikipedia directly to Pat’s blog without passing through your brain.

Like

+Pat: I’d like to reply to matters put to me yesterday, including your own. I apologise for ‘intruding’ into today’s blog space.
For someone so important and significant as Jesus, I think the ONLY direct historical reference to him is by the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius in his work “The Antiquities of the Jews” in Ch 18 paragraph 63/4. However I’ve read that scholars contest that this reference to Jesus is in a very different writing style from his other works, such as “The Jewish Wars.” Furthermore they contest that these “Jesus passages” were massaged by later Christian interpreters to enhance their belief in a Messianic Jesus.
In any event these two short paragraphs out of Josephus’s comprehensive works are hardly convincing evidence for the existence and divine significance of the alleged Jesus. And since Josephus was said to only have been born in 37 AD, four years after Calvary, anything he wrote can only have been hearsay. Hardly convincing evidence I think.
The normally meticulous Roman record keepers of contemporary matters, especially executions, make no mention of Jesus’s trial by Pilate, nor his crucifixion. Very strange.
Furthermore Jewish historians of the alleged Jesus’s era such as Philo’s still surviving extensive works on history, philosophy and religion, nor Justus of Tiberias make ANY mention of Jesus. Surely these are very strange omissions?
So while I acknowledge the possibility of a Jesus’s existence, I am in no way impressed with such paucity of proofs and largely derived from religious beliefs. And I find it incredulous to believe that if he existed, he was divine.
All religious believers evidence appears to derive from the narrative Gospel stories written 40+ years after the alleged events. And am I correct in saying that they are written in the third person with no writer saying what he directly observed or experienced. Even Paul’s letters fail to describe Jesus in any real historical setting of his life in Israel.
And none of these allegedly significant Gospels now exist: only copies of copies of copies no doubt much massaged by devout scribes in line with their perceptions and beliefs.
To those who deride my reference to YouTube, Anons @ 2:45 & 5:14, I add. While I have nowhere near the depth of knowledge some blog commentators display, while dismissing the vacuity of others, I recognise expertise and knowledge elsewhere. In stark contrast to the insipid banality of those who argue FOR religious belief (mostly a reliance on blind faith or personal experience), I am impressed by the lucidity of those who argue to the contrary.
Last week I watched YouTube ‘s “50 Renowned Academics Speaking about God. Pt 1” They were all eminent, mostly Nobel Laureates, in psychiatry psychology astronomy chemistry philosophy physics etc. They explained why they regard religious beliefs as without foundation.
I prefer such arguments to the waffling of the followers of religious beliefs.
And I recognise that nothing will persuade those imbued with a lifetime of blind, and hopeful faith. “De gustibus non disputandum.”
MMM

Like

Great stuff thank you. And those academics will each have contributed something good to humanity instead of bitching on the internet.

Like

Magna: Correction:
” My personal projection of the Jesus person, even taking into account my wishful imagination of His divine power, authority and persuasive ability, could never convince hard headed realists.”
I wonder why.

Like

Bloody Hell, Magna! Is this your BEST shot. Or are you just stunned into, for once, shutting up?

Like

Magna. With respect duly acknowledged to your scriptural knowledge, you appear to have made no comment on the huge discrepancies involved in a belief that Jesus, allegedly the most important significant human being ever ( and allegedly also the Supreme Creator God), merits so little mention in independent historical accounts contemporary with his alleged existence and wonderful works. It’s like reading records about the second world war where neither Hitler or Churchill is ever mentioned 🤔

Like

Respectively MMM, I posted @ 2:45pm in reply to an earlier posts by you telling me to widen my reading as well as telling another poster not to spoon feed me by pointing me to Youtube videos. I was attempting to challenge the poster at 11:09 am to reference claims.
I could also point you in the direction of Christian scientists on Youtube discussing why they believe in the existence of God. Their expertise and knowledge lies in science MMM, not in absolutist claims for or against the existence of God. It reminds me of the old adage, ‘doctors differ patients die’. Yesterday Seamus @ 8:18 pm mentioned some people know there’s an afterlife. Through life experience coupled with deep faith, a vibrant spiritual life plus the power of the Holy Spirit people can come to knowledge of Christ. Truth is a person, CHRIST JESUS THE LORD.

Like

Thank you @12:50. Indeed I have listened/watched some Christian scientists explain why they believe in God. I have to say that I was not impressed as their beliefs, as with so many, relied essentially on faith and personal experience, not hard factual reliable objective evidence.

And I would remind and emphasise that the BURDEN OF PROOF, (my emphasis of necessity) for religious beliefs for God and His alleged involvement in creation, clearly lies with the “believers” and not with those who pose questions.
Atheists do not claim to disprove the existence of any God. They question the evidence for belief, and have a position of saying, ” Why should I believe just because others say so when they cannot back up their claims with reliable evidence, and their claims are so patently unreliable?”
I think I’ve said enough on this for now and leave the matter at rest.
MMM

Like

MMM, you can leave the matter rest alright. Just to mention I’ve no response to the content of your comments today because I’ve humbly kicked the dust off of my feet, my way of leaving the matter rest.
Atheists question the evidence and that is fair enough. We all have to carry on with our lives.

Like

Seamus at 2:34 – So why did you respond if you don’t have a response. You have posted a comment to say you are not going to comment, which gives the lie to what you say.

Like

Well @ 3.02, I’m glad you’ve paid attention and now realise what a load of old cobblers this whole God and religion really is. It really does ease one’s minds. Well done you.

