Friday, April 08, 2011

Archbishop of Brussels 'pied for Christ': the tolerance of the intolerant



Or, if you prefer, set to music (of sorts):



Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard of Brussels has been hit in the face with a number of custard pies by activists who oppose what he has to say about homosexuality. He appears to have something of a reputation for expressions of ‘homophobia', which many may simply term orthodox Catholicism, not to say orthodox Christian sexual morality.

He was speaking at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve near Brussels when the pie-throwers struck, irked, it would appear, by the Archbishop’s intolerant views on AIDS and the judgement of God. He wrote last year:
“AIDS at the beginning multiplied through sexual behaviour with all sorts of partners or else through anal rather than vaginal sexual rapports. When you mistreat the environment it ends up mistreating us in turn. And when you mistreat human love, perhaps it winds up taking vengeance... All I’m saying is that sometimes there are consequences linked to our actions. I believe this is a totally decent, honourable and respectable stance.”
As His Grace’s readers and communicants know well, he is all in favour of freedom of speech on matters religious and political and religio-political. But he asks you today to resist the temptation to descend to the level of Job’s comforters in the assertion of a simplistic theology of retribution. Instead, insofar as he may guide the conversation and debate below, he asks you to consider that these ‘homophobic statements’, which may be considered a violation of anti-discrimination legislation, are becoming unutterable even under the aegis of Europe’s seats of learning. These students who protest in the name of tolerance are manifesting a malignant intolerance of anyone who opposes their views.

What would the mainstream media say if these protesters were Christians pushing custard pies in the face of Peter Tatchell?

Of course, it would be a profoundly un-Christian thing to do, as much as Peter Tatchell’s face may invite a flanning. But there are, as we know, some profoundly repugnant and utterly obnoxious professing Christians out there who engage in all manner of unloving actions against their neighbours, not to say their brothers and sisters in Christ. The point, quite simply, is that homosexuals who attack Christians for their beliefs are fêted and praised, while Christians who so much as question homosexuality are ostracised and condemned as bigots. If one were to ‘pie’ Peter Tatchell, it would doubtless be a ‘hate crime'.

It is perhaps significant that the Archbishop of Brussels is also a prominent ‘pro-life’ supporter and has also been attacked for his opposition to abortion. Such views are no longer tolerated, as one activist explained: “...for all those homosexuals who daren’t tell their parents they are gay, for all those young girls who want to have an abortion, he absolutely deserved it.”

As JS Mill observed: ‘Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realised...’. We are gradually supplanting our liberty for tyranny. And it is not benign.

82 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions. The Christians had that absolute in God's revelation. Because the Christians had an absolute, universal standard by which to judge not only personal morals but the state, they were counted as enemies of totalitarian Rome and were thrown to the beasts.

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) How Should We Then Live?

8 April 2011 at 10:09  
Blogger étrangère said...

The LLN students weren't primarily protesting the perceived homophobia & pro-life stance: they are at an RC university, not a 'free thinking' one, and that would be nothing new. No, they are protesting the perceived hypocrisy of those in authority in the RC church. Belgian RCs are furious at sexual abuse which hasn't been dealt with. The scrolling words in the first video say, v approximately,
'Pie, pie,
the robed homophobes
and the anti-abortionists
who cheerfully protect those who fiddle with small children.

So that AIDS doesn't happen,
they don't use condoms themselves.'

The issue isn't so much freedom, or what's perceived as homophobia - it's shameful abuse of power and respect over hundreds of years. To claim to be against perversion of sexuality, while covering up the same amongst your 'own', is the issue.

8 April 2011 at 10:50  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

It is an interesting characteristic of modern liberal thought that it is only liberal when you hold to the same views. Free speech? Yes - but only when that speech is to repeat the party line. As someone who holds general political views that I guess would be a fairly long way to the left of Your Grace's, it is a great sadness to me that any willingness to debate and argue a whole range of ideas has disappeared to be replaced by a mean-spirited (at best) attitude of "Shut up, or else!"
At this point there is, of course, a danger of hyperbole - allusions to Hitler loom on the horizon - which may be of little use but it seems to be true (with my very amateur historian hat on) that an early sign of totalitarianism is the suppression of anyone holding contrary views to the accepted wisdom of the state.

