Saturday, March 24, 2012

That Issue, again


The dear old Elena Curti in her magazine's blog is suggesting their should be more "Soho Masses". There is an interesting comment on what had happened with a similar Mass in Leicester.
The reason that mass in Leicester was scrapped was that there was an agreement with the local bishop, himself Dominican like the priory church in which it was held, that the masses could be held as long as they weren't used to campaign against Church teaching and that this agreement was not apparently adhered to.
The problem isn't the sexuality of the congregation, we Catholics recognise that "all have fallen short of the Glory of God" Rom. 3:23, the problem is dissent, how interesting the The Tablet wants to foment dissent, especially on this issue.

Deacon Nick reports, "Terence Weldon, a leading member of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council, recently reaffirmed by Archbishop Nichols, has posted the unfounded accusation that Pope Benedict is a homosexual on his blog." Weldon, also accuse Paul VI of be a homosexual, I hadn't heard that one before but apparently everyone else did.

Brendan O'Neill has an interesting piece on what has happened in Canada following the legalisation of gay marriage.
Anyone who thinks the introduction of gay marriage will give rise to a new era of liberty and choice should look at the Canadian experience. There, the passing of the 2005 Civil Marriage Act, which allows same-sex unions, unleashed a phenomenal amount of state meddling in families and relationships. Most notably, the state utterly overhauled the traditional language of the family, airbrushing from official documents terms such as "husband" and "wife" and even "mother" and "father". The Orwellian obliteration of such longstanding identities, which mean a great deal to many people, demonstrates that modern politicians are more than happy to ride roughshod over the majority in their desperate pursuit of some PC political points.
The Lib-Con consultation on gay marriage has hinted that words such as "husband" and "wife" could soon become a thing of the past, to be replaced by the sterile and soulless "spouse". In Canada, they've already done this. Following the passing of the Civil Marriage Act, all official documentation and legislation was amended, erasing "husbands" and "wives". And because same-sex couples primarily use reproductive technology to procreate, some Canadian legislation has been amended to replace the term "natural parent" with "legal parent". As one report describes it: "In short, the adoption exception – that who is a child's parent is established by legal fiat, not biological connection – becomes the norm for all children." Most strikingly, on birth certificates some Canadian provinces have replaced the term "father" and "mother" with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2".

30 comments:

cityslicker said...

LONDON VIGNETTE

I am talking to my sister, and she mentions that she's been to Mass at the weekend in Brighton. I ask her where, but she's not sure.

"They were all dressed in the old-fashioned way, and the priest gave an impressive homily. Lots of Latin."

"Ah," say I. "There's only one church that could have been."

I switch on the computer and show her Fr Blake's picture on his blog.

"Yes, that's him!"

"Thought so."

Sixupman said...

It is that LGBTs see themselves everywhere and are always 'outing' people to progress their cause.

Some years ago, whilst working in the City, I attended Evening Office at the Priory and a joy it was. Some years later, I returned and was left completely cold and I am not referring to heating.

New Catholic said...

How obsessed, and self-obsessed, these people are, goodness...

I wonder what will be the next group with an objectively disordered condition that will form their own club... Non-practicing cleptomaniacs? No, they have their own club: Parliament (Congress).

gemoftheocean said...

Regards Paul VI: I find it's a given when talking to a certain subset of gays that they always assume anyone over 25 who's never been married is a homosexual. Even if it isn't remotely true, they'll insist the person was a 'closet' one. No use arguing with them. They'd sooner believe snakes walk on legs.

Physiocrat said...

This is easily dealt with. Let anyone who want their own mass have the EF in accordance with the calendar, no sermon and the readings in Latin.

Then there cannot be any argument, can there?

Problem sorted.

Jacobi said...

If “gay Masses” are, as the term suggests, for those who practise same sex, (as opposed to celibate friendships), then such people are, objectively speaking, living in a state of mortal sin, as indeed are many other Catholics, such as those co-habiting , living in illicit marriages, or just doing what young people often do.

That they should go to Mass and pray for a good outcome is fine, provided they do not receive Communion!
Receipt of Holy Communion by those in a persistent and knowing state of mortal sin, is a further mortal sin, and may be verging on sacrilege.

If reception of Holy Communion by practising same sex people attending these Masses is the norm, then these Masses are a scandal and must also be verging on the sacrilegious.

The clergy who allow them will be answerable.