Like

In addition a few more points:
1. “All” always means “some”: this is the point satirised in the “riddle” “All Cretans are liars”. (Opposite vs, contrary to “not all”). Gang leaders will have been the ones that were to the fore and whose policies others daren’t resist much.
2. i. Some gang leaders may have at some periods of history applied a machine (installed in a bed) to involuntary “guests”. I was not told exactly what source this was mentioned in, but it is the sort of thing that doesn’t get repeated much (bowdlerised). THIS IS THE REASON IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO CALL THE PERSONS BP PAT IS REFERRING TO BY THE TERM “Sodomites”, an 18 th century conceit. ii. At times when such a device was NOT operated the implied meaning would have been meant to be similar: an expression of power imposed on the powerless. iii. The object that hit Sodom has been deduced by archaeologists (it came from the direction of sunset just before the evening meal) and the history of the incident has been formatted as a “just so story” as most stories were. Premonitions of some are not uncommon. Note Abraham and his friends had just SAVED ALMOST ALL the population of Sodom (and not only the Lot family) from captivity with what that entailed. Only its king had had his convenient bolt hole like unworthy church leaders do. iv. Roman marriages were seen as competitions and spouses didn’t talk except to outmanoevre each other. v. There were also cults whose frenzied adherents used to “more than” “gash” themselves, like Origen. They were fundamentalists who misinterpreted old myths about gods and goddesses that had “apparently changed their sex” in the retellings. I REPEAT – THIS DOES NOT REFER TO THOSE BP PAT IS REFERRING TO.
to be continued

Like

continued
3. Re. the point about defeated enemies like King Saul and the personages Samson had a go at; “foreskins” and “made sport” is bowdlerism in context. This actually or implied irrevocable imposing of power is the value the OT is against and is unlikely to refer physically to those we are now discussing.
4. Sauna customers are likely to be depressed and fatalistic and activity is unlikely to be genuinely MORALLY consenting. Professed religion believers ought to be queried about their attitude here particularly if they have been placed by their colleagues in a very high position of responsibility and official status.
5. The Kingdom Of Heaven is distinct from salvation, though closely related: a Catholic and Protestant blind spot equally.
6. “Such were some of you” refers to before the addressees were Holy Spirit indwelt and gained the chance of potentising the other’s gifts (our only crown will be the actual others and NOT a brand name). This new situation obtains in all relating among Christians and not solely sexual love.
7. Some “ecclesial movements” (which are free of canon law) “insert” adherents. Ask the gent with family at Watford (the graduates from Dundalk know about him) what going on “mission”, on behalf of a property deed signatory somewhere-or-other, is like.

Like

The Protestant Lads say the Bible says it’s wrong to be gay, so it’s wrong to be gay. Catholic Pat says if you interpret the Bible correctly it’s ok to be gay. Therein lies the difference!

Like

further to comments 1 Sep at 8.54 and 8.44 p.m upon news of Father Nichol and Father O’Boy: if you join an association or sodality:
i – always assert your personal concept more strongly than the leaders;
ii – remember Scripture knowledge is to serve you not them;
iii – always leave it after four (4) years max. whether they want you to or not;
iv – individuals that have got a life will continue to befriend you;
v – don’t be a sacramentolator either before or since.

Like

No sign of Rawhide, but Archbishop Crotty has turned up, for some reason. Surprised Darcy’s not there.

Like

1. Sodalities or associations are gossipy.
2. Don’t volunteer, in case duties include diverting the local money float without explanation.
3. Ignore ideologies as those get swopped all the time.

Like

12.55
Bishop Alphonsus could not praise Rawhide enough and mentioned how he was doing a double act today playing the Organ.
You never know maybe next for a mitre as you can never tell what the company will do next.
Alphonsus likely got his greedy hands and eyes on the Abbey.

Like

Phonsie’s Maynooth contemporaries would never have predicted that Phonsie would get a mitre, not in a million years. No harm to him, he’s neither a saint nor a scholar and he has as much charisma as Kier Starmer.

Like

Fr McNeill was ordained by that notorious homosexual, Cardinal Spellman. I wonder if this is an early example of the lavender mafia at work and if they had an Uncle Ted/nephew style relationship?
PS Uncle Ted’s in court today.
PPS Uncle Ted hated the Latin Mass and loved floaty polyester chasubles.

Like

Celebrating the joyous ordination to the priesthood of Ryan Holovalasky on Sunday 5 September 2001 in St. Joseph’s Monastery, Dundalk by Dr. Eamon Martin. This truly is a celebration for the Redemptorist family as the last ordination was in 2011. Ryan is a distinguished preacher and has bountiful gifts in communicating through new media. His gentle charism and selfless service will inspire our younger generations to deepen faith in following the rich legacy in the spirit of the Most Holy Redeemer. Vivat in Aeternum

Like

Another intermediary agent when Jesus alone is the mediator between God and humankind? Nothing to rejoice about, but much to mourn.

Like

8.10
You mean Archbishop Eamon Martin. He doesn’t have a doctorate.
Referring to bishops without a doctorate as doctor is an instance of clericalism which the Irish Catholic community transported to the US. The same holds true for ‘Most Reverend.’ In UK it’s ‘Right Reverend’ and ‘Most Reverend’ for archbishops.

Like

Most GPs don’t have a doctorate. In this instance, doctor means teacher. Schoolteachers in Italy as styled dottore, even though few have doctorates.

Like

10.15
Another instance of no knowledge of the meaning of sacrament and sacramentality. It becomes tedious to see. A broken record to hear.

Like

11.12

I know the meaning of Scripture and of Jesus’ role in obviating human intermediation: levitical priesthood and ALL other priesthood.

I couldn’t give tuppence for your presumed ‘sacrament of holy orders’ : it is a blatant denial of Christ’s savific death. No wonder nothing but evil (schism, other upheaval, kiddie-fiddling, general corruption) has come from it, because Jesus never intended it.

