Gay activists hope pictures of two men ‘marrying’ today will stop million strong protest marches in Paris. Right.

Homosexual activists have expressed the hope that pictures of two men entering into a pseudo-marriage will ‘draw a line’ on the million strong protest marches in defense of real marriage that have been held in Paris this year, the most recent one being held over the weekend.

The Guardian reports:

‘Rights groups hope the pictures of the newlyweds splashed across all media will draw a line under the street demonstrations against same-sex marriage, political rows and clashes between opponents and police that have overshadowed the passing of the law. On Sunday, at the last major demonstration against same-sex marriage and adoption, more than 150,000 people marched through Paris and there were 293 arrests after clashes between riot police and far-right groups. Opposition to the law, which saw the biggest rightwing street demonstrations in France in decades, took ministers by surprise. The government has warned of a resurgence of far-right groups on the fringes of the protest movement. Tensions were exacerbated by the suicide last week of a far-right essayist, Dominique Venner, who shot himself dead at the alter of Paris’s Notre Dame cathedral on Tuesday after leaving a blogpost railing against immigration and the “vile” law legalising same-sex marriage.’

Protect the Pope comment: If just the prospect of marriage being turned into a travesty can bring a million people onto the streets of Paris to protect marriage, why do these gay activists think that pictures of marriage being mocked in this way by two men simulating marriage will calm things down? We must pray that all decent people who feel passionately about defending marriage remain committed to peaceful, non-violent protests in the face of this provocation. The politicians, media and groups committed to spreading sexual deviancy would like nothing better than this peaceful movement to be hijacked by violent extremists.  The Guardian report shows how the liberal media are attempting to ‘demonise’ the defenders of real marriage as sinister far-right thugs.

Here are some pictures of last weekend’s million strong march in defence of real marriage:

Manif 4

Manif 2

92 comments to Gay activists hope pictures of two men ‘marrying’ today will stop million strong protest marches in Paris. Right.

  • Tony Flavin

    They are not just dealing with a million strong marchers, they are dealing with the Holy Spirit too. Bon Chance avec cet.

    • Wake up England

      I find your comment puzzling and somewhat unclear. Which side do you suppose the Holy Spirit is supporting? Careful reading of your comment suggests ambiguity.

      Yesterday you posted on Protect The Pope that those wanting to know more about Call to Action should “join them”.

      The overall slant of your comment would lead the reader to suppose you are sympathetic towards a Call to Action.

      You are a deacon of the church.

      Call to action supports the ordination of women to the priesthood and “Gay Marriage” See their website for full details: cta-usa.org

      Are you a member of a Call to Action Deacon Flavin? Do you support their aims?

    • Peter Northcott

      Hi Tony.
      Thank you for your past couple of day’s posts. I’ve been too angry to post in response to the childishness displayed here – and at the ACTA website. Both seem to be as bad as each other! It wouldn’t matter so much if they were 10 year olds squabbling in the playground, but these are supposedly adults!

      I find it fascinating that Traditionalists and Modernists seem to be expressions of distinctive personality types more than of any truth and error. They simply clash and alienate each other, increase division, and polarise every discussion in what seems to be their quest for dominance over the other. True to type, Traditionalists tend to get pedantic and prissy whilst the Modernists get surly and sarcastic…

      Fr Roger Landry posts sense today on CERC, especially part II of the piece:
      http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re1185.htm

      “Such unredeemed behavior — found regularly in personal conversations, blogs, comment boxes and Internet video analyses — “mutilates the message” of the Christian faith and scares people away from it, [Cardinal Bergoglio] said. Firing vitriolic criticism at those with whom one disagrees is not the path of the reform of the laity and the Church.”

        • Gurn

          Still has not answered the question, which means I’ll just have to assume from your silence that you are indeed a deacon who supports ACTA which is nothing short of a disgrace. With regards to the issues on contraception, homosexual ‘marriage’ and divorce and remarriage Rome has already spoken and it is case closed. If they don’t like that and are so utterly against what the Church teaches then it is advised that they orientate themselves towards the Protestant churches.

          I read the written links and I must say if you didn’t spot the comedy in them then you have no emotion.

      • Wake up England

        Anyone reading recent posts on this blog will see nothing but courteous correspondence from everyone; apart from Deacon Flavin’s numerous words to me, which, I fear come into the category of “Firing vitriolic criticism at those with whom one disagrees”

        • John Dare

          Is this an example?

          ‘Benedict Carter
          May 30, 2013 at 10:17 am · Reply
          The sodomite priest is Lucifer’s storm-trooper.

          We all know these people are in a deep, mysterious way suffering from a form of mental illness.’

      • Gurn

        Are you seriously just going to point the finger at both camps and say “you’re both wrong and I am right” like Mr Spotless who is frankly extremely condescending towards both sides, like an army officer who refuses to get dirty in the trenches and instead spits on everyone from his pedestal.

