Sunday, March 11, 2012

Roman Catholic Bishops’ letter on gay marriage



On the day it is reported that this Conservative/LibDem coalition Government are to oppose in the European Court of Human Rights the right of Christians to display the cross, the Roman Catholic hierarchy are mobilising their forces to oppose the Government’s ‘grotesque’ proposal to establish ‘gay marriage’. It is ‘madness’, as Scotland’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the UK’s most senior Roman Catholic, has publicly declaimed. “Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?" he asked. Today, the following letter, signed by Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith, will be proclaimed from every Roman Catholic pulpit in England and Wales to around a million regular church-goers. It is only the second time in modern history that such a religio-political letter has been issued, and its contents are likely to filter into the consciousness of another four million Roman Catholics the length and breadth of the country. His Grace would like to make it available to the wider Anglican and Free Church constituencies:

This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.

Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.

The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.

Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.

There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.

The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.’ (para.1601)

These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.

This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.

In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.

In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.

The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.

We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.

With every blessing,

Most Reverend V. Nichols, Most Reverend P. Smith

128 Comments:

Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Thank you for sharing this simple yet profound letter.

11 March 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

So, if the British government win their case, does that mean I can march into the achingly trendy restaurant across the road from my fiancee's flat and demand they take down the neon crucifix they have flashing in the dining room, or would the judgement only apply to people who display the cross because they are actually Christians?

11 March 2012 at 01:04  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/blair-takes-on-the-pope-by-backing-gay-marriage-7555115.html

11 March 2012 at 01:21  
Blogger non mouse said...

Is this just another ploy to put British Christians back under the papaseato's thumb? The suspicion has merit, considering the gradual creeping in of their ways to other aspects of our religious observance. They think we have nowhere else to go, if we refuse to accept their authority.

Well .... Methodists are, in effect, twice reformed; and they have kept their good hymns.

*****

The 2 women, mentioned in the link, apparently thought they had somewhere to go, by taking their cases to euroland. Fools. BA used to permit crosses; the only jewellery allowed while in uniform. But that was before the tunnel-dwellers took over LHR; and I don't suppose the Spaniards can deal with them either. BAA's new owners ain't El Cid :).

And why would the euSSR go against the people who are so busy replacing British law with that of for the euSSR?


*****
Of course, I have for some time been reviled for wearing any cross. One Powerful Personage took it as a personal affront, assuming I have no idea what it means. He had a hissy fit (yes, he's a bi- one of those)though he took pause once when someone pointed out that I wore the Cross of St. George (on said Day). If they could celebrate St. Patrick's Day, he said, he supposed we had a right...

Ah yes. Here's the end-point, the goal! It's the Union Flag, "innit"?

*******

11 March 2012 at 02:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr Northcote

Ta for the link.

Wondered how long it would be before the 'Polytical' Leper would shame us with his unasked for views but.."Mr Blair – one of the best known Catholics in Britain – has told friends he "strongly supports the Prime Minister's proposal" Always the coward! Not got the guts to say it direct then, you bleed'n Bliar?

Ernst favourite paty of the article.. "When Mr Blair joined the Catholic Church, six months after leaving Downing Street, the Vatican's chief spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said his conversion "can only arouse joy and respect"." *Oh for the gift of foresight, eh Federico, lad*

Probaby will not be long before he is swinging from under Blackfriars Bridge (bricks and weighty encyclicals stuffed in pockets), and that he will no doubt justify a tabloid nickname and accompanying cartoon as "God's Scrimshanker" or something similar?

As Oily Cameron said to Stank Blair: "Well, here's another nice kettle of fish you've pickled us in." Don't we just know it, clowns!

Both him and Cameron are like piles, no matter what you try, you just can't get rid of them. A riotous pain in the sphincter!

Ernst

Well said that non mouse.

11 March 2012 at 02:25  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Please understand that when I am stating my case with respect to certain highly influential elements within the RCC, I am not referring in any way to Roman Catholics as a whole, or the vast majority who work within, or in the interests of The RCC.

I have many Roman Catholics within my own family, including 2 first cousins.

There exists many tried and tested methods by which a powerful and rich corporation can destroy its own smaller and less well connected competition.

One of these methods was used by media barons in loose conspiracy with trades unions, such as The NGA. This was to 'negotiate' extremely high wages for print, and delivery workers, that they knew would ultimately bankrupt their less wealthy competitors.

At which point they would buy up the now bankrupt news-paper and so control ever more of the apparently free press, and thus control the minds of ever more of the population.

Information, or the control thereof is power, as we all know.

So what does the above have to do with certain influences within The RCC, I can almost hear you thinking?

Well, you are jolly well going to have to work that out for yourself.

11 March 2012 at 02:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Just when you thought it could not get any worse;

Owzat? Quintessentially English cricket bounces back at school... but only in France

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113266/Owzat-Quintessentially-English-cricket-bounces-school--France.html#ixzz1oluPUpoF

Bad enough us getting beat by the old colonies but the froggies??

Dear Lord, this could be the final straw and we will now suffer too greatly at Your hands for our current failings.
The nation must repent, REPENT!

Sky Sports 1

France 675 for 9 dec. England 136 & 95 all out. Failed to follow on with 2 days left to play. AAAARRGGGHHHHHHHH.

Ernst 'I now can't sleep for worry' Blofeld

11 March 2012 at 02:37  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 March 2012 at 03:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

non mouse said...
cont'd.

Ah, but 'the times are out of joint,' are they not? Commiserations, MrB--I didn't even know the devils played cricket!

So Happy Birthday to Yesterday, when the cross symbolised and contributed to unification of diverse British cultures.

Bede tells us that Oswald set one up before his victory at Heavenfield in 635,(Bede, Ecclesiastical History III.2). That was the same year in which a fragment of the True Cross was taken to Constantinople ... to protect it from Arab invaders.*

The Cult of the Cross seems to have gathered strength after iconoclasts objected to image-worship in the 720s. Michelle Brown records that then, in Constantinople, they accepted the cross in substitution for Christ's image.**

Around the eight century, monumental crosses proliferated on our landscape, and became accepted as symbols of Christ. Of course, the figuration also extends to Him as Word. And, like the crosses that continued to appear on manuscripts, the monuments acknowledged the union of cultures under one all-encompassing power.

Our understanding of the peace-weaving power of the cross rests with St. Paul, of course:
19 Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell;
20 And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven. (Col. 1)
******

Well, we have a new power in charge now. The coalition and all the parliamentary parties are united and intent upon their use of the cross to disunite the people of Britain - for the purpose of locking us into bondage under foreign powers.

And isn't that just the same way they're using marriage?

And we're still not sure it's Antichrist?
***********************************
*O'Carragain, Eamonn. Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the “Dream of the Rood” Tradition. The British Library Studies in Medieval Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005; 192.
** Brown, Michelle. The Lindisfarne Gospels: Society, Spirituality, and the Scribe. London: The British Library, 2003; 74.

11 March 2012 03:06

11 March 2012 at 03:36  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

The bishop should learn that it is a major point on the agenda of the NWO to destroy the family. This is why the powers behind the scenes - that our governments in utter betrayal of morals and the people of the land as puppets have sold out to – have officialy promoted (Congress as of 1963) homosexuality. Their deceiptful justification was that the world is overpopulated and homosexuals do not procreate.

At least across the Channel not every denomination has been sold out to the tirannical State's forced lie of homosexual 'marriage' like in the Netherlands with the added injustice of ‘weigerambtenaren’ / Christian refusal-cicil servants being fired for rejecting to coöperate in this gross iniquity by refusing to conduct the ceremony for homosexuals in city hall because their consience and faith forbid it!

