Submitted by a blog reader

Vincent Mercer

Vincent Mercer was a member of the Irish Dominican province and a priest, He was laicised in 2017. He is currently living in an apartment in Dublin, payed for by the Irish Dominican province. He has a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, which can be viewed to see a list of his convictions and jail terms. Since the year 2000 the law of the church has said that if a priest is convicted of child sex abuse they are to be defrocked. It is now 2017.

The abusive career of Vincent Mercer began when he was a student for the priesthood in Tallaght back in the late 60’s early 70’s. It was brought to the attention of his then provincial Flannan Hynes OP (still alive thought now living in South America). He was not expelled from the order, and this allowed him to continue he abusive career until the 1990s, using his position as a priest/Dominican to gain trust and a cover of respectability.

Flannan Hynes OP (still alive thought now living in South America). He was not expelled from the order, and this allowed him to continue he abusive career until the 1990s, using his position as a priest/Dominican to gain trust and a cover of respectability.

He was made principal of Newbridge College, a secondary school (at the time an all-boys boarding school) run by the Dominican order. It was a curious appointment, as Mercer had no teaching qualification or indeed a civil third level qualification what so ever! Here he begun to abuse boys also. He used creep into the dormitories at night time and sexually assault the students.

He was removed on ‘health grounds’ one night (and I do mean literally in the middle of the night) and moved to Waterford, where he abused, to cork where he abused, back to Dublin where he abused.

Each time he was moved a different reason was given. Incidentally while Mercer was in Newbridge college one of his colleges was Brian Mckevitt op, editor of the Alive newspaper. It is alleged that one boy told McKevitt that Mercer was abusing him. McKevitt reacted by dragging the child in front of Mercer and making him repeat what he had said about Mercer! McKevitt was challenged on this on the radio programme ‘Liveline’. He denied that he was in the College at the same time as Mercer, however the yearly college annuals tell otherwise.

Mercer was eventually removed from ministry in the early 2000’s as victims began to sue the Irish Dominican province. However he could have been stopped a lot earlier, as he was reported while he was a student, by a fellow student who is now a prior of a Dublin community.

Mercer was allowed to continue his vile behaviour because superiors claimed they did not know that child abuse was wrong! And they did not know what to do about it! So they moved him until the next complaint was made, then shipped him off again to another unsuspecting congregation!

Amazingly when he was removed from Newbridge, to Waterford, the then provincial actually said he was suitable for youth ministry! I know this to be true because the man who was prior there at the time told me.

Two former provincials, who were in office when Mercer was abusing, and who had it reported to them, are still alive, living in Ireland and in ministry.


Fr. Tom Jordan OP editor of ‘Spirituality’ magazine. Provincial 1984-1992. Currently residing at the Black Abbey Dominican church, Kilkenny City.

Tom make 2 claims regarding knowledge of Mercers abuse.

  1. He knew nothing.
  2. When he does admit that he knew something, he claims did not know that child abuse/rape was wrong! (I am not making this up!) Now this makes him either amoral, unable to distinguish right from wrong, therefore not suitable to be a priest, or a liar, again not suitable to be a priest.
  3. In 2003 the Province held a seminar on the subject of Child sex abuse, in the Dominican retreat centre in Mayfiled, Cork city. It was a seminar, with professional speaks speaking on this terrible issue. The then provincial was Gearoid Manning, who left the order in 2004. During the seminar Both Flannan Hynes (who was home at the time) and Tom Jordan stood up and declared they did not know that the rape and sexual assault of children was wrong, or indeed was a crime. To be fair member of the province did try to tackle them, but were stopped by the chair of the meeting. To this day that is the line peddled by Tom Jordan. I remember sitting with him at lunch one day and raising this, specifically why did he not report Mercer to the Garda, and again I got the usual ‘I did not know that child abuse was a crime’ answer. (Well at least he said ‘crime’ instead of ‘wrong’ perhaps it was the beginning of a moral enlightment!) I questioned if he knew rape/sexual assault was wrong, he answered that he did. So I asked him why he had had this lack of clarity when an adult male priest raped a child. I remember his look of indignation and indeed sheer contempt at my questioning him. He answered, in a very patronising way, that I wouldn’t understand, it was ‘complicated’ for them. I was stopped by another priest for asking more questions, and he change the subject! Tom is the kind of cleric who is ‘progressive’ and believes in the ‘empowerment’ of the laity. He also treats with distain anyone who would dare disagree with him, and did not think twice about inflicting a paedophile priest on the unsuspecting laity. He did not know that child abuse was wrong.
  4. Fr Larry Collins OP. Provincial from 1992-2000. Member of the Dublin marriage tribunal. Currently administrator of the parish of St Dominic, Tallaght, Archdiocese of Dublin. (Ironically the place where Mercers abuse was first reported, but back then it was called Loreto parish) Also on the board of management of Newbridge College, and parish schools.