  • Karla

    Before I started hearing about these pro traditional marriage marches in France, I thought France was probably one of the most secular countries in Europe, but what these marches have exposed is an underlying traditionalism which has been unseen by much of the outside. Even though homosexual ‘marriage’ was been ushered in by the French government, a revolution of traditionalism appears to have re surged in France among the grassroots and the youth are a prominent part of the pro traditional marriage movement.

    French, Catholic And Proud: Gay Marriage Battle Fuels New Kind Of Youth Revolution:

    http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/french-catholic-and-proud-gay-marriage-battle-fuels-new-kind-of-youth-revolution/catholics-religion-politics-nicolas-sarkozy-gay-marriage/c3s11793

    French marriage activists vow to fight on:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-marriage-activists-vow-to-fight-on

    • Karla

      I hope whoever attacked him is caught by the police.

      • Jadis

        This happened prior to April 10th. How is it relevant? De Bruijns was attacked in the 19th Arrondissement – which, as any fule no, is a rather lively little suburb where the gendarmes rarely venture. It is a haunt of crack dealers. Their clients are prone to violent overreactions. Of course the other inhabitants of the 19th include a large number of Somali and Afghan refugees, who may have strong views on the subject of the human rights of Dutch librarians to walk arm in arm down the street.

    • D Newman

      [sorry - a problem with my comment which is reposted below]

      I agree heartily with Karla’s comment above. This was without question a horrifying crime whose perpetrators must receive just punishment.

      On the other hand, (if, as I feel, though am ready to be corrected, that this is what Mr. Dare implies) they are unlikely to have anything to do with the Manif Pour Tous, which has repeatedly denounced prejudice and violence. No secret is made of the many homosexual people who have joined the movement. And at the foot of its website (http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/fr/) is the categorical statement:
      ‘La Manif Pour Tous condamne tout acte violent, toute expression d’homophobie ou d’intolérance quelle qu’en soit la forme.’
      (‘The Manif Pour Tous condemns any violent action, any expression of homophobia or of intolerance, regardless of the form it takes’.)

      and, referring to an attack on one of its own activists:
      “ De son côté, La Manif Pour Tous avait très fermement condamné l’agression subie par Wilfred. ”
      ‘For the part of the Manif Pour Tous, it had [before this attack] condemned, very firmly, the attack that Wilfred underwent’.

      In any case, thugs seldom feel the need to wait for anybody else’s encouragement.

  • Joseph Matthew

    Contraception leads to “equal/gay marriage”. Only the Catholic Church sees this.Not the Muslims. Not the “far right”.

  • Joseph Matthew

    I have just visited the excellent Lifesite web. Girl involved in sexual relationship with 14 year old girl is a homosexual icon. The Palme d’Or winner is a lesbian film involving 15 year old. What is going on ? What can we do apart from praying the Rosary ?

  • D Newman

    Deacon Nick,

    Last Sunday’s demonstration was the sixth ‘Manif pour Tous’ event that I have witnessed. I watched with as critical an eye as possible. And for the sixth time I can say that along the entire length of the march, among the thousands of whole families, the elderly couples and the bands of young people, I encountered not a single thing – neither banner, nor song, nor gesture, nor exchange – which could be called prejudiced or offensive or violent or dangerous, nor anything disrespectful to or inappropriate for children. Young people were playing instruments and leading chants, elderly citizens were waving flags in their windows, and the atmosphere was cheerful and uplifting. No violence at all has taken place during these marches; the scuffles that the media report took place after the dispersal (in last Sunday’s case, an hour and a half later), and therefore probably the work of extremists.

    The numbers were enormous once again. As on the 13th of January and the 24th of March, three long cortèges crossed the city towards the Invalides (where the above photographs were taken). I turned up nearly an hour late at one of the starting points and people were still streaming in. Moreover, the above images do not by any means include all the participants. Behind the camera, on the other side of the Invalides, I was among I think several thousands more watching on two big screens.

    In other words, a significant proportion of the French people, having made coherent and reasonable requests in a decent and well-behaved manner, has been disregarded (see today’s news), manipulated (distortion of pictures, acceleration of legislation, persistent underestimation of numbers) and misrepresented (C.R.S. brought out in force; official discouragement of families from marching, mutterings about extremism). I cannot pronounce as a Frenchman upon this, but it seems to me that the President and his government have behaved dishonestly and dishonourably; unworthily, I think, even of the very people they seek to help, and certainly of the magnificent nation which they are meant to serve.

    On the other hand, a million people know what he has done. And the Manif pour Tous seems to count among the few things in Europe outside the Church (although I feel that the Faith has played no small part in this movement) which can encourage young people.

  • Lynda

    Marriage is written on the heart and mind of man. Marriage is a natural institution without which humankind cannot flourish or survive. It is the foundation stone of the family, which nurtures, cares for and forms the child, and develops communities and nations. Marriage is an objective reality borne of the objective reality of the nature of man and his complementary sexes. It is not something that can be created or changed by positive law – man-made laws can only recognise marriage for what it is, existing as it does prior to all states. Should it purport to determine what marriage is, it is an invalid law.

