Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Liberal Democrat Voice: Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Pope Benedict XVI ‘are not good’

There is a curious piece on LibDem Voice entitled ‘In Praise of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor’. The author is one Joe Taylor, a self-confessed ‘practising Catholic’ and the Liberal Democrat Organiser (agent?) for Camborne and Redruth, a very key marginal currently held by the Liberal Democrats (16,747) with a slim majority of 1886. It is naturally a target seat for both the Conservatives (12,644) and Labour (14,861).

But with a Christian demographic of 72.8 per cent, Cranmer rather thinks LibDem Voice has just scuppered Julia Goldsworthy’s chances of being re-elected.

The article has elicited quite a few decidedly illiberal comments about the undemocratic nature of the Roman Catholic Church, and about Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Pope Benedict XVI in particular. The problem is that Joe Taylor, like all Liberal Democrats, is trying to have his cake and eat it by attempting to find a ‘third way’ between Rome and Sodom, and lauding the ‘subtle reformer’ Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor for his immense achievements in making the Church more ‘gay friendly’.

Subtle reformer?

There are those in another place who would choke on such adulation bestowed upon a man they view as a very unsubtle deformer of the faith.

Mr Taylor talks the Church up by referring to attendance at Mass on Easter Sunday. This Liberal Democrat was ‘inspired’, ‘amazed’ and ‘astonished’ that it was standing room only because (he thought) ‘churchgoing is in terminal decline, and the only people who are likely to attend regularly are impoverished, ignorant or delusional (or all three)’.

No, Mr Taylor. It is simply that Easter Sunday is the most important day in the Christian calendar.

But he takes this as clear evidence ‘that religious faith is still very relevant, and that the Catholic faith still matters to a lot of people in Britain’.

Is this man an idiot, or is it simply that he is a Liberal Democrat? He describes himself as ‘both a liberal and a supporter (on balance) of the Roman Catholic Church’, and proceeds to pour scorn upon those who are Catholic and (on balance) find liberalism incompatible with their faith. He puts the ‘success’ of his church (attendance at Easter Sunday Mass) down to those Roman Catholics who have seen the light and who ‘embrace a more liberal approach to what is essentially a conservative faith’. And ‘for this we can thank one man in particular - Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the outgoing head of the Roman Catholic Church in England’:

‘Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, like Pope John Paul II, was a subtle reformer. Under his leadership the Roman Catholic Church in England has taken a more liberal stance on key social issues, without causing the huge public ruptures that have bedevilled the Church of England.’

We then get a bit of biography: about when Mr Taylor ‘was growing up, the Catholic Church was highly intolerant of gay relationships, gay rights and gay marriage’. But this, he says, ‘is no longer the case’.

Cranmer must have missed something. He has no knowledge of gay relationships being blessed or gay marriages taking place under the aegis of Rome, even with the ‘subtle reforms’ of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.

Unless they be so subtle as to be imperceptible.

But the Liberal Delusional Joe Taylor sees this as paving the way (he hopes) ‘for the possibility of female Catholic priests and bishops’. These ‘incredibly progressive liberal developments’ have ‘all happened under the watch of the good Cardinal’ which is ‘reflected in increased church attendance’.

Cranmer knows the Lord said only as a little child can you enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he feels sure he did not mean with the puerile reasoning of The Tablet.

The storm clouds are gathering over Mr Taylor’s beloved and subtle reforms with the advent of the counter reformation of Pope Benedict and the appointment of the ‘conservative’ Archbishop Vincent Nichols – ‘the signs are not good that this progress will continue’.

It is encouraging that Liberal Democrats can see the signs. But Mr Taylor ought to appreciate that for many Roman Catholics the ‘subtle reforms’ to which he refers are no progress at all. There is simply little desire for ‘family values’ to embrace the homosexual: being Catholic and Christian, they prefer the family to be as God instituted it – a man and a woman bringing up their children in the light of truth.