Larry Collins op, on the left of this picture, with his arm around Jim Dunleavy OP.

By the time Larry was provincial the ‘rumours’ of Mercer were getting harder to ignore. We were now in the era of the Eamon Casey and Brendan Smith scandals.

Rumours regarding Mercer were beginning to circulate around the province. In the mid 1990’s the Dominican priest in charge of the Dominican summer camp Knockadoon, in rural Cork, had heard of these rumours. (Incidentally Mercer had abused children in Knockadoon also, in the 1960’s). As Mercer was showing up to the summer camp, the priest in charge contacted Collins to ask if the rumours were true and indeed if it was safe for Mercer to be near the kids at the camp. The priest told me of the response he got from Fr Larry Collins OP, then provincial of the Irish Dominican province.

Collins accused the priest, who made the inquiry, of trying to malign Fr Mercer, of making untrue/unfounded accusations against Mercer and ordered the priest to desist at once from spreading such disgusting and unfound rumours about a wonderful priest! The priest told me he only wishes he had kept that letter. Mercer had many powerful friend who shielded him, Collins was one of them. I know that Collins had sent Mercer to Stroud, a centre for troubled/problematic priests, but removed him when Mercer claimed he was losing his faith! Though it is worth noting that Collins did, eventually, limit Mercers ministry activities, sometime in the late 1990’s.

Like Fr Tom Jordan OP, Fr Larry Collins OP did not feel the need to report Mercer to the civil authorities. We were now in the post Brendan Smith period. Collins became provincial in 1992, Mercers last know abuse was in cork in 1994, for which he has served a sentence. A simple google search will reveal all of this. Two things are worth noting. 1 no report was made by Collins to the civil authorities, 2 Collins seems to have tried to quash members of the province from asking questions about Mercer. At a community social a priest, in my presence, said ‘that Larry perjured himself in the Mercer case’, in claiming that he knew nothing of Mercers abusive behaviour.

Larry Collins is on the Board of management of Newbridge College, is a past pupil of the college, and has an almost fanatical love for the place. Yet this did not encourage him to protect children, or indeed remove a dangerous paedophile from a position where he could hurt children. If such a case were to arise now would Collins act correctly and report it, or would he still have ‘uncertainties’ regarding child protection? Is it appropriate for him to be heading a parish and be on board of managements of schools in the Archdiocese of Dublin?

I would describe both Jordan and Collins as two very judgemental men. For example in the issue of marriage equality both men would have had absolutely no doubts that Marriage equality was ‘wrong and dangerous for society’ and that it is the job of the state, through its laws, to reflect this. Yet when it came to Fr Vincent Mercer OP they ‘did not know that child abuse/sexual assault was wrong’, or that the States laws should be involved. They deny any wrong doing of course. The motto of the Dominican order is ‘Veritas’, the latin for truth. However, it seems that the relationship of some Dominicans with ‘truth’ is loose to say the least.

My conclusion.

I am going to make a dangerous conclusion. I cannot prove this, but it would make sense in light of what we now know. I suspect a deal was done with Mercer. If he said that his religious superiors had no knowledge of his abusive activity, then they would look after him, they would not kick him out of the order or strip him of his priesthood.

Though out of ministry, Mercer is still a priest and a member of the Irish Dominican province.

Just to illustrate the depravity and shamelessness of Mercer. Recently, last month, he attended a funeral in Mayfield in Cork city. Mercier position himself at the end of the church so all could see him as they left, and he greeted many people. The parents of the child he abused in cork, for which he was sentenced on 22 February 2013, live there, and he would know that. They were probably at that funeral.