Obviously the State of the Netherlands is guilty of violating the prohibition laid down in the first Amendment of the US Constitution, because by this conduct, the Netherlands government is in fact establishing it’s majority held marxist- atheistic politically-correct ideology as the required belief and practice for every Dutch citizens in general and civil servants in particular – which is forced by abuse of power of State, as it violates the freedom of religion guaranteed even in the worthless Netherlands ‘constitution.’ It is worthless because it does not line up with the definition and requirement of a constitution, because – among other oxymorons - it has a provision that the constitution is limited by the law. A true Constitution is a standard by which laws and regulations must be measured by and not be in conflict with or be rejected. In the injust-State of the Netherlands, it is the other way around... It shows how few wise lawmakers and justices we have here... Ref: The basic Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

11 March 2012 at 04:24  
Blogger Unknown said...

asdf

11 March 2012 at 07:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's getting quite exciting now, it's basically open warfare. I doubt Cameron will get this through at the first attempt but it will have set the expectation. We'll probably have to wait for the next Labour government to push it through. I think Charles Moore has Cameron's position down to a tee in his recent column. Yet even the Telegraph has supporting columns, such as this by Matthew d'Ancona which chimes very nicely with me.

11 March 2012 at 07:26  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

It is time to "take the cross"again as they did of yore,we must not allow them to dictate either what we have in our minds or on our bodies.They continue to tyrannise us because we let them,draw the line "this far and no further".

11 March 2012 at 07:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That European Court case should be interesting, it's another stake in the ground. I'd have thought the two women wouldn't have a leg to stand on there but who knows.

11 March 2012 at 07:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ough! Reading the first raft of commments on the BBC News site, the letter is not going down very well with the general public. Aside from the actual issue, this could backfire for the Catholic Church. Its reputation in the UK is already quite shaky.

11 March 2012 at 08:22  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

As a Catholic boy myself, I have always defended the Church, but I'm not blind to its major fault - it always sucks up to the rich, powerful and influential. That'a the reason it accepted that scroat Blair into the fold when it shouldn't have touched him with a barge-pole.

Historically, the Church has always made an admirable stand against communist determinism and materialism, but when it comes to neo-liberalism (more commonly called liberalism), the western European version of communism, not a dickey-bird. Oh, sometimes some vague mutterings about the dangers of the love of Mammon, but basically, have at it Mr and Ms Fat-Bastard.

Still, the very presence of the Church constitues a danger to liberal determinism since it implies the presence of a source of authority not controlled by the state. That being the case, sooner or later the liberals were always going to attack, no matter how far up their back passage the Church inveigled itself. Looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

The Church has one advantage in this: liberals are gutless and would never assault the Church in the way the communists did. Evil as that was, that required a spine. Incremental harrassment slowly building over the decades, similar to Muslim "toleration" of Christians in the lands they occupied historically is the liberal way. That gives us time. Not much, but some. We must have faith that its enough. And we need a hierarchy with the backbone that the average liberal lacks.

11 March 2012 at 08:36  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0.

You say the Catholic Church's reputation is quite shaky?

Why, because it was infiltrated by homosexual pederasts? Just like the CofE, children's care homes, schools, scout groups etc?

The group that has most to explain is the section of society conducting the abuse surely.

I will spell it out - h o m o s e x u a l s.

http://tgr.ph/ygox4S

11 March 2012 at 08:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan1: "The Church has one advantage in this: liberals are gutless and would never assault the Church in the way the communists did."

If you mean political liberals then we're bound by our own philosophy there. Freedom is a core value for us.

11 March 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Good point, nowhere man. Here's another: almost all of the sexual abuses perpetrated by Catholic clergy were upon boys, not girls (although admittedly, there were some committed against females). What we're talking about is not clerical child abusers, but HOMOSEXUAL clerical child abusers. Curious how that point is never mentioned. Do we ban the Church or ban homesexuals? Or do we all just grow the hell up?

11 March 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You say the Catholic Church's reputation is quite shaky?"

The child abuse was not just sexual, it was physical and psychological. I know a number of survivors of the Catholic Church who talk of breathtakingly vicious nuns. Irish survivors I know talk of the complete control of the Church in their rural communities.

Besides, it's not just the still ongoing child abuse scandal, it's the historic political and social hegemony, and the unpleasant realpolitik of the Catholic Church during the 20th century. The Internet has made a lot of information available.

11 March 2012 at 09:06  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

DanJ0, if the Catholic Church had complete control of the education system in Ireland, it's because the Irish state handed it over to them. It was much easier than educating children themselves. Accordingly, the Church was acting as the agent of the state, and as an Irish person who went through the system, I'm telling you the state knew exactly what was going on in Church run schools. Truth be told, most of the population knew too, at least about the physical abuse aspect. Perhaps not about the sexual end (although the state certainly knew - that's the reason why the Irish government agreed to pay large reparations out of the taxpayers pocket and to indemnify the Church above a certain level of compensation some years ago. I suspect the Church had them over a barrel on this one).

As far as phyisical abuse goes, people had a very different attitude towards it back in the day, and if if got a clout from a teacher - clerical or lay, as I often did - you did not complain to your parents because you'd get another from them on the assumption that you had deserved it.

My own feeling is that a great deal of the so-called "physical abuse" we hear about today is the product of mental multiplicaton over the decades in the minds of certain people who simply want to justify to themselves ignoring the Church's teaching.

11 March 2012 at 09:17  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0.

Will you condemn Pederasty youyrself, and on behalf of the homosexual community that spawns these pederasts and condemn Peter Tatchel and Stonewall for trying to reduce the age of "consent" to 14?

Remember, if the age of consent were at 14 already most of the abuse you say occurred in the Catholic Church of would have been legal.

11 March 2012 at 10:12  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed, Mr DanJO @ 07.25, and Mr d'Ancona seems afraid of the competition of ideas. Alone among DT opinion writers he allows no comments. Of course, if you are editor of the Spectator and you have the intellectual dishonesty to declare a cultural atrocity such as SSM to be 'conservative', you may have good reason to avoid comment.

Mr Derek @ 01.21, the emergence of the devoutly Catholic Tony Blair in the SSM debate, directly opposed to the Catholic leadership, reminds this communicant of Uncle Joe Stalin's famous question.

You may recall that Stalin asked, 'How many divisions does the Pope have?". Now Stalin died before Pope John Paul 2 was able to give the correct answer.

But today we can ask a fresh question, 'How many divisions will Tony Blair cause?'.

Hopefully the answer will be 'enough to defeat the imposition of SSM'.

11 March 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger len said...

When the Church attempts to take the 'moral high ground' it will be attacked on its past history which in some cases is pretty appalling.

We(Christians) could do the same with the History of secular Humanism that is just as as bad if not much worse.

Secular Humanism does not quite take the 'neutral' position it claims.Humanism is defined as "The denial of any power or moral value superior to that of Humanity, the rejection of religion in favour of the belief in the advancement of Humanity by its own efforts".

Humanism is an' anti-God religion' and it is spreading rapidly.

All the evidence of Greek influence are being displayed in the advance of Humanism,even to the idealisation of the male human form and all that goes with that!.

The so called 'gods' of Greece displayed all the moral failings of Humanity Lust, immorality, jealousy,vindictiveness, and deception in fact the absence of any binding moral code.

This left man free to be his own 'god' and to do as his 'gods' did which was just about anything they pleased.

This is the sickness spreading throughout our society.

Anyone who stands against this Humanistic revolt against God will bear the full weight of its displeasure.

Time to pray against this as those who stood with God against all the wiles of the enemy of mankind in the past and present.

