Cardinal-designate Nichols’ LGBT group rejects Church’s use of ‘objectively disordered’ in context of homosexuality

The LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council (formerly known as the Soho Masses Pastoral Council) has expressed its rejection of the Church’s use of the term ‘objectively disordered’ in the context of homosexuality. The LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council received Archbishop Nichols’ pastoral mandate in 2013 to provide pastoral care to the persons with the homosexual inclination in the Archdiocese of Westminster.

The LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council expressed their rejection of the term   ’objectively disordered’ in their submission to the Synod Survey organised by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. They write:

’2. The Church teaching on LGBT Catholics with the use of terms such as “objectively disordered” together with a widespread lack of pastoral care has made many LGBT Catholics feel deeply unwelcome in the Catholic church in which they were brought up and leads in many cases to feelings of deep distress. It is clearly wrong that God’s baptised find themselves in such in an isolated position, making it so much more difficult to practise their faith on their own, away from a supporting and nurturing community. This leads in many cases to suicide, depression and mental, physical and emotional problems. This is a very grave responsibility for the bishops to address. We therefore ask that a comprehensive pastoral process be developed to ensure that LGBT Catholics are supported as much as possible in their faith and life journey, which is a prime responsibility of the Church. ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40)’.

The term ‘objectively disordered’ and ‘intrinsically disordered’ is to be found in various magisterial documents, and is seen as expressing the tradition of the Catholic Faith about the moral status of homosexuality and homosexual acts.

CDF, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

3. In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

8. Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Of course, the Church also uses to term ‘disordered’ and ‘disorder’ to describe other moral conditions, not just homosexuality. The fact is that according the Catholic moral teaching, founded in the revelation of God, as sinners we are all objectively disordered, and can only be put in right order by the grace of Christ and repentance.

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations; their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust; and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful,  multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1875 Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.

1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us – that is, charity – necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

Protect the Pope comment: Cardinal-designate Nichols has made himself a hostage to fortune by giving his personal pastoral mandate to the Soho Masses Pastoral Council, now re-branded as the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council. How will he explain to the Extraordinary Synod in October this year that the group he has charged with the pastoral care of persons with the homosexual inclination has rejected a key understanding of homosexuality as expressed by the Magisterium?

 

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/19682

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

102 comments to Cardinal-designate Nichols’ LGBT group rejects Church’s use of ‘objectively disordered’ in context of homosexuality

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,

    He can’t can he? He and his predecessor have dug themselves into a hole which anyone with an ounce of sense could have seen developing.

    Sadly the gay activist lobby leadership are devious , nasty and vindictive…lend them a hand and they will bite it off.

    No sympathy for our new Cardinal elect either-he courted this group -whose demands will grow year on year.

    And this time…with the red hat -you can run but you can’t hide.

    If either or both of our cardinals had told them to “bugger off” at the very beginning of all this charade and fiasco-you would not have had to front this piece.
    It would not have happened.
    You cannot serve Christ and the Devil. Vincent now has his own diocesan ulcer which will stalk him for the rest of his time at Westminster.
    And there is no one else to palm it off to , either.

    • Pat

      Don’t forget that (then) Bishop Bernard Longley was closely involved in setting the Soho Masses up – even though he was given firm evidence of the dissenting nature of this group – and then, in The Tablet, he publicly attacked those who used to pray in reparation outside the Masses.

      • Rifleman819

        Pat ,
        I missed your comment until now.So …bishops Nichols , Longley , Arnold…were true , valiant and orthodox upholders of the Catholic Faith.

        And not one of them ever , ever tried to influence Deacon Nick Donnelly’s blog.
        Gosh -distracted for a moment there-just saw a squadron of pigs performing aerobatics….poetry in motion……….

  • William

    And why should anyone care what a group called The LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council says about anything? Who cares.

  • Clear, as usual. Thanks. Schism in the making?

  • Joseph Matthew

    The high rates of depression among homosexual activists are being reported in the US, Australia and other “gay friendly” nations. Nothing to do with “homophobia”. It is worth reading the real story of Matthew Shepherd and other homosexual icons like David Cato

  • Shaun the Sheep

    Deacon Nick, I hope you take all this bad news as a pinch of salt. I find in these times, the best way forward is to trust in the Lord and just leave it to him. By all means keep us all informed, and I do enjoy your blog, but I hope it doesn’t get you down. God bless you.

    • Deacon Nick Donnelly

      Shaun the Sheep, thank you for your concern. It’s important that faithful and loyal Catholics know what’s really going on in the Church. As Blessed John Paul II put it Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the Fidei Depositum to us all, not just the bishops, priests and deacons. Also, we all have to assist Our Lord in carrying the Cross of disobedience, dissent and willful sinfulness among those who are called to be faithful. We are living during a time when there is a concerted effort on the part of some clergy and laity to change the Church’s teaching to accept what is evil as good, and to condemn what is good as evil. I cannot stand back and allow this to happen. Deacon Nick

      • Lynda

        You do a great service to the Church and the world at large. Would that you didn’t have to do this work.

        • Deacon Nick Donnelly

          Thank you Lynda for your support. I started Protect the Pope because the bishops in this country were not defending Pope Benedict for the calumny, detraction and character assassination. Now I continue Protect the Pope to expose and challenge the dissent and disobedience in the Church that goes unremarked by those charged with protecting the faithful and defending the Faith. Maybe one day I will be able to shut down Protect the Pope, but until that day I’ll continue this ministry. Deacon Nick

          • Lynda

            I notice that Fr Zuhlsdorff has said in passing that he is being pressurised for what he covers on his blog.

