Gay lobbyist Peter Tatchell criticizes Pope Francis for using Catechism of the Catholic Church in his answer about homosexuality

Gay lobbyist Peter Tatchell has criticised Pope Francis for referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church in his answer to journalists about gay priests and gay lobbyists:

“Pope Francis has offered a change of tone in Vatican pronouncements on gay people but not a change in substance,” commented Peter Tatchell, director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation. ”The Church’s hardline stance against gay equality and relationships remains intact. It opposes same-sex marriage. The Catechism condemns homosexual love using strident, inflammatory and homophobic language.

“At best, his statement is a shift away from old-style vengeful condemnation and punishment towards a more conciliatory and merciful church. Although he preaches forgiveness, he still regards homosexuality as a sin for which people must repent. This is only marginal theological progress.”

Mr Tatchell added: “The Pope’s refusal to countenance women priests reiterates the Vatican’s age-old assumption that women are inferior and unfit to be spiritual leaders. It is pure patriarchy and sexism.”

Protect the Pope comment: After Sacred Scripture the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most important document of the Catholic Church. Blessed John Paul II wrote in his Apostolic Constitution, ‘Fidei Depositum:

‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!’

So lets get this clear, Peter Tatchell is criticising the Pope for using the approved statement of the Catholic faith and of Catholic doctrine, that is the ‘sure norm for teaching the faith.’ Peter Tatchell is criticising Pope Francis for teaching the Catholic faith!

Protect the Pope comment: By describing the Catechism of the Catholic Church as ‘strident, inflammatory and homophobic’ Peter Tatchell is using the same language that other gay activists use to harass Christians for expressing the apostolic faith in public by reporting them to the police for ‘hate crimes’, public order offences and contravening the Equality Act.  Is Peter Tatchell – the self-appointed champion of human rights – going to report the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the police for its ‘strident, inflammatory and homophobic’ language? No doubt it will only be a matter of time.

117 comments to Gay lobbyist Peter Tatchell criticizes Pope Francis for using Catechism of the Catholic Church in his answer about homosexuality

  • ms Catholic state

    Well at least he realises it’s not a shift in doctrine. That’s something.

    And patriarchy and sexism are made-up pagan sins. They don’t feature in Catholicism where we view all people (not just some people) as equal anyhow.

    • Pedro de Luna

      “They don’t feature in Catholicism where we view all people (not just some people) as equal anyhow.”


      (Wipes tears from eyes.)

      • ms Catholic state

        Catholicism: ALL people are equal.

        Secularism/Paganism: Only some special categories of human beings are equal….the rest are less equal.

        • Wake up England

          Ms catholic State:

          Neither Jesus Christ, nor His Catholic Church have ever taught that “All people are equal”.

          This very modern and secular notion of egalitarianism is exactly what we Catholics MUST NOT believe.

          • One must distinguish. There are respects in which all men are equal and respects in which they are not. All men are equally human. The natural law and the human law derived from it arise from human nature and so before this law all men must be equal. All men do not have identical or equal gifts and therefore we must be free to recognise and and act upon this fact. Spiritual gifts, natural moral achievement (largely) and supernatural merit do not necessarily coincide with man’s natural gifts. Consequently the inequality between men in their natural gifts does not coincide with their moral greatness or supernatural merit. The intellectual soul which is the form of the body is the same in nature in all men and so differences in natural gifts relate to the body not the soul and will cease at death and not be restored in the perfect resurrected body. Then only differences in supernatural merit will have any significance. Sodomy is a grave offence against the natural moral law and it falls within the competence of the state to penalise and discourage it. It does not usually fall within the competence of the state to discriminate against a mere tendency unless this tendency can be ascertained with certainty from words or actions in a context in which it would prejudice some other good (that of a Scout troop or military unit for example). Justice requires that we treat equal things equally and unequal things unequally.

          • ms Catholic state

            Sorry WUE…..but all people are equal in the eyes of God. Are you suggesting that some people are less and some people not so in the eyes of God. Their sins and virtue certainly are not equal…but their individual worth is certainly equal in the eyes of God. That’s why Catholics treat both mother and child as equal….neither one superior to the other.

            It is the modernists ie pagans that believe in the caste system….so cleverly disguised by under their ‘equality’ laws.

          • Wake up England

            ms Catholic state:

            Plainly Men are not equal in the gift god gives them; or the circumstances they are born into. Each of us is entirely unique. We all have different talents, and handicaps.

            Equality is observed nowhere in creation. Not only is each man (& woman) unique, but every leaf of every tree, every grain of sand, every star is unlike any other.

            Our gifts and defects of character are peculiar to each single one of us.

            To claim that “All are equal in the sight of God, He loves us all equally” is palpably untrue. You cannot imagine that Our Blessed Lady, chosen from all eternity by Almighty God to be the Mother of His Only Begotten Son, was not more highly privileged than all other members of the human race. She is uniquely and highly favoured by Almighty God.

            There is a hierarchy of love and affection in the human relationships of Jesus Christ, our Blessed Lord, Who is very God Himself. Plainly St. John was more beloved than the other Apostles, and three of the Apostles – Peter, James and John himself – had a closer relationship to Him than the other nine. Furthermore, those twelve were closer to Him than the disciples.

            Each of us has a unique relationship with God; and we all have different vocations; no-one can fulfil our vocation for us.

            The dignity we all have as humans comes not from our relation to others, or to society, but from the fact that Almighty God has brought us all into being.

            Consider the very unequal hierarchy of Heaven: The Trinity at the top; Then Our Lady; then Archangels; then Angels; Apostles; Saints; then “blessed”. No sign of equality.

            Or the Church Militant:

            The Pope at the top “His Holiness”
            The Bishops

            The Catholic Church most certainly does not teach (as you claim it does) that “All people are equal in the sight of God”.

          • ms Catholic state

            Equality of all men exists in the eyes of God. And in their worth before Him…since He loves us all and has no favourites. And it should do so under the law of the land. The Mother of God is different….in that she was kept free from sin from conception and became the Mother of God. Had she refused to be mother of Christ….then she too would have been our equal.

            You are conflating equality with similarity. Sure, we are all different….but we are all equal in the eyes of God. In Heaven there will be a hierarchy….but we humans were created with equal worth by God. I have yet to hear anybody in the Church preach what you have just said. And I think I will die without ever hearing such a homily. It would be like a homily from the other side.

          • ms Catholic state

            And finally WUE….who said a hierarchy denotes hierarchy of worth. Does God think that the Pope is greater than a pauper. I’m quite sure He doesn’t. In fact….the greatest are called to serve the lowest in the hierarchy.