Tom Jordan op is the former Dominican provincial and currently editor of ‘spirituality’ magazine (Dominican Publication’s)


fr Lawrence (Larry) Collins op. Administrator of Dominics parish Tallaght Archdiocese of Dublin. Defender of the Bond Dublin marriage tribunal, former teacher of canon law in st Mary’s Dominican studium Tallaght.



ANGRY PHONSIE is AGAINST yoga, anti-cancer treatments for girls and government regulations on Covid protections.

ANGRY PHONSIE is FOR protecting the Boilerhouse abbot of Mount Melleray and for starting confirmations and holy communion services being held against government guidelines.

Rawhide and Phonsie


The battle between Church and State continues as Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, Alphonsus Cullinan announced his intention to proceed with the sacraments of Communion and Confirmation in the coming weeks. At present, the Covid-19 regulation state, “ It is advised that religious ceremonies such as Baptisms, First Holy Communions, and Confirmations should not take place at this time.” Places of worship currently remain open for services for up to 50 attendees.

In a statement released last weekend, Bishop Cullinan said “as a Bishop, I must take into consideration: spiritual health and physical health.” He said that with “thousands being officially allowed at sporting events”, he can see no reason for the sacraments not to proceed.

Hitting out at NPHET and the government, Bishop Cullinan said the communication from them “leaves a great deal to be desired” where celebrating the sacraments is concerned.

He has officially sanctioned parishes and priests within his Diocese to proceed with the celebration of communion and confirmation from mid-August.

(News and Star, Waterford)


Phonsie in an a la carte bishop.

Challenges the moral issues he feels like challenging and ignores the issues that don’t suit his agenda.

Typical RC bishop.




Squatters rights is a crude colloquial expression for what the law itself, calls ADVERSE POSSESSION.

I think the law varies in each jurisdiction but the following things are important:

1. The claimant must have had possession of the property for a minimum of 12 years.

2. The claimant has had exclusive control of the property for that time.

3. The owners of the property must be aware that the claimant is in possession.

4. The claimant must use the property in such a way as to display his intention to own the property

5. The claimant must never have paid rent to the owner.

6. The claimant must not be in possession of the property through any form of force or threat.


In the UK people apply through the Land Registry Agency.

There is a form to complete and a strong body of evidence required.

If you afford a lawyer all the better.

But you can represent yourself as a personal litigant.

Thats not an easy task.

People who want more information on adverse possession can consult the SHELTER housing charity website.

From BBC


When Spanish bishop Xavier Novell resigned last month, the Roman Catholic Church cited strictly personal reasons without going into detail.

It has now emerged in Spanish media that he fell in love with a woman who writes Satanic-tinged erotic fiction.

In 2010 at the age of 41, he became Spain’s youngest bishop, in Solsona in the north-eastern region of Catalonia.

He has backed so-called conversion therapy for gay people and carried out exorcisms.

Seen as a rising star in Spain’s Catholic Church, his decision to resign with the Vatican’s approval came as a surprise last month. He is said to have met several times with Vatican officials as well as the Pope himself.

Xavier Novell was traditional in his remarks on abortion but his strident views on homosexuality and outspoken support for Catalonian independence were controversial.

It came as a shock when Religión Digital reported that he had fallen for divorcee Silvia Caballol, a psychologist and erotic novelist. The news site said that the former bishop was now looking for a job in the Barcelona area as an agronomist.


Caballol’s books include titles such as The Hell of Gabriel’s Lust and the trilogy Amnesia. In the blurb for one of her works, the reader is promised a journey into sadism, madness and lust and a struggle between good and evil, God and Satan with a plot to shake one’s values and religious beliefs.

Neither the ex-bishop, who is now 52, nor the novelist have responded to the reports although Religión Digital quoted him as saying “I have fallen in love and want to do things properly”.

The diocese has since responded by emphasising that “corroboration or not of this story is a strictly personal matter for him alone”.

The issue has again raised the issue of celibacy within the Church. In earlier interviews, Xavier Novell admitted that in his youth he had fallen in love with an 18-year-old girl and he had later wanted to marry and have children before deciding on a different path.

His change of heart has prompted grumblings within the Church. Dominican nun Lucía Caram said he was “out of his mind” and criticised his promotion of “conversion therapy”.


Someone made the point the other day that there is now a great variety show of misbehaviour and deviance among the clergy and episcopate.

I suppose a bishop running off with a Satanic and erotic novelist is a new turn?

And the old Pharisee was promoting conversion therapy for gay people.