8 April 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Well said!

Your closing comments do raise difficult and serious questions for any parent whose child may feel drawn towards homosexuality or be facing an unplanned pregnancy. Real possibilities in a culture which not only 'normalises' the deviant but positively promotes and encourages it.

Even the 'institutions' of Coronation Street and Eastenders, which surely form and reinforce public mores as much as reflect them, push these issues at us in the early evenings.

I'm a Christian raised on 'old fashioned' values and my children, now young adults, beseiged by the demand to be 'tolerant' of the unacceptable, have a challenging time trying to work out their own morality.

What would we say to a child of ours who confided in us s/he was 'gay'? Would we reject them? Tell them they were damned if they didn't lead a life of celibacy? Or to a daughter facing a pregnancy and trying to work out what to do? Again, tell her she'll be damned if she aborts her child?

Like so many situations I guess it's how we say it, rather than what we say. And often that's the problem with christians who deliver their message in an intolerant and aggressive style.

All that said, good for the Archbishop of Brussels. What he said makes perfect sense on a cultural macro level. And, personally, I'd love to squash a pie in Peter Tatchell's face. It might improve the look of it! Mind you, it'd have to be a stale one as I wouldn't want to waste an edible one.

8 April 2011 at 11:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He appears to have something of a reputation for expressions of ‘homophobia', which many may simply term orthodox Catholicism, not to say orthodox Christian sexual morality."

These terms are not mutually exclusive.

8 April 2011 at 11:42  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Unless you've never been called a bigot, or a homophobe, or a racist, or hateful, or an islamaphobe by a liberal then you aren't preaching or living the gospel.

William Booth told his congregation to consider the spit upon them as medals of honour. Same goes for shaving foam. Oh that the CofE would have some similarly decorated soldiers.

There's no point trying to argue or reason with the homofascists or islamofascists or envirofascists. They do whatever is right in their own eyes.

8 April 2011 at 12:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

...'But there are, as we know, some profoundly repugnant and utterly obnoxious professing Christians out there who engage in all manner of unloving actions against their neighbours, not to say their brothers and sisters in Christ...'

Really Cranmer, you must stop obsessing about me.

8 April 2011 at 12:04  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Remember that abuse of boys by priests is unlikely to have happened to anything like the amount it has if there had not been extensive "liberalisation", and promotion, of homosexuality/homosexual practices in recent times. And remember that it's only priests who are criticised; if some gay icon media star does pederasty of any kind (and many of them do) then that's completely OK, but if a priest does it, that's dreadful. No, pointing to the villification thrown at British pop star Garry Glitter does not work, because his crime was buying sex from Asian girls, and the pc brigade still have some qualms about recommending abuse of females. Summary: if Christians do anything - horror! The rest - quite ok

8 April 2011 at 12:45  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"And remember that it's only priests who are criticised; if some gay icon media star does pederasty of any kind (and many of them do) then that's completely OK, but if a priest does it, that's dreadful."

I think that's mostly covered by the phrase "hoisted by your own petard". I'm always amused by the various American evangelists who get very publicly hoisted every so often.

The reported words of the Archbishop seem fine to me as far as religionists go. It's an interesting angle to it by étrangère up there though.

Of course, Archbishops and the like are in reality politicans involving themselves in real world politics and pursuing special interests so a custard pie-ing by an activist is pretty normal isn't it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4947544/Peter-Mandelson-custard-attack-Other-memorable-attacks-on-Labour-ministers.html

8 April 2011 at 13:01  
Anonymous Real Conservative said...

" homosexuals who attack Christians for their beliefs are fêted and praised, while Christians who so much as question homosexuality are ostracised and condemned as bigots."

Quite.

Even in the so-called "Conservative" Party the Christian viewpoint on sexual ethics is no longer welcome. Even to the extent of Mr Cameron ordering the sacking of candidates for merely expressing moderate and pricipled concern about the promotion of homosexuality to children.