  • Lynda

    The truth always has its enemies. Christ – and His Church insofar as it is true to the Faith entrusted to it – will always cause division. There will always be those who refuse to accept His commandments, even though they are accessible to all men of goodwill. Christians and the truth of the Faith will always be reviled by those who want power, prestige, who want honour and acceptance by the temporal elites, etc. Satan has been permitted a time to tempt men away from God, away from the truth.

  • tro

    “Are you a member of A Call to Action Deacon Flavin?”

    Certainly looks that way. Aren’t they a ferociously dissident group?

    • Wake up England

      Dear Deacon Flavin,

      please will you answer this simple question? Do you support ACTA or not? You have repeatedly championed the cause of truth in this blog; so may we now have a truthful answer from you please?

  • Lionel (Paris)

    I repeat:
    May 26, 2013 at 9:39 am
    Same struggle all over the world:
    Please, do not be impressed by the ideological propaganda of this fatal regime (la ripoublique médiocratique en France)!
    More than ever before, let us show our disagreement and keep it in mind when you have to vote!
    We do not protest on behalf of any person, but to defend a specific cause which is important to us, the categorical rejection of the “distortion of marriage” (“la dénaturation du mariage”).
    May 28, 2013 at 5:06 pm
    You have certainly noticed that in Britain the Conservatives, who behave as badly as the socialists in France, support the “distortion of marriage” although in France most of the liberal right politicians pretend to set themselves against this…
    What does this mean? Well, that the demonic freemasons have come together to destroy society and reduce us to slavery under the authority of a centralized and occult world government.
    This single European success goes hand in hand with the politics of destruction that the worldwide politicians lead in countries of North Africa and the Middle East…
    Who is behind all this?… Please, let me know!

  • Can anyone explain what is actually going on? Our political masters whether of the left – as in France- or of the right – as in Britain – seem intent upon imposing this travesty upon us without democratic mandate and in the face of considerable popular opposition. This, surely, has nothing to do with “people power” and everything to do with the will of an elite minority?

  • Wake up England

    This comment was not made by me, Deacon Nick. Can you see who posted it? It has most certainly not come from me. Rather sinister

    • Deacon Nick Donnelly

      To all readers of Protect the Pope, Wake up England did not make the comment ‘I must apologise to Mr Flavin and Mr Northcott for my rudeness. I was wrong and my manner unbecoming.’ This comment was made by someone masquerading as Wake up England. I’m not suggesting that Deacon Flavin and Mr Northcott are involved in any way in this fraud. This ‘hacking’ of a reader’s identity has never happened before on Protect the Pope, and I think it significant that it has occurred in support of people who are critical of Protect the Pope. I have removed the fabricated comment. Deacon Nick

  • Wake up England

    Whoever posted this comment using my name should remember the commandment “Thou shalt not bear False Witness against thy neighbour”. I am your neighbour and you have done me a grave injustice. You do not serve yourself well; or this worthy blog; nor the people who read it. Evil is in the air here.

  • Wake up England,

    What in heaven’s name are you talking about? You have been clear, direct, and forthright to Tony Flavin but in no way have you been rude. I rarely post here but your apologizing for nothing is frankly bizarre.

    There is a psychological trick of repeating something over and over and over again until the recipient believes it. In this case, Messers. Flavin and Northcott have got you admitting to something you didn’t do. Please stop it! You are a remarkable defender of the faith and apologizing to people who have been pretty obnoxious to you is ridiculous and only strengthens their hand. Next time you forcibly defend the faith they’ll be saying, “See, he’s at it again” – their usual trick of attacking you personally instead of dealing with the issue at hand. If you let these people set the terms of the debate you might as well chuck this blog and go play Bridge.

    • Wake up England

      Dear Annie,

      How very nice of you to have posted your comments. Thank you.

      As you will see in Deacon Nick’s comment below I did not make this apology. Someone masquerading as me posted it! I brought the facts immediately to deacon Nick’s attention and he has dealt with it swiftly and sensibly. [Moderated by Deacon Nick)

      Please pray for Deacon Nick and this blog which defends and champions real Catholicism in the face of dissent from within and attack from without.

      Saint Michael the Archangel please vanquish A Call to Action; and Our Lady of the Clergy please pray that our good and holy priests (and people) may not be seduced by their snares of error.

    • Wake up England

      My dear Deacon Flavin:

      Perhaps you could tell us where we might find ACTA’s website?

      There appear to be several websites and blogs bearing this name, but none appears to contain (as far as I can see) any comments from you.

      Doubtless I am looking in the wrong place. R.S.V.P.

        • Wake up England

          Thank you, Deacon Flavin, for posting the ACTA website address. I am steeling myself up to have a look.

          • Wake up England

            HMMMM……just as I feared: ACTA’s website is quite horrifying. The work of the Devil hiding under the parasol of a reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council (minus the awkward bits, of course).