          • Wake up England

            ms Catholic State:

            Jesus Christ is God. The second person of the Holy Trinity.

            It is palpably obvious by reading the Gospels that he most certainly did not subscribe to your theory that “Equality of all men exits in the eyes of God”. For example (if example be needed) Our Lord quite clearly says of his cousin, St John The Baptist, that he enjoys a unique place in the kingdom of Heaven. It is obvious that St Joseph, as Our Lord’s Foster-father, is held more prominently in God’s affections than someone whom he had never met man-to-man. To suggest otherwise is denying the truth of the Incarnation: that God became Perfect Man.

            The Pope (whatever he may think) is the ONE SINGLE PERSON who has the power of defining doctrines, belief of which are necessary to membership of the Catholic Church. This is not to say infallibility does not reside in the whole body of the Church; it plainly does. But the Pope is the only single person who (under certain circumstances) is individually protected against teaching error. It is, therefore, a sin against truth so proclaim that Almighty God regards the pope as equal to you or me – or a pauper.

            A Catholic priest has the staggering ability to change a wheaten host into the Body, Blood, oul and Divinity of Jesus Christ: true God and True Man. Therefore God does not regard Priests as being equal to Deacons, Sub-Deacons (if they currently exist) or laymen.

            Nowhere in God’s creation is “Equality” to be found apart from misguided humans who seek to impose it artificially, and thereby cause huge problems.

            I fear the latest attempt to make “marriage” equal to all (regardless of their sex) is a sharp reminder of this.

            A persistent grave sinner cannot possibly be regarded as being “Equal” with one who strives, and attains holiness. If both were “Equal” the last judgement would be superfluous.

            Ms Catholic State: I put before you the teaching of the Church. Before 1960 no devout Catholic would have considered questioning it.

            Please will you now show me where the Church teaches your very un-Catholic point of view that “All Men are equal in the sight of God”.

            Lastly: you will be interested to know much of what I have said in this post and the last is a précis of a chapter of “We Believe” by Monseigneur Alfred Gilbey, Promontory Apostolic. The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat given on October 5th By Michael Quinlan JCD and +Thomas, Ep Salf respectively.

            My views on this are those of the church. Where do yours come from?

          • ms Catholic state

            No it isn’t obvious. If it were….I wouldn’t believe in it. God created us all equal (but different) as He loves us all equally. He wishes that none be lost. Nowhere can I find mention of the very pagan idea of the inequality of human beings. Of course….some of us have greater virtue than others….but that’s a different matter.

            I refuse to accept your pagan idea.

          • Wake up England

            ms Catholic State:

            It’s not “MY” idea; it’s the age old belief which is held by traditional and sound Catholic teaching.

            God (Jesus) loved some more than others.

            He certainly wishes none to be lost, that much is true.

            I asked you to find me a bona fide source which supports your (very modern) view on this, but you haven’t done so. May I please repeat the request?

            The traditional Catholic standpoint I have illustrated was written by a Promontory Apostolic who was Chaplain to the undergraduates at Cambridge for 100 terms. His book also has the sanction of the Church to be printed (imprimatur) and the guarantee from the Church that the book is free from doctrinal error.

            “Refusing to accept” the age-old truth – and calling it Pagan – without any intellectual reasoning is hardly an intelligent view.

            Perhaps you are getting Catholic Church teaching confused with the American Constitution (written by Protestants) which does pedal the very un-Christian view that we’re all equal eec etc.

            The fact that God’s Holy Church upholds what is so obviously true clearly has annoyed you; and is perhaps against your political ideals. But trying to make a case for us “All being Equal in the sight of God” is impossible because it simply is not true – whatever Peter Tatchell et al might think.

            I repeat my request for you to produce Bona Fide Catholic evidence to the contrary.

          • Wake up England

            Ms Catholic State:

            Of course I haven’t mentioned the most obvious exemplar: women are not permitted to be priests. This fact is hardly a sign of the Church being Egalitarian.

            It doesn’t like homosexuals being ordained, either. So we’re both in the same boat (I am assuming you are a lady).

          • ms Catholic state

            It IS your idea WUE….because I have never ever heard this view expounded anywhere in the Church….except by non-believers of all types ie racists, religious supremicists, pro-aborts and ideologues of all types.

            Can you show me a single quote that upholds your views?! The Catechism perhaps?!

          • Wake up England

            ms Catholic State:

            As I have said: my post(s) are an accurate paraphrase of part of Chapter 21 of “We Believe” which is a commentary on the Catechism ny Monseigneur A.N. Gilbey, Promontory Apostolic (and chaplain – at Fisher House – to the undergraduates at Cambridge for 100 terms, which is roughly 30 years.

            “We Believe” has an Imprimatur from Thomas, Catholic Bishop of Salford dated October 5th 1982. It also has a Nihil Obstat from Michael Quinlan JCD. No-one can possibly say it is an unorthodox book.

            As the Catholic Herald said of the book in its review:

            “We Believe is essential reading for teachers and parents and all who wish to recall the background and substance of their faith”.

            John, Cardinal O’Conner, Archbishop of New York said:

            “A book to read often, and treasured, for it is like food for those who hunger and water for those who thirst; it helps us renew our faith”.

            The Most Rev Kevin McNamara, Archbishop of Dublin said “”At the same time traditional and contemporary. I warmly recommend this invaluable book”

            May I quote from page 228 of the 1986 edition?

            “The widespread superstition that we are all equal in God’s sight runs counter to the whole Christian philosophy of life”.

            I think I have quoted an undeniably orthodox and reliable Catholic source to support my statements:
            Written by a Priest (a Promontory Apostolic and Canon of Brentwood Cathedral)
            Guaranteed free from doctrinal error by the very orthodox Bishop of Salford.
            Warmly greeted by many orthodox members of the Church.

            NOW, ms Catholic state PLEASE WILL YOU state a similarly bona fide source for the support of your views?

            You won’t be able to, of course, because orthodox Catholic teaching does not support your view. In short, your view is based on the modern, popularist heresy of egalitarianism.

            I am extremely offended by your comparing traditional Catholic belief to (as you unfortunately put it) “non-believers of all types ie racists, religious supremacists, pro aborts and ideologues of all types”.

            I am afraid, Madam, that it is you, and not I, who are at variance with the Catholic Church’s teachings on this matter.

            I’ve put my cards on the table; shew me yours.