'Then Asa called to the LORD his God and said, "LORD, there is no one like you to help the powerless against the mighty. Help us, O LORD our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this vast army. O LORD, you are our God; do not let man prevail against you."'(2Chronicles 14:11)

11 March 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Will you condemn Pederasty youyrself, and on behalf of the homosexual community that spawns these pederasts and condemn Peter Tatchel and Stonewall for trying to reduce the age of "consent" to 14?"

Yes, I condemn it myself. I am also completely happy with the equal age of consent being 16, together with the supplementary clause for 18. In fact, I think the current sexual offences law is rather good, drawing the distinctions it does.

I've certainly no wish for the age of consent to be dropped to 13 like in Spain (a nominally Catholic country), or 14 like in Italy (a nominally Catholic country), or 14 like in the Vatican City, or 12 like in the Vatican City at the time of the Lateran Treaty.

11 March 2012 at 10:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
Why are you calling Nowhere man by my name?

And Peter Thatchell actually argued in favour of pedastry involving 9 year old children. Remember?

len
Pray and wait on God? Or, as Christians, living in a democratic society, should we be doing something more?

11 March 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0.

And will you accept that the child abuse in the Catholic Church was overwhelmingly carried out by homosexuals?

11 March 2012 at 11:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere: "And will you accept that the child abuse in the Catholic Church was overwhelmingly carried out by homosexuals?"

I haven't looked into the details properly but it appears that the sexual child abuse was mostly male on male, and more ephebophilic than paedophilic. Where's this going? Are you trying to justify or sidestep the illegal and vile abuse by some of the Catholic Church's clergy and the subsequent systematic coverup here?

11 March 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere Man, do you approve of the age of consent in the Vatican City being 14 years of age?

11 March 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I think, DanJ0, that Nowhere Man (and myself) are actually trying to fathom why the New Atheists are so red-hot on attacking the clerical abusers because they're Catholic, and not at all interested in the fact that they are overwhelmingly homosexual. Bearing in mind, of course, that you secularists are the ones who are always banging on about your superior intellectual critical facilities and independence of mind, although, of course, far be it from me to suggest you are uncritical of the homosexual aspect because gay rights are 'righ-on' these days...

And no, I don't approve of the age of consent in the Vatican City being 14.

11 March 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. The Inspector would like to address the Catholic Bishops of the UK through your site...

Gentlemen, we are seeing Christianity being ditched and attacked in the UK. It is time that Roman Catholic politicians speak out on our behalf. Holding silence is not enough. For RCs who are actively betraying their faith, there is only one address. Excommunication. Let us then start, with much regret, with a certain former prime minister of this country. His enforced departure from the church will remind us all in the faith, that betrayal has it’s price.

11 March 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Letters Pray.

"...Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect"


http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

11 March 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan, you need to ask the New Atheists then. Whoever they are.

For me, the main significance of the abuse scandal is that an organisation which styles itself a social moral arbiter systematically covered the abuse up. In addition, the oppressive relationship between the Catholic Church and the people it controlled made the situation much worse as it seems people were afraid to speak out. It's mostly a secularist issue for me.

The nature of the sexual abuse, rather than the other abuse that many online Catholics seem to ignore, is as bewildering to me, as a gay man, as I hope it is to you. If the abusive priests are actually gay then I wonder, perhaps like you, why they ended up as priests at all. The priesthood seems a rather extreme lifestyle simply to get power over youngsters.

I'm happy for correlations to be explored. However, I suspect you're hoping that I don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Or perhaps you don't understand it yourself. Whatever the relationship, I think you'd be well out of order to equate homosexuality with paedophilia or ephebophilia.

Does a priestly vocation, together with the social power that brings, together with an enforced celibate lifestyle, and perhaps homosexual inclinations disrupt the self-restraint most people have? I don't even know if there are homosexual inclinations, or whether the opportunities simply arose because boys are more likely to be left alone with priests than girls. Who knows. Whatever it is, it's abuse. And wrong.

11 March 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Your concern for the unfortunate child victims of abuse in the RCC is touching. We now understand that the male homosexual can have a compelling urge to commit this crime; indeed, you yourself may even have felt the compulsion. It must be strong for a man to break his priestly vows in this way, vows which would not have been taken lightly.

To protect future children, the Inspector proposes a new law preventing homosexuals from working unsupervised with children, in any area, church, education or sport included. In your honour, he would like to call it DanJ0’s Law.

Although DanJ0’s Law would involve a perceived loss of rights for homosexuals, the Inspector feels that this is more than justified by the protection it will offer to our vulnerable young.

11 March 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

I fully support the Catholic view on marriage and believe that Christians should be' salt and light'in an ever darkening World.

However our methods of preaching the Gospel are different, is it better to show someone the Light or to condemn them for being part of the Darkness?.

The Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation and whenever the Gospel is preached the Holy Spirit will be present to convict(those with an open mind and searching for the truth) of their need for a Saviour.

Romans 1 explains this; '16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity.
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

(I suspect that those who live sinful lives are very aware of the fact that their lives are sinful (however much they deny this and attempt to rationalise their behaviour)and the Gospel will reveal this and the remedy which is salvation through Jesus Christ.

11 March 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I see you're out to destroy yet another thread here as one of Les Enfant Terribles rather than contribute anything properly. I'd warn you to expect a "What a grubby, disgusting man you are" reply as a result of your comment but, well, that's never going to happen is it?

11 March 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, It is the Goodness , the Grace and the Mercy of god which brings men to salvation.In short the Love of God for Humanity.

To use a comparison if you had a harsh demanding parent who punished you for every mistake you had ever made and were going to make, would you run into His arms.....more likely run the other way, to escape Him.!.

Jesus used the parable of the 'Prodigal son'to reveal God`s Heart towards the lost of this World.

9Luke 15: 11-32)11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.
13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

(The Father of course is God)

11 March 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

Having lived in California while the battle over Prop. 8 was being fought I see the same issues arising over here.
Given that there is no threat to religious liberty by allowing the marriage of same sex couples, for a change, I support Cameron's position.
That marriage is one of the two fundamental ordinances instituted at The Creation is foundational to the Christian faith. Both have been assaulted by the impertinence of man, but they are binding forever.

11 March 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernst @ 02:37

There is no such thing as "English Cricket" It died when armour was adopted.
I think it was Peter the Great who admired the English so much for using cannon balls to play with.
We should drop the armour and use tennis balls. That's how I liked to play it.

11 March 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Does anyone know if this gay marriage business is going to be a vote of conscience or a three line whip ?

11 March 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

IanCad made Ernst ruefully remember the school field cricket strip and only pads and a box as protection..

" Ernst @ 02:37

There is no such thing as "English Cricket" It died when armour was adopted."

Indeed lad, nothing focuses the mind better than a leather ball hurtling towards you at 80mph with only a piece of willow and quick footwork. *Guffaws wistfully*

Ernst

11 March 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Flossie said...

Just for the record, and to answer DanJo's earlier question about the age of consent in Vatican City - for the purposes of the Catholic Church the Age of Consent is 18. Therefore anyone under the age of 18 is a minor.

The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation, with a presence in countries which have no age of consent law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/13/religion-catholicism

11 March 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

" ... our methods of preaching the Gospel are different, is it better to show someone the Light or to condemn them for being part of the Darkness?"

It's not either-or. That's the difference. One isn't condemning individuals, one is condemning sin and warning of the inevitable consequences now and in the life to come.

The Prodigal Son "came to his senses" because of a crisis in his life and humbly returned to his father.

The problem today is people do not regard what they are doing as harmful and sinful and the social climate drowns out the preaching of God's word. Stand up today and proclaim faith in Christ and it's likely you'll get laughted at.