8 April 2011 at 13:38  
Anonymous gladiolys said...

To have a flan flung at you is not exactly up there with the murder attempts on those who would carry out abortions. And I believe it's usually those who profess to be Christians who do the latter, as opposed to the former.

8 April 2011 at 14:15  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

English Viking, I thought he was talking about me? LOL!

8 April 2011 at 14:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@gladiolys ... Can you point out all the incidents of pro-life protesters murdering abortionists please? I'm aware of only one - and he was widely condemned by the pro-life campaign. However (in addition to the millions of unborn children killed) there have been an equal number of murders by pro-death campaigners. You're probably not aware of the cold blooded murder of Mr Pouillon at an anti-abortion rally as it didn't make the headlines in quite the same way : it doesn't fit with the liberal news agenda.

8 April 2011 at 14:32  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

My posts keep disappearing anyone else having this problem?

8 April 2011 at 14:44  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The Archbishop should issue a Writ against the institution which has a "duty of care" towards him. It is a breach of security.

It is unclear at which University the archbishop was speaking - whether the French Universite catholique de Louvain or the Dutch Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

8 April 2011 at 14:50  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The Archbishop should issue a Writ against the institution which has a "duty of care" towards him. It is a breach of security.

It is unclear at which University the archbishop was speaking - whether the French Universite catholique de Louvain or the Dutch Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

8 April 2011 at 14:51  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Is there any place in the New Testament where Jesus actually condemned homosexuality? If so, maybe HG or some of the communicants would direct my attention to it.
And you can’t, for my money at least, really say that some of the OT is literal and some of it not, and treat the KJ Bible like a kind of ‘pick and mix’ counter ... It seems to me that if the Jesus-God himself really walked on Earth and didn’t feel it necessary at the time to it deem homosexuality a sin then, then surely neither should Christians get so indignant as they do now about what is essentially no business of theirs or a danger to them in any way.

For HG to quote JS MILL in support his particular argument is a bit rich as Mill also said in ‘On Liberty’
‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant’.
It is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in so called Biblical times. Rabbi Gershon Caudill wrote:

"Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice....The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity."
According to the good Rabbi, it was only a millennium after the Torah was written that the Talmud makes its first reference to homosexuality as a perversion. This occurred during the time when the Hebrews were being influenced by Greek culture -- which accepted homosexual behaviour.
It seems more likely that every warped ideology or religion needs a scapegoated minority to unite disparate minds in common cause. The Christians and the Muslims* (*who to be fair to them, scapegoat every one) choose specifically to zoom in on peoples bedrooms. Bit pervy is that if you ask me; and definitely worth a pie in the face for simply being so intrusively nosey.

8 April 2011 at 14:59  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "My posts keep disappearing anyone else having this problem?"

Clear your cookies and cache. It seems to help.

Good call with the JS Mill thing. JS Mill is my hero.

8 April 2011 at 15:16  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Real Conservative: "Even to the extent of Mr Cameron ordering the sacking of candidates for merely expressing moderate and pricipled concern about the promotion of homosexuality to children."

I bet that's mostly because it has echoes of the so-called Nasty Party of Mr Tebbit etc and Cameron wants to rebrand his party.

I dunno what you think 'promotion' of homosexuality is or does. It's hardly like celebrity culture or urban music. Normalising it isn't about making people want to do or be it, it's about making people grow up recognising it as just a normal albeit unusual variant of life.

8 April 2011 at 15:25  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Oh I admit a weakness for the old black and white slapstick pie fights.

Only many so called freedom movements always seem controlled by socialist agendas, they don't want freedom they want control.

His mind his kingdom and his will his law-to qoute Cowper.

That is the Christian freedom the socialists fear.

8 April 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dreadnaught,

Christ nowhere condemns in the NT (KJV or otherwise) pædophilia, cocaine snorting or snuff movies, so I suppose they are OK too?

8 April 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS

Please explain what on Earth the Talmud has to do with Christianity.

8 April 2011 at 16:04  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Neither pie nor flan now that we are Europeans; Tatchell has to take a quiche, surely?