          • ms Catholic state

            Thank you Aelinus…..that was very interesting and well written. I hope WUE reads it.

        • Michael B Rooke

          @ ms Catholic State

          The Catechism of the Catholic Church states what you have stated.

          1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

          • Wake up England

            Michael B Rooke:

            This quotation from the Catechism certainly does not in any way whatsoever support ms Catholic State’s declared view that “God loves everyone EQUALLY”.

            I assume you accept Jesus Christ is God.

            It is perfectly clear in the Holy Gospels that Our Blessed Lord loved St John more than the other Apostles. QED

            Does God love a soul in Heaven equally to a soul whom He has justly cast into Hell?

            If you wish to defend ms Catholic State’s misguided interpretation of sound Catholic teaching, then find me a Bona Fide Catholic source with an Imprimatur which says that Almighty God loves all human beings equally.

            I am underwhelmed by the quotation from the Catechism which neither teaches, nor implies any such thing.

            Ms Catholic State has already been gracious enough to admit Our Lady is not equal in God’s affections to Judas Iscariot; but having admitted the principal she refuses to accept the sequential logic that flows therefrom.

          • ms Catholic state

            WUE…..Jesus Christ was Human (and Divine) and loved one of the apostles more than the others. That does not in any way mean that the apostles were of less or more worth. It means that Christ has a special fondness and closeness for one. It doesn’t touch on the merit or worth of the person at all.

            God does love those who choose Hell. He is sorry to see them lost! He will leave the 99 righteous and go out an seek the lost one….but in the end He respects those who choose to be lost. And Our Lady being the Mother of God is closer to God than all others, but maybe she too is of equal worth. Remember Christ’s words….all those who seek God are my family! (In no way do I mean to blaspheme against our Lady here).

          • ms Catholic state

            Thank you Michael for that quote. WUE has provided no quote or teaching at all, indicating that we are not all equal in our worth before God!

          • Michael B Rooke

            @ Wake up England 3 Aug 12.12 am

            It is important not to be led to a view of God that is not true. God is a God of existence. God is Love. The Essence of God cannot vary. The love that God offers to each of us through Jesus Christ is of the same Essence. How we receive that varies according to us. It does not depend on God who offers us undiminished Love.
            If you propose that God is variable in his love you are proposing the voluntarism of a capricious God that is the premise of Islam, that God can change his mind and even will evil. Voluntarism puts action before existence.

            Closely related to voluntarism is a misguided view of predestination. At the Reformation some floundered over the meaning of predestination. An Islamic interpretation of predestination is that because non believers are destined to be damned you are doing the will of God by killing them.

            The Catholic meaning of predestination is that God before creating the universe in effect considered the possibility that man would fall and therefore predestined the of second person of the Blessed Trinity to become man for the salvation of humanity.

            An exegesis on predestination is given by Blessed Pope John Paul II.


            Blessed Columba Marmion beautifully wrote
            ‘It is in Christ-’in Him’- that ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ chose us ‘before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish’ in His, the Father’s, sight. In His love,’according to the purpose of His will,’ He predestined us to be His adopted sons, through Jesus Christ, ‘unto the praise of the glory of His grace’, by which He has made us pleasing to His eyes, ‘in His beloved Son’. (Eph 1 3:6)’

          • Wake up England

            Ms Catholic state:

            Please see my reply to you above (posted at 11.31 on 3/8/13). I don’t know quite why it didn’t follow-on chronologically; perhaps I pressed the wrong reply button.

          • ms Catholic state

            It’s very simple WUE….we are all created in the image and likeness of God. This is the basis of our claim of equality. Of course, after having been created….our choices and decisions are our own….and are not necessarily equal. But that is different to our intrinsic worth….in the eyes of God. Christianity has no meaning without this assumption of the equality of all men in the eyes of God….and as it should be in our law courts.

            Here is a quote from Chesterton…..The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.”

          • Wake up England

            Ms Catholic state:

            You write in the defence of your view “of course after having been created our choices and decisions are our own”.

            If I am created blind, deaf and dumb with a low IQ into a poor family, it is quite impossible to suppose I will have “equality” with, say, Naiomi Campbell or Barak Obama or the King of Tonga.

            If I love God with all my heart and all my strength, God will hold me in higher esteem than someone who desecrates churches and holds satanic Black Masses.

            I quote again from We believe:

            “Consequently, the widespread superstition that we are all equal in God’s sight runs counter to the whole Christian philosophy of life” Imprimateur from Thomas Bishop of Salford 1982.

            has GK Chesterton got an imprimateur?

            Please quote a Bona Fide Catholic source to support the views you espouse. Your views are not in accordance with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church; and merely repeating them will not make them true.

            Please quote a reputable source to support your argument

          • Wake up England

            Ms Catholic state:

            You will forgive me for pointing out that your statement “Jesus Christ WAS human (and Divine) appears to deny the doctrine of
            A) The Resurrection
            B) The Ascension
            C) Everlasting Life

            Perhaps you think that because Jesus Christ was a man, God the Father loved (sic) him no more or no less than He loves you or me?

            I am always (I think justifiably) suspicious of Catholics who speak as if Our Lord were dead.

          • Wake up England

            Ms Catholic State:

            It might be of interest to you to read Rifeleman’s comments on the new heresy of “Equality”. It is posted at the end of this page of comments, and reflects sound traditional Catholic teaching.

          • ms Catholic state

            WUE… have said nothing to convince me of the inequality of human beings in the eyes of God. You can’t even quote me any teaching. You keep mixing up difference with inequality. And it is ‘teachings’ like yours that legitimise the Holocaust and Abortion mills. I have already quoted to you that we are all children of God…made in the image and likeness of God…but you ignore this! I know Chesterton is not infallible….however I trust his judgement more than yours. Sorry.

            It is your views that are not in accordance with Cathoic doctrine, not mine. I’m sticking with mine….until you can prove to me otherwise….which if you haven’t done so by now….you never will.

      • Victoria

        Mr Tatchell added: “The Pope’s refusal to countenance women priests reiterates the Vatican’s age-old assumption that women are inferior and unfit to be spiritual leaders. It is pure patriarchy and sexism.”

        This statement is funny. Has he ever heard about the Virgin Mary or some of the thousands of female saints?

  • Lynda

    Persons ought not to be identified in terms of their temptation to a particular type of sin, no matter how serious. One ought not publicise one’s temptations as it causes scandal and may lead others into sin. One ought to privately, with help from a confessor or others within the Church, strive to overcome temptations to sin in thought, word, act or failure to act. Living according to the tenets of the Faith, receiving the sacraments, etc. gives one the grace to avoid serious sin and work towards holiness.