The most Christ-like thing you, and your colleagues, priest, can do for people is leave, quietly, with your heads hanging in shame for the terrible damage to the church your priesthood has done.

Like

Congratulations Ryan. May the angels guide and protect you. Praying that your heart is filled with pure light. Great to know fine men like you, Fr. Noel and Fr. Derek.

Like

Some, not all. There is the very vast field of biblical scholarship.

Like

9.41

And yet, you support priesthood, Seamus, an intermediary agent which Jesus’ death and resurrection obviated.

Do YOU understand the 10 Commandments, especially the First?

Like

You don’t understand them either. In the law a foetus is not a person so can’t be murdered (which is incidentally the meaning of the commandment, but you wouldn’t know that either).

Like

MC 10:33, Jesus accepted that the Pharisees were successors of that time and sat in the seat of Moses. Jesus likewise has successors and are teachers of the law.
History repeats itself. The Pharisees were hypocrites. The clerical ranks have hypocrites. Shame on them. As followers of Christ, they should know a whole lot better.

Like

‘Thou shalt not kill is fairly unambiguous I would have thought?’
Far from being unambiguous this is the classic example of a biblical passage which loses its meaning in translation and as a result gets misapplied.
For example it has been used to refer to vegetarianism. Totally wrongly, because the actual meaning is ‘Dont murder’, so doesn’t mean animals.
Similarly it is wrongly applied to abortion because in the Torah a fetus is not treated as a person so while abortion is not specifically referred to, in both rabbinic tradition and in the biblical position evangelicals took until a few decades ago, abortion is fine.
What this commandment forbids is murder of another person and the way it sounds in English translation makes it be misapplied.

Like

2:12,
As I’ve mentioned previously today, an unborn baby after a miscarriage passes to the next life. This is the testimony of mother’s who have experienced that tragic death.
Death occurs because there was life. Abortion is the killing of an unborn life.

Like

St Augustine taught that unbaptized babies went straight to hell.

Like

2.12
Who says ‘Don’t murder.’ doesn’t include animals.
Yours is a circular argument.
Murder by definition means immoral killing.
Don’t kill animals immorally applies to every animal on the planet, including humans.

Like

A teaching and fear that drove parents to baptize their child as soon as possible. Saints had feet of clay.
A blessing from parents is powerful. It’s the parents in those situations who get a comfort from the church baptism.
A true baptism for all of us is by making our own choice of our own free will. We all have a baptism moment of sorts in our adult years.

Like

The Bible says …. but what do You say… How does what you say measure up against the teaching of Jesus and the dignity of the Person. Knowledge is a double edged sword

Like

9.26

You are kidding, Pat. Right? Never met Jesus? Paul? Then what is all that stuff about on the road to Damascus?

As for Jesus’ being ‘dead’, I heard that he was resurrected. Am I wrong?

Like

So you think that when Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus they had a long discussion on homosexuality?

Like

10.44

You are being facetious, Pat. And you know you are wrong, as homosexual acts are.

Like

What are homosexual acts?

Touching genitalia. Straight people do that.

Anal sex? Many straight heterosexual couples do that.

Kissing? Is kissing a sin?

Even the pope kisses children.

Like

Jesus was dead Pat? What happened to the Resurrection or is that just more biblical data?

Like

The human Jesus was dead. Had you not heard?

It was the Resurected Jesus held a conference on homosexuality withPaul on the road to Damascus.

Like

11.05 Ascended, even. (Human as well. But that’s theology, and not black-and-white thinking.)

Like

9.21: There is indeed a vast deal of scholarly work on scriptures. Can we change or interpret the Word of God to suit particular moral issues as we are discussing? Context is important in all discussions and centuries later after Christ we are trying to follow His way of life as faithfully as we can, though failing frequently. Jesus said “I have come to give life and give it to the fullest..”, said having witnessed the burden of over 600 laws which people had to adhere to. These laws crushed people. Christianity, to me is about following Jesus and Imitating his mind and heart in all things. Catholicism is about law and unachievable expectations at times. Catholic moral theology focused too much on sexuality. Jesus saw the human person in all their strength and weakness, badness and goodness, beauty and ugliness – but he came to give value to every human being, to affirm us as people of God, loved and loveable, redeemed and redeemable. This for me is the starting point of assessing our humanity and sexuality as people with a God given dignity. This is not a charter for a “do what you like attitude” – rather it’s a call to seek to do what us right, just and acceptable in the eyes of God at all times. Within this framework Jesus gives us a template for human/divine morality and a pattern of behaviour which seeks only what is best and good for our spiritual, emotional and sexual well-being. There is a point in which we have to always rethink morality, particularly if this morality crushes and dehumanuses our dignity and life.

Like

Any updates on the Gaynooth brigade?
Sean Jones – Mark Moriarty – Brendan Marshall – Gorgeous – Conor Gannon – Chris Derwin – Aidan Gallagher – Stephen Wilson – Lorcan Kellar – Kevin Connolly – Sean Hickey – David Dysky – Declan McGeehan – Conan McGonagle – Thomas McHugh – Ryan McAleer – Robert McGivney … et al?

Like

The Bible addresses love, Pat. And you know it does. It addresses also homosexual acts, and it expressly condemns them. You know this, too.
You are deceiving yourself.

Like

10.33

I suppose ‘bitchiness’ is one consequence of not wanting to follow biblical teaching.

It’s a ‘bummer’, isn’t it? Why won’t Jesus just allow us to pick those parts of his teaching we like and to discard the rest?

SPOILSPORT!😕

Like

Jesus said NOTHING about sex and sexuality.

It can’t have been a big thing for him.

Like

I never said it was all hogwash because I dont believe that.

But all documents that are thousands if years old must be interpreted, not literally, but in context.