The Church has to comment on these issues and explain why they are harmful for society and individuals. We need to make the connection between God's preordained intentions for us and our own good here and now as well as in the next world.

A silent Church is a Church that fails Christ. A Church that accomodates homosexuality and normalises it so as not to be judgemental, is betraying Christ. A Church that does not judge behaviour as right or wrong is not part of Christ's Body.

It's not about condemning individuals who sin for reasons God alone knows. Equally its not about accepting those behaviours.

"Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused you? Has no man condemned you? 11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn you. Go, and now sin no more."

11 March 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

There is no such thing as "English Cricket" It died when armour was adopted ... We should drop the armour and use tennis balls. That's how I liked to play it. !!!

You and Henry V, then!!! :)

First Ambassador:... He therefore sends you, meeter for your spirit,
This tun of treasure; and, in lieu of this,
Desires you let the dukedoms that you claim
Hear no more of you. This the Dauphin speaks.
Henry V: What treasure, uncle?
Duke of Exeter: Tennis-balls, my liege.
Henry V: We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
His present and your pains we thank you for.
When we have march'd our rackets to these balls,
We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set
Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler
That all the courts of France will be disturb'd
With chaces. (I.ii: 254-65)*

Shakespeare, W. Henry V. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd. Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

11 March 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

By the way: In addition to what I wrote earlier: It is also a NWO agenda to DESTROY the church. That is why they promote homosexuality, for as you can see this issue harms the church in a way that brings it close to its destruction. Not because the issue itself means anything, the Word of God is clear enough.

Nay it is because of the many people calling themselves Christian who are like a fifth column, or a Trojan Horse, who prove they are nothing but anti-christ and carnal, insisting they do not need to repent of their homosexual behavior of which the Lord clearly says that those who practise such things will not enter the Kingdom of God, and their symphatisers, cause a division in the church. Everybody nowadays seems his own theologian anyway...hard to instruct...

James 4: 4 says: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 John 2:15-17 says: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever"

Rev.3:16 says: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." This is addressed to the churh, not to the unbelievers!

Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" And in Matth. 5:13: " Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." This is what we see all around us. Because of the church's hypocrisy people do not take the church serious any longer - worse... it reflects on God Himself: They do not take God serious any longer and are deaf to any cries, crying out: "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand"...well it is here! But HELL & HEAVEN are as real as they ever were, more so, as the day of the Lord is approaching, they are mor near than they ever were. Jezus Christ is coming sooner than most people think. Are they ready? Like the wise virgins?

Let me remind you of Psalm 2: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

11 March 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Nice try, DanJ0, but no cigar. If correllation does not equal causation viz-a-viz homosexuality and child abuse, then it doesn't equal causation viz-a-viz the Catholic Church. Nor, indeed, does it equal causation as regards fatherhood, and let us please remember that the biggest single group of child abusers are fathers abusing their own children. Perhaps we should outlaw fatherhood, purely in the interests of child safety, of course.

Why don't you just admit you've got a bee in your bonnet about the Catholic Church because it won't validate gay unions and be done with it? This constant white noise about child abuse is just a stick to beat us with because we won't tell you it's all right to practice homosexuality. It's like saying that cigarettes are good for you because Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker, or vegetables are bad because he was a vegetarian. It's intellectual rubbish and you know it.

11 March 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan: "Why don't you just admit you've got a bee in your bonnet about the Catholic Church because it won't validate gay unions and be done with it?"

Because it's not true, I suppose. As I say over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again here, I only advocate civil marriage and I would actually protest again the State trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples. On top of that, you have just selected the part of my comments that suit your prejudice and ignored the rest. You fight a straw man and somehow your mistakes are my problem? On your bike.

11 March 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
The Catholic Church will not validate homosexual realationships - casual, long-term, civil partnerships or 'marriage'.

That's the reason for the bee in your bonney, yes? It's one of the few remaining Christian Churches that actually stands clearly against the practice.

And it does not discriminate. It is against all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage.

11 March 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0:”I only advocate civil marriage and I would actually protest again the State trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples.”

You mean civil partnership, civil marriage is between a man and a woman in a registry office. You're trying to blur the boundary now.

11 March 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I don't care whether the Catholic Church validates any of those things. It's essentially a private corporation, it can make its own rules in its private space.

I think the Catholic Church as an organisation is oppressive, vicious, self-interested, creepy and dangerous. It's like Islam in some respects, the rest of us need to keep an eye on it.

Does that count as having a bee in one's bonnet? If so then I have. When we get a secular State then I think people can breathe a little easier over it.

11 March 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You mean civil partnership, civil marriage is between a man and a woman in a registry office. You're trying to blur the boundary now."

No. I mean civil marriage. That is, I advocate civil marriage in law for same-sex couples as well as different-sex couples. Extending the Marriage Act. Is that clear enough for you?

11 March 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Another post on gay marriage... the same predictable responses from all sides, one would think that there is nothing else going on in the world... YAWN!

11 March 2012 at 16:37  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

One thing that is of interest is, what is going to happen to all the sociallly liberal and left wing Roman Catholics, like Tony Blair, who first introduced gay marriage (by a different name) into this country.

If the Roman Catholic Church is so against gay marriage, will the pope have to expel them, for being so pro gay marriage? Add to this to issue of the child adoption agencies, isn't blair's position as a catholic untenable.

What happens next? Will blair have to face an equiry (perhaps the first which won't be a white wash) or can the pope simply chuck him out of the club?

(we wouldn't want the Roman Church to start becoming like the prods and endlessly dividing- I am sure Dodo and the other Catholics would agree on that?).

11 March 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Paul Twigg

[W]e wouldn't want the Roman Church to start becoming like the prods

A couple of comments as an aside.

1. The doctrinal divisions that one sees in Protestantism are also present in the RCC. A unitary organization does not translate into a unified understanding of doctrine. Just ask any RC for an infallible list of mortal sins.

2. Men are finite limited creatures. It's neither surprising nor unexpected that they should disagree. It is neither surprising nor unexpected that they should collect into like-minded groups. Nor is it necessarily a bad thing. The conflicts constantly force the competitors back to the Scripture as the common authority.

3. Organizational unity is not necessary for spiritual unity. Protestants still recognize each other as Christians despite the disagreements precisely because the areas of essential agreement are so broad. I know a Baptist minister who debated baptism with a Presbyterian on Saturday night, and then preached from his opponent's pulpit on Sunday morning. That is the true essence of unity. It is found not in a common structure, but in a common Gospel.

carl

11 March 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Len said
is it better to show someone the Light or to condemn them for being part of the Darkness
I do not think you can show someone the light until they know they are in the dark.
One is useless without the other. Someone is in a room with a candle and they think they can see everything. Then a light is turned on and they realise how little they could see. This applies to Christians as well as the unsaved. They think they have the light because they have heard about Jesus. They don't really have the light until they have Jesus in their heart and their life is transformed.

11 March 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...

"The doctrinal divisions that one sees in Protestantism are also present in the RCC. A unitary organization does not translate into a unified understanding of doctrine. Just ask any RC for an infallible list of mortal sins."

Now thai isn't exactly true. There are no doctrinal differences, properly defined. There are theological differences. Not quite the same thing. Church doctrine is authoratively taught by the Magisterium and to be a Catholic one has to internally accept the dogma and doctines of the Church.

When theological discord surfaces and becomesthreatens unity, the Pope can declare infallibly on an issue ex-cathedra, he or the Magisterium can clarify Church doctrine authoritively or a Church Council can be convened to resolve matters.

That is where it is distinguishable from the individualitic Protestant denominations. And that is why it can speak clearly with one voice on the issue of homosexuality.