          • Deacon Nick Donnelly

            Lynda, I’m sorry to learn that Fr Z is being hounded about what he posts on his blog. I’m sad to say that for over a year I have been coming under increasing pressure about what I cover on Protect the Pope. It’s not right. Deacon Nick

    • solly gratia

      ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’
      Edmund Burke

      I don’t think the Quietist approach is what the Lord would expect of us. We are not called his Body for nothing.

  • Wake Up England

    It’s Catholic Doctrine a la Father Iggy O’Donovan: just ignore the awkward “embarrassing” bits that make you look unpopular, and concentrate on the love and joy, man. Kool.

  • SteveD

    There is this place/condition called hell and it’s unbelievably unpleasant and it’s for ever and those guilty of serious sin especially when habitual and unrepented etc. etc. Can’t those ordained for this very purpose just make it clear to anyone who might be fooling themselves about the spiritual risks that they are taking. St. Paul and numerous other saints and doctors of the Church have ‘laid it on the line’, why the reluctance now?

  • Paul Connors

    In the letter from the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council, it is not entirely clear what the phrase … “The Church teaching on LGBT Catholics with the use of terms such as ‘objectively disordered’” … is intended to refer to.

    It might be a complaint about any Catholic teaching with that term in it. But it might also be a complaint about the very frequently heard (and highly erroneous) distortion that “Catholics teach that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered” — an error which is frequently presented as a plain and obvious truth.

    I have known Catholic theologians who assume that the Church teaches such a distortion, and were surprised and confused to learn otherwise. So it would not be unexpected if some (perhaps numerous) Catholics have the same misunderstanding, and were in fact complaining based on that assumption.

    It might also be that the complaint is about teachings employing a form of words that, while completely correct, is too easily distorted, and hard to correct.

    It would be worth finding out what the complaint actually is.

    • Wake Up England

      Paul Conners:

      Come off it.

      The teachings of the church are, on the whole, really very well explained in the Catechism, in such a way they are within the intellectual grasp of most people with a reasonable level of intelligence and comprehension.

      The section covering homosexuality is in no way arcane.

      Homosexuality is naturally disordered.

      Homosexual sex is a Grave Matter

      The sin of Sodom is particularly Grave

      This is basic Catholic teaching

      What’s so difficult to understand about that?

    • Paddy Banville

      Paul: You’ve made an interesting observation. Homosexual persons are not intrinsically disordered, rather, homosexual attraction leads to the disorder of homosexual sex (ask; what is sex for? Look at the design of male and female). For a homosexual person to be disordered he/she, i.e., the human person would need to be nothing more than sexual attraction! No, homosexual persons are children of God, if, like every human being they respond to Christ’s words in next Sunday’s Gospel “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is close at hand.”

      • tro

        Paddy:

        Because of the effects of Original Sin, everyone is, in a certain sense, ‘disordered’. We are never entirely free of concupiscence, are we?

        In any case, the CCC clearly states the the homosexual inclination is itself an objective disorder: it becomes sinful when it is acted upon.

  • “This leads in many cases to suicide, depression and mental, physical and emotional problems.” In trying to palm off responsibility for suicide, depression etc on to the Church this group is deluding itself. Most of the problems stem from the fact that various homosexual activist groups seek to persuade those with same sex attractions that these are perfectly normal. When they become more and more aware that they are not, then the trouble begins. Because something occurs in nature does NOT make it normal: tsunamis, earthquakes, hunchbacks, Parkinson’s disease and piles all occur in nature but none are normal.

    • confused

      in what way are earthquakes not normal?

    • solly gratia

      “tsunamis, earthquakes, hunchbacks, Parkinson’s disease and piles”

      Tsunamis and earthquakes are normal and ordered (if unpredictable and contingent) effects of a planet with tectonic plates; our judgment on their ‘normality’ is a value judgment.
      The other items are biological disorders, but they are still normal given the complicated nature of human biology. They are not ‘normative’, i.e. within the definition of what being human means. Homosexuality is not normative, even if it is being normalised by society.

      • Sorry, have been unavoidably absent. If I woke up in the middle of an earthquake, or a tsunami I would NOT regard that as a normal situation. They occur; they occur in nature; the former occur frequently and in many areas of the world (even in south west Scotland). But they are not normal. Even if they occur more often than we learn of because they don’t always cause disasters. Human Physiology deals with the normal biological functioning of the body and Pathology with the ABnormal.

  • Matthew Booth

    When I read the statement by the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council I read a respectful plea for understanding. I heard a group of faithful Catholics who feel persecuted by the Church asking the Church to help them. They point out that the term ‘objectively disordered’ is unhelpful to them in practise, and that they feel the Church is failing to provide pastoral care. You may disagree with them, but remember that the Church is not infallible. They may have a point. Even if you don’t accept the entirety (or even the majority) of their point, there may be a kernel of truth in it that you will miss if you dismiss it out of hand. The congregation MUST be able to speak up without fear of persecution just for that.

    I respect that Deacon Nick has chosen to answer the substance of their complaint by reference to the Catechism, although I don’t think this addresses their point that some specific wording in the Catechism is used in practise to persecute LGBT Catholics. William’s comment above is disgraceful, though. I would have hoped somebody might have called him on it.