            “Pick and Choose” the bits you like from real Catholicism and ignore or deny the bits you don’t like – just like the Protestants (or Anglicans as they sometimes like to be known).

            Let’s face the truth, ACTA promotes heresy and misleads priests and people. It is a pernicious institution at odds with God’s holy church.

            I can find no comments from Deacon Tony Flavin within its mire. A bit like looking for a needle in a manure heap.

          • If you go to the forums tab and look at the threads on “Women’s ordination” you will find Deacon Flavin defending the faith there.

            Must say, however, it is a paltry website with minimal interest – the forums being very sparsely populated. They are obviously struggling to get supporters and I can’t imagine why the bishops would give them the time of day. Its the same old story of a few aging hippies trying to make waves. They would be unnoticeable if it wasn’t for interest shown in them by the usual misfit journals.

          • Wake up England

            Deacon Augustine: Regarding Deacon Tony Flavin

            That’s as maybe. However if you look at this blog you will see (28th May at 10-01) Deacon Tony Flavin saying

            “If you want to know more about A Call to Action, join them”

            So I think it’s safe to come to the logical conclusion that Deacon Flavin is certainly kindly disposed towards ACTA even if he’s not an actual card-carrying member (and he says he isn’t).

            Given the aims of ACTA (most of which are in direct contradiction with the Church) I find it very worrying that anyone calling themselves a Catholic can belong to, or sympathise with, this organisation. Deacon Flavin teaches (so he openly states on the web) in two schools. I very much hope his sympathies for ACTA’s agenda do not find their way into the lessons he gives to Catholic children.

          • Lionel (Paris)

            Wake up England,
            Obviously, your worry is fully justified!…
            I would not send my children to these schools.
            Best wishes LD

        • I enjoyed your exchanges with Terence Weldon on “Women’s ordination”, Deacon Flavin. He’s not strong on checking his sources, is he?

    • Wake up England

      By the way Annie, how do you know I play Bridge?

  • Tony Flavin

    Thank you, I appreciate it. I am not a member of ACTA, if you look deeper into the website you’ll find me challenging some of their ideals (let’s call them that). It’s the earnest responses to my questions that make me appreciate they too deserve earnest responses.

    You might consider this also, one of the core group is a Catholic priest who has an EF Mass at his church once a month. “Big deal” you might say, but how many are there that do this compared to not?

    Christ lead people to the truth, the evil one leads them to derision, division and cowardice in the face of charity. What one do you think we should be trying?

  • Lionel (Paris)

    C’est la photo du jour, prise dimanche 26 mai sur l’Esplanade des Invalides :

    Too many unemployed? There is one solution: make them count by the police!

    image003.jpg

  • Joseph Matthew

    Deacon Nick, I know that your blog and the comments are read by some who are confused. So once again let me remind Deacon Flavin that division is caused by those who reject the teachings of the Church. Call to Action is not Catholic. Catholics for Choice is not Catholic. The majority of those peacefully demonstrating in favour of traditional marriage in France happen to be Catholic. And God bless them. May they be an example to us.

  • Peter

    Nick
    I think it is inappropriate to place someone’s email address publicly. Even though their actions were wrong and their comment was rightly removed, I don’t think it charitable to display a persons private email on a public blog even under these circumstances.
    Peter

    • Wake up England

      Well I’m afraid I disagree with you there Peter.

      Identity theft is a serious matter and contrary to the eighth Commandment.

      As your name appeared in the “Hoax” and you’re swift in your defence of the perpetrator perhaps you know something about it?

      If you do, it would be honest to come clean.

      • Peter

        Wake up England
        I’m sorry to dissapoint you – I didn’t even see the message so if my name was mentioned its news to me.
        I agree with you, whoever posted was wrong to do so (I stated so in my post) what I wrote was my opinion that a personal email address should not be placed on a public blog without at least a warning from the blog manager. So let me be very clear to you, the said post was nothing to do with me.
        And just to be very clear I support much of what A Call To Action stand for. I am not a member presently but I may join in the future. I know some of the religious who are members of CTA and they are sound. If you really wish to understand their position I suggest you read Fr. Gerry Hughes book, the philosopher and not the spirituality writer, ‘Fidelity without Fundamentalism’.
        Peter

        • Wake up England

          Peter: It is disingenuous of you to claim “I didn’t even see the message”. the message you claim not to have seen was quoted in full by Deacon Nick. Of course you have read it.

          Call to Action promotes numerous and varied departures from Catholic Teaching. Anyone interested can view their website for details.

          You appear to believe that you can “pick and choose” which Catholic dogmas you accept, and which you reject.

          The Catholic faith is not like that. It is not an a la carte menu from which you may choose; you must have the full menu with all courses or go to another restaurant.

          Are you a Catholic?

          • peter

            Wake up England

            I say again I didn’t see the message, I glanced at Nick’s comment but that’s all – nothing more, zilch, nada, nothing. So please don’t tell me what i read or did not read.