As for grevious sin, despite common misunderstandings about Catholicism, there is no neat little rule book with a 'list of mortal sins' that send you to Hell. Lets be honest, grevious sin is a complex matter and a mix of awareness, culpability, intent and action or inaction.

The Cathecism of the Church lays down the framework for considering the teachings of the Church. It is pretty clear on
the Ten Commandments and what constitutes a departure from God's intentionS and prescriptions. Whether a sin is 'mortal' or 'venial' is more complicated.

Hope this clarifies matters.

11 March 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Hope this clarifies matters.

Ummm ... well. Perhaps we should revisit that distinction between doctrine and theology again. A RC is required to accept the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. But what does that mean? Is he required to accept what the authors of Trent actually taught? Is he required to accept the tacit alterations to EENS made by Vatican II? I guess that is where all that hard 'theology' work comes in.

In addition, I often wonder why there is any discordance in the RCC at all. The Pope simply could pronounce ex cathedra on any number of matters, and settle them. There would be no risk of error since the Pope is by definition infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. I would expect the Pope to be spitting out infallible pronouncements left and right on all sorts of matters simply so that there wouldn't be any conflict. Isn't that the much ballyhooed advantage of the Roman system? Do not Roman apologists constantly pound the table about coherent authority that can settle matters?

(Cough) That is where it is distinguishable from the individualistic Protestant denominations. (Cough)

Strange that the RCC makes so little use of that authority.

For example (he said by way of transition.) Since a mortal sin can only be satisfied by the Sacrament of Penance, it would seem to my simple Protestant mind somewhat important to know whether a sin was Mortal or not. How do I know what to confess if I don't know the difference between mortal and venial sin. This could be a problem since the difference venial sin and mortal sin is the difference between Purgatory and Hell.

OK, this is in some sense a theoretical problem since virtually no RCs actually go to confession anymore. Perhaps that returns us back to the the question of theology and doctrine. Is the Sacrament of Penance not required anymore? Has something else tacitly modified Trent so that RCs today don't have to worry like RCs in the 16th century? I don't know. The more I ruminate, the less clear things become.

carl

11 March 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Now,I think you're toying with Catholicism.

The Pope has only made two ex-cathedra prouncements since Trent that I am aware of. Actually, the Catholic Church is not the dictatorial organisation you suggest and it does encourage prayful theological study and debate - within the limits of specified doctrine. There is actually much that is not definitively defined by the Church. That's how the Church grows and develops in faith and understanding.

The row over Vatican II and Trent is one waged principally between 'traditionalists' (some schismatic), and 'modernists', (again, some schismatic).

Popes John Paul and Benedict have been striven to resolve the divisions this has generated and have removed many of the over enthusistic modernist interpretations of Vatican II. They have also made concessions to traditionalists.

Private and personal Confession - now known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation - has unfortunately dropped in popularity, having been replaced by public Reconciliation Services.

Participating in the Sacrament is required at least once a year, around Easter time, and privately, if a Catholic is consciouse of having committed a grevious sin.

One of the tragedies of modernism has been to play down the importance of this Sacrament. However, this is slowly changing. Another, some argue, has been receipt of the Eucharist in the hand.

Unfortunately, members of the Catholic Church are not immune to the forces at play in our society but I can assure you the Church is aware of this.

Ps
If you were a Catholic and been raised in the faith correctly, you would know if you had committed a serious sin. You would not receive Holy Communion until receiving absolution from God through the ministry of the Church.

11 March 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The Cathcism of the Catholic Church covers the issue that you frequently raise:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?

Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, 851)

Have a read of it - it also discusses grevious sin too.

12 March 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Carl Jacobs, Dodo, (& Len as he also seems to be know a lot about the Bible).

This is far more interesting than going through the usual arguments on the gay question- not that it really concerns a species such as ours.

Please continue, it is helping me a great deal, in debating through Christianity (as it is one of this savage worlds major cults of the sky god).

One thing I quite can't get me head around is the Mass/Holy Communion. I think Dodo was on about animal sex earlier on and I thought to myself 'what about cannibalism?'

I thought a Christian should be against that? But the Christian thinks that bit of bread and some wine becomes body and blood of their god- who was human and a god at the same time and is split into three different bits the eucaristic wafer- by magic?

Which makes Christians human cannibals- and Vampiric or leech like ?!?

Please explain to this confused ET!

12 March 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

And what is this species known as the Dodo? I thought what passed for intelligent life on this planet were the humans -not flightless birds!- which the supreme imperial fleet would have no problem in crushing!

12 March 2012 at 00:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin must meet all of the following conditions:

"1.Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2.It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3.It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines grave matter as:

"Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."

Grevious matters would also include worshiping other gods, not respecting the Sabbath, covetous behaviour; and blasphemy.

The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into categories. However, many sins are described as "grave sins" or "grave offenses" in the Catechism such as extramarital sex, divorce and masturbation. These sins must be specifically confessed and named.

Some acts cause automatic excommunication by the very deed itself e.g. renunciation of faith and religion, known as apostasy, a person who desecrates the Eucharist and "a person who procures a completed abortion".

12 March 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You Thurban snake Alpha Draconian would face a force beyond comprehension should you dare venture here!

12 March 2012 at 00:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Remember the Proverb.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly.

carl

12 March 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

??? - I'm an obtuse bird!

12 March 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Regarding the Blair link, I believe I suggested as much in a previous comment in another of Your Grace's posts. One can only hope that such insolence leads to excommunication and, hopefully, a change in Blair's attitude towards the clear Word of God on this and other matters.

As to the post itself, it is well worded and far more measured than previous utterances, so hopefully it might get people actually dealing with the substance rather than hyperbole. I doubt they will, however.

Finally, on the news of the government going against it's own citizens in the ECHR, I believe Archbishop Geirge Carey has put it best, saying that the government have no clue on what manifesting faith is. I guess we might be seeing the down side to a PM "doing God" with us all.being told how it's done!

12 March 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I do appreciate that you have graciously admitted my original contention - that doctrinal divisions exist within the RCC.

The row over Vatican II and Trent is one waged principally between 'traditionalists' (some schismatic), and 'modernists', (again, some schismatic).

I am glad we now agree.

I am also pleased to see you affirm the concept of PRIVATE JUDGMENT so easily.

If you were a Catholic and been raised in the faith correctly, you would know if you had committed a serious sin.

I guess you many not be able to specifically list mortal sins but you seem to know one when you see one. Of course, different people will produce different lists. (For example, I would love to see a list of RCs who consider masturbation a mortal sin. That would be revealing indeed.) Since a mortal sin is not a relative concept, this would make me believe that someone in a authority should delineate that list lest people improperly exercise their private judgment and wind up in Hell. The improper use of private judgment being yet one more accusation that RC apologists constantly make against Protestants.

I will of course have to go back and review Trent, but I don't remember any sacrament called a Service of Public Reconciliation. Was that also a provision for those who made shipwreck of their faith? Or is this simply the RC saying "We have to do something about the laity ignoring Confession or we are going to have to stop teaching about it." In the meantime, I guess your typical RC must be really careful about committing mortal sins from Easter to Easter. Either that, or mortal sins must be rather hard to commit.

And finally .. you can spin it anyway you like, but it is an undeniable historical fact that what the RCC teaches today about EENS would have been considered heresy at the time of Trent. So something must have changed somewhere. Those 'schismatic' traditionalists are simply people who still know what the RCC used to teach.

Even so, you have made progress. I am pleased.

carl

12 March 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I was referring to Alpha Draconis. The best way to respond to a mocking fool is to ignore him. Don't answer him. He will eventually get bored and go away.

carl

12 March 2012 at 00:44  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I do agree with you on one point that the boundaries between what is right and what is wrong are being blurred and in some cases actually being reversed.
It is coming to a point when sin must be defined as people will accept the sin nature of man as 'normal'.This is a deliberate move by humanists to overturn God`s Divine Order and to establish 'Humanist morality'which is contrary to God`e established Order.