As ne granny used to say: bad cess to him.



Were I to believe that Jesus did not found a “priesthood” as some on this blog believe, I think I might also have to believe that I have also wasted the last 51 years of my life since I entered seminary on the 27th September 1970.

So I do not believe I have wasted 51 years and I do believe that Christ founded a “priesthood”, or a certain type of ” discipleship”.

Jesus chose the 12 and sent them out. In each place they went they founded “local churches”.

Very early on members of those local communities emerged as “elders” – both men and women.

As communities grew a “college of elders” emerged for two reasons:

1. The communities were getting bigger and needed “officers” to guide and administer.

2. Many heresies crept in and these elders were there to teach truth and oppose error.

Eventually the colleges of elders chose a senior elder to be their”overseer” (episcopus)

We can see in the Scriptures from the time of Stephen, the developement of the diaconate – both male and female.

This leaves us with the three basic “orders” the deacon, the elder (priest) and overseer (bishop).

It is made quite clear in the New Testament that none of these people were to lord it over anyone else, but to be their brother, shepherd and servant.

We Catholics believe that there are two sources of God’s Revelation – Scripture and Holy ( as opposed to unholy) Tradition.

Cardinal Newman speaks a lot about the “development of doctrine”. Of course, that means that there can be good, bad neutral development.

I believe that the Holy Orders of today – deacon, priest and bishop are in keeping with the practice of the early church.

But other bad things happened:

1. The Christian Church aligning with Constantine and the State – leading the church, very wrongly, to take on the trappings of an empire.

2. The development of the three orders of servants becoming officers of an empire – leading eventually to the creation of a canonical clerical caste and a domineering hierarchical structure.

In one fell swoop, the servants had become the masters 😭


I believe that the “development” of the sacraments was, in itself, in keeping with the intentions of Jesus and the early church.

Jesus was BAPTISED.

Jesus sent the Spirit – CONFIRMATION.

Jesus commanded his followers to break bread – EUCHARIST.

Jesus instructed his followers to bind and loose on earth – PENANCE.

From the beginning Jesus and the early church laid hands in people who were appointed to new ministeries – HOLY ORDERS.

James ordered that the elders pray over the sick – SACREMENT OF THE SICK.

MARRIAGE was a late startes and the church only took it serious from the 12 th onwards.

Of course Jesus never laid down who was to preside over the BREAKING OF THE BREAD.


RC bishops are very wrongly described as “the the successors of the apostles”.

With one or two exceptions, the apostles were NOT the overseeing elders in individual churches.

The apostles were missionary and had a function to perform for all the churches.

John certainly was the overseer in Jerusalem and later Antioch.

Peter’s presence is Rome is not established without doubt and controversy.

Peter was never the bishop of Rome.

The papacy is one of those very, very bad, not Christ intended traditions.


Only a fool would claim that the church, in history, has not added on to the New Testament and early tradition – and not always for good reasons.


The secret for us Christians today is to remove the man made ivy that has overgrown the House of God, and return to the values and practices we find in Jesus and the early church

THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE DIRTY WATER is not the Christ option, in my opinion.




Ger Nash

I watched part of the ordination ceremony from Ferns on Sunday.

I liked the music provided by the women (deliberately?) placed in the sanctuary.

I listened to Ger’s words at the end and I have to say I liked them.

Ger comes across as sincere and kind-hearted.

He spoke about inclusivity and his desire to work with people rather than dominate them.

He seems to like the word synodality.

His problem will be that he has now become part of what a deceased priest friend of mine called: “a bad lot’.

The RC episcopy destroys most of the people admitted to it.

They stop being the people they are and become naaty characters.

Will that happen to Ger?

He has already had his knuckles slapped for openly saying he agreed with the ordination of women.

He is entering a period of emptying pews, a disgraced presbyterate, few real vocations and declining funding.

And his national “leader” is Amy Martin 🤕.

Dear Bible Thumper

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord ( Lev 1:9 ). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 . In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness ( Lev 15:19-24 ). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination ( Lev 11:10 ), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27 . How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? ( Lev 24:10-16 ) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? ( Lev. 20:14 )

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.



Presently, my dear friends Wim and Sharon are celebrating the 25 anniversary of their wedding. I celebrated their marriage at the Temple of the Winds in Mount Stewart, Newtownards in September in 1996.