            I understand what CTA stands for, their website is not particularly radical, I have seen real radical catholicism when i lived and studied in The Netherlands. I am a catholic, i was born into catholicism, all my education has been catholic. I have studied both philosophy and theology (specialising in theological method) at Catholic university to post graduate level and lived in religious community in the UK and overseas. So i can say i am sorta catholic and please don’t tell me to visit another restaurant.
            I have problems with some of the teachings of our church, but i think that applies to most catholics that i have ministered to. I have met nobody who believes everything the church teaches. And I’m fine with that. I don’t believe in excommunicating people.

            i hope all that is clear?

            peter

          • Wake up England

            To Peter:

            The current edition of “A Simple Prayer Book” has the act of Faith thus:

            My God I believe in You and ALL YOUR CHURCH TEACHES, because you have said it and your word is true”

            You may not make up your own “Catholicism” by “not believing” in excommunication. Our Lord made the Church’s rights and responsibilities quite clear when he told St Peter “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained”. He also gave the power to Bind and Loose.

            Some of the Church’s teachings are difficult; some we may not understand. But we must believe them. There’s no Picking and Choosing. That’s what Our Separated Brethren go in for. You should know better.

            How arrogant of you publicly to dissent before a world-wide audience . Why do you think you know better than the Church, Peter?

          • Lionel (Paris)

            Excellente réponse!

  • Benedict Carter

    The sodomite priest is Lucifer’s storm-trooper.

    We all know these people are in a deep, mysterious way suffering from a form of mental illness.

  • Benedict Carter

    Various people have asked where this tidal wave of sodomite filth, including “marriage”, comes from.

    “From hell” is the ultimate answer, but as far as this earth is concerned, look no further than the Masons. It’s all in the Alta Vendita.

    The West has had it. There is no surer mark of the collapse of a civilisation that the glorification within it of sodomy. It means that the moral compass has certainly failed, become spiritually blind, is unable anymore to see the truth.

    I have been posting on Catholic blogs for six years. Throughout that time I have noted a very strong identification of interest between the militant homosexual, the militant atheist and the Vatican II supporter. All these find a natural common cause against the Traditionalist Catholic.

    I myself don’t need any more proof to be certain that that Council is as deeply flawed at its heart as is the emotional/character makeup of the homosexual: in a real way, they mirror each other.

    That this ACTA group seek to overturn Catholic moral teaching in favour of sodomy and other (mortally) sinful behaviour, and trumpet its support for Vatican II, is entirely coherent and surprises me not one jot.

  • “Gay activists hope pictures of two men ‘marrying’ today will stop million strong protest marches in Paris.”

    It is hard to believe that these young men (and young women) who have been beaten by the police, received tear gaz and/or been held in custody for no reason, will simply forget about it and return to business as usual. Not to mention the many others who have been arrested for simply wearing the Manif pour tous sweat shirt.

    This is just the begining.

  • David T

    Stop exaggerating. This is a picture of 150,000 people during the recent US presidential election, so there was not a million people at Paris demo.

    http://www.3dsbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/150000people.jpg

  • Pedro de Luna

    I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that someone has pretended to apologise on this blog.

    Deacon Nick has rightly removed this offensive comment. Let that be a lesson to any other troublemakers who think they can come here and start apologising to people. It is entirely inappropriate here.

    In my long time following this fine, upstanding, worthy, sensible blog, I have never encountered such behaviour before. I hope this fake apology has not set a precedent of any kind. I for one would be very sad to see an outbreak of apologies and fervently hope we never have to endure such an outrage ever again.

    I apologise for my explicit use of the word “apology”, but where I come from we like to call a spade an apology.

    I would just like to apologise for my previous apology….

    Oh dear.

  • Peter

    Wake up England
    I don’t know better than the church, but in the deepest part of my conscience I profess my faith to God. Always inadequate and always in the knowledge I may be wrong.

    I’m happy being a catholic. Very happy to belong to a church that sometimes gets it wrong. The church has always had various groups within struggling to dialogue to truth. From Paul’s disputes with peter to pre council theologians black listed by the cria then becoming experts at the Council.
    I’m just part of the tradition, no more. I’m constantly in need of God’s grace.
    Peter

    • Wake up England

      PETER:
      Do you maintain that the Church “Gets it Wrong” by reserving to herself the right of excommunication of her members?

      You appear to think tis; or perhaps since you last wrote on the subject you’ve “Dialogued yourself to truth” as you put it.

      I fear Peter you’ve “Dialogued” and deluded yourself into the role of one who seeks to alter the teachings of the church to suit your own Private Judgements.

      Cardinal Heenan it was who said Catholics either have to have the entire menu or go to another restaurant. The Faith is not a dogmatic buffet, Peter.

      • Peter

        Wake up England
        I wrote that the church has a inner-dialogue which helps it discover the truth. We are a pilgrim church, I think we agree? The dialogue I spoke of is part of the ordinary theological narrative of the church.