8 April 2011 at 16:21  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Cheers DanJo.

8 April 2011 at 17:01  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

'Please explain what on Earth the Talmud has to do with Christianity' says the horny one.

I offer for his consideration that there is a distinct possibility that this Jesus chappie was a Jew and as such was also subject to the house (of David) rules; He must have known a bit about Jewish history - He being all knowing and that.

8 April 2011 at 17:20  
Anonymous Real Conservative said...

DanJ0, it's teaching children (usually under the cover of dealing with homophobic bullying, and of course all bullying for whatever reason must be stamped out) that the homosexual lifestyle is good and as normal as heterosexual lifestyle. Even if one doesn't use the word "sin", when determining if homosexuality is morally equivalent, one can presumably still ask what naturally produces babies and thus ensures the survival of the human race.

Dreadnought, to add to English Viking's response to your comment on Jesus not condemning homosexuality, maybe He didn't because there weren't people promoting it - it wasn't an issue, maybe because of the condemnation of it in Leviticus. But where it was an issue in New Testament times, e.g. in non-Jewish cultures where Christianity had begun to spread, it was addressed (e.g. Romans 1, 1 Cor 6:9 etc). Just because Jesus doesn't mention something in the 4 Gospels, that doesn't mean God's word doesn't address it elsewhere.

8 April 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Well said, your grace.

The hate directed at any who question, even in the mildest terms, the new orthodoxies -- and if you accept one, then they invent a further, still more odious demand for us to conform to -- is quite terrifying.

Part of the problem is the lack of a free media. All the mainstream media are under the control of these bigots.

8 April 2011 at 17:33  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

http://youtu.be/jQf5jL3a4iU


says it all really:)

8 April 2011 at 17:35  
Anonymous len said...

I would say being 'pied'is quite a mild thing compared with what some Christians are enduring Worldwide.We need to put this into perspective.
Did Jesus condemn anyone as this seems to be 'bone of contention' between some Christians and 'gays'?.
The Bible says;
'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'(John 3 :16)
The only people Jesus actually condemned were the religious Pharisees.

Jesus doesn`t condemn anyone, we condemn ourselves by refusing the free gift of salvation offered by God through Jesus Christ.
This refusal leaves us bearing the accountability for our sins (whatever they might be)

8 April 2011 at 17:45  
Anonymous Real Conservative said...

I'd add that regarding Mr Cameron, he is not acting as a conservative on this and other issues.

I mentioned the immediate sacking of candidates who merely expressed principled and moderate concern at the promotion of homosexuality to children. One can compare and contrast this with when Alan Duncan spoke of murdering, yes murdering, no less, of Miss California who merely expressed the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman. While there may have been a high content of non-seriousness in intent in Mr Duncan's statement, imagine what would have happened if a Christian advcocated even light-heartedly, the murder of a homosexual. Which gets us back to HG's original point.

8 April 2011 at 17:46  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The direct relevance or otherwise of biblical texts, or lack of them, has been mentioned above.

But that need not prevent a storyteller speaking of the high and far off times, before the first man and first woman were walking in the garden, and before the elephant's child asked what the crocodile had for dinner; and before sexuality was of the pristine nature of the soon to become human-in-the-flesh; and how later it became so, just as the leopard got his spots, the camel his hump and the rhinoceros his skin; leaving the sons and daughters of the first parents with what would become (why?) cause not only of affection but also of discord, and of uncertainties about what was rightfully "of nature" and what "against nature", and the various unkindness and confusions being mentioned here.

8 April 2011 at 17:47  
Anonymous Real Conservative said...

This replaces last comment which left out a key sentence...

I'd add that regarding Mr Cameron, he is not acting as a conservative on this and other issues.

I mentioned the immediate sacking of candidates who merely expressed principled and moderate concern at the promotion of homosexuality to children. One can compare and contrast this with when Alan Duncan spoke of murdering, yes murdering, no less, of Miss California who merely expressed the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Of course no action was taken against Mr Duncan. While there may have been a high content of non-seriousness in intent in Mr Duncan's statement, imagine what would have happened if a Christian advcocated even light-heartedly, the murder of a homosexual. Which gets us back to HG's original point.