  • Wake up England

    On behalf of all Homosexuals I unreservedly apologise for Peter Tatchell’s attack on the Catholic Faith and the Holy Father.

    Please be assured, Peter Tatchell does not speak for the silent majority of homosexuals; rather, he has a self-aggrandizing agenda which becomes ever-more hollow as he gets older and becomes increasingly irrelevant.

    One of the most unattractive facets of the disordered state of homosexuality is that Old Queens get ever more noisy and shrill as their looks fade.

    Give it up, Peter dear, Let someone younger have a go. You’re yesterday’s news.

    • Pedro de Luna

      “On behalf of all Homosexuals I unreservedly apologise for Peter Tatchell’s attack”

      You don’t get to speak on behalf of all homosexuals.
      You don’t even get to speak for all openly homosexual homosexuals.
      You don’t even get to speak for all openly homosexual Catholics homosexuals.
      You might just get to speak for all other all openly homosexual Catholic homosexuals who claim to repress their sexuality. You and the other one, wherever he/she is.

    • Wake up England

      Pedro de Lunatic:

      Wrong, dear.

      Quod scripsi, scripsi

      Now calm down and don’t be such a twerp.

    • Sam Mace

      wake up england please do not apologise for me, i have never attempted to speak for you on the issue of homosexuality as it is an incredible personal facet of ourselves which is something we deal with and respond to individually and you cannot speak for anyone but yourself. You and everyone on this forum knows of my views on the church’s teachings on homosexuality and I was very pleased with the pope’s attitude which has the potential to mark a new dawn. I know of many new catholics who want a change in policy on this issue and they were especially pleased as well. I respect your view on this issue but it seems like the church in my view is heading in the right direction.

      • Wake up England

        Sam Mace:

        I shall speak for whomever I wish.

        • Sam Mace

          No actually you shall not, you cannot speak for me you may speak for yourself and those whom you know but you shall not speak for me as it misrepresents me and many others.

          • Wake up England

            Sam Mace:

            Not much you can do about it, really, is there?

          • Sam Mace

            so you are happy misrepresenting a group…. i shall leave that up to you wake up england. I personally feel morally that is deeply wrong. Rifelman i presume the pope can enact change in the church? maybe just maybe he is more progressive than his predecessor and if so surely that is hope for change? :)

      • Rifleman819

        Sam ,
        Sorry….like millions of non Catholics who do not actually understand the RCC ….the pope’s views as an individual can be very different from those on matters of doctrine and definitive teaching when on the exceptionally rare occasions a Pontiff speaks “ex-cathedra” from the See of StPeter.

        The RCC does not have policies-it has doctrine.

        They are not the same.

        • Sam Mace

          policy doctrine is a semantic argument really rifleman

          • Rifleman819

            Sam , Profoundly not.

            The RCC is not like a government dept or even like the Chiurch of England.Its “policy “…for instance on women priests…resulted in the first female ordinations on 13 Mar 1994 as a reult of the policy enacted by the Church of England Synod…….20 years later they are now about to enforce another “policy” of female bishops.

            You misunderstand what the Catholic church actually is ….taking these two “policy” items as examples……….as a Catholic it is not for me to comment on the internal disciplines of the COE-EXCEPT where that body claims a Catholicity to enact matters which have neither the sanction or approval of Rome or the Orthodox.

            It has nothing to do with gender but everything to do with authority.Neither the Pope nor the Patriachate will sanction female ordination because neither has the power or capability “ex officio” to do so.It is a doctrinal matter and not a policy one.

            When Anglicans recite the Nicene creed….it seems that the word “Catholic” means very different things to what Roman Catholics mean.
            And for info…Anglican ordinations are deemed invalid anyway in either gender by both the Orthodox and Roman churches-not policies but doctrinally.

          • Sam Mace

            rifleman the catholic church can change its mind on some things it did on limbo for instance

  • Pat

    Terry Weldon of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council made much the same type of observation on his ‘Queering the Church’ blog.

  • Michael Petek

    If people only knew the eye-watering detail of what homosexual “love” consists in, they might be disgusted with Peter Tatchell.

    The source book for this is Stephen Green’s “The Sexual Dead End”. Not for sale to minors.

    • Marcus Cole

      Ah yes, Stephen Green. A man who wants to overturn the law on marital rape and whose own married life resulted in the hospitalisation of his wife and son after extreme domestic violence.

      Just the sort of man you need to endorse a good Christian lifestyle…

    • Same old, same old

      Nothing written by Stephen Green should be available to minors. I wonder how his marriage is going!

  • Michael B Rooke

    Many attempts have been made to raise idols to replace Jesus Christ.
    Marxists tried to interpret Christ through the lens of Marx. Christ cannot be interpreted through the lens of Marxism. Marx was defeated.

    Hitler was yet another.
    Pope Benedict XVI said [1]
    “The Nazi reign of terror was based on a racist myth, part of which was the rejection of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Jesus Christ and of all who believe in him. The “almighty” of whom Adolf Hitler spoke was a pagan idol, who wanted to take the place of the biblical God, the Creator and Father of all men.”

    The present idol is a version of equality that seeks to make equal that which is not. There are a number of strands. Atheists are trying to dictate Christian doctrine to argue for women priests. Atheists have tried to insist on gay marriage in Anglican Churches.

    Peter Tatchell is trying to make Jesus Christ subservient to Equality laws.

    It is very important to stand up to organised insult and bullying by homosexual activists as Protect the Pope has done.
    Also some atheist activists may pretend to be Christian to spread disinformation throughout the Church. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. Go to Papal encyclicals on line and do a search for wolf ( 10 hits) or wolves (19 hits) and read the warnings from Popes down through the ages. Popes have warned the flock of Christ to beware those that do not enter through the door of the sheepfold which is Christ himself.

    Catholics should also be aware of the writings of Saul Alinsky who wrote ‘Rules for Radicles’ in 1971. (see wiki). Alinsky’s approach was to insult his adversaries in the hope they would make an unreasoned response that could be subsequently exploited. Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan as the first protester.


    • Pedro de Luna

      “Hitler was yet another.
      Pope Benedict XVI said”

      Well, he would know. :)

      Yes, yes, I take it back, but you really do walk into these things sometimes.

      • Michael B Rooke

        In the the encyclical in German “Mit Brennender Sorge” whose subject was on the Church and the German Reich Pope Pius XI in 1937 makes reference to the idolatrous worship of state and race.