        The church does ‘get some things’ wrong. There is no doubt about this either, just look at the list of apologies Kohn Paul 2nd made. He was brave to do so. In my opinion excommunication is not a helpful, but the church has a right to use it as it wishes. However the way it is discussed in this particular forum is as a punishment – that is not helpful.
        I do agree that the church needs to form its members will and conscience, but you can’t force someone to act against their conscience. If the church taught taught such things, which it doesn’t, it would be the deepest part of the person (Gaudium et Spes).
        I’ve spent a lifetime of study and prayer in my search for God, and I may be very wrong, but I can live with that.

        Faith is more than believing in a set of dogmas, it is about living ones life is the presence of the crucified and risen Lord. That is a challenge and a joy.
        In Matthew 25 Jesus even tells us what we will be asked on judgement day, it’s very simple really
        Did you feed me, did you clothe me did you visit me in prison. The challenge is that living this way is difficult. The joy is that when you do so you encounter The Lord. For when you do it to the least you do it to Him.
        Peter

        • Wake up England

          Peter:

          What you actually said was that the church has always had “various groups” within “struggling to dialogue to truth”. Furthermore, you give the strong impression that you regard A Call to Action” to be amongst these groups.

          Of course the Church continues to define, interpret and reveal truths (as is her duty and right). Sometimes these truths are arrived at by dialogue, and then formally defined.

          The church has arrived at the decision that “Same Sex Marriage” is impossible.

          The church has made the same dogmatic statement about women being priests.

          These are just two examples of subjects where the “Dialogue” stage of discussion is OVER. The Church has considered and pronounced her findings. Debate is over.

          Therefore ACTA (by their refusal to accept the “dialogue” is over) are being deliberately disobedient to Jesus Christ who has spoken through his church. They are trying to get The Church to change her teachings so that they are more in line with what ACTA believes.

          History demonstrates time and again that the Church does not like groups who disagree with her trying to change the truth. Eventually such groups are excluded until (and unless) they repent.

          ACTA’s agenda is not adding to a reasonable debate. It is wilfully disobeying God and his Church. Of course the church then has the right to expel (and punish) those who would damage her and lead others into error.

          I wonder if I may ask you a question Peter? Do you believe in Hell as described in the Catechism?

          Punishment for wrong-doing is probably the most clearly taught part of our faith. Jesus speaks of it very frequently and uncompromisingly. The Church has a clear duty to warn and punish those who are in danger of Hell; or of sending other people there by bad example.

          “It unkind to see a man walking on the edge of a precipice and not warn him of the need for caution”

          • Peter

            Wake up England
            The point i am trying to make is simply this, within the church fand or many years there have been groups disagreeing with each other. For example, Albert and Thomas Aquinas where in a very small minority when they championed the teaching of Aristotle and used his philosophy to influence their theology. Thomas was excommunicated, however all was settled, Thomas was proven to be correct, and his theology become the foundation of catholic theology. Prior to the second vatican council, John 23rd asked a number of silenced theologians whose works were on the Index of Forbidden Books and faithful members of the curia to put together the schemas for Council discussion. During the council meetings there were great debates and arguments between the bishops about all sorts of things, but the dialogue between different factions gave us many new documents to study and ponder.
            Groups of theologians who have been ostracised by the curia, have often (but not always) been a place of grace One persons prophet is another persons dissenter!

            You are correct that the church deems that same sex marriage is impossible, and at the moment that is her strong opinion and position.
            I think your statement about woman priests could be a little more nuanced, the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the letter by the CDF ‘response to a doubt’ still needs further clarification. Even the pontifical biblical commission was rather ambiguous on the subject. I really believe that one day the catholic church will have women priests but it is a long long way off.

            Your question on hell is profound and so difficult for me to give a short response. The CCC paragraph on is a rather nuanced piece, and rightly so. We profess a faith in a loving compassionate God who looks for the lost ones of humanity, and yet there is little doubt that Jesus speaks of a place where we are separated from God. What this means in reality I am unsure, yes there is a hell – but is anyone in hell? What do we mean when we state Jesus descended into hell? The Good News is proclaimed to all, even those in hell? I don’t believe that we have ever stated categorically that any particular person is in hell.

            This tells me that there is hope for us all and I tend to hope with Hans Urs von Balthasar in some sort of universal salvation through Jesus.

            peter

          • Peter

            Wake up England
            I wish to assure you that I do believe that evil exists on this world.

            And yet – I really don’t know if there are people who do evil in a definitive way and completely reject gods grace and forgiveness. If there are people like this – and it is a possibility- maybe there is a hell, but it is a absolute end of life. So if there is a hell, it is probably empty. I do believe in the catholic notion of purgatory.

          • Wake up England

            Peter:

            Your opinions about the Catholic faith are, by any standards, highly unorthodox and at variance with the teachings of the Magisterium and the Deposit of Faith.

            You have, to some extent, more or less reinterpreted numerous bits of the Catholic Faith yourself.

            I suppose that if Almighty God wanted us all to reach our own personal conclusions about The Truth he would not have organised his Church on Earth the way he did.