    There is one part of the response which is quite dangerous, though, and I am very disappointed to see that it was written by Cardinal Ratzinger:

    “Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.”

    Forget homosexuality: this is dangerous in any context. It takes an opposing argument, associates it with an enemy, and then dismisses it by association rather than on its merits. It puts discussion of an opposing view beyond the pale without even examining it. Again, forget the context of this discussion. This kind of labelling is always insidious, and must never be used in any context. The ad hominem attack is death to civil discussion, and will only ever lead to hatred and suspicion.

    • Rifleman819

      Matthew Booth,
      Name is familiar-the same Matthew Booth that showed so much respect to Deacon Nick that you called him a liar on this blog?

      • Deacon Nick Donnelly

        Rifleman819 and Matthew Booth, let’s put that incident behind us and focus on the important issues raised by this thread. Deacon Nick

        • Matthew Booth

          Thank you. For what it’s worth, having calmed down since then I am now prepared to offer an apology. I often don’t agree with you, but I believe you are sincere.

          • Deacon Nick Donnelly

            Matthew, I really do appreciate your kind words and apology. Agreeing with me isn’t a precondition for participating on Protect the Pope :-) Deacon Nick

      • Matthew Booth

        That would be me. And also another ad-hominem ;)

      • tro

        “I heard a group of faithful Catholics who feel persecuted by the Church asking the Church to help them.”

        Time you got yourself a new hearing aid, then: the one you’ve got just now obviously doesn’t work properly.

    • Michael Sheridan

      Matthew,
      Thank God for a reasonable reasoned comment. Open discussion rather than hiding behind theological terms and concepts is far better than all of the rather dubious comments. We should never loose sight that we are dealing with people and Charity is paramount.

      • Deacon Nick Donnelly

        Theological terms and concepts are part of reasoned debate. Deacon Nick

        • Michael Sheridan

          Nick,
          I agree that theological terms and concepts are, or should be part of reasoned debate, but it is too easy for people to use them in a way that they are hiding behind them.
          I have studied and taught Theology in Schools/Colleges/Universities/Seminaries. I have two degrees in Theology and am constantly learning and studying. On many, many occasions I have listened to students using theological terms and concepts almost as proof that they knew what they were talking about. I have sat through many Sermons where theological terms and concepts have been used. The result is that listeners have just “shut down”. The Priests and Deacons preaching in such a way have thought that if they use theological terms and concepts that it makes their sermons sound important. The old saying that “Most Catholics do not mature beyond seven years of age”, I think still holds true. For this reason, and not to be patronising, Priests/Deacons need to preach sermons that are easily understood and allow people to grow within their Faith and make the Faith their own based upon Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition need to be presented in ways that are not diluted but are of help to people. In the Church in Spain that I attend on a Sunday and sometimes during the week, the elderly Parish Priest comes off the Sanctuary and talks to the children who occupy the first 12 rows at the front of the Church. He talks to them, asks them questions and generally engages the children in his Sermon. The parents and everyone in the church can hear the Priest and the children and importantly they can all understand. The children feel involved and the parents are delighted that their children are involved. That Church can hold very comfortably 1000 people. Most Sundays the number of people, at the Mass I attend, is about 700 people. Unlike some Churches, there is a healthy age range. I have attended other Masses and they are the same. There are seven Sunday Masses in that Church. Sadly the Church in the UK is not very healthy. Very few families attend Masses together. Good Priests are frightened to get involved with young people because of potential accusations of abuse. Teachers in Catholic Schools are ill-equipped to teach RE. Too many Schools think that just because someone is a Catholic that they can teach RE with conviction. You would not have someone teaching a Science subject who was not properly trained. Yet teachers in Catholic Schools, especially Primary Schools, are expected to teach RE.
          Whilst I am sure that those who contribute to your Blog feel passionate about their Faith, I do find there is a strong sense of the “judgemental”

          • tro

            “I do find there is a strong sense of the “judgemental””

            And in so doing, you are being “judgemental” yourself, no? You’re implying that the “judgemental” are guilty of moral failure: you are therefore judging the “judgemental” in a negative manner.

      • Rifleman819

        Michael ,
        Equally paramount is adhering to what the Gospel and the Church teaches, as I’m sure you agree.

        • Matthew Booth

          If we entirely ignored the substance of their plea, and instead read: “Help us, this isn’t working”, how would you respond? The 2 common responses are:

          1. Stop being gay.

          Fortunately I don’t recall having seen this in this forum. Conventional wisdom is that this is not possible.

          2. Be celibate.

          Well, yes. Certainly some people have done this. However, be in no doubt that this is both an enormous sacrifice and incredibly hard. Could you do it? Leave your spouse today, and resolve never to have another. The priesthood are asked to do this, any many of them fail. Many more don’t choose the priesthood in the first place because they are honest with themselves and know they will fail.

          I don’t know if any of you are gamers, but I read a brilliant description of what it means to be black in the US, which I feel is entirely applicable here: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/. You’re asking all gay people to ‘play on the maximum difficulty settings’. Most won’t manage it at all, and of those that do, many will resent it.

          I am perfectly aware of St Paul’s teachings on homosexuality. I appreciate this is an almost intractable problem. However, all I’m hearing is: ‘That’s very sad for you: be lonely, or get out’. Is there really nothing else?

          • Sam

            I’m Orthodox not Catholic, but I would say, yes and no there is something else.