I’m just calling for context.

Like

10.03: Pat, Magna is not a fundamentalist. He is right about scripture re: love and homosexuality. You may not want to abide by scriptural spirituality and theology but you cannot deny the hermeneutics and historicity of scripture. We can each interpret scripture for our own objectives which is often skewed.

Like

Magna, one of many things I have learned from your comments here is how the biblical writers would have seen what we now call homosexual acts. And your comment today reinforces the biblical view that homosexual and loving acts are qualitatively different.
Given this difference don’t you think that homosexual acts which are acts of love must be seen differently in biblical terms from homosexual acts which as you have previously said were an overflow of sexuality?
Rather the point Pat is making, just put differently!

Like

11.06
Scripture condemns, and forbids, homosexual acts REGARDLESS of context. And this includes love.
Love may cover a multitude of sins, but it cannot change sin into non-sin.

Like

11.28
Regardless of context.

Your wiki and google sources won’t save you. You have shown you know nothing about biblical interpretation. Context is everything as you would appreciate if you had read any secondary literature. Charlatan!

Like

9.41pm

Mary McAlese is pro-choice not pro abortion – why libel her and try to kill her reputation- if you remove choice you remove free will – if a secular state doesn’t provide a choice abortion goes underground and women die from malpractice. It’s like being so opposed to condoms that you’d would remove the option to purchase – mature liberal democracies don’t operate like this – the Taliban and the church don’t understand free will, choice and the privilege of living in a democracy not a totalitarian theocracy.

Like

Society constantly limits the exercise of free will, for the greater good. That’s why we have a criminal justice system. Society judges certain things to be wrong and seeks to prevent them happening or punishes those who do them. That was the case with abortion in Ireland until CINOs voted otherwise.

Like

It is truly instructive to read the continuing argument about the tittle tattle minutiae of scriptural interpretation which avoids and ignores the issues of it’s central authenticity, or rather it’s lack of authenticity.
MMM

Like

Lack of authenticity, MMM? What narrow criteria you have for judging authenticity.
Do not repay evil with evil. Turn the other cheek. These are maxims which you claim to live by. So do these lack authenticity?
Truth authenticates itself.

Like

MC 10:01,
As I said yesterday, a man and woman coming together is part of the Natural Reproductive Order.
Paul’s text appears to be that same sex attraction is “unconventional”.
Paul’s text also appears to be that people shouldn’t engage in sexual behavior out of self-seeking lustfulness.
Same-sex unions are based on self-giving love. Are you conflating self-seeking lustfulness and self-giving love in how you are interpreting Paul’s text?

Like

11.28

Love is not its own moral arbiter and pilot.

Love without wisdom is rudderless and heading for the rocks.

Like

I agree. Over a 45 year period I have known very many very wise and loving same-sex couples. Some of them have loved each other for 40 years plus.

Like in many straight marriages the sexual aspect becomes less important gradually and couples are held together by true love, companionship and deep affection.

Such situations are truly the expression of Divine Love.

Like

I don’t think anyone cares who puts what where in this day and age. Commitment to each other is all that matters. Just saying!

Like

Anon 11:01,
I don’t want to get too involved in the off topic of abortion today. I’ll just say that after a miscarriage, the soul of the unborn baby has gone to the afterlife. A death sadly has occurred and it’s the same after an abortion.

Like

We couldn’t wait to get rid of the old queen. He kept walking round in this red frock with a huge train and expected people to kiss his hand every time we gave him anything.

Like

Anon at 1.29pm and 11.59am
PF detests everything relating to LM cos of ‘rigidity, gay audience (priests and sems attraction to lace and sundry= gay haven), what else have I omitted it. Mother Burke is one of them.
PF demoted Burke to some lowly position but in fairness to Burke, he didn’t moan. He just went off to Malta to sort out old of Knights something like that.
I’m no fan of him cos of cappa Magna. That’s one beef I had him re this. Why doesn’t he stop doing this and grow up as modernist re dress.
PF wouldn’t have that kind of debate re Bible and homosexuality re today blog. He wouldnt have it in any another way, just shut it down re debate just like he shut down the debate on LM and issue his own directive MP. That’s not debate per se.
Hes no fan of democracy re debate as its getting more clearer to me that he’s a dictator by his actions, not his words These are two very different things.
Actions defines his intentions to clamp down LM rigidity or gay haven re LM or divisive as PF claims it to be.
By the way I don’t read the bible much except for printout of Sunday readings left inside by church.

Like

@2:15pm

Why should he dress modern just to please you, unlike you he dose not like polyester,
and why should he. If you want to know about Bergo.read ” Dictator Pope by Marcatonio Ciolonna” that will tell you about that oul git, who is the Scandal of Christendom!

Like

I hope he is not wearing clothes of mixed fibres or he will be in trouble with Leviticus.

Like

5:18pm
I don’t think you need to worry Patsy there is more chance of you wearing mixed fibre than His Eminence who will be wearing pure silk God Bless him. You don’t need to worry about your mixed fibre, you’re already in big trouble with Leviticus.

Like

Pat I agree that there are long term loving couples but in my experience its really uncommon compared to those who remain single. I remember talking to men in their 80s thirty years ago who said that really its a tiny minority who find this. No more than 3 or 4 % of gay people.
So is it really down to pure luck??
Does the lack of a partner drive the sex mad persona of so many gays,cruising the toilets and the parks,using the Grindr,taking all kinds of chances in the boiler house and it’s equivalent around the world. Is the sex drive so strong that men in positions of influence can be brought down by rent boys?
In other words does a partner ensure the sex drive will take second place to a loving, monogamous relationship?
I’ve also known couples where one partner plays away with the full knowledge of the other. Occasionally, in some cases,the third party will be brought home for a threesome.
Is this a committed relationship?
I can’t define what it is.
So many questions.
Its so grey in my opinion that there seems to be no absolute solutions.
I would say on balance however that a committed relationship trumps casual,constant sex and searching for it.
As you say nature takes care of that in time anyway.