8 April 2011 at 17:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Real Conservative: "Even if one doesn't use the word "sin", when determining if homosexuality is morally equivalent, one can presumably still ask what naturally produces babies and thus ensures the survival of the human race. "

I guess blow jobs and the like are out then for straight people? Sex is not inherently a moral matter for most people, it's just a big thing for misguided religionists. Teaching teenagers in schools (i.e. social institutions regulated by the state) that "the homosexual lifestyle is good and as normal as heterosexual lifestyle" sounds fine to me. It's just sex, companionship, and hopefully love for most people as part of their wider existence. Why should it bother heterosexual teenagers who can just carry on being heterosexual but not cause hassle for homosexual teenagers because they know and accept the situation?

For sure, put forward your religionist view on it but it's, well, a religionist view i.e. applicable to people who believe in the religion in question. Why should anyone else care? Christian morality is immoral, or at least wrongly moral, by definition if one doesn't believe in the Christian god since morality flows from that. Similarly, with Muslim morality.

A Christian with integity will just say: "I think homosexuality is morally wrong because the bible says so" and leave the camouflage arguments aside. In that situation, other people can reply: "Well, the bible is just a book to us so thanks for your input. Goodbye!" and all is good.

8 April 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

I note with interest the good old Catholic notion of 'natural law' is missing from the arguments, even those being advanced by christians.

It's not all about what is or is not in the bible. It is about whether God has a plan for humanity and the way we should live that is revealed and can be gleaned from the bible and also through the operation of rational thought and logic. Whatever happened to moral theology?

Augustine and Aquinas must be turning in their graves!

8 April 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I doubt this Jesus chappie went in for the reformed Judaism of Ezra.

Christ taught of a spiritual Kingdom not racial purity.

His Divinity came from God the Father not David.

The cross was symbolic of mother earth since time began, which is why Christ gets speared on the cross, phallic symbolism of Mother earth being inmpregnated by Father sky.

But modern Christians suck up to the Jews racial supremacy rather than their own ancestors Indic understanding.

8 April 2011 at 18:26  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think your grace may have summed it so well in the line "If you had flanned Peter Tatchell it would be considered a hate crime"

Your grace often points his communicants into the origins or perhaps questions of disagreements , I am wary as somtimes this leads to a no stance/view is prefered so as not to offend , if one has intellectual leanings.

We are/were created as impressionable beings , which tunes with me , as the groaning of mankind. God of course and christ in particular showed us that we can be forgiven for sin .Forgiveness is different to forgotten . Some in the gay rights movement would rather we all forgot about homosexuality being sinful and stopped talking about it and fell away from getting upset at sexual obscenity , and be as they would claim more mature .

Yet as you point out requesting the same maturity in kind to be reciprocated is not on there agenda, christianity is a criticism/obstacle for wider acceptence of homosexual behaviour as normal and of no threat to any order that religous types have in there crazy small minds.

Well fair enough then some people are straight some are gay , and both these groups then say but not child molesters , who both religous and non religous are keen to condem.

Being gay is perhaps somthing of the playground , it is a contrast to the surges of hormone changes and sexual layering and competition , it perhaps falls into a similar behaviour as ugly . Like children they are tools both to discriminate and signify knowledge and dominance .
I have seen girls do as bad as men do on homosexuality . One can do little about the imperative of attraction to/by the opposite sex , yet the christian conscience suggests there is order , it details the care one should take to keep value , not of sex but of love.
We live in a highly imaged and stylised sexual media world , whole industries/markets depend upon it , yet the order of man/woman raising a family is so obviously a succesful combination and order.

If the gay rights lobby are unable to consider the need for this order , then there thoughts may have become minority selfish in the debate .

I do not wish to go back to seeing the cruelity and thuggery of how homosexuality was and still is metered out , i think they have made the case that homosexuality can live there own lives without terrifying the neighbours , however there are differences , intimate differences that should not be played with ,as anger is then ineviatable as it is by nature insoluble .

order relies on the existence of dividing lines , in close living populations , order is kept by understanding these dividing lines or good and bad .