            There is “be celibate” and there is the other option, “try and be celibate, go to church, receive the sacraments, when you fail confess your sin and try again” – and this is the basic prescription for all kinds of sin, of which we all suffer.

          • Pat

            It is difficult to remain celibate – particularly in today’s hyper-sexualised climate – humanly speaking it is impossible without the grace of God. But nobody can resist any kind of sin or disorder without the grace of God. People with same-sex attraction are no different in that sense. The point is that we DO have the grace of God available to us, unless we wilfully reject it. You seem to equate loneliness with celibacy. There are plenty of ways to share one’s life and even one’s home, without the need for physical intimacy.

            I have noticed a tendency with some LGBT ‘Catholic’ activists – a kind of preciousness – that they feel they have to have special concessions made to them. Not so. We all have our sins and faults, and we all need to haul ourselves to confession and start over on a regular basis when we fall.

            Even if one were to fall into sexual sin occasionally, it would be regrettable, but that would be a private matter for confession, and repentance and perseverance, the same for us all, regarding any sin. The problem is when people try to deny their failures, declare the Church to be wrong, and make platforms to campaign for changes to Church teaching to accommodate their failures. Some people are tempted very little in this life. Some people have to live with an extraordinarily high degree of temptation. But God fits the cross to the back, and it is wrong to feel that He would never provide the necessary help and grace if it were sincerely asked for. It suggests a lack of trust in Him.

          • Nicolas Bellord

            Matthew: On your first point conventional wisdom may say it is impossible to rid oneself of a homosexual inclination but conventional wisdom is not always right! The debate on this issue is very much alive and should not be suppressed as some would have us do.

            On your second point I can quite understand what you say. It may well be incredibly difficult for someone not to give into temptation of any kind but we are told that with grace one can. It may take many years and of course we should treat all people with respect and sympathy acknowledging that we are all sinners and fail from time to time. However what people on this blog are concerned about is people who openly advocate that a particular sin is not a sin. In this case there is a gay lobby which openly advocates that homosexual activity is not wrong. That is much much more serious than anyone occasionally failing to be chaste as it gives scandal and corrupts others. I am afraid the Soho Masses Pastoral Council fell into the category of advocating homosexual sexual activity and it is quite correct to regard this as evil and to endeavour to correct it. However the SMPC appeared to be tolerated by the Archdiocese of Westminster and that was scandalous.

            Being celibate can be very hard and what should the individual do? Well they should do what any of those salvation i.e. practice one’s religion, receive the sacraments and thus the grace of God to resist these temptations. There are organisations like Encourage that endeavour to assist those with homosexual tendencies. There are lay organisations which assist laymen to lead a more devout life. However the track record of the Archdiocese of Westminster has been inconsistent in tolerating those who advocate homosexual sex at the same time as persecuting a group of people who are trying to lead a devout life on the grounds that they committed a procedural error where no harm was done. The SMPC was allowed to use a Catholic Church but by contrast the lay organisation to which I refer have been forbidden to use their own Chapel for the foreseeable future.

          • Wake Up England

            Matthew Booth:

            What an inaccurate and patronising picture you paint of homosexual Catholics. Quite irritatingly offensive, in fact:

            “Be lonely or get out” what utter drivel.

            Many homosexual practising catholics have a very full, successful, rewarding and amusing life, thank you very much.

            I fear your highly pre-conceived ideas and wild stereotyping indicate a very jaundiced view of both gay people and the Catholic faith.

    • Pat

      “I heard a group of faithful Catholics who feel persecuted by the Church asking the Church to help them”. But this is the whole point – they are NOT faithful. Of course LGBTCWPC find the term ‘objectively disordered’ unhelpful. They have stated over and over again that they think that it is perfectly acceptable for two people of the same-sex to express their love in a physical way, while continuing to receive Holy Communion – which, of course, it isn’t. Look, we are all sinners, and we all have disordered inclinations towards one thing or another, but you cannot cry foul when the Church reiterates Her salvific teaching. If I am an adulterer, then I need to be told that adultery is wrong. If I am a thief, then I need to be told that theft is wrong. If I commit any other sort of sin, then I need to be told that it is wrong. Far from being ‘unhelpful’ it is very helpful when I am told the truth, when it affects my eternal salvation. Why should LGBT people be treated with kid gloves and given special dispensations to receive the sacraments while continuing to sin? Why should we lie to them and tell them everything is OK? If we really love people and desire their salvation, we tell them the truth, no matter how painful. If we just want to make people feel good about themselves, then that is another matter . . .
      This is a good article, written by a homosexual man, please read it:- http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_jan11.html

      • Rifleman819

        Pat,

        Bang on the button.All stems from the culture of rights , me, non-judgementalism…etc etc.

        In the end it fools no one. And our hierarchy have pandered to the noisiest birds in the nest. The rest of the flock have been neglected.

        The bishops must face-down “cafeteria Catholicism”-with homosexuality and dissent generally.
        And we are at the 1935 Rhineland moment-when the other western nations lost the opportunity to face Hitler down..had they acted , perhaps WW2 might have been averted. So it is with the LGBT/ACTA lobbies-if one loses the early struggles………….the later crises are far worse.
        I hesitate to say where we are now.
        But someone needs to do some unequivocal , plain speaking soon.

      • If one had a child would one tell it not to put its hand in the fire?

        Isn’t that the loving thing to do?