        “8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power,….whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

        Pope Benedict XVI made that connection as quoted in his speech to Jewish leaders. “The supposedly “almighty” Adolf Hitler was a pagan idol, …”

        Pedro is an excellent name. In the dark days of 1940 Pope Pius XII spoke of the Chair of Peter on 17th January. The message is to be steadfast in Faith and not succumb to false prophets who are master liars. The teaching of Peter will continue in his successors, and will continue immutably through time, because that is the mission given by Christ himself to the Head of the Church.

        The translation by google translate is slightly stilted but the message is clear.

        “We speak to you, urging them ( the Church) to vigilance against the devil, who almost roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour (I Pet., V, 8-9 ), urging them to steadfastness in the faith, not to be carried away by the errors of the false prophets (II Pet., II, I, III, 17). This teaching of Peter continues in his successors, and will continue to immutably through time, because that is the mission given by Christ himself to the Head of the Church.

        To show the universal and unfailing of this teaching, the spiritual home of record was set in Rome after a providential preparation, God took care, as remarked Our great predecessor St. Leo I, that the people were gathered into one empire, of which Rome was the head, so that from this the light of truth, revealed to the health of all people, the more effectively spread to all its members (S. Leonis Magni Sermon LXXXII, c. 3-5).

        The successors of Peter, also mortal, like all men, they spend more or less rapidly. But the primacy of Peter will endure forever, with the assistance special that was promised when Jesus asked him to confirm his brethren in the faith (Luke, xxii, 32). Whatever the name, the face, the human origins of each Pope is always Peter who lives in him, it is Peter who directs and governs it is especially Peter who teach and spread to the world the light of liberating truth. This was a great preacher say that God has established a professorship in Rome eternal: “Peter will live in his successors, Peter will always speak from his chair” (Bossuet, Sermon sur l’unité de l’Eglise, I).

        Or here is the grave warning – we have already mentioned – that he addressed to the Christians of his time: “There were false prophets among the people, as among you will be master liars. . . Being thus prevented, beware, that transported the error of fools will not fall from your own steadfastness “(cf. II Pet.)…”

  • Michael B Rooke

    Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying
    ““At best, his statement is a shift away from old-style vengeful condemnation and punishment towards a more conciliatory and merciful church. Although he preaches forgiveness, he still regards homosexuality as a sin for which people must repent. ”

    The Penny Catechism stated
    113. What is sin?
    Sin is an offence against God, by any thought, word, deed, or omission against the law of God.

    The Catholic Encyclopaedia under Sin provides an exegesis from St Thomas Aquinas
    Sin is described as a moral evil.
    Evil is a deficiency in perfection and therefore cannot exist in God.

    Sin is a moral evil.
    Evil is a deficiency in perfection and therefore cannot exist in God.
    Homosexual acts are disordered and do not represent the beauty and design that was intended by the Creator.
    Because there is a deficiency in perfection they are evil. The definition of sin is a moral evil.
    Hence such acts are sinful.

    • Wake up England

      Michael B. Rooke:

      The demise of the Penny Catechism was a huge catastrophe for the Catholic Faith.

      Every child of Confirmation age had a firm grasp of the Catholic faith when the Catechism was taught by heart. The child might not, at the time of learning, have understood everything – but as he or she grew up, she had something to ponder and consider. Now children have nothing to ponder or consider.

      I have just returned from a large dinner party. I sat next to a charming girl aged 22 from a well-known English Recusant Catholic family.

      She had been educated at St Mary’s School Ascot which is probably the best known Catholic girls’ public school in England.

      She has been four times to Lourdes on pilgrimage with the Order of Malta Volunteers; and she is now at Cambridge.


      Of course she considers herself a good Catholic, and indeed she probably is.

      Who is to blame for this shameful ignorance of the Catholic young?

      Well done St Mary’s Ascot (£30,000 per year give or take) You must be geniuses to run a Catholic School which can turn out pupils so woefully ignorant of their faith.

      Unless young people are properly taught the Faith, it will die.

      Calling all Head-teachers and parents: BRING BACK THE ROTE LEARNING OF THE PENNY CATECHISM.

      • Nicolas Bellord

        Try St Mary’s Cambridge, another IBVM legacy. I doubt if you will find many there knowing anything better.

        • katherine

          response to Wake Up England and Nicholas Bellord

          Has anyone heard of homeschooling? There is a silent small army of catholic parents quietly getting on with the vocation of parenthood and actually being the primary educators of their children, some right up to the end of secondary school. Try asking one of their seven year olds about the Real Presence.

  • As some passages of the Bible have been legally declared to be “hate speech” in Canada, you can be sure that the CCC is in the sights of Tatchell and the rest of Satan’s useful idiots. At least with the likes of Bishops Egan and Davies we know that the Church is ready for a “fight” – but, as for the rest, who knows?

  • Karla

    Did Tatchell actually read the report of Pope Francis’ comments:

    During the press conference, Pope Francis reaffirmed that the Church was unable to ordain women priests, but emphasised women’s importance to the Faith.

    ‘A Church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important that the Apostles, and the Church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother,’ he said. ‘We cannot limit the role of women in the Church to altar girls or the president of a charity, there must be more.’

  • john

    “Although he preaches forgiveness, he still regards homosexuality as a sin for which people must repent. ” Actually this statement is completely inaccurate. The Church teaches not that “homosexuality” is a sin but that “homosexual acts” are sins. That is, it is behaviour that is sinful not tendencies which can be resisted. Homosexuality is very similar to alcoholism. The alcoholic is someone who drinks to excess in a compulsive manner. This behaviour is sinful. But through programmes such as AA, alcoholics can develop a set of tools which allows them to resist the temptations. It’s the same with homosexuals, espcially those who have developed compulsive habits of acting out their desires. I believe that the Catholic group Courage uses the 12 steps to help homosexuals resist the temptations and to lead positive, chaste lives.

  • John Fannon

    A rant from Tatchell about the Holy Father’s stance on homosexuality is the best news I have heard all week.
    Also, with the Pope’s concerns about gay lobbying, I would hope that this will give some impetus to getting rid of the abominations of gay masses.

    But perhaps I dream

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,

    And who the cluckin’ hell is Peter Tatchell anyway??-a totally media-created personality , elected to no democratic office anywhere and at any time ….who presumes to lecture the Catholic church about its Faith , doctrine and practices.
    Remember this is the same Tatchell who as well as distrupting Mass at Westminster used the equality gambit to successfully reduce the age of consent to 16(one lady peer in the Lords was not fooled-”they’re only after the AIDS-free rumps of young boys”)….and now it is 14 that is the next target.The technical term is paedrastic incrementalism.