            Your newly invented form of Christianity should be called “Peterism” on account of the fact that it is to a great extent all your own opinion and invention.

            What is so very worrying about you is that you publish your personally adapted parody of our Holy Faith as if it were permissible to do so; and at the same time you lead others who read it into doubt and error.

            I fear you will have much to answer for.

          • Peter

            Wake up England

            i have given you sources and shown that these are not just my views, rather they are part of the normal theological dialogue of the church. I do not expect you to agree with them, but they are not a parody. They do not come under the umbrella of ‘Peterrism’ as they are informed thoughts of many great catholic theologians and not just my own personal opinions. There is such a thing as faithful dissent.
            peter

          • Wake up England

            Peter:

            What do you mean “There is little doubt that Jesus speaks of a place where we are separated from God”? Peter, there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT JESUS TEACHES US VERY DEFINATELY ABOUT EVERLASTING HELL. So don’t mislead the readers of this blog by trying to downplay this.

            There is no such thing as faithful dissent. Only in your mind. It’s not a teaching of the Church. Again you’re misleading people into huge error.

            Trying to allay your weird and wonderful re-invention of Catholicism with St Thomas Aquinas gives us all an insight into your huge pride.

            As far as Hell being “empty” is concerned I would rather put my money on Our Lady’s revelation to the children at Fatima. Doubtless, of course, you’ve got some 1970s liberal waffle to explain why our Lady didn’t ACTUALLY mean what she said.

            You and your “Make it up as you go along” religion are very, very dangerous to the immortal welfare of your neighbour.

            May Almighty God protect his Church and readers of this blog from your errors. Amen

  • tro

    “I very much hope his sympathies for ACTA’s agenda do not find their way into the lessons he gives to Catholic children.”

    Absolutely.

    But who’s more likely to promote the teachings of the Church? Someone who accepts and sturdily defends those teachings? Or an apparent camp follower of an outfit whose mission seems to be nothing less than the wholesale destruction of the Catholic Church?

    You make the call.

  • peter

    Wake up England

    The apparitions of Fatima may be ‘worthy of belief’ but they are not part of the deposit of the faith.

    I wrote that ‘there is little doubt’ about Jesus and his words on hell, I should have been clearer, yes Jesus did talk of hell. I really don’t now if anyone is in hell. The church has never definitively stated that a particular person is in hell and maybe and just maybe this shows that a positive eschaton is a possibility.

    Like many others I have studied Thomas all my life, he and Albert are some of the greatest thinkers we have. I suggest you read some of his work. Maybe then you will understand me a litter better. I am not trying to change your position on anything, rather i am simply stating what i believe as a catholic. I know we will not agree but I’m sure if we met we would get on quite well – two people who are passionate about faith can enjoy life over a cup of tea!

    I pray for all people on this blog during Night Prayer – at this time I particularly pray for you. Your strong defence of what you believe is, in my opinion, a grace from God.

    In Christ
    peter

    • Wake up England

      Like most Catholics, I believe what the church teaches.

      I believe what my family have believed for over a thousand years.

      I believe The whole thing without exceptions or additions or distortions.

      If you’re a Catholic then so should you.

      I happen to be very well educated and I am more than familiar with the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas and his use of the Aristotelian model to explain the doctrine of the Real Presence (“Transubstantiation”).

      My defence is not of “What I believe”. My defence is of what the Catholic Church teaches. Pure and simple.

      • Wake up England

        And, by the way, Peter:

        You quite correctly say that we are neither bound nor required to accept the apparitions at Fatima as true. The same is so of Lourdes. Unless (or until) the church says otherwise, we are free to accept, or reject them.

        Interesting, though, that on this issue of the choice of scepticism/belief you align yourself with the teachings of the Church; by which I mean believing in the Fatima or Lourdes apparitions is optional. Fair enough – quote the “Rules”; you’re right on this point, nem con.

        But other issues are nNOT optional beliefs.

        And that’s where you part company with the Church; that’s where “Peterism” begins: Pick and choose dogmas nolens volens.

        And if YOU< PETER, can hold your own views, why can't the next person? And what happens then? "REFORM-ATION". And after that? Someone else decides to "adjust" things further to suit themselves; and their followers rock-on for a few years until there's another split. Before you know where you are we've arrived at the Mormons.

        God's express wish is that we should be one; and you're not helping.

        You, Peter, are very accountable before God for your wilful dissent from his revealed truth. The fact that you have studied the subject at length serves only to magnify your responsibility and guilt.

        • peter

          Hi Wake up England

          Although I never personally chose to visit Lourdes, I have pilgrimaged to Lourdes on many occasions with others and always found it a place of prayer and love.

          I believe in the dogmas of the church in a modern way, that’s all. We can ‘be one’ but that does not mean we all need to be the same.

          My first theology master once asked all students to write down our own creed. We all wrote down heretical nonsense, we did not mean to do so, it was just that we could not put into words what we really believed. I may have studied for a long time – but it is always with others in our for search for God. You seem determined to make me feel guilty and threaten me with hell – please don’t.