      • Matthew Booth

        There are 2 gay couples in my immediate circle of friends, 1 male and one female, and one of my closest friends is trans. I don’t recognise the gay people described in that article. I’m sure he’s telling the truth, but my experience of the gay people I call friends is that they are just like anyone else except in the sex of their chosen partner. Remember that our view of gay culture from the outside is very much skewed by reporting bias: we don’t here the stories of the majority of ‘boring’ gays because… it’s boring. I’m sure Max Moseley would write a very similar story of heterosexual culture ;)

        My point? Your view of gay culture is wrong. You have been deceived by a media obsessed with titillation.

        A corollary: even if it were correct, it is still morally wrong to judge all gays by the actions of others. My friends are not promiscuous, so why should they be lumped with others who are?

        • Wake Up England

          Matthew Booth:

          Having been subjected to months of your verbose opinion in the past, I doubt that any regular reader of PTP is in any doubt that you think the Catholic Church’s “view of gay culture is wrong” as you so accommodatingly put it.

          In fact it is drearily apparent to all that you regard the Catholic Church’s teaching on a vast spectrum of topics as “wrong”.

          Your views are the product of your own opinion and reasoning. They are not obviously Christian and certainly not Catholic; in fact you shew disdain for much of what the Catholic Church stands for.

          Given your self-confessed starting point of any debate is a secular one, it is simple accurately to predict that you will usually be in disagreement with the ethos and aim of this blog (to protect the Church. Pope and the Catholic Faith).

          Apart from a an exercise in ego-inflation, what, I wonder, is your raison d’etre here?

      • Wake Up England

        Dear Pat:

        Very well said, hear hear.

    • Pat

      Re: Matthew Booth’s comment at 10:32:-

      “There is one part of the response which is quite dangerous, though, and I am very disappointed to see that it was written by Cardinal Ratzinger:

      “Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.”

      Actually, this quote from the 1986 CDF statement is spot on. The Soho Mass newsletters regularly used to promote secular groups whose aims are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching – groups such as ‘Gay Men Fighting Aids’. In one flyer, they even encouraged the Soho congregation to visit ‘Prowler’ a gay sex-shop in London, to see the ‘AIDS quilts’ on display there. (‘avoiding the occasions of sin’ obviously didn’t cut any ice with them). The Soho Mass Young Adults group used to meet in ‘gay’ bars (and probably still do, but they are more careful about advertising the fact now). The granddaddy of the Soho Masses, Martin Pendergast, co-founded the ‘Cutting Edge Consortium’ – a mix of ‘faith-based’ and secular LGBT and humanist groups, in order to push the LGBT agenda:- https://sites.google.com/site/cuttingedgeconsortium1 I could go on, but the simple fact is there is often a huge overlap between groups like Quest & LGBTCWPC and the secular ‘gay’ world.

    • Benedict Carter

      What do you mean by “the Church is not infallible”?

      • Wake Up England

        Benedict Carter:

        A very good question indeed.

        Of course one won’t be given an explanation, only more pretentious politically-correct guff which amounts only to one man’s personal opinion, and nothing more.

        One would have thought that commenters here who wish to be taken seriously would learn the basics of the Catholic Faith in order to appear at least half-credible.

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick,
    Fiat voluntas tua

  • Nicolas Bellord

    I think one needs to be careful when using words like “natural” and “normal”. In ethics we are talking about the natural law which can be deduced as a matter of practical reasonableness as explained by Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas etc. DamMing a river may be regarded as interfering with nature but such has nothing to do with natural law! Professor John Finnis says that many people have an erroneous idea of what is meant by natural law thinking it means ‘that natural functions are never to be frustrated or that human faculties are never to be diverted (“perverted”) from their natural ends.’ He calls such an idea ridiculous. For him Natural Law would appear to be about discovering through reason “the basic forms of human flourishing as goods to be pursued and realized.”

  • Rifleman819

    Michael Sheridan ,
    Thank God for Saint Paul. Tells it like it is.

  • Tigga Wild

    Do they object to ‘disordered’ OR ‘objectively’ or both? What form of words are they proposing? That’s going to be the tricky bit for them. Quite easy to look united in a first salvo but I think that fake ‘unity’ will evaporate when they try to agree on a substitute phrase that pleases them all.

  • Benedict Carter

    This lot want the Church to affirm them in their mortal sin.

    Has there ever been a heresy as pernicious as the present neo-Modernist neo-protestant full-scale assault on the Church?

    May St. Michael Archangel and Our Lady crush the head of these serpents now.

    • Rifleman819

      Benedict ,
      Again -said with precision…………and our own bishops are quintessentially useless in facing up to their duty to speak out and correct mortal error.

  • Until the Catholic clergy in Great Britain return to preaching from the basis of natural law philosophy, as well as Scripture and Tradition, these irrational definitions of the gay lifestyle will plague the faithful. Not enough time is spent on giving philosophical and moral framework to the people in the pew. They have lost the means to decide on these definitions, being so infected with modernist heresies of relativism and individualism.

    Also, the obvious reticence of priests to address moral issues from the pulpit is a scandal in GB. I have heard only one priest consistently speak out against ssm and the gay lifestyle in the past three years in England. Brave and true pastor.

    The farce of the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council deciding for itself to separate from the clearly pastoral definition of the Church regarding homosexuality merely shows that these people no longer think like Catholics, but want to make the Catholic Church, and indeed, society, into their own image and likeness, instead of the image and likeness of God.