    He is a nasty , vindictive piece of work -who mercilessly “outs” his enemies….will hit cathedrals but never mosques and is very thin skinned when legitimately tackled on this.

  • BJC

    Interesting development. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is now “homophobic”. Just hope that sparks off interest from journalists who start quoting it and unwittingly start evangelising for us. God moves in mysterious ways.

    Never did like Tatchell. He’s always struck me as somebody who’s proud of his own humility.

  • A question for Peter Tatchell and for Pedro de Luna as well: where do they stand on Catholic doctrine on adultery and fornication (as expressed in the catechism)? The Church doesn’t think that the sin of gay men who sin against chastity is “worse” than the sin of straight men who sin against chastity? Do they? Do they think it is less bad? If they think that none of the three is a sin, will they accept that the Church isn’t discriminating against them as gays, but “merely” as sinners?

    • Pedro de Luna

      “where do they stand on Catholic doctrine”

      The etiquette of this forum forbids me from saying where you can put your Catholic doctrine. :)

      “will they accept that the Church isn’t discriminating against them as gays”

      No I will not. Your homophobic church has done everything it can to oppose state recognition of gay relationships. That isn’t the case with straight relationships, therefore you discriminate.

      Where I differ from Peter Tatchell is that I welcome this change in tone from Pope Francis. It seems to be annoying quite a few contributors around here so it has to be a good thing.

      • Nicolas Bellord

        And what is wrong with discrimination per se? If I go into a restaurant I discriminate as to what I eat. I think you need to decide where discrimination is right or wrong.

      • Wake up England

        Pedro Dear Boy:

        You must be interested in Things Catholic, or you wouldn’t be fluttering and wafting around this blog, now would you?

        I think you said you were a Catholic (and “cured yourself”). May I ask (and tell me to mind my own business if you like) do you believe anything of Catholicism? Or, indeed, Protestantism for that matter?

        I’m sure I’m not alone in wondering why people comment here. Personally, I like to do a tiny bit for sticking up for God and his Church; and I’d be genuinely interested to know your motives.

        You’re certainly not a Wicked Troll Fairy with Evil Intentions, that’s quite obvious.

        Any hope you might dash off to Confession and come back into the fold? Should we all be making Novenas for you?


        Love WUE

        • Pedro de Luna

          “do you believe anything of Catholicism? Or, indeed, Protestantism for that matter?”

          One definition of a Christian is an acceptance of the Nicene Creed. By that definition, no, I don’t accept any of it. However, I do admire the teachings of Jesus, I just don’t think they have very much to do with modern Christianity.

          “I’d be genuinely interested to know your motives.”

          Why to sample the Christian love and understanding of course, what else? I also find this blog extremely entertaining. Deacon Nick (shameless sycophancy about to follow) also does a good job of restraining some of the more enthusiastic contributors – which I admit has included myself at times.

          “Any hope you might dash off to Confession and come back into the fold?”

          You have my permission to take me straight to a padded cell if that should ever happen.

          • Wake up England

            Dear Pedro The Betrothed:

            Thank you for your prompt and pithy retort.

            Would you like a Copy of the Catechism as a wedding present?

            Love WuE

  • Amanda Peter

    Peter Tatchell is so arrogant and disobedient to church teaching. He presumes to know best but is in so much error and darkness and would like all people to embrace his darkness in the name of fairness. I know some who is also a great rebel and very disobedient to God. The one who cried non-serviam! He and Peter Tatchell are bedfellows. My prayer for Peter Tatchell is that he converts before he gets his comeuppance and hears on his death bed, ” depart from me ye cursed of my Father.” I hope Peter Tatchell you read this blog!

    • Sonja

      I am pretty sure that he will be reading this blog — flagged up by his Google alerts setting of his name. His name is mentioned so many times it will be first on the list.

    • Charles

      You are quite right on some points. Disobedient to church teaching is not correct. He has never ever been a Roman Catholic. Not only is he a Gay militant he is also a leading light in the secular society.

  • Damask Rose

    Honestly, you couldn’t make this stuff up!

    I recall one of the MPs, when discussing the passing of same-sex marriage in Parliament, gave the warning that militant homosexuals are no way going to stop at just gay marriage.

    The Catholic Church has brought this on itself. It just hasn’t supported chastity inside and outside of marriage for decades. What would Catholics reply to Tatchell if he threw the fact in our faces that so many of our priests and hierarchy are gay and have been practising for years? How can we clean our own house? We’re not practising what we’re supposed to preach.

  • Steve D

    Active unrepentant homosexuals are in the most grave spiritual danger. There is no doubt of this, it was always taught in the Judeo-Christian tradition and it will always be true. Lucia of Fatima said that most people go to hell for sexual sins, not because they are the most serious but because they are usually habitual and unrepented. I wish that the Pope, who believes firmly in Fatima, would tell the world loudly and clearly on behalf of Our Lady. To do less is a great disservice to the World, the Church and those labouring under this attraction. Whatever he says, the truth is the truth and will be so forever. Tatchell wants everyone, including the Pope, to pretend that the truth is not the truth.

  • Ioannes

    Archbishop Vincent Nichols published a pastoral letter five days ago entitled “The Narrow Gate”. It contains this significant passage:

    “At this moment it is important to recall why the Church was, and is, opposed in principle even to same-sex civil partnerships. The reasons given, most clearly in 2003, were that civil partnerships (or same-sex unions) inevitably failed to recognize the uniqueness of marriage, its specific nature and its crucial role in human well-being; they promoted lifestyles with a presumption of sexual activity outside the teaching of the Church, and they would lead to a redefinition of marriage, just as we have seen”.

  • Pedro de Luna

    Incidentally, today me and my partner are celebrating the fact that it is 30 years since we first moved in together. I hope that at least some of you will be gracious enough to wish that our love will continue to flourish as strongly as it has always done. We look forward to converting our civil partnership into marriage as soon as possible.

    As one friend put it: that’s two life sentences. :)

    • Deacon Nick Donnelly

      Pedro, I wish you and your friend the best, and I’m sure it won’t surprise you when I write that your friendship will only flourish when you both repent and convert to the Gospel of Our Lord as safeguarded and proclaimed by the Catholic Church, especially paragraphs 2357-2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If readers of Protect the Pope intend to reply to Pedro’s comment please do so with courtesy while at the same time upholding the teaching of the Church. Deacon Nick

      • Pedro de Luna

        “Pedro, I wish you and your friend the best”

        Thank you Deacon Nick, your good wishes are much appreciated.