According to LibDem Voice, Pope Benedict makes liberal Roman Catholics ‘cringe’, and replacing the enlightened and progressive Cardinal Murphy with the conservative Archbishop Vincent ‘gives pause’.

Cranmer feels sure that quite a few of Camborne and Redruth’s 57,457 Christians might give pause before they cast their ballots for the Liberal Democrats again.

38 Comments:

Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

I could go into my usual rant at reading about this individual who seems exceptionally naive.

But instead you have given me the opportunity for a good laugh on my birthday. Thank you!

15 April 2009 at 10:46  
Blogger Cranmer said...

His Grace wishes you Many Happy Returns of the Day!

15 April 2009 at 10:53  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I was about to unleash some heavy disdain for the gay agenda, but I will not spoil the tone, and say Happy Birthday.

15 April 2009 at 10:59  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It seems that Mr Taylor has signed up with Blair's Faith Wotsit/Thingy. How else could you explain his bovine rectal evacuation rhetoric?

PS Happy birthday UGOC!

15 April 2009 at 11:00  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

That didn't come out right. never mind.

15 April 2009 at 11:01  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace, McKenzie

Your good wishes are most appreciated!

15 April 2009 at 11:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, I find the accompanying demised bird graphic amusing. I'm wondering whom it was choked the chicken. Was his surname Smith perchance?

:D

15 April 2009 at 11:21  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I can't restrain the need.

Does anybody know if Julia Goldsworthy is a dyke? She seems to often voice concerns about gay issues. This is usually a tell tale sign of underlying sexual deviance. Its non of my business I suppose, or is it? If people are going to make influential statements in parliament which affect my religion, then I suppose it is my business to understand where they are coming from.

I mean, if someone is trying to over-ride biblical scripture by making sin the new norm, then I would like to know if they have an axe to grind.

I have never heard of Joe Taylor, but in answer to your question: Yes on both accounts.

15 April 2009 at 11:24  
Anonymous Chocolate Mousse (Light) said...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041408.html>EU to force churches to celebrate homosexual 'marriagesHow much longer can it be before Christianity itself is made illegal? I can forsee Equality laws being made to force churches to 'ordain' women and celebrate same sex marriages.

15 April 2009 at 11:33  
Anonymous Chocolate Mousse (Light) (Revisited) said...

Bad link

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041408.html

15 April 2009 at 11:39  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Sexual deviance is a complex issue because conformity and deviance are relative terms. Sexual deviance refers to atypical sexual behaviors generally defined in moral, legal or medical terms. The term has always been a contested category as regards its meaning.

Homosexuality: Sexual mores keep changing according to time and place and what was previously seen as a sexual deviance can become a norm as it gains social acceptance. A recent drastic change occurred in the US when psychiatrists removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders (DSM IV) and certain states even legally sanctioned gay marriages. On the contrary, in countries like India, homosexuality is clubbed along with bestiality (sex with animals) and pedophilia (sex with children) as an “unnatural act” and can attract a jail term of up to ten years under Article 377 of the Indian Criminal Code.

In a survey called “Now for the Truth about Americans and Sex," that was published in Time magazine in 1994, Philip Elmer-Dewitt reported that homosexuality was experienced by 9% of the men, and lesbianism by 4% of the women and they had experimented with it at least at some stage since their puberty.

I have read that modern lifestyles and upscale urban living have led to a shedding of inhibitions and increased sexual freedom to explore various sexual behaviors, but I find it strange that there are considered to be a vast array of sexual behaviours that are deemed to be deviant, such as the list below.


Paraphilia - Erotic Focus
Zoophilia - Animals
Formicophilia - Small Creatures
Klismaphilia - Enems
Mysophilia - Filth
Urophilia - Urine
Coprophilia - Feces
Vampirism - Blood
Vomerophilia - Vomit
Necrophilia - Corpses
Symphorophilia Stage-managed disaster
Abasiophilia - Lamed or crippled partner
Acrotomophilia - Amputation in partner
Apotemnophilia - Own amputation
Infantilism - Impersonating or being treated as an infant.