Like

@ Magna Carta

“Pat, SOME things in the Bible are true. Literally. It’s not all hogwash.”

So where do you draw the line – when did the divine revelation occur that makes you certain that homosexual acts are forbidden and that the prohibition against pork, mixed fibre clothing, unclean women etc no longer apply?

I ask again – why are you so sure that the bible’s prohibition of homosexuality is still valid.

Like

12.38
You ask again? Me? When did you ask before? Doesn’t matter, I suppose.
Good question. And good you admit homosexual acts are prohibited in Scripture. We’re on common ground here. For the time being.
So are they still prohibited, unlike the other things you mentioned? In a word, ‘yes’ . Because homosexual acts can never be open to reproduction, a fundamental and inarguable function of sex. This is part of Natural Law.
Yes, yes, I know that virtually every other species of animal humps the same sex, and not only the same sex, but sometimes my lower leg. All in deviation of Natural Law.

Like

Magna at 4:10 – the nurse is coming round to give you your bedbath and she’ll read to you from Calvin. 🛌

Like

I am saying that homosexuality is NOT prohibited by scripture, properly understood and interpreted.

Like

Mother of God. I’m horrified. Magna Carta believes a dogma of the Church of Rome.
Are you alright, bab?

Like

Can I just say how much I appreciate the skills of the person who treats us to pictures photoshopped to depict the truth of the church in the twenty first century. If published in a book they would be an important corrective to the dreamy 1950s photo book about monastic life, Elected Silence. It had a foreword by Thomas (Hermitage for Two) Merton.

Like

Just a question here:

Was the bible or the whole bible itself altered in any way, shape or forum by rcc?? I was wondering if rcc could do this for their own ends back then.

Just thinking or saying it aloud here.

Is there any bible here today not altered or not touched by rcc before St Jerome or some Saint who did alter it if my memory serves me right or wrongly.

Like

Jesus as if the usual oddball bible scholar characters weren’t enough on here today deaf guy enters the fray.

Like

2:57 You don’t have to keep coming here you know. You certainly sound like you can find something to bitch and whinge about wherever you go.

Like

Anon at 2.57pm
It says a lot more about you than me re your comments. Also it says a bit more about owner of this blog allowing this type of comments.
I have been called all sort of names so were many other deaf people.
I was even barred from a pub in Dublin for using sign language. That’s before discriminate and equality law came into effect.
LEVITICUS 19:14

Like

The short answer is no it wasn’t. There is a longer answer on why Protestant and Catholic bibles are different here:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/why-are-protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html
There are more books in a Catholic bible and even more in some Eastern or Oriental orthodox bibles, such as the Coptic Orthodox in Ethiopia.
It is also important to remember that because the bible was collected before printing, it exists in many many hand written manuscripts. There are ‘families’ of these manuscripts which show the influence of each other.
These families of manuscripts of course influence the translation of the Bible, and if you have a printed modern bible in your hand it has behind it a lot of work deciding what readings and translations to go for.
Sometimes there have been a few queries and alterations made. For example Luther was unsure about whether to include James in the Canon because of its emphasis on works and not faith alone. In the 1960s when a Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version was published, the text was changed to say ‘Hail full of grace’ to support the immaculate conception.
The whole question of text, Canon and translation can be really controversial and give rise to some very strange things: for example some Evangelical Protestants think only the King James Bible is inspired scripture!
So there are differences but not the huge change you ask about.

Like

@2:59: But in essence, what eventually evolved into “the Bible ” of the New Testament, was the writings of individuals already convinced of the significance of the ‘wandering preacher ‘ known as Jesus. They write in a narrative “arms length” fashion never describing themselves or their actions in relation to involvement with Jesus. Only much much later at emperor Constantine’s behest was various writings agreed as constituting the NT Bible.

Like

Oh hon. It’s not gay men, it’s men. When you’re gay you find a lot of apparently straight men want gay sex 😂
Look at your comment about the sex lives of gay men – did you seriously think it’s possible to crank up that many sexual partners only with the small proportion of the population who are only gay?
That’s why the sex is anonymous 🤣

Like

1:27,
“When you’re gay you find a lot of apparently straight men want gay sex”
Paul’s text in the bible is explicit that same-sex behavior is motivated by lust. His description is similar to the common ancient idea that people “exchange” opposite-sex for same-sex relations because they are driven by out-of-control desire, not because they have a different sexual orientation.
Anon 1:27 is writing of the behaviour that Paul denounced.

Like

You start to feel terribly sorry for their wives, when you experience their clumsy, rushed attempts at sex. I can’t really claim to know much about women but I do know that the way a lot of men, even men who’ve been married for years, go about sex, is calculated to leave the woman thoroughly unimpressed. That’s why lesbian sex is better, and Lesbian Bed Death happens because making love to a woman requires hard work.

Like

3.27
Human Jesus vs Risen Jesus? That’s nitpicking, Pat.
Paul knew Jesus.

Like

Pauls meeting with Jesus was a spiritual experience. I doubt if they shared wine, bread and fish on that day.

Like

The following is for discussion as part of a rolling conversation. It’s a conversation the Church must have in respect of unity and differences;
If the Church ever moves to allow married men to join the clerical state again and if the Church were to ever allow blessings of same sex couples, would the Church allow a man in a same sex union to join the priesthood?
People of the LGBT community currently within clerical ranks might not like the discernment and decision that might be made there.
In respect of the Natural Reproductive Order, I can only see the Church granting same sex blessings. If marriage is for a man and woman in respect of the Natural Reproductive Order, the priesthood would be similar. I understand people ask for equality but there must also be understanding and living in unity in respect of differences.