12 March 2012 at 00:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I've been thinking and maybe we should try to shift ground and argue on the terms presented by Cameron.

He claims this legislative proposal is Conservatism because homosexual relationships validated by marriage will be based on vows and an oath of fidelity.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Mafia, Masons, Satanists andsundry organisations take oaths of life long loyalty? Are all of these good for society and the common good?

And what about the Baptismal oath of Christians that includes the commitment to reject Satan and all his ways? Will the secular authorities acceopt the validity of this and permit civil servants the right to refuse to 'marry' homosexuals because it would mean breaking this solumn promise?

12 March 2012 at 00:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Finally!

And I agree with you that the really difficult part is knowing how to approach this.

How to minister to those needing God's Word without accepting orcondoning their lifestyles whilst also not rejecting them.

12 March 2012 at 00:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

What was wilful and deliberate apostasy in the 16th Century is not necessarily so in the 21st Century. That's the central point of the Vatican II position as I read it.

And mortal sin is not a matter of private judgement at all! Recognising it is a matter of a properly formed and informed conscience and this can be compromised by cultural situations.

Read the criteria again:

"1.Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.

2.It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).

3.It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin."

And I don't know just how public services of reconciliation developed, or how they square with Trent, but they do not replace the need for personal confession when a grave sin has been committed.

As I've said, this notion that Catholics have a list of sins they must confess or suffer Hell is a simplistic characturisation of the true position.

And, since you asked, understanding why masterbation is a serious sin means understanding the Catholic Church's theology on sex and the body. A Catholic Priest would explain this in confession. It's not a question of rattling off a list of sins but a process of moral and spiritual development.

12 March 2012 at 01:46  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

non mouse

A treat for you from Henry V

http://bit.ly/xVwSpm

12 March 2012 at 07:20  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,(12 March 2012 00:56) which brings us back to the point 'what exactly is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?'

What is the gospel Jesus preached, and are we preaching a different Gospel today?

Perhaps when preaching the Gospel today we need to go back to the very basics ,the very reasons, why the Gospel is relevant today.

Of course the Humanist approach is to undermine the Gospel and to re define man`s sinful nature as 'normal'which of course would make the entire Gospel irrelevant.

We need God to give us wisdom as to how to approach this situation.

12 March 2012 at 08:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 00.46, some good ideas, but isn't Cameron impervious to anything other than humiliation?

It follows that turning the whole human rights edifice back on its creators and supporters may be the best way to go. Hence the thinking behind my recent posts regarding cultural insensitivity and cultural genocide. If a case can be established arguing that Christianity is an integral part of British culture and that same sex marriage and prohibition on the wearing of crosses are in conflict with that culture, Cameron can be put under pressure.

The question arises, who will prepare and mount such a class action against the British government. There is only one institution that this communicant can imagine having the required ability and resources, the Roman Catholic Church!

However, once a case was started in the ECHR, such is Cameron's deference to the EU that any moves towards SSM and prohibition on crucifixes will be frozen until the court decides.

12 March 2012 at 08:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

The Gospel is no different today than 2000 years ago. The times call for action that addresses the situation we are in.

"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment."

The Church needs to communicate God's existance and what He wants from us.

"And the second is like to this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

This then needs translating into action.

12 March 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger greg alexander said...

Is it just me or is this "relationship breakdown" paragraph an acknowledgement that the last time church and state had a major show-down over the meaning of marriage (whether it is permanent or not), the state won. I mean, really really won. Won so much that they can't even advance intolerance without adding "but don't worry we don't want to re-fight the last battle, which we acknowledge we lost."

12 March 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Dodo- A Theban snake? We are not honourless Theban k'vb'fw!

Upon close inspection, my computer has pointed out to me that your picture is a crude outline of the species known as O'dod, known throughout the galaxy for the retail, chocolate and financial services, a people of geat wealth...

And Carl Jacobs is like a typical star fleet officer of my time- except there are no phasers to save him this time!!

Hah, Hah!

12 March 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger len said...

Dodo ,(12 March 2012 10:01)

That is definitely not the Gospel.

13 March 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger len said...

What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?. Firstly and most importantly you cannot be saved by your own'good works' no matter how 'good 'they are. When you ask Jesus to come and live in your heart by faith He will, and He will send you the Holy Spirit to teach you how to truly believe and will give you the faith to understand how simple Salvation is to receive and Jesus gives us the power to live a Christian Life through His Holy Spirit.(We cannot save ourselves and we cannot live the Christian Life in our own strength!.)

Man has made Salvation so hard with religion, and laid a ton of Works and Laws on our shoulders. You can not save yourself. Only the Sinless Blood Of Jesus Christ that was shed on the Cross can save you.

Find you a Bible, read Romans Chapter 5, Pray and ask the Holy Spirit to show you how Sin came into the world through Adam, and how Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and him Crucified only.

13 March 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Then you take it up with Jesus!

"Master, what must I do to possess eternal life? But he said to him: What is written in the law? How do you read it? He answering, said: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with all your strength and with all your mind: and your neighbour as yourself. And he said to him: You have answered right. This do: and you shall live.2
(Luke)

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depends the whole law and the prophets."

13 March 2012 at 00:53  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, The Gospel is the Way!.

A means to the end!.

Can an unredeemed man love anyone regardless?.
Do unredeemed men Love God?

The Gospel is the door to salvation the 'door being' of course Christ and His redemptive work on the Cross, we partake of His death and consequent resurrection(new birth) by faith.
Christ then lives His Life in us!.

13 March 2012 at 08:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
Once we're Baptised into Christ our journey of salvation begins and through grace and the assistance of God we will succeed. Along the way, we'll stumble and fall and sin but, as Paul says, with persistance we will reach our destination.

You remind me of one of the early desert hermits standing on a pedestal or living in a cave - seperate from real life and not engaging with the world.

As a Christian parent surely you have a duty to instruct your children in the faith and to help form their charactures to resist the evil they will encounter in the world. As a citizen you have a duty to do all you can to ensure God's ordances are adhered to for the common good and the good of individuals. As a Christian too you have a duty to speak out against sin, to name it and explain the consequences.

At the moment I'm unsure what your Christianity entails in dealing with others. You say do not 'condemn' others and I agree. However, this is not the same as saying nothing in the face of objective sin that is increasingly being justified by 'Christian' Churches!

13 March 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger len said...

Dodo that`s not the gospel either.

Try again.

Third time lucky?

13 March 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, cannot wait any longer so here is what salvation is, also what God`s ultimate purpose for Creation is!.

Salvation is Christ!.
The Gospel is Christ!.

Jesus 'So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.'(John 8:238)

(Can we do better than Jesus ,can we live the life Jesus could not without His father,I refer to 'religious works, religious Law keeping)

So... The Christian Life is....A revelation of the hopelessness of our fallen condition...The need for a Saviour.....Total identification with His Death....Re birth as a new Creation....Union with Christ......

Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation. All to which the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured and procured for them in the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption, all of which they become the actual partakers in the application of redemption, and all that by God’s grace is embraced within the compass of union and communion with Christ…

'Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.'(John 15:4)

Dodo I live very much in 'this World' I have worked all my life(and am still working manually) and sometimes in what would be considered' fairly rough' places and amongst people that many would not want to meet and have shared the Gospel with them.So I am not a 'hermit' living a solitary existence.