If the pie flinger truly believes there is no order , he should consider what would happen if we were to choose daily which side of the road we should drive on ,and the casualities that would result through misunderstandings.

I do not find what the bishop said particualry homophobic , I see it more, as thoughtful to natures ways and showing that they cannot change as some protestors would like .

8 April 2011 at 21:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dreadnaught,

I offer for your delectation the idea that the Christ was subject to no-one and nothing but His Father, and that you are spouting tosh.

Please stop pretending to be a Christian; you're making the rest of us look daft.

8 April 2011 at 21:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Is there any place in the New Testament where Jesus actually condemned homosexuality?

Jesus was Jewish not Anglican or Catholic.

He came to uphold Torah not to change it.

He was a Torah-observant Jew.

As a Torah-observant Jew he knew only The Jewish Bible which pompous Westerners call the "Old" Testament. There is in reality NO "New" Testament, it is a figment.

The basis for Jesus emerges in Isaiah but draws upon Leviticus since most of the sayings attributed to Jesus are simple repetitions of Leviticus.

Only someone with NO understanding of Jesus as a Jew could write what Dreadnaught has written. The "New" Testament with its 4 Gospels has no standalone character, it is meaningless.

There is ONLY "The Bible" and the so-called NEw Testament is nothing but an Addendum

8 April 2011 at 22:36  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 11.26 said 'What would we say to a child of ours who confided in us s/he was 'gay'? etc'

The answer is that as parents we would continue to offer them unconditional love, wouldn't we?

Your Grace, the prelate said nothing exceptional and the pie throwing merely reflects an immature reaction by the students to perceived offence. As adults we are inclined to tolerate the immaturity of students. When the students themselves have become parents and raised a family their own views will mellow. A bit boring really but that's all part of the cycle of life and death.

8 April 2011 at 22:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

Voyager,

You surprise me.

! Corinthians 11 v 25.

I am a most disgusting failure in most things, but I do, at least, know my Bible.

8 April 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bluedog,

Your interpretation of unconditional love appeasr to differ from that of the Christ's.

John 14 v 15.

8 April 2011 at 22:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Bluedog,
Your interpretation of unconditional love appeasr to differ from that of the Christ's."

John 14 v 15 relates to our love of Christ and not His love of us!

English Viking said...
"Voyager
I am a most disgusting failure in most things, but I do, at least, know my Bible."

It's not for me to comment on the first part of this comment, but so far as the latter part is concerned, there's clearly 'knowing' and 'knowing'!

8 April 2011 at 22:59  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

I'm with Pope Benedict on this:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

"It is clear that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls".

"Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other."

8 April 2011 at 23:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

The Last Dodo,

I'm not surprised you're extinct, if you cling to popey filth for your salvation.

C'mon, quote some scripture. You've challenged me, so put up, else shut up.

BTW I'm not like some of the soapy 'Protestants' you may have come across before, so be careful.

8 April 2011 at 23:42  
Anonymous MrJ said...

As all those who are not subject to the papal jurisdiction are free to remark, anything from that source which bases itself on its own claim of "magisterium" is arguing in a circle. If what is proposed is acknowledged as worthy to be received as a guide to thought and conduct without relying on "magisterium" so be it. But for many, credibility is not strengthened by an appeal to "magisterium" outside the system of papal canon law. In practice, the claim to "magisterium" may have been the most divisive pretension in Christendom; nor can an appeal to Thomas Aquinas suffice for opponents on this point.

9 April 2011 at 00:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr J,

Eh?

Am I just thick, or are you just really, really clever?

9 April 2011 at 00:12  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

You're starting to annoy me.

Not a wise thing.

9 April 2011 at 00:37  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Voyager in Jeremiah Judah forsake the spring for a cistern.

Christ called for a return to the well of living waters.

Where is your nearest Holy Well today?

Why do Christians baptise themselves in tanks?

So many false idols have been set up in the name of ego.

9 April 2011 at 01:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's face it if the clergy were pied (entarte!)whenever they said something stupid and unfactual, then it may be an incentive for them to come up with some useful advice instead of some of the tosh delivered from our pulpits.