Like

Same sex behaviour has been observed in over 1,000 species so is part of the natural reproductive order. It’s the church not understanding the order.

Like

The Natural Reproductive Order is male and female coming together. Let’s live in unity of understanding and respectful inclusion. The Church must emba

Like

… The Church must embrace the LGBT community. Such hypocrisy that some clergy live a non-committed LGBT lifestyle and LGBT parishioners are denied a blessing for their committed love.

Like

1.08pm

Even God doesn’t try to limit free will let the criminal justice system – I think you will find we are completely free to choose good or evil, right from wrong and thank God we live in secular pluralistic democratic society where we can choose what colour condom to use or to have a legal abortion without being criminalised or being driven, either out of your own country or to a back street under ground abotionist or the option to have consensual same sex or adulterous sex without being criminalised as of old.

Like

Not a great day for the mothers who will die as a result. But then pro-life never did describe your crowd accurately.

Like

Except they’re not being saved. Contraception and safe medical termination save lives – you are not pro-life,: you are anti-abortion. Your intent for the world would create further overpopulation and death by starvation.
But you’re not interested in those lives.

Imagine being triggered because somebody else can see the whole picture and evaluate the evidence accordingly.

Like

3.00: A great day for the unborn CHILD. The easy acceptance of abortion is a morally repugnant and repulsive reality.

Like

Sleepy Joe is supportive of it whilst thumping his craw in the front row at Mass at the same time.

Like

Some Pro-Life people describe abortion as the modern day holocaust. Some have tried to shut them down for using that language. It’s not language I would want to use myself but they are making a valid point.

Like

2.33: The LIE which all abortionists tell. Just the usual LIE of abortionists: you camouflage the reality of the killing of the unborn child with lies.

Like

Since I have been accused of lying (by the death merchants who mendaciously call themselves pro-life lol), here are some of the ways abortion saves lives.
FACTS not the emotive LIES you tell.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/1/1875901/-5-Ways-Abortion-Saves-Lives
That article doesn’t even mention the issue of population I mentioned: it is honestly bizarre that you all think preventing the estimated 125,000 daily abortions will save lives. It will clearly result in further overpopulation, poverty and starvation.
But you’re not interested in those lives are you? Because you are not pro-life. I am pro-choice, pro-contraception and therefore truly pro-life.

Like

I think you’ll finf that Texas is a representative democracy. Suck it up, buttercup. You’ll need to cheat the ballot better. You could ask Sleepy Joe how to do that. He used to know how to do it but he’s forgotten.

Like

CONFIRMED: The Texas abortion ban is saving babies.
Bhavik Kumar of Houston Planned Parenthood says it normally kills 20-30 babies a day in abortions. It has done just 1 abortion each day since the ban started.

Like

Funny how nobody is coming up with any suggestions of what to do with the population rising at a rate of 125,000 EVERY DAY. This would double the world’s population in around 170 years. Air anyone?
You hadn’t thought about that had you? Because you don’t actually expect to change anything with protests against abortion, it’s just to give a cosy feeling that you’re doing something (you’re not).
Actually Joe Biden would probably have some very good ideas about how to look after the resulting overpopulation from irresponsible over reproducing – he’s not a religious fundament-alist.

Like

Come ‘home’ lol. Perhaps you would like to substantiate your claim that he was previously a Roman Catholic!

Like

3.02
And what of the literal tens of thousands who are leaving, and have already left, ‘home’?

Like

@3.54pm it has got better real estate than the Italian Mission – who will have to give most of it up to settle RCC clerical abuse settlements.

Like

Typical Anglican peevish/bitchy comment. The Anglican mission to England hasn’t been much of a success, has it?

Like

The RCC closes more than 20 churches and religious houses a year. There are only two seminaries left now in the whole of the UK. It’s in free fall.

Like

8.06 pm, stfu with your made up statistics. There are 5 UK seminaries overseas, which is what should be expected from the Universal Church. Anyway, you can’t argue with this: over 350 redundant churches the “CofE” couldn’t attract people to, and that’s not counting the countless thousands demolished or turned into carpet showrooms. Lol.

https://www.visitchurches.org.uk/visit/church-listing.html

Like

As usual the stupid RCs can’t marshall information and are driven by their HATE and LIES rather than any facts.
If you had stopped to think about this before trying to lambast another denomination you would have realised that the Anglicans in England and Wales have many more churches than the RCs – until recently one in every hamlet.
If you look at France and Italy you find the same swathes of disused RC churches for the exact same reason but I won’t make it an opportunity for hate like you would.
Mother of God you people really are idiots.

Like

Yes the Italian mission has some spectacular real estate eg their ‘cathedrals’ in Wales or the splendid cathedral at Clifton. Lots of their trophies are now redundant e.g. the friary at Gorton, and Corpus Christi basilica both in Manchester. They almost lost the Holy Name in the early 1990s too when the SJs pulled out. Kiddie fiddling by their priests will result in even more losses. Stanbrook, Upholland, Ushaw, Cotton College all gone – ashes to ashes, dust to dust…

Like

I’ll tell the taxman “my wallet, my choice” and see how I get on. I’ll tell the next traffic cop who pulls me over for not wearing a seatbelt, “my car, my choice”, and if he finds class A drugs on me, I’ll say “my body, my choice”.

Like

3:44pm
They are lost poor souls, but we all look forward to you coming home, to the bosom of The Holy Church where deep down I know you long to be.

Like

Typical clerical playbook – look for sympathy and make your victims retraumatised.
I just do not believe he couldn’t have been driven right up to the door.