          A prayer close to me

          MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road, though I may know nothing about it. Therefore I will trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.
          Thomas Merton

          peter

          • Wake up England

            Well, Peter:

            As you seem so confused about or Holy religion I’ll tell you where you’re going.

            When you die you’ll be judged. Then you’ll either go to Hell or Heaven (maybe via Purgatory).

            The Four Last Things: Death. Jugement. Hell or Heaven.

            I’m afraid your prayer leaves me most unmoved. The beginning of wisdom is fear of The Lord. Don’t commit the sins of presumption or despair. Quite a lot of presumption implied in your prayer.

            And do you really think that by casting doubt and sowing the seeds of dissent in the minds of readers here you’re trying to please Almighty God?

            The difference between right and wrong is often very simple. No need for agonised musings borne of liberal thinking.

            Again I point out to you Our Lady’s vision of Hell: Sure you don’t have to accept the Fatima apparitions as true if you don’t want to; you jumped quickly to point that out. But, as I have said before, I’d rather put my money on Our Lady of Fatima than your religion of “Peterism” which is at sharp variance with the religion Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded.

  • peter

    Good evening Wake up England
    I hope you have had a fine day.

    Jesus tells us what we will be judged on on the last days – his first title was that of rabbi (teacher) and he gave us the questions way before the exam!
    Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
    When i read the above i do question how good a catholic i am, i pray for a merciful judgement.

    Now you seem to be telling me that even my prayers are wrong, will i do anything correctly!? There is no presumption in the prayer i mentioned just honest words. It is not my prayer. It was written by a Trappist monk, Thomas Merton. It is a very well known prayer by a wonderful man of prayer. I don’t know if you know much about him but if you get the chance, his books on contemplation are beautiful. I think you would like him. I’m sure no one is reading this thread now, so i can say that when i did my long retreat (a thirty day retreat of silent prayer with the The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius) i felt very desolate at times. Two prayers helped me enormously, the one by Merton and the other by St Ignatius At the end of the retreat the retreatant is given this prayer by Ignatius and i hope you like it – i use it often. It is called ‘Suscipe’

    Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty,
    my memory, my understanding,
    and my entire will,
    All I have and call my own.

    You have given all to me.
    To you, Lord, I return it.

    Everything is yours; do with it what you will.
    Give me only your love and your grace,
    that is enough for me.

    There is no such thing as Peterism, just faith seeking understanding – although i know we wont agree with the way i understand things!

    You shouldn’t accept and believe what i write, you have found holiness, but … we are both catholics.

    May the Lord grant us a quiet night and a perfect end.
    peter

    • Wake up England

      Peter

      You refer to the Corporeal Works of Mercy. We were taught them off by heart at seven or eight years old. Without looking them up, can you recite them all?

      Our blessed Lord also said (which you conveniently ignore) the less jolly part of the teaching, which clearly states those who fail go to Hell. The teaching is crystal clear; no room for wiggle at all. But of course it doesn’t fit in with Peterism (which does exist because you’ve created it).

      The real Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Hell. Simple.

      It also teaches the sin of Presumption. Simple

      Presuming that no-one goes to Hell is very dangerous; and promoting such a view here on the web is a Grave Matter. Simple

      As I continually repeat, Peter, I’d rather believe the orthodox teaching of the Church and the visions of Fatima; they’re a far better bet than you and your “make it up as you go along” religion of Peterism.

      Really, you’re a small-time protestant with your own eponymous cult. It’s not Catholic. It’s Peterism. Do you have many followers?

      • peter

        Hi Wake up England

        Ah yes the old Penny Catechism – we all learned it by heart. I guess I’m one of the few who still knows it from my class.

        I never said that Jesus does not talk of hell, i said it is a possibility that people are in hell. I said that i hope in a positive eschatology, the church has never stated definitively who is in hell. Do you know different? Name one person that the church states is in hell.

        Just by stating over and over again that there is such a thing as Peterism does not mean it exists. Do you think there was ever a thing called Chenuism, Congarism, John Courtney Murrayism. I am not saying anything outside of catholic theological musings. And i think that is the problem – I have a theological understanding of the dogmas of the church that are more nuanced that yours – not that they are more correct just different – and because i can back it up it irritates you.

        And once again i say to you you should believe what you believe and ignore my understandings. But please don’t state that I make it up as i go along. I have been very fortunate to have been taught by some great teachers and I have not just made the whole thing up. It is rather rude of you to suggest such a thing. I am not a small time protestant – that is an insult to protestants. I have been polite to you all along – please let’s leave it at that.
        peter

        • Wake up England

          “Ah yes the old Penny Catechism” you say.

          “Let’s leave it at that” you say.

          Yes Peter. Let’s indeed leave it at the Penny Catechism. The Truth for ordinary souls.

          Rather better than “make it up as you go along, Peterism.”

          Your obvious Pride is your great millstone. You think you know better than the Church. We’ll see, won’t we? One day.

          Wake up England.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>