  • Matthew Booth, you seemed to be confused. Let me substitute some words for you here, as sin has no rights, either civil rights or others. Remember that sodomy is one of the four sins which cries out to God for vengeance. This is in the Bible and in the CCC. OK. I substitute words to put across my point that sin is sin with no rights to a lifestyle.

    “I’m sure he’s telling the truth, but my experience of the drug pusher people I call friends is that they are just like anyone else except in the selling of drugs …. Remember that our view of drug cartel culture from the outside is very much skewed by reporting bias: we don’t here the stories of the majority of ‘boring’ drug pushers because… it’s boring….

    My point? Your view of the drug cartel culture is wrong. You have been deceived by a media obsessed with titillation.

    A corollary: even if it were correct, it is still morally wrong to judge all drug sellers by the actions of others. My friends are not selling drugs to everyone, so why should they be lumped with others who are?”

    I hope, Matthew, you get the point.

    • Matthew Booth

      Sorry, Marie. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. In that comment I was simply addressing the narrow point of the widespread misconception of ‘gay culture’, not of the Church’s response to it. See my other comment about the Church’s response. I believe that the reaction of many is at least shaped by, if not directly based on this misconception. For example, it is widely used on this forum. In fact, I was prompted directly by its use. In that narrow context, the analogy with drug pushers doesn’t really make sense.

      Incidentally, I realise what you were trying to do there, and that you weren’t actually comparing my friends to drug pushers. Please be sensitive in your analogies, though.

      • Matthew, if you friends are engaging in serious sexaul sin, the analogy fits. If they are chaste, sorry.

        • Matthew Booth

          That’s very sad. I very much hope that one day you will become friends with a gay person, or that one of your friends will come out as gay. When you meet your demon, you will be bitterly disappointed by their mundanity.

          Somebody else asked me what I’m doing here. I certainly don’t expect to fundamentally change anybody’s position, at least not now I feel I know you a little (I don’t often post, but I almost always read). I hope, however, that one day I might prompt somebody to temper the quite disproportionate vitriol aimed at gay people. It is my honest belief that while the basis of this belief comes from the Church, the strength of feeling is primarily borne out of ignorance and tribalism.

          Consider what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to bring homosexuals back into the Church? If so, it isn’t working. They’re telling you it isn’t working. You may think they aren’t trying hard enough, but if you want them to try harder you still need to change something. Right now, you are just alienating them.

          Or are you trying to alienate and expel them? I don’t think anybody will admit it here, perhaps not even to themselves, but I suspect this might be the real goal for many. If this is you, I’d urge you to say so. It would be honest. It might also prompt you to ask yourself why, and if it is helpful.

          As a group, I’d like you to ask yourselves why nobody has yet called ‘William’ on his comment above.

          • Pat

            I’m sure no-one in their right mind would wish to alienate or expel anyone from the Church (not that any of us have the authority to expel anyone anyway) but alternatively, we mustn’t flinch from telling the truth either. When I first thought about becoming a Catholic I was probably not in agreement with some Church teachings, or at least I might have thought them unrealistic or unworkable.

            But I decided to lay aside all my prejudices, experiences and views to date, and come in with an open mind, and I hope, a sincere desire to learn the truth. I made it my daily prayer to be given the grace to accept truth and not fall into error (still a daily prayer!) as I realise that, left to my own devices, I would quickly fall away. Maybe you are placing too much emphasis on our efforts – which are always puny at best – as opposed to God’s grace. It is just a question of abandoning ourselves to Him, and acknowledging our nothingness and our inability to do any good without His help.

            I would love all men and women of whatever stripe to come into the Church. But the Church CANNOT dilute or change Her salvific teachings in order to fill up the pews, and this blog is exactly about that – exposing the fact that people are trying to twist the truth to suit their own disorders and passions, and leading others astray (and it doesn’t fill up the pews either – have you seen Mass attendance stats lately?).

            I suspect this is where a lot of commenters on this blog are coming from. They are sick and tired of people, like the LGBTCWPC and Quest, who think they know better than the Church and try to impose their standards, or lack of them, on the Church, rejecting the Catechism, Holy Scripture, Papal documents and anything else which stands in their way.

            To take the case of the LGBTCWPC, they argue that it is perfectly alright to have sex with their same-sex partners while continuing to receive Holy Communion. Objectively, this is sacrilegious and something that every Catholic should abhor. Also, by giving them a venue, Catholic premises are being misused and souls are being led astray. The 1986 CDF document on pastoral care for homosexuals states:- “But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.” Also:- “All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.”
            I strongly ask you to read that document prayerfully, with an open mind. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
            As for William, I presume you are referring to his comment of Jan 20, 11.15. It is always difficult to correctly interpret such comments – what did he mean? Should we care about souls? Obviously, yes. Should we care that the LGBTCWPC campaign against Catholic teaching while using Catholic premises? Obviously, yes. Should we care that they are harming themselves and leading others astray and causing scandal? Obviously, yes. Should we give any credence to their open and brazen dissent, which has been evidenced and carefully documented for more than a decade? No, we should give any credence to it. Is that what William meant? I don’t know.

          • Nicolas Bellord

            Excellent comment from Pat with which I agree wholeheartedly.