Wedding Day

Win and Sharon were in Ireland for the summer flying people to various parts of Europe for their holidays.

Captain Wim and Sharon, senior flight attendant.

Weve remained friends all these years and they have visited me and and I have visited them on Lake Simco outside Toronto.

Hilton Hotel Tempkepatrick, a couple of years ago.

In fact I will be going to see them there in the coming weeks to celebrate their anniversary.


1996 was before 9/11 and I had confessed to Wim at the top table on the wedding day that I had a fear of turbulence. He promised to sort that out.

A week later I joined him at Belfast International Airport at 8 am one morning to join him in the cockpit on a return flight to Reus in Spain.

Apart from take off and landing I spent time in the co-pilot seat and marvelled at the equipment and safety features of the Airbus.

On turbulence I was told:

An airplane’s wings can bent 12 feet in either direction so when you see it moving a few inches just think of a bird’s wing flapping.

After the flight and the experience on the cockpit and the new knowledge, I lost all my fear of turbulence.

The whole experience was exhilarating.


This past week the two victims of abuse by Fr J J Murray of Down and Connor got closure as they saw a jury find him GUILTY.

They had waited a painful 40 years for this moment of closure and had been to hell and back.

Murray will be sentenced later this month.



One of Keith O’Brien’s priest victims has said the Vatican is SINNING in keeping the church report of him SECRET.


Surely Brian Devlin, as a former cleric, should know the the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has been burying its secrets for the last 1700 years.



ANY MARTIN has sent a newly ordained Spanish priest to be the curate in Maghrrafelt – where Ayotollah Gates stalks the parish.

The Ayotollah suffers from SMS – Small Man Syndrome and has a chip on his small shoulders that propels him to be as nasty to people as possible.

Sending a newly ordained curate to him is being irresponsible in the extreme.

This young man may believe that all priests are like Gates.

The fact that he is Spainish – a very different culture – will make working with Gates extra painful for him. He is away from his family and fellow countrymen.

Ayatollah Gates

On the other hand Fr Juan is from the Catholic Cult – The Neocathecumenate.

This is a right wing Catholic group with a right wing Catholic agenda.

Any Martin allowed them into Armagh a few years ago as he thought it would give him vocations.

But what kind of vocations?

Right wing ones.

Amy Martin, Gates, the Neocathecumenate and poor Father Juan – a recipe for all kinds of disasters.

Poor Magherafelt!

Apparently, other Armagh priests refused to go to Gates?




Fr Paul, Lola and Millie.
Fr Richard

AS A SIGN OF THINGS RETURNING TO NORMAL the parish priest of Knock, Richard Gibbons, in on holiday in Cork with his best friend, Paul Bennett and Paul’s pooches, Lola and Millie.


Apparently, in the last few days they were able to take a boat trip out of Cobh to explore the second-largest natural harbour in the world and its nooks and crannies.

A couple of years ago Fr Bennett took a sabbatical from Cloyne diocese and unusually, spent it helping Fr Gibbons at Knock.




Yesterday the funeral of Monsignor Olden took place at Mount Melleray.



Watching the funeral I observed two things:

1. That Purcell does not look like a man at peace with himself.

2. The body launguage between Purcell and Phonsie is the body language of close friends.


Crotty in African costume


I would like to thank the West of Ireland donor for their generous donation received yesterday.



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“.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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.


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.


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.


Fr McNeill’s book is a MUST READ.

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



It would be nice to know WHO and WHAT we are dealing with.



The archbishop of Liverpool wearing a 50 long purple train.

Mc Mahon


I have no problem with people making speeches or preaching on the streets. That is freedom of speech.

But I have a problem with people inviting hatred against individuals and groups.

These Larne preachers are always condemning gay people.

I think that gay people, and all people, should be free to walk in public without their secual ori.entation etc being condemned by loudspeakers.

I believe that such speech should come under hate speech legislation.

I also think that people should keep their religion for their home and their place of worship.

Yesterday, another of these preacher types told me that he had banned his daughter’s same sex partner from the family home.

If God is love, how can a parent turn his back on his daughter and family.

This is hypocrisy.

As someone said on the blog the other day – FUNDAMENTALISM without the FUN.

In society we neex to be SECULAR and PLURAL and shove the foaming at the mouth taliban types back into their church buildings.