Like

Love the brown polyester outfit. – looks like something Greenwoods would have supplied. Typical granddad look.

Like

Huge conversion rate of anglicanisn priests or bishops to RC in Uk. That’s not seen in other countries, correct me if I’m wrong there. It doesn’t compute.
What gives? 👆

Like

People are in search of authenticity, hence the conversions from Anglicanism to the Church. There are very few switches in the other direction, and of those, most are divorcees seeking remarriage.

Like

Good luck for them with that. Funny how you can still be taken in by the spiel at an advanced age. 😂

Like

4.15pm anon.
Thanks😉.
Just a short hols and trip to London then back. Was told that I need an op.
So that was it but a nice break from Cov19 hysteria here. Its bit refreshingly to see no restrictions there , a breath of fresh air.

Like

5:40. I hope all goes well with the op. When is it? 🙏 Don’t mention the C word with it’s accompanying hysteria😷; were you at the March in London last Sunday?

Like

Pat I hear some people (probably Clerics) that + Vincent has sent you a solicitors letter over your harrassment of certain clergy in Westminster very recently. I don’t believe this to be so because Vin Nichols is too clever to put anything in writing. Have you ever heard this advice Pat about putting pen to paper or sending an email??

Like

Clerics on trial for child abuse or sexual assault often come to court limping, on crutches, in a wheel chair needing help etc.
There used to rolling the dice in the playbook of conning people and they know decent people are suckers for this kind of thing – ah poor old McCarrick look at the poor baby he can barely walk to court. Any ploy to garnish sympathy and influence the jury or the judge – his defence lawyers would encourage it too.

Like

5.05: You horrible NASTY, venomous satanic bitch to tell such a lie. And probably sneering while typing “absolutely”. You want us to believe you are a Christian?? Get to grips with your un-christian crap. GOD help you.

Like

Yes didn’t Weinstein have to use a Walker too. Didn’t work for him though.

Like

Oldest trick in the book. Even in the Magistrate’s Court, the accused often come in on crutches and then skip out the front door when let off. There was no good reason for that performance by Mr McCarrick. He could have been driven to the door.

Like

anon at 5.04pm
Yes i recall Weinstein was in his crutches in court. There was a famous businessman named Ernest Saunders who had worked for Guinness i think- something to do with hare price maintenance scam.
He claimed that he was suffering from Alzhemiers diease in court. Guess what, he was released on compassionate grounds, 10 months later into his 30 months sentence.
When he was out and about, he didn’t suffer from that dreaded disease at all whatsoever. He had fooled the court hugely. One of his friend’s son was my ex teacher as he was telling me tales.
Mc Carrick saga was whats really wrong with RCC, period.
I didnt get it as to how he got promoted endlessly until the rank of a cardinal nor any obstacles were placed in front of him. It made me think about other cardinals or bishops now who got promoted for their sexual behaviour or have a huge clout re money. JPII /the vatican needed the money which in turn they couldnt expel Marcel of LOC.
Funny enough , Law aka Boston (who had clout with the vatican cos of money) detested Mc Aleese as he or someone else a cardinal who had advised JPII not to shake hands with Mc Aleese. She went into an uproar over this a decade or so later.

Like

Well remembered about Ernest Saunders, DG, I was trying to remember that name. Apparently he made a full recovery. 🤣

Like

In Romans, Paul isn’t condemning homosexual sex because he believes it is being committed by heterosexual men (this implies that there would be no such condemnation otherwise), but because of the acts themselves.
A homo-friendly reading of Romans is understandable, for some, but it is not honest.
McNeil himself was homosexual and, in my opinion, set out to justify homosexual sex. He was not objective in his reasearch and conclusions.

Like

Magna, it is not very intelligent to criticise McNeill’s four years of scholarship and research for his book based on his own sexual orientation.

In the book, you will find that McNeill has been meticulous in quoting both scholars who agreed and disagreed with him.

You have totally undermined and negated your argument with an ad hominen attack on Fr McNeill.

Like

Pat, it is disingenuous to ignore McNeil’s homosexuality: it is a highly relevant factor, and it did bias his conclusions.
For example, his claim that the ancients had no conception of homosexual orientation. That is absolute and arrant nonsense, not to mention wishful thinking. Homosexuality did not, suddenly, appear in the second half of the 19th century with the coining of the word by a German author.
This bogus claim allowed McNeil to disregard condemnation of homosexual acts in Scripture, and to dissociate that condemnation from these acts when they take place in a loving and stable homosexual relationship. It was disingenuous, unscholarly, biased, and, I strongly believe, driven by McNeil’s own desire to make a convincing moral argument for homosexual sex. McNeil did not contextualise these acts; he deliberately decontextualised them to make them appear condemned for reasons external to the acts, not for the acts themselves.
Now THAT’S what I call unintelligent.

Like

Thats like saying a heterosexual doctor vould not professionally treat a homosexual patient.

Like

Speaking of homosexuality in late antiquity is an anachronism.
That is not to say it didn’t exist. It did. But it was not understood as an orientation. The ancients lacked the category of sexual orientation. That’s not difficult to understand.
You will not be able to cite a single author Pre 19 C who refers to orientation.

Like

Pat read the Fermanagh Herald on facebook, sad story of the funeral of Kieran Curley. Gary Donegan CP muscled in on the funeral Mass. Kieran was found dead in his van near Boho. Because Gary CP took over funeral proceedings at Boho Church Brian D’Arcy didn’t show up. The big secret with the Graan and Passionists is one of their own abused Kieran Curley and the whole community knows about it.

Like

Why do these Passionists constantly feel the need to show up and concelebrate at funerals? Is that all they do? If they insist on going to every country funeral why can’t they sit simply as a member of the congregation in the pews?