13 March 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, the ultimate purpose of God in Creation.

If we are to understand and appreciate God's working in our lives we must come to an understanding of His will and purpose. Everything which God has and will do is to one glorious end. This end is His "Eternal Purpose" (Ephesians 3:11).
According to the Bible "He has made known to us the mystery of His will ... that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He will gather together in one, all things in Christ, which are in heaven and on earth" (Ephesians 1:9-10).

This is the reason for the Gospel, this is the reason for the new birth,this is the reason why God is preparing a New Heavens and a New Earth...... that Christ will establish His Kingdom and restore Creation to His Eternal Purpose.

13 March 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
A Catholic would not dispute that faith and union with Christ is the central message of the Gospel. It's stated and restated in all Catholic theology!

What we disagree on is your application and understanding of this:

" ... the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured and procured for them in the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption, all of which they become the actual partakers in the application of redemption, and all that by God’s grace is embraced within the compass of union and communion with Christ…"

You realise John Murray was a Calvinist theologian. How do you square your 'born again' position, worship on Saturdays and Calvanism?

Do you believe in "unconditional election": The doctrine that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone? That God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

If you believe this ... well, why bother evangelising at all?

13 March 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Your's is a 'pix and mix' protestantism len, lacking in coherence and consistency. Which is fine. You love Christ and believe you are united with Him in Spirit. Good.

The problem arises when you challenge the faith of Catholics and other orthodox Churches. Frankly, you neither know nor understand my faith.

13 March 2012 at 23:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

What on earth..

"What we disagree on is your application and understanding of this:

" ... the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured and procured for them in the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption, all of which they become the actual partakers in the application of redemption, and all that by God’s grace is embraced within the compass of union and communion with Christ…"

You realise John Murray was a Calvinist theologian. How do you square your 'born again' position, worship on Saturdays and Calvanism?"

Where has Len quoted this as Ernst is completely mystified by this comment.
Ernst has enjoyed G K Chesterton but we can safely say Ernst is NOT RC! Likewise C S Lewis, Spurgeon,Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Rutherford.
I am not RC, Calvinist, Presbyterian or Anglican but judge all that is declared against scripture. A Berean..They listened attentively and respectfully to the gospel. They did not reject and spurn it as unworthy of examination. They made diligent and earnest inquiry in respect to this, and were willing to ascertain the truth and ascertaining that the doctrines stated by Paul and Silas were 'in accordance with the Scriptures'.

Len, are you calvinist, I have never heard you express this or is duckie being deceitfully dastardly?? :)

Ernst

14 March 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst the latter day Berean queried Dodo's mendacity!

Quote cut and pasted by len the Confused on 13th March at 21:10. It's a quote from a well known Scottish Calvanist and, unless I'm mistaken, reflects a belief in "unconditional election".

And Berean's were part of the universal church and accepted the teachings of Paul and Silas.

According to Acts they "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so", and many of them believed. They searched the scripture to confirm the OT foreshadowed Christ, not to challenge the message of Christ's appointed Apostle - His duly appointed representive.

14 March 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo

I understand that to commit a mortal sin you must give full consent and have full knowledge.
What about this for a hypothetical situation.

A catholic's wife is giving birth. If complications occur,he knows that he would always choose his wife's life over that of his unborn child's..

Has he still committed a mortal sin even though he has been fortunate enough not to experience this situation ?He knows without reservation that he would always choose his wife.

Incidentally this is a truly outrageous concept.There can be no justification for this one.Who could do this? I don't believe Catholics are a crazed bunch of monsters. Most of them cannot know a lot about their religion which is a good thing because they will not be committing mortal sins (ignorance of the catholic law is an excuse ..just as well)

14 March 2012 at 05:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo

I understand that to commit a mortal sin you must give full consent and have full knowledge.
What about this for a hypothetical situation.

A catholic's wife is giving birth. If complications occur,he knows that he would always choose his wife's life over that of his unborn child's..

Has he still committed a mortal sin even though he has been fortunate enough not to experience this situation ?He knows without reservation that he would always choose his wife.

Incidentally this is a truly outrageous concept.There can be no justification for this one.Who could do this? I don't believe Catholics are a crazed bunch of monsters. Most of them cannot know a lot about their religion which is a good thing because they will not be committing mortal sins (ignorance of the catholic law is an excuse ..just as well)

14 March 2012 at 05:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida, who am I to comment or make a judgement on this? Would any man want to chose his wife's death over his newborn child's? God forbid people are placed in such situations. Childbirth is an emotional and stressful experience for fathers - believe me I know. And do remember, any action directed at saving the woman's life that does not involve the direct and intended death of the child is not considered murder.

As for mortal sin, well the Church believes God has written on men's hearts knowledge of right and wrong. I guess ignorance may be an excuse but certainly not deliberate and wilful ignorance!

14 March 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"They searched the scripture to confirm the OT foreshadowed Christ, not to challenge the message of Christ's appointed Apostle - His duly appointed representive."

Oh good, thought you were going to make some ghastly reference to a pope being an apostle by succession? Least we can agree on that one being unfounded rubbish! *phew*

Ernst

14 March 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, Apostolic succession goes without saying - it's in Acts. And of course the Church has to have an earthly leader. Jesus had the foresight to institute this.

14 March 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I understand the Catholic 'faith' only too well.

Catholicism is the original' Pick and Mix'and is the root cause of all the divisions in Christianity.If Catholics had stuck to the original Gospel without all the 'additions' and 'interpretations' we would have a 'United Church' not a fragmented one!.

14 March 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

I see you still keep 'paddling around in circles 'trying to 'muddy the water'( and you call me confused!.)

If you want to call me anything ....I would not object to being called a Berean ...You definitely could learn a lot from them!.It would take a lot of mental effort and a lot of courage and honesty (with oneself )to 'unravel Catholicism though!.
Who knows you could even find the Gospel underneath it all ?.

14 March 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
You are no Berean!

They listened to teaching and had the meaning of Old Testament taught and explained to them by Paul and Silas. It was directed theological study.

You dip in and out of whatever school or Christianity suits you prime purpose of arguing against Apostolic Catholicism. You are a Protester -that's what defines you snd not a search for truth. You randomly use mutually exclusive theologies depending on the issue in hand and the first website you happen upon that suits your particular purposes.

I'm afraid you demonstrate inconsistency and incoherence.

14 March 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps
So do you now believe in "unconditional election"?

14 March 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Let me explain something to you , you seem determined to put me in a 'box'.
Are you 'obsessive compulsive' (nearly said AC/DC but don`t quite think that is the right phraseology!.)

There are elements of truth in most religions, does this mean I subscribe to them all?....certainly not.
The are elements of truth in Catholicism and I agree with them but does that mean that I swallow Catholicism' hook line and sinker?'....certainly not!.
To use an analogy suppose I had a glass 90% full of crystal clear pure water but had mixed 20% pure poison in it would you drink it?.
No.. neither would I!.

The same is true of religion!.
If people searched the scriptures and compared their chosen religion with scripture then perhaps all the denominations wouldn`t exist and we would have a United Church.

14 March 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Do I believe the a 'certain group' of people were chosen by God before the beginning of time to be saved and the rest shouldn`t even bother listening to the Gospel because they' are not the 'chosen ones'?.

No.

But..... I believe that God in His infinite Wisdom KNOWS the people that will accept His offer of Salvation and those who will reject His offer of salvation.

So the Gospel still MUST be preached so that all have the chance to hear the Gospel and decide for themselves.

14 March 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Len, then choose your quotes more wisely and attribute them in future!

Foreknowledge is not the same as predetermined election, I agree, and I'm pleased to hear youdon'tsubscribe to it.

The difficultly with your 'pix and mix' approach is that Catholicism has to be understood and appreciated (or rejected) in total. You cannot isolate one element and criticise it without understanding how it was arrived at and where it fits.