            I would add that Matthew seems to be suggesting that we would regard a person with homosexual tendencies as a “demon” viz: When you meet your demon, you will be bitterly disappointed by their mundanity.. He also talks of vitriol against gay people on this blog. He also suggests that we have never met a gay person.

            I can assure him that I have met gay people who have told me they are gay but I do not inquire into such intimate matters as it is none of my business. The only people I have problems with are those who openly advocate that a sin is not a sin. I suspect this is the position of most people commenting on this blog and I cannot see any evidence of anyone regarding gay persons as demons or using vitriolic language.

            William asked whether we should care about the statement made by the LGBTCWPC. Their statement rejects Church teaching. I think he means that he trusts the Synod will not change the teaching. However we should care about the statement as it does go against Church teaching and I would hope that the Synod is able to explain this teaching in pastoral terms and dispels the notion that the Church does not love these people in the same way as the rest of us despite our sins.

          • Pat

            Sorry – in my comment of 12:02 I meant to write at the end: ‘No, we SHOULDN’T give any credence to it’!

          • Wake Up England

            Matthew Booth:

            I am far from Mundane. I object to being called mundane.

            I am a unique creation of Almighty God fro whom Jesus Christ died. That is not mundane.

    • Michael Sheridan

      Marie,
      Is sodomy practiced by heterosexuals also “crying out to God for vengeance”?

      • Matthew Booth

        “Sins that cry to heaven” come from the Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

        1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

        [140] Cf. Gen 18:20; 19:13.

        But what is the sin of the Sodomites? Genesis isn’t explicit, so it’s a matter of interpretation. When I read Genesis, it seems to be here:

        “4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.””

        So the men of Sodom wanted to violently rape 2 male strangers. That’s fairly unambiguously sinful! Does it mean, though, that homosexuality *without* violent rape “cries to heaven”? I personally think it’s a stretch.

        Leviticus, of course, prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality. However, this is in the same body of law which prescribes excommunication for eating blood. As the Church doesn’t have a similar disposition against consumers of black pudding (guilty!), this doesn’t appear to hold much weight.

  • Pat

    Exactly Marie. Terence Weldon’s website sums it up in three words: ‘Queering the Church’. The bishops are just pawns to be used in their game. If a bishop says something pro-’gay’, or which can be twisted to a pro-’gay’ stance, he is lauded. If a bishop – even the same bishop – reiterates the authentic teaching of the Church, he is denigrated as
    ‘unpastoral’, ‘uncaring’, uncharitable’ – or worse. The mind-set among these people is that everything, and everyone, has to capitulate to their agenda. It is a numerically very tiny group but has an influence out of all proportion to its numbers.

    Even the Anglican Dr Carey has said that the Anglicans must stop ‘dancing to the world’s agenda’ (reported in today’s Daily Mail online). But sadly, the bishops of England and Wales (with a couple of notable exceptions) haven’t learnt that lesson yet, and either through cowardice or complicity, continue to offer a platform for notorious dissenters under the guise of ‘pastoral care’. The 1986 CDF instruction on pastoral care for homosexuals is an excellent document, but is largely ignored by our bishops and loudly denounced by the likes of LGBTCWPC. They don’t want ‘pastoral care’. They want the sacraments on their terms, and their terms alone. Period.

    • Rifleman819

      Pat,

      Devious and deviant, malicious, manipulative and disloyal=gay lobby in the RCC, clerical and lay.

      In the Anglican communion now you have the fruits of 20 years of LGBT entryism.

      It is easier to do there precisely because it lacks a CDF. A sad realisation on George Carey’s part that the rot started on his watch.

      Unless the stables are comprehensively cleaned now…the effort required later will be exponentially much greater.
      You need bishops with leadership , guts and moral courage……have we got them or are we likely to get them?

  • Paddy Banville

    Tro: The point I’m trying to make is that Church teaching doesn’t suggest that the homosexual person is intrinsically disordered but that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered because with consent the inclination leads to sexual acts which are contrary to God’s design. Have I misunderstood? I understand that because of original sin we’re all in a sense disordered.

  • Mike2

    “This leads in many cases to suicide, depression and mental, physical and emotional problems.”

    While not wishing to minimise or ridicule any such problems there are a few questions which need to be asked in response to this statement.

    For instance, although I have read the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation I managed to miss the bit where it said, “And God decreed that the Ten Commandments were only a recommendation and that anyone who found obeying the Commandments had physical and emotional problems were excused form obeying them.”

    Secondly, does this reason for being excluded from obeying God’s Commandments also apply to other people who might have ‘physical or emotional problems’ resulting from obeying them? Such as people who have ‘physical or emotional problems’ trying to honour their fathers and mothers or trying to avoid coveting their neighbours goods?

  • Paddy Banville, again there is a confusion in your position as in some others here. When we are baptized, Original Sin is taken away and we are given sanctifying grace, which is life in God. We become the adopted children of God and heirs of heaven. We do have the tendency to sin, which is concupiscence, which is not a disorder of nature, but a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. A disorder is an unnatural bent, an inclination against natural law, which is not the same as a tendency to sin.

    It is our job as Catholics to get rid of all sin, both mortal and venial AND to break away from concupiscence through the purgation of the senses and the soul. We are ALL called to this. Therefore, concupiscence can be overcome. We are not doomed in all our years on earth to be tossed about from concupiscence. We are to come to Original Justice, original purity before we die or we go to purgatory, as only the perfect see God.