Despite what the Vatican (and others who admire their tentacity in clinging to error believe), HIV AIDS was not invented by homosexuals. While its transmission in the West is still mostly via male to male contact, globally it's a heterosexual issue, especially in Africa and Asia.

I realise this doesn't fit into the simplistic view of the Archbish of Bruxelles and his followers, but let's keep to the facts or else we all deserve a pie in the face!

If homosexual activity is a sin so is sexual activity outside matrimony. I don't hear a lot said about fornicating or adulterating heterosexuals from pontificating clergy. The reason: they choose not to alienate their baby-producing support-base.

And it's so much easier to vilify a minority, especially one that has seen through the deep-seated hypocrisy of institutions like the Roman Church and is alert to the religio-political significance of all its pronouncements. The 'Holy See' - Jesus wept!

9 April 2011 at 01:42  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
You're starting to annoy me.
Not a wise thing."

Oooooh, scary. I'm all a dither.

Just pointing out the glaringly obvious flaw in your logic. I'm not into bandying scriptural quotes. Maybe Dot Cotton would be a more suitable adversary for your obvious brilliance.

You do have a unique and interesting understanding of Our Lord's message, I'll concede that. And plenty of testosterone too. Just mind the axe when you go to bed.

Try Mark 4:12

You either get the message or you don't.

9 April 2011 at 01:52  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Mr J,
Eh?
Am I just thick, or are you just really, really clever?"

The latter possibility doesn't exclude the former.

9 April 2011 at 01:59  
Anonymous MrJ said...

English Viking (9 April 00:12)__May I offer answers in the alternative to your two questions:

A) No (to judge by what I have seen of your comments) and No (to my certain knowledge, supportable by witnesses).

B) English Viking is really, really clever and MrJ is just thick.

Take your pick.

9 April 2011 at 07:21  
Anonymous MrJ said...

I see Mark 4:12 is provided with a ready-made concordance here: http://bible.cc/mark/4-12.htm
New to me, but this blog has been inducing me to make new discoveries.

9 April 2011 at 07:31  
Anonymous len said...

I have spoken out against DENOMINATIONS and against DOCTRINES but I have always(hopefully)spoken the Truth in love.
The underlying reality of Christianity is LOVE revealed to ALL regardless of race, colour, or Creed.(Or sexual orientation)


The entire law is fulfilled in two commandments – love God, love your neighbor. Love enables you to keep the Ten Commandments.Matthew 22:37-40 (KJV)37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.38 This is the first and great commandment.39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.Think about that – you will not break one of God’s commandments if you love Him and you love others! If you love God, you will not do anything, which will affect the fellowship that you have with Him and if you love people, you will do nothing to hurt them because love is incapable of hurting in any way.

9 April 2011 at 07:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

! Corinthians 11 v 25.

Can best be understood in the context of Leviticus 17:11 and Passover.....

9 April 2011 at 09:17  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

You might like this one also Mr J:

Mark4:12

9 April 2011 at 09:26  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Yes, that too LobotomySpoon82.

9 April 2011 at 09:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“in favour of freedom of speech” so long as you agree with my views.

Good on you Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard of Brussels.

9 April 2011 at 10:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

MrJ said...
"As all those who are not subject to the papal jurisdiction are free to remark, anything from that source which bases itself on its own claim of "magisterium" is arguing in a circle."

Read the quote again. It's the three elements of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, working with the Holy Spirit, that is in play. If a position is adopted by the Magisterium that is inconsistent with Scripture and Tradition then it is flawed and not guided by the Holy Spirit.

You're entitled to disagree, but please understand the proposition before dismissing it or over simplifying it. Roman Catholicism adopts this approach rather than protestant individualism or episcopalian democracy.

"It is clear that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls".

9 April 2011 at 13:28  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Report in the Daily Mail:

In a radio interview, Professor De Mattei said:
‘The collapse of the Roman Empire and the arrival of the Barbarians was due to the spread of homosexuality.
‘The Roman colony of Carthage was a paradise for homosexuals and they infected many others.’
The 63-year-old added: ‘The invasion of the Barbarians was seen as punishment for this moral transgression.
‘It is well known effeminate men and homosexuals have no place in the kingdom of God.
‘Homosexuality was not rife among the Barbarians and this shows God’s justice comes throughout history.’