How long will it be before we are forced to accept some of these other sordid categories?

15 April 2009 at 11:51  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

The Purpose of Liberalism is to Undermine the Pillars of Society, to destroy the Old order so they can rebuild their New World Order.

Liberalism = Frankfurt subversion = cultural Marxism = Critical theory.

They consider us the enemy and are destroying our Unity, sowing dissent, confusion.

'They' are at war with us.

15 April 2009 at 12:06  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Ultramontane Grumpy Old Catholic, may I add my own congratulations. You share a birthday with my very good friend Luiz K., now a Brazilian citizen, formerly Polish, a Holocaust survivor, who is 89 today.

15 April 2009 at 13:31  
Anonymous Rodney said...

Your Grace.
Absolute classic piece of writing! Had me ROFLMAO!
I don't know if you are married, but if you are, can't you lose the wife somehow and join us Romans.... please. O and Happy Birthday grumpy.

15 April 2009 at 14:06  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"How much longer can it be before Christianity itself is made illegal? I can forsee Equality laws being made to force churches to 'ordain' women and celebrate same sex marriages."You'll be back in catacombs soon enough.

15 April 2009 at 14:11  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Formicophilia - Small Creatures

So that's not having unmentionable urges towards formica - the pride of amny a 60s kitchen?

15 April 2009 at 15:26  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Hank Petram, Rodney

Thank you both for your good wishes and Hank please add my congrats to your friend Luiz. A great age indeed!

Picking up McKenzie's point, a couple of years ago Mark Steyn reported that zoophiliacs in the US were already claiming their rights. Amongst 'significant others' mentioned were a dog and a chicken.

15 April 2009 at 15:35  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Thank you Grumpy. And tomorrow of course is the Pope's birthday, which he shares with Charlie Chaplin and Spike Milligan.

15 April 2009 at 16:14  
Blogger ZZMike said...

There's one thing I don't understand about Mr Taylor. He professes (confesses?) to be a practicing Catholic, yet he's stunned and amazed about church attendance on Easter.

Evidently he's not yet heard about Holy Days of Obligation. Beyond that, he also claims "...the only people who are likely to attend regularly are impoverished, ignorant or delusional (or all three)’.".

This from a "practicing Catholic"? And, as a practicing Catholic, he is a regular church attender, so we are set to wondering to which of those three categories he belongs.

"Is this man an idiot, or is it simply that he is a Liberal Democrat?"

To borrow a line from Mark Twain, I would append to that sentence " - but I repeat myself".

A local church near us has a motto:

The Message changes us; we do not change the Message.

15 April 2009 at 16:24  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

New book suggestions for the primary curriculum:

Old MacDonald shagged his farm.

Humpty Dumpty fell out the closet.

Little Miss Moffet (no change needed).

Jack & Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of vomit.

Ring a ring a ring piece.

Four and twenty blackbirds (I like the sound of this one).

Hickery Dickery Dock (Work the rest out your self).

Bah Bah Black sheep (Enough).

15 April 2009 at 16:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the RCC claims to preach, and what it in reality practices, with regards to issues related to homosexuality, are IMO, whole galaxies apart.

In other words, the RCC can not be trusted anymore today, then it could 600 years ago.

History has shown us that it is unwise, to say the very least, to assume anything the RCC says, is anything other then a cruel, viciously manipulative and deliberately dishonest lie, unless the statement is proved to be a self apparent and indisputable fact.

The same advice would also stand good, with regards to all leaders of any corporation, political organization, church or state.

Atlas shrugged

15 April 2009 at 20:09  
Anonymous Rodney said...

In other words, the RCC can not be trusted anymore today, then it could 600 years ago.