    We were created good, and concupiscence is not part of human nature, but a result of Original Sin. Ergo, human nature in the Catholic teaching, is not totally corrupted. Concupiscence actually seeks a good, but wrongly, mistakenly.

    OK. Now for the disordered tendency to homosexuality. This is a corruption of human nature which concupiscence is not. As a sin against nature, homosexuality tendencies reveal some tendency towards a grave evil. The disordered tendency to seek something which is objectively unnatural and evil, against God’s law, is the tendency to seek not a good which would be natural, but an evil which is unnatural.

    To have an “instrically disordered” tendency is not natural and to give in to that is a “grave depravity” as the CCC states. Remember, all sins are not equal as we have learned from Scripture and the teaching of the Church.

    The four sins which cry out to God for vengeance are more serious than other sins, albeit, all mortal sins kill divine life in the soul and send one to hell.

    Here is that list of those four sins, taken from the CCC:

    1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.

  • Lynda

    A desire to engage in any intrinsic evil is a disordered desire. And we sin by thoughts, words, actions and omissions.

  • Lynda, and right you are to underline, as it were, “intrinsic”. Concupiscence is not intrinsic to us, but a tendency one can overcome with grace. Anything which can be eradicated is extrinsic and one should not use the term “gay” to describe someone as that makes that person intrinsically evil rather than extrinsically sinning.

    • Wake Up England

      Marie Dean:

      Rightly or wrongly the term “gay” is here to stay. It looks Blimpish studiously to avoid it. I personally find it trying, but I think one has to get on with it.

  • Matthew Booth, I suggest you read the Doctors of the Church on this matter. For centuries, the interpretation of the Church has been the sodomy one, also held by the Rabbinical tradition. Silly ideas about the sin being hospitality or something less than rape did not appear until the past forty years is less-than orthodox Scriptural studies.

    Popular mass-marketed theology does not take the place of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Revisionist exigesis has been dealt with lately by excellent scholars. If you choose to deviate from Catholic teaching on this fact, be careful you are not actually leaving the Teaching Magisterium as a guide and guard over your soul.

  • Wake up England, you missed my point. It is not the term gay, it is the false identification with being homosexual that I was addressing. One is not one’s sins or disordered tendencies.

  • Matthew Booth, I know many people who have homosexual tendencies and some practice celibacy. I am much older than you and have had many friends who have been homosexually inclined. Those who were engaging in sexual activities, I spoke to about the dangers of their sins. Those who were and are celibate, I encourage. You have a problem which is common in your age group of not being able to understand that there is objective truth which we all must obey and that knowing people does not change that objective truth.

    Until you want to really be open to the teachings of the Church, which is our guarantee of the teachings of Christ down through the ages, and until you can separate your love of your friends, a good things, and objective truth, you will not be able to understand these long conversations.

    One question, if you really love someone and know that if they continued in an evil lifestyle and could possibly go to hell, why would you not speak the truth to them?

  • Matthew Booth, as to celibacy or chastity, I do not many, many people who live holy, chaste lives in the world. I know many singles, like myself, who are chaste and have been for long years. This is not impossible with God, as He gives grace for celibacy and chastity. To state that “conventional wisdom” knows that either celibacy or chastity is impossible is to deny both God and His power in someone’s life and also the long honorable teaching of the Church on this matter.

    • Wake Up England

      Marie Dean:

      You (and others here) continually misuse the word “celibacy”.

      It means being unmarried, nothing more or less.

      It muddies the waters to confuse celibacy with chastity and continence.

      Given the length, doubtless virtue and challenging complexity of many of your posts, I feel it behoves you to be clear and accurate in your choice of words.

  • sorry, missing a know above–the difference between those of us who have conformed our minds to the mind of Christ, as we know is true through the teaching of the Church, and those who have “personal” opinions is a difference of faith and grace responded to….

    • Wake Up England

      Marie Dean:

      Thank goodness for the clarification.

      You’ve obviously “done a course” in Catholicism, and it’s so kind of you to share so much of it here with the rest of us.

  • Michael Sheridan

    Tro,
    If I wanted to “accuse” others of “moral failure” I would have said so! I would never have the temerity to accuse another of moral failure. My own moral failure is enough for me to contend with. However, I do try to practice love of God and love of my neighbour, sometimes not very well.
    It is interesting that you should choose to comment on the last sentence of a long posting. Surely, this is not a case of choosing that which you find most suitable for your argument?

  • Pat

    Just as an aside – a friend in Africa asked me to obtain a book for work they are doing out there, regarding purity. It is called:- Clean of Heart: Overcoming Habitual Sins Against Purity by Rosemarie Scott. I found a copy on Amazon:- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Clean-Heart-Overcoming-Habitual-against/dp/0977223450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390467446&sr=8-1&keywords=clean+of+heart I have to say that I didn’t read it from cover to cover before I sent it, but what I did read was excellent, and I would recommend it as an inexpensive resource for those struggling with this problem, homosexual or not.

  • Michael Sheridan

    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

  • LeonG

    Frankly speaking, the entire liberal modernist movement in the new church is objectively disordered – borne out by the appalling chief indicators. Nicholls is but a sad and sorry exemplar of what Pope St Pius X correctly analysed as the enemy within the church in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis..”. No wonder He neutralised it. Since 1965 just about every part of the church has been wrecked. We need an end to this liberal dictatorship of disorder, indiscipline, wholesale liturgical abuse and protestantised values.

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>