By the way this is not a “traditional” interpretation – just an orthodox Catholic one.

Aaron Saunderson-Cross said...

New Catholic said...

How obsessed, and self-obsessed, these people are, goodness...

I wonder what will be the next group with an objectively disordered condition that will form their own club... Non-practicing cleptomaniacs? No, they have their own club: Parliament (Congress).

> 'Kleptomania' is an officially recognised disorder, whereas homosexuality is not.

Yes in 1986 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted the homosexual condition as an 'objective disorder' however this was I believe a moral evaluation and not a pathological evaluation (and indeed homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association).

Homosexuality is not an illness and thus it should not be compared with what are genuine illnesses (or pathological conditions at any rate).

Sorry to interrupt this conversation.

Amfortas said...

Golly Gem, your gay friends must really like you. You're so non-judgmental about them.

John Fisher said...

For many LGBT's, becausee they move is a world of where seeking emotional reassurance through sex is a norm. Everyyone is "gay" or should be. (Misery like company). Archbishop Nichols as with Cardinal Hume never grasped that the Soho Masses are not about the Church showing compassion as much as those that attend accepting the Church on their own terms. The Church that profanes itself to reach out neither respects itself or those it reaches out too. Did Christ say to the woman caught in adultery keep on and I will pretend I can't see it NO NO NO>
As for the removal of homosexuality as a dosorder by the APA. Many members disgreed with it and the reason given for the change by the APA were so as to reduce discrimination, not to promote or heal " intrinsically disordered" behaviour that results in depression, suicide and self destruction. Four males I have known have killed themselves because of the lack of real love they found in the "gay" life! The use and abuse of self and others results in this.

Lynda said...

Disordered sexual attractions are not part of a person's identity and one ought not to describe a person in terms of any they may have. They are not inherent. It is a political ruse and an intimidatory tactic to assert otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Terence Weldon and Elena Curti are living proof that the 'art' of treachery is not yet dead. But as Pius X said about them (the modernists) in Pascendi;

(1) "...feigning a love for the Church"

(2) "...none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts"

(3) "...craftily....they....lead the unwary into error"

Whenever I read Terence Weldon's words I think I'm reading the words of Darth Vader. Just when you think he's gone as low as he can get he pulls out all the stops and goes even lower.

BJC

Amfortas said...

What is a 'practising same sex person'?

Amfortas said...

Identity is a social thing. It doesn't have to relate to anything intrinsic. 'Homosexual' and 'homosexuality' are, after all, nineteenth century words and would have made little sense in an earlier age. However, the notion that sexual attraction (disordered or not), as opposed to sexual identity, is not intrinsic is difficult to argue. I can't see how, empirically, it can be argued.

nickbris said...

Now we can be in no doubt as to how the "Marriage Question" got onto the Tory Party agenda without any warning whatsoever.

Somebody with deep pockets has obviously "influenced" Dave.

The whole lot of them are corrupt,they just can't help themselves.

They will go to any expense to marginalise the investigative journalists but Thank God we have people who will pursue these CORRUPT POLITICIANS and their sticky-fingered minions.

georgem said...

Interesting to note that the man who set up a (poorly supported)counter petition to Coalition For Marriage has slammed the 300,000+ signatures the "one man, one woman" petition has already garnered.
"Equality shouldn’t be just mob rule," he says.
So much for democracy.
He goes further: "“There are things that are fair and right and should be done."
But only if you agree with him.

edward said...

Sixupman - I am all for outing - have you wondered why so many of our clergy have remained silent, not a whisper? You wonder what skeletons they are keen to keep closeted. If outing purifies the priesthood, then bring it on.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I wonder if edward has ever heard of the sin of detraction. We have all committed sins; do we need to broadcast them or gossip about other people's shortcomings?

gemoftheocean said...

Amfortas: You seem to have difficulty in understanding the difference between the statement 'all gays' and 'a subset of gays.' Try an online dictionary for the word 'subset' as this is the word with which you seem to have a problem.

---
Aaron, I believe you are under-informed regarding the declassification of homosexuality as dis-ordered. You have to understand the background of what lead up to that: i.e. gay rights activists harassment of psychological conventions in the years prior to that -- the issue was far from settled as a consensus. You may find studies referenced in this article useful.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Gemoftheocean.