Anonymous, unless you have a particular beef with the Church - please explain yourself. I don't understand what point you are trying to make? Labels and insults don't constitute a cogent argument. Last time I checked anyway...

15 April 2009 at 21:56  
Anonymous len said...

The problem with organised religions like Judaism, Catholicism,Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam is all of these contradict the Scriptures they acknowledge were inspired- The very book they pretend to garner their authority.
When clerics replace Gods teachings with their own, they embark on a lose-lose scenario.If scripture is inspired and thus right they must be wrong because each of these religions advocate positions that are an antithesis of Yahwehs teachings. And should Scripture be not inspired, each of these religions, based on their own claims must be errant because they all purport otherwise.Therefore the only conclusion is that Judaism, Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam are false.
( Yada Yahway Re`shith)

16 April 2009 at 00:37  
Anonymous not a machine said...

been a while since we had , the full modern day moral coviction , roman catholic cardinal , on the other hand its been all to long for us to have had progressive liberal politics.

it will be interesting how vin and rowan williams work , could be a very powerfull mix indeed .

still puzzled by blairs vocalising of that the pope should consider changing his views on gay sexuality , of all the subjects that would need a private audience , you would have thought homosexuality was top .

wonder if the pope responded back to Blair , perhaps "was it not a sin to have not sacked your chancellor much earlier"

16 April 2009 at 05:46  
Anonymous Rodney said...

Len, I hate to disagree, but my (Catholic) Church does not contradict Scripture. At the risk of rousing my Protestant brethren here up against me, I would ask this question then directed specifically to you: How can you accept the authority of Scripture and yet deny the authority of the very Church that defined its Canon?

16 April 2009 at 07:02  
Anonymous len said...

Rodney I admire your loyalty , but it is misplaced,

Try scripture4all,
Online Hebrew interlinear Bible
Online Greek Interlinear Bible

16 April 2009 at 07:53  
Anonymous Rodney said...

Len. Thanks for that and well done - you found an online Bible. Perhaps my question was poorly worded. Apologies for that. Let me rephrase: How can you accept the authority of Scripture and yet deny the authority of the very Church that defined its Canon?

16 April 2009 at 12:24  
Anonymous len said...

Rodney ,
If I listed all the catholic errors I wouldn`t have enough space on this website,
Ther are Bibles and there are bibles, there is only one Word of God.
I think it will take a miracle (or the Holy Spirit ) to penetrate the demonic trance that religion induces.
(Sorry if this ruffles your religious feathers)

16 April 2009 at 14:32  
Anonymous len said...

rodney, As the catholic church seems to be in some confusion over spiritual matters I don`t accept their canon.
The Second Vatican Council (1962 -1965) produced a document entitled" Declaration of Religious Liberty" which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion.
This totally contradicts the "Infallible" declarations of Popes Pius 1X and Leo X111.It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of "heretics", the inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of protestants.
Freedom of religion also contradicts modern canon law(1988) Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with a " just" penalty if they allow their children to be "baptized or educated in a non- catholic religion".During the inquisition a " just" penalty included things like torture and being burned at the stake( ask his Grace). The inquisition was based on canon law.

16 April 2009 at 20:08  
Anonymous Rodney said...

len, I assume you are referring to Dignitatis humanae? (Which strange as it may seem quotes at least 2 of LeoX111's encyclicals: Immortale Dei and Officio Sanctissimo in support of its teachings. none of thse declarations would fall under the very strict conditions necessary for infallibility which are very tightly defined. (I am unable to respond to your criticisms of Canon Law - we are emigrating and both my Code and Commentary are en route but I will once I have them back) The 'sins' of the Church are no more 'proof' of the absence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church anymore than the continued existence of evil is proof of the absence of God. You say there is only one Word of God? Pray tell which one? The one confirmed at the Council of Chalcedon? Or have you made up your own? I am assuming you are an evangelical? Forgive me if this is an incorrect assumption, but my protestant lecturer, GL Frank wrote this when sepaking of the reformation: It was only a matter of time before what had begun as an assertion of the primacy of the scriptures, as interpreted by an individual, … was replaced by an assertion of the thinking rational individual over and against all religious authorities, including that of the Bible.” We are witnessing the results of this slippery slope today in the flailing for truth of many Protestant churches today. No disrespect intended to our seperated brethren.