Interesting comments ...

9 April 2011 at 14:12  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

None so blind as will not see.

9 April 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS

Have you heard of Sola Scriptura?

You can shove your tradition and 'magisterium' where the sol doesn't shine.

9 April 2011 at 15:34  
Blogger Nightwatchstate said...

His "homophobic" remarks strike me as merely being a mealy-mouthed way of saying if you keep sleeping around, chances are it might not end so well. As a homosexual, I couldn't agree more, and fully endorse the bishops stance on personal responsibility and reducing ones own capacity for loving monogamy with ill-considered promiscouity.

9 April 2011 at 15:37  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Last Dodo (9 April 13:28)_ Thank you for troubling to refer to my of 9 April 00:02. "You're entitled to disagree, but please understand the proposition before dismissing it or over simplifying it." Please do not make the mistake of assuming the proposition has not been understood or oversimplified.

Perhaps you have failed to grasp the point about "magisterium" because you have read too hastily (or carelessly): my comment is still there and I will not repeat it. You can see that the other two (Tradition, Scripture) were not in dispute. It was the unwarranted claim (outside papal canon law) that was under criticism.

It is a circular argument which has done so much harm to the Tradition and Scripture which are held dear by multitudes within Christendom who are not in obedience to the Church of Rome (such as users of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer), and which many others freely have in respect.

Perhaps those who choose to remain in or become of the Roman Church obedience would have a better understanding of these matters if they were aware of the insuffuciency and mischief of the claim.

But for those to whom it is a dearly held article of faith, so be it.

9 April 2011 at 15:39  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"PS
Have you heard of Sola Scriptura?
You can shove your tradition and 'magisterium' where the sol doesn't shine."

Is that a scriptural quote? Reference please.

Mr J.
The Church of Rome holds, as I suspect you know, that both Scripture and Tradition endorse the authority of the Magisterium and of the Holy Father.

9 April 2011 at 18:13  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

You missed this bit Last Dodo:

"Roberto De Mattei, a devout Roman Catholic, had already raised eyebrows by saying the Japanese tsunami was ‘divine punishment’."

All the rest of that stuff suggests, if past experience is anything to go by, that there will be a stash of gay porn found and a couple of allegations by rent boys made within the year. :)

9 April 2011 at 18:24  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Last Dodo (9 April 18:13) "The Church of Rome holds that both Scripture and Tradition endorse the authority of the Magisterium and of the Holy Father"_Yes: it is commonly accepted, is it not, that this is the point at issue and of divide and schism, from the time of historic Cranmer and before, depending when the "magisterium" claim is first taken to have been asserted--Augustine of Hippo? Ambrose? earlier?

9 April 2011 at 18:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "If homosexual activity is a sin so is sexual activity outside matrimony. I don't hear a lot said about fornicating or adulterating heterosexuals from pontificating clergy. The reason: they choose not to alienate their baby-producing support-base. And it's so much easier to vilify a minority [...]"

Well, quite.

When the Queen shuffles off this mortal coil, the new Supreme Governor of the CofE will be an adulterer and in all probability someone who indulged in sex before marriage too.

Perhaps Prince William, aged 28, and his girlfriend, aged 29, are both still virgins, having saved themselves since starting university for marriage? Hmmm. Well, maybe.

Not that any of that bothers me of course but then I'm not an archbishop or any other sort of devout believer in a religion with sexual morality apparently at its core.

9 April 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Pelting pies at public figures whose opinions you do not share might give momentary satisfaction and entertainment or annoyance to some, but will it yield a change of opinion in that person or any progress toward the pie thrower's goals of getting justice for the victims of the clergy's child abuse and hypocrisy in the long run?


I don't think what the Bishop said was homophobic more fact but the gay's don't like it.
Society seems hell bent on a course of destruction of the masculine and feminine roles and supporting the more bizarre