        “your friendship will only flourish when you both repent and convert to the Gospel of Our Lord”

        Yes, well, it’s only been 30 years. These things take time.

    • Wake up England

      Congratulations, dears.

      The grammar is exquisitely bad, but I digress:

      is there to be a gay party to celebrate; and can we all come? It would be rather interesting to meet some of the regular commenters on PtP. Go on, I dare you.

      Doubtless we’ll see a full society report of the Happy day, with photographs, in the social column of The Tablet.

      Love from WUE

      • Pedro de Luna

        “The grammar is exquisitely bad”

        Drats, you’re right, a gerund instead of an infinitive – I hang my head in shame.

        “is there to be a gay party to celebrate”

        I’m glad to say that our party days are long gone. We did end the evening with a 1998 sparkling Shiraz which was described on the back as “not frivolous” (I kid you not).

    • John Dare

      Good for you P.

    • Lynda

      If you are engaging in sexual relations, physical, emotional with another man – you are both engaged in abuse of oneself and the other, spiritually, physically and psychologically. This is not love. I wish you both well as persons, and therefore hope that you will repent and amend your lives. You ought not to publicise unrepented sinful behaviour; it is at least reckless particularly with respect to the young and others who are especially vulnerable.

      • Wake up England


        Love you as I do, could you please explain why “emotional” relations between two men constitute abuse of oneself?

        My mind turns towards Our Lord and Saviour and St John; or Henry, Cardinal Newman and Father Ambrose St John (who were so close they were buried in the same grave).

        I think two men may love one another emotionally without sin; in fact it may be meritorious in the eyes of Almighty God.

        Sex outside of Holy Matrimony (1 man & and 1 woman) is entirely a different matter, and is undoubtedly a Grave Matter.

        • Lynda

          Wake up England: Certainly. Tthe “emotional” here refers to emotions of a sexual nature, within the context of a sexual relationship. Sexual relations are not just physical but also emotional. One may have a sexual relationship with another without engaging in sexual acts of a physical nature. Take, for example, a pious Catholic man and woman who love each other, romantically as well as in a more sacrificial way. They decide to marry but before they do so, they do not engage in any physical sexual relations (even, for the sake of the point being made, kissing). This is still a sexual relationship during the period up to marriage. (Also, sexual sins are not just physical, but mental – and thoughts, and thoughts that are deliberate will give rise to emotions.) As for two men or two women loving each other – of course, they can, but it is not romantic or sexual love, which is preserved for a man and woman. A sexual relationship, physical or emotional, with another of the same sex ought to be avoided. A person who has a tendency to experience same sex attraction can have loving platonic relationships with persons of his sex, if of sufficient maturity, and depending on the circumstances, being careful to be honest about the true nature of the relationship. Persons of the opposite sex may have close loving relationships, too, if mature and capable of such love. Love, here is true love – which is an act of the will, primarily, though there will be attendant emotions. Persons who are not sufficiently mature in spirit and morals are not capable of true love – which is wholly unselfish.

          • Wake up England


            as a bloke I struggle to see your point as representative for most men (gay or straight). I think most men see sex as sex and tend not to over-complicate it.

            Women, on the other hand, it seems to me, often have a completely different view of sex which indeed does have a good deal of emotion involved.

            Men and women, on the whole, appear to look at sex differently.

            Homosexual men (of whom I am one) from my (extremely wide) experience, tend to regard sex with little more emotion than having a cup of coffee. Clubs with sex rooms; not to mention the dozens of gay saunas – which are to be found in all cities – are demonstrations of this.

            Given that this particular debate was triggered by Pedro’s forthcoming nuptials, I would be extremely interested to know what he thinks:

            Pedro: do you think men in general, and Gay men in particular have “Emotional” sex which can be separate from physical sex? Be a sport and give us an answer.

      • Pedro de Luna

        “I wish you both well as persons”

        Thank you Lynda.

    • Sam Mace

      big congrats pedro :D hope there is another 30 years :)

  • Same old, same old


    With nothing but courtesy “Congratulations”. And the other great thing is that under the new legislation your relationship will no longer be ‘adulterous’. Unless, of course, the Church decide to redefine adultery.

    • Wake up England

      Same old:

      Looks like YOU have just re-defined adultery.

      Go and look the definition up, genius.

      • same old, same old

        The OED defines it as “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse”. So that means that from now on people in same sex marriages will not be committing adultery. Problem solved.

        • Wake up England

          Same old glib nonsense:

          Problem not “solved” at all

          In order for two people to commit adultery (as you have discovered, since delving into the dictionary) at least ONE of them has to be married. Nem Con.

          Now, genius, Pedro has said in this blog he and his boyfriend are already Civil Partners. Therefore neither of them can possibly be married to a third party (if one of them was, the Civil Partnership would not have taken place). So neither of them is married.

          Therefore: should they jump into bed with one another it is NOT adultery (as you have now admitted since taking my advice to look up the definition of adultery).

          In better words, you’ve got it wrong (again).

          • Same old, same old

            Aha, but you missed the context of what I was saying. You do know about context don’t you? Or is that one of those evil, relativist concepts?

            Pedro and partner are about to get married and therefore in future they will not be committing adultery because it will not be “sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse”.

            Or do you need pictures?

          • Wake up England

            Same old

            You’re being extremely dim-witted over this:

            Pedro & Friend are Civil Partners. Therefore neither of them can be married.

            Adultery means sex between two (or more) persons, at least ONE of whom is married.

            As neither Pedro or his friend are married they could not commit adultery.

            IF they dissolved their Civil Partnership and one (or both) were to marry; and THEN they were to have sex: that would be adultery.

            However, As they are both un-married, Adultery is impossible.

            If they jump into bed tonight it would be FORNICATION

            Back you go to your little dictionary.

            I thought you said you’d “Read the Catechism”.

          • Same old, same old

            Nobody is claiming that they are currently married, but Pedro has announced that he and his partner intend to get married – which they will be perfectly entitled to do so under the new legislation without having to dissolve their civil partnership. From that point onwards they will not be committing adultery – unless, as I have said, you wish to change the definition of adulterous.

            If your not happy with the OED definition then a Catholic dictionary defines adultery as “carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another”, as neither of these conditions will apply then all will be well with the world.