Like

8.05 that is because they are hierarchy oriented, like a big man that has nothing to do with Newcastle or Edinburgh.

Like

Yes very sad case indeed. Abuse and then dealt with by alcohol. The Passionists know who abused this man at the Graan. Silence. The priest fron Belcoo, total misfit, Quinn talked about his addiction to alcohol. He failed to address the cause of the addiction. It’s a scandal. Gary Donegan also brushed off the abuse of this man by his own order at the Graan.

Like

anon at 8.02pm
Indeed. Its a well worn route for some of us as abused. Cos trying to erase the memories of trauma was the reason for drinking. It doesnt work that way as some of us found out later in life. I remember drinking abroad on hols from 3pm to 3am with a pal of same ex alma mater. Psych labelled it as an alcoholic episode, which i didn’t realise it until it hit me in the fan in later years cos i thought its normal to drink from 3pm to 3am.
Once the trauma goes away so does the drink as well.
Its not only RCC, but outside rcc as well, i met a woman who was raped by her father at age of 16. I was shocked cos i didnt think of that in the 1st place. She drank more as usual as a well worn route for any abused.
Its typical but RCC have alcoholics in their ranks now, that includes bishops, priests and cardinals or prelates et al. Its like a titantic with alcoholics steering the ship. In any business world, its a sackable offence.

Like

Seamus Quinn was a classmate of mine. A late vocation, even as a seminarian he wasdepressed, gauche and charmless and on the soectrum, but he got away with it cos he was mad for the Irish, and that was enough for that other misfit, Joe Duffy.

Like

I don’t know the late Mr Curley but I thought it insensitive of Fr Quinn to go into detail about his apparent addiction, AA membership and manner of death.

Like

My family has good reason to be very cross with the Graan. It is unrelated to this case but I can’t say much because it would reveal who I am and also the victim is now dead, having taken their own life.

Like

I can’t stop laughing at an abbot called Rawhide and the bishop being so impressed with his fingerwork on the organ.
Nobody would believe it wasn’t fiction.

Like

Happy feast of Pope St. Pius X, tireless defender of the holy Church, the inseparable unity of truth and love, his own personal poverty, the sanctity of priests, and the restoration of all things in Christ.

Like

Ex Cardinal McCarrick enters Court for sex abuse to shouts of “How many children? Shame on you!”It has been live on you tube

Like

7.32
Sexual orientation is a standardised, formal, and 20th century term, so of course there is no mention of it pre-19th century.
It is stretching credulity too much even to consider that there might not have been other, dialectical ways of naming it.
Societies would have known, for example, that some men were attracted, by their nature, to other men. No, it wasn’t written about in medical textbooks, but it would have been common knowledge. People weren’t as dumb as you’d prefer.

Like

Ex Cardinal McCarrick should have a certain part of his
body cut off , and then hung from a lampost
for what he did !

Like

8.56
You will be very disappointed as there will be Nothing from the Motherwell Dioceses or St. Mary’s Oscott

Like

Having read each and every comment on this feed, the only thing I can take away from this is what horrendous PR you all are to Jesus and how vindicated so many of us feel for jumping ship.
You discuss homosexuals in the most derogatory and dehumanising manner, one that would make the DUP seem like liberals. It is blatantly obvious that to most commenting, LGBT+ people are much worse than lesser than heterosexuals, they are borderline demonic and frankly that is sickeningly abhorrent to decent human sensitivities. There appears to be no love in your hardened hearts.
You equate same sex unions as using one another, as if homosexual people are incapable of love. I would ask you to look at the NHS and private healthcare sector which are filled with LGBT people, who daily show the fullest extent of love and throughout this pandemic have put so many before themselves in their great sacrifice for society.
If this hatred and psychological projection are the fruits of Christianity, the world would be a much better place without Christianity.

Like

Former Christian: I think the world would be a better place without religion, its beliefs and practices. Just imagine all the resources of humanity currently devoted to religious affairs being directed towards making this world a better place for us all rather than being directed towards some make believe afterlife.

Like

This treatise by McNeil has been peddled since the early 80’s. It is Not going to solve the sexual assault problem. It adds to the confusion. How I read Jesus on inhospititbleness is if you don’t act polite,it will be worse for you than how it was for those Sodomites in Gamorrah and they didn’t have it easy. This straight vs. gay sex wrangling has been going on for 50+ years now and my Assaulter put it front and Center. What the Church should be focusing on is how to rear and develop Christian men and women from Middle School through College.
Denounce Heterosexual conforming to Secular Power categories of others and undermining their orientations and welfare to get ahead. There needs to be allowance for responsible fraternizing with the opposite sex and start recruiting seminarians if you demand Celibacy, when they are 24 years of age. Get rid of mandatory celibacy. Indulging in homosexual sex as AOK will take on a power of its own and there will be a competition between orientations with one trying to confuse or maltreat the other. As for Priesthood, Jesus did not give out a Blueprint for the formation of Church but did leave his Spirit. The Spirit though did not guarantee accuracy. You are right Constantine screwed it up and now its time to build in some democracy for vox populi and checks and balances on Elders. No where in the New Testament set up is there a mention of how to deal with a plethora of Corrupt Elders who turn their power against the accurate laity. Time for the Enlightenment to get at truth to be applied.
You can have the old set up and it can drive others to an early grave to its willful evil.
It’s time to treat alcoholism in families, Inter Gender Respecting and Interacting as Christians,
cessation to bullying to thrive, Fathers taking time off work or balancing with rearing their families, Clerics stop grooming exclusive relationships with maturating youth. Encouraging rather than discouraging each other in the Faith. Many of these things have contributed to the State we are in.

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