Kleptomaniacs have something quite missing in the other group: a sense of shame. But perhaps they could lobby the medical associations for a review of their status as some sort of "disorder". When the disorder is no longer "officially" recognized as such, it is not a disorder at all, but a righta and a mark of identity.

Lynda said...

The "declassification" by the APA was a blatantly ideological decision with no clinical basis. Just as for the school of thought that renders religious assent as a neurosis. Psychiatry, as with so many fields of enquiry, has been severely compromised by ideological agenda. The matter of homosexual attraction has been wholly taken over by relativist ideologues whose intent is to normalise such inclinations and behaviour. The tendency to sexual attraction to the opposite sex is an integral part of a person's sexual nature, and their identity as a man or woman.

Anonymous said...

Gem, I was being a little cheeky. But somehow I think you knew this.

John Fisher, people commit suicide for lots of complex reasons. For every person who has committed suicide because of the 'gay life', you could probably point to many more who committed suicude because they had been told repeatedly that they were 'intrinsically disordered' (or some equivalent term). I have no way of proving this but I think it is likely.

Aaron Saunderson-Cross said...

Gemoftheocean how dare you give me an American Protestant Lutheran's rantings on homosexuality to read! I want absolutely nothing to do with it nor his studies you refer to.

If you have a scientific study or journal (or Catholic! resource) then I might look at it...but I afford little credence to the rantings of a man who - judging by the Christian Research Institute he writes for - is seemingly OBSESSED with homosexuality as an illness/ disease.

I am saddened that any Catholic would allow their opinions on such important issues (such as homosexuality) to be informed by Protestant American apologetics who want to further an anti-gay homophobic agenda (and yes - if you're a fan of Joseph P. Gudel you may well be inclined to believe that 'homophobia' is just a fiction of gay propaganda).

Pax.

Edward, Versailles, PARIS said...

Dear Mr Bellord - I am aware of the concepts of distraction and hypocricy. We all know that there is sexual immorality among both clergy and laity - such immorality either leads a cleric to keep silent when he should be preaching the truth, or worse to exhort others to lead a life that he is not even attemptimg to live. Both situations wound the church and it is far better for clergy who can not live celibate lives to leave, then continue in ministry and wound the body of Christ. Mr Peter Tatchell does the church a great favour in exposing priests who don't live up to their sacred calling. He lances the boil, and leaves us with a purer, fitter church.

Amfortas said...

Father, my comment starting, 'Gem, I was being a little cheeky...' was posted as being from 'Anonymous'. I'd like to be clear that the comment is from 'Amfortas'.

Amfortas said...

It's getting on for forty years since the APA changed its position on homosexuality. Isn't it just a little obsessive - and frankly, odd - to be hung up about this change so many years later? It's perfectly possible to accept the APA position that homosexuality is not a disease and subscribe to an orthodox Catholic position. I'd also argue that a natural law position is perfectly defensible despite the APA's position. Give up on the pseudo-science Gem and Linda and stick to philosophy, theology and revelation.

Lynda said...

Fr Blake, I would ask that you not publish comments that include personal attacks on others. As I've said before, such personal remarks are not worthy of your blog, which is of a morally high standard as befits a blog of a Catholic priest. I think allowing such bullying-type behaviour could deter many people, who would otherwise like to comment, from so doing. Such persons could contribute much to a discussion, which discussion ought to be as objective and constructive as possible. It could also cause people to avoid the blog altogether, which would be a great pity. Furthermore, publishing comments aimed against another person would not encourage those who engage in same to desist, or get them to think about the wrong done. A Catholic website is a place where people ought to be able to give a serious (genuine) offering about objective issues without fearing personalised derogatory remarks. Thank you for considering this offering. God bless.

Fr Ray Blake said...

Lynda, It is often difficult to distinguish a "personal" attack from another form of attack, or disagreement, often disagreeing with argument involve disagreeing with person.

Lynda said...

There have been several instances where the person has been addressed (disrespectfully) rather than the issue. I have given my sincere suggestion in the hope of improving/ensuring the moral quality of discourse, and making people welcome and I hope you'll take it on board. Thank you.

Fr Ray Blake said...

Lynda, If people are being offensive please point it out, I often miss the bad mouthed ones.
Nevertheless I think discussions can be robust without being offensive.

nickbris said...

I might be able to agree with Lynda but I haven't got a clue what she is on about.I think I must have had a day off the day they taught Psychiatry at my school.