          • Wake up England

            Same old:

            As neither of them is married at the moment. ADULTERY BETWEEN THEM IS IMPOSSIBLE.

            If they do get married under the new civil law and THEN one (or both) sleeps with a third party: that would be adultery.

            By your own quotation above “Carnal connections between a married person and one unmarried…” etc Pedro & friend Cannot commit adultery.

            You can argue as much as you like, but it won’t change the facts.

  • “By describing the Catechism of the Catholic Church as ‘strident, inflammatory and homophobic’ Peter Tatchell is using the same language that other gay activists use to harass Christians….”


  • BJC

    Off-topic a bit but look at this. Let the endless legal challenges on gay marriage commence.

  • Rifleman819

    For Wake up and ms Catholic state,

    WUE makes the supremely valid point about human nature and the teaching of the church-we are each uniquely different in the sight of God-our Creator and Redeemer and he very correctly points to the Enlightenment notion of”equality”-so equal in fact that the Virginian signatories to the 1776 colonial rebellion kept 000s of negro slaves.And saw no irony in that , either.

    WUE is also also certainly correct in his pre/post Vatican 2 attitudinal change
    regarding equality..importing a secular 1789 notion to not only churches but all sections of society in the 1960s.We are reaping its fruits now…a homely vision of equality like Periclean Athens….and what have we got instead? A horrendous Sodom and Gomorrah which gets closer to the precipice each day.

    That partly explains the spectacular failure of our educational system since c.1965.A dogmatic belief in “equality” and a refusal to believe in the reality of different levels of intelligence that require differential types of teaching-not a melange of mediocrity.Ask Labour politicians who designed the system-but many of whose children are educated at independent schools.

    If I can give you but one clear example of a failure of equality-the Carribean states within the Crown dominions with the Queen as Head of State finally ran out of patience with the HoL as the supreme court of appeal in death sentences.

    A sentence of death for wilfull murder was passed in Kingston Jimaica and then routinely overturned in London.

    In the end the Carribean islands had had enough, esp Jamaica where drug related murders were hitting 1000 per year and the Jamaican Constabulary Force was completely outgunned (literally) by drug gangs. So they set up the Carribean Court of Appeal-to protect their people from thugs and murderers without interference from equality liberals in London.

    What happened? A very significant and immediate drop in the murder rate.

    There is no equality in status between innocent victim and guilty murderer.

    We are not created “equally”-otherwise we would have the same status as fruit flies.
    We are created “differently”-with talents and intelligence broad and diverse and unique…given free will and a conscience to tackle human life and at the end we face judgement.

    • Wake up England


      I am very grateful that you have taken the time and trouble to respond to my request. Thank you.

      What you say is, of course, proper orthodox Catholicism.

      William Weber.

      • Rifleman819


        Attention…sweep with an 1822 Light Cavalry sabre…nickel steel scabbard and a General Salute.

        Mount horse and off to revenge Hattin 4th July 1187.

        The chief enemy, William is sheer ignorance and lack of Catechesis.

        BTW -would you like to be bishop of Arundel and Brighton?……just askin’!

        • Wake up England


          Thank you for the offer of the See of A&B

          I’d make a hopeless bishop I’m afraid.

          I have the wrong temperament, you see. I get very cross about things such as M.P.s who support abortion and then call themselves Catholic. I would excommunicate them immediately and very publicly, you see.

          So quite obviously I couldn’t possibly be considered Bishop material.

          Tina Beattie (or whatever she’s called) would probably be worth asking. She’d continue the current ethos and status quo seamlessly. Why not try her?

          meanstwhile, I shall continue to poison wells from The Algarve.

          May your Cappa Magna be ever without crease, and billowing to boot,

          Love WuE

  • ms Catholic state

    Rifleman…What exactly have you said….that is supposed to convince me we are not all created in the image and likeness of God…ie equally?! I can’t find anything! Again you are mistaking difference for inequality. Just like the gender ‘equality’ brigade! lol! I maintain my view….human beings are all ‘equal but different’. What’s so difficult about that?! (Don’t bother answering. If you haven’t convinced me by now…you never will)

  • Rifleman819

    Dear all,
    A propos…..Outrages Reichsgauleiter Herr Tatchell and his ex-bathhouse pronouncements on the Catechism….I cannot recall him ever, ever mentioning the Koran and its strictures on homosexuality.
    Wonder why this cynosure of international gaydom is as garrulous as a Trappist monk when Islam is mentioned yet lays into Catholic teaching with gusto………funny that.

  • Rifleman819

    For Sam,
    The church’s teaching on limbo was never definitive doctrine to be held by the Faithful…it was a conceptual , debatable and theological area that has had a huge history since the early church.

    As such it is not at all in the same league (if that’s the right term) as definitive doctrine such as Original Sin etc.

    Policy-the Vatican can issue dress guidance for clergy studying or visiting Rome during the hot summer months…no problem with that.

    Doctrine and Faith-eg.female ordination ….Nope.

    As an example the famous yardstick is the Vincentian Canon c434 AD-so named after StVincent of Lerins-”Quod ubique,quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est”……”That Faith which has been believed everywhere,always and by all”

    Indeed as regards, for instance, the specific issue of female ordination (as a “policy”)in the CoE….neither Rome nor the Orthodox hold that Anglican ordination is valid for males anyway-let alone females-it was rejected by Rome in 1896 and by the Orthodox in 1848……because with the Reformation there came a totally different theological concept of what was being conferred with ordination to deacon , priest and bishop.
    In the eyes of the two Apostolic Churches-Justin Welby as ABC has valid orders….Anglican orders….however he is actually theologically from the RC/Orthodox view -a “civvy”, a layman….with Christian ministry certainly …but not Holy Orders in the Apostolic sense.
    Anglicans (and not all of them , btw)….in the main dispute this.

  • Rifleman819

    Sam ,

    Sorry -a typo….delete 1848- it should read 1948…the Lambeth confereces always tried to get their Orders recognised by the Orthodox…and each time they have been rejected.

    Since 1994 the Anglican communion……having been advised by Rome and the Orthodox of the consequences of female ordination….proceeded to do so nonetheless…..and the matter is definitively settled.

    • Wake up England


      You speak the truth.

      Yet another blow for ms catholic State and her very misguided un-Catholic statement that;


      No, they’re most certainly not. God created us to be unique, NOT equal.

  • Rifleman819

    WUE and Ms Catholic state,

    I pray for you both……doughty defenders.

  • Rifleman819


    Et cum spirituo tuo


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>