That's how the Bible needs to be understood too. As a whole - not with little bits quoted from here and there. That's why Catholics disagree with Protestant interpretations of St Paul. You isolate his words from the totality of scripture. Same with "born again" - isolated. I could go on.

14 March 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Interesting point about Catholicism having to be accepted in total or rejected.That is what makes Catholicism staunch and not a wishy washy pastiche.How many middle class Catholics understand this?

It is one size fits all religion and not for the faint hearted.I like the analogy of len's about the drink. I can accept about 95% of Catholicism but the 5% that I reject, I know that in conscience
I could never accept.

It is easier for you to be a Catholic Dodo than someone like me because you have a complete child like trust in the Church.The same way as a small child trusts his parents to know everything and to take care of him.

You have explained to me that there are issues with the Church you do not understand but have faith and trust in its decisions.A person of your intellect does not usually behave like this. So this is what the gift of faith must be . I do not think I would want it . It would rob me of my ability to question.Cultivated humility has led to the oppression of too many in the past.
signed
'Almost Catholic'(good name for a book)
That's an oxymoron isn't it?

15 March 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A threat was issued?

"I could go on...."

Oh dear Lord, please DON'T!

Ernst

15 March 2012 at 02:11  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Ernst, it pains me to tell you this..but there is something wrong with you!

15 March 2012 at 02:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cressida

Ernst feels your pain.

Ernst

15 March 2012 at 09:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

''Dodo... has an almost chidlike trust in the Church''. Hm, 'L'Infant bloody Terrible' more like.

''Almost a Catholic'' is not an oxymoron, it's a High Anglican; the circle rounded, as it were. ;o)

15 March 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 March 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 March 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida
Catholicism is a complex faith - so is attempting to fathom God with the limits of our human intellect!

I suspect the 5% of the Church's teaching you find difficult to comprehend centres on birth control, abortion and sexuality.

The basic Catholic principle that an act that is in itself inherently evil (that is in contravention to God's revealed Will for us) can be difficult to accept. In truth, I found understanding this difficult too and struggled with it. Very many Catholics simply accept the Church's 'rules' without questioning it too deeply and some ignore the 'rules' too.

At it's root of the teachings on sex is the recognition that human sexuality has a purpose - unitive love and the transmission of life, within life long marriages - and if you wilfully seperate these sex and marriage becomes selfish. That's why homosexuality, contraception and masterbation are regarded as serious sin.

It's the same principle that's applied to abortion. Whatever the circumstances or the situation, to deliberately end the life of an innocent (from the moment of conception) is seeen as an act of murder notwithstanding it being done to achieve some other good purpose.

If it's "child like" to trust 2000 years of serious philosophical and theological study about this, in the light of Scripture, then I'm guilty as charged!

There are of course times when one questions these teachings - AID's, population explosions in the under developed world, pregnant women desperate not to increase the size of their families, or those facing the risk of death or following rape.

However, is conceding a moral principle and placing man's interests over God's Will the way to go? Look where it is leading the 'civilised West'!

The gift of Faith is not dependence on the Church as an organisation but on Christ and the certainty of life after death in His company. It means accepting He established His Church for the purposes of leading people to salvation.

As a Catholic I don't go in for all the ritual, pomp and ceremony. It's not an essentail. I respect the offices of the Pope, Bishops and Priests but see them as men tasked by God with a mission and given the necessary gits for this. Some fail, of course, or are led into the Church for the wrong reasons. I respect and love the Church despite all of its human failings, past and present.

And 'Almost Catholic' is not an oxymoron at all. I would say you may be more Catholic than many Catholics! 'Questioning Catholic' might be a better title for a book or for some poetic exploration.

15 March 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida said ...
"Ernst, it pains me to tell you this..but there is something wrong with you!"

An insightful and intelligent observation. No more need be said!

15 March 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

*Massive chortles*

"I could go on...."

Oh dear Lord, please DON'T!

Ernst

That Dodo Dude could NOT resist..

"An insightful and intelligent observation. No more need be said!"

Oh dear Lord, You DID!!*Sighs*

Ernst

15 March 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida said ...

"Ernst, it pains me to tell you this..but there is something wrong with you!"

15 March 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger len said...

Catholicism......you just couldn`t make it up..........they did?.

15 March 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Captain Ernst T Kirk - Showing them compassion may be the only way to earn peace with Dododicus Catolicus. It's logic, Spock. I thought you'd like that.

Dododicus Catolicus - I would rather suffer the end of Rome a thousand times. I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you.

Captain Ernst T Kirk - You got it! Arm phasers. Fire everything we've got!


Ernst feels your pain.

Ernst

15 March 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And all because the lady expressed an interest in the Catholic Church!

Such shocking protestations! And Ernst who said, "I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you." Do be careful what you wish for.

15 March 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"A parody (play /ˈpærədi/; also called pastiche, spoof, send-up or lampoon), in current use, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on, or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.

As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon puts it, "parody … is imitation, not always at the expense of the parodied text."

Do try and find that funny bone, old bird. Hint-It's under the parson's nose!

Ernst You silly bird.

15 March 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger rallentanda said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 March 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin said ..,
"''Almost a Catholic'' is not an oxymoron, it's a High Anglican; the circle rounded, as it were. ;o)"

Actually, in my opinion, High Anglicanism is wanting your cake and eating it too. As part of Anglicanism, it's a series of consessions and compromises to the world.

15 March 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Joshua Braska said...

If the Catholic church wants to take a pro-marriage stance, then it should be working to end divorce and make adultery a felony. The church conceded on these, not because of any loosening of morals, but because it became socially convenient. There is nothing that proves that homosexuals are bad parents or child molesters unless you look within the church itself which seems to have created a haven for pedophiles. People also assume that by allowing gays to marry, hetero marriages will cease to exist. Also, like many of the things Catholics believe, there is no proof of that. Lastly, it is not our place to judge others. That is a right left solely to God. It is not for any one of us to pass judgement on homosexuals. Jesus teaches us to love sinners to show them the righteous path. That is what Jesus did, and I thought that was who we were supposed to be striving to be like. Jesus showed everyone love. He never passed judgement. Even Jesus that all judgement came from the Father in heaven.

17 March 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 23:18 : did someone mention cake? As for 'having it and eating it' isn't it your crew who favour confectionary-based theology; whereas we favour consubstantiation over transubstantiation? Oswin, naughty but nice; the less fattening alternative. xx

17 March 2012 at 23:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: spot the spelling error above, and you win a doughnut!

17 March 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
No spelling error that I can detect but you clearly do not understand the doctrines of consubstantiation and transubstantiation.

18 March 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Now that`s what I call magic!.

19 March 2012 at 07:50  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo : 'confectionery' and not ''confectionary'' - no doughnut for you!

...and I do, clearly, understand what it is that you suppose I do not. Pity about the doughnut; must try harder...

19 March 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
I do not engage in trivial exchanges about the Eucharist. Christ paid too costly a price to leave the gift of His Body and Blood with us. And if you understand consubstantiation then you will know Communion is not something to compare to confectionery.

len
You call the Eucharist established by Christ Himself "magic"?! Shame on you.

You lied about agreeing with the 39 Articles, didn't you?

The Eucharist, established by Christ, is not symbolic. He commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood if we want to be saved. What part of Scripture do not understand?

"Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."

Seems pretty clear to me. Or is there some translation problem?

20 March 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: do unclench your buttocks, else you'll suffer for it later.

20 March 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger len said...

Dodo Jesus is describing being born again(filled with the SPIRIT of God) not an act of cannibalism!.

21 March 2012 at 08:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older