16 April 2009 at 22:40  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Anonymous (20:09): "History has shown us that it is unwise, to say the very least, to assume anything the RCC says, is anything other then a cruel, viciously manipulative and deliberately dishonest lie, unless the statement is proved to be a self apparent and indisputable fact."

I submit for your consideration

Deus Caritas EstPope Benedict XVI, December 2005.

The Church is run by men, many of whom are mere mortals, and just as likely to fall into error as anyone else. Perhaps even more so, given the nature of their vows (poverty, chastity, obedience).

I've heard tell that even some CoE Archbishops have been a little wonky in matters of theology.

16 April 2009 at 23:09  
Anonymous len said...

zzMike, When a mortal sets himself up as the ultimate authority he is contesting God and attempting to be an equal of God( remind you of someone?)

17 April 2009 at 13:30  
Anonymous len said...

Rodney,
Unlike the catholic church and its heretic teachings ,I believe in sola scripture.
By this I mean the christian bible, not the catholic versions.
The word of God of course is the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit leads me into all truth as the Lord Jesus Christ promised.
I would prefer not to rely on the teachings and the traditions of men ( catholic doctrines).
Catholicism has buried the Truth under a pile of rubbish(according to Spurgeon)

17 April 2009 at 13:41  
Anonymous Rodney said...

Sola Scriptura? In which verse does Scripture make that claim? (following your logic? I hate to break it to you, but Scripture arose from Tradition - Oral. Then defined according to its conformity with the faith of the Catholic Church. Still awaiting an answer to my previous question...

18 April 2009 at 00:32  
Anonymous len said...

Sorry rodders to keep you waiting,
We seem to be going round in circles .
I rely on on sola scriptura (thats not rocket science , or is it?)
I RELY ON THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE ALONE.
Definition of Sola Scriptura,
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and Holiness.
scripture you demanded ( sorry requested)" Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, AND FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
PS I apologise for any grammatical or spelling mistakes as you seem to pounce on, Sorry pick up on, them.
God Bless you in your search, len
PPs , I also rely on Sola Fide, perhaps we can discuss that one !!!

18 April 2009 at 10:53  
OpenID jamestheless said...

Indeed Len, but how do we know what is Scripture and what is not?

Or, to put it another way: Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the Bible. If he had gone ahead with this, would you still regard it as the Bible?

18 April 2009 at 14:54  
Anonymous len said...

I believe Pauls Epistle To The Romans, alone would be sufficient to understand the purposes of God and to obtain salvation.(With faith added)
I presume you are leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation?Jesus said The Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth.( John 1612-15)

18 April 2009 at 16:49  
OpenID jamestheless said...

"I believe Pauls Epistle To The Romans, alone would be sufficient to understand the purposes of God and to obtain salvation."

No Gospels?

"I presume you are leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation?"

By no means!

The Church was founded at Pentecost and has been guided by the Holy Spirit ever since. There is an early example in Acts 15:2-29 ("For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us...")

The Holy Spirit alone is responsible for everything that is good in the Church. (Tragically, there is much in it which is not good, for which man alone is responsible).

In particular, the Holy Spirit guided those members of the Church who wrote the Gospels and Epistles, and those who brought them together as the New Testament, selecting only the most reliable, the most edifying and the most inspired.

This was a very lengthy process - the New Testament was still not completely settled at the end of the 4th century.

"Jesus said The Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth.( John 1612-15)"

Amen!

18 April 2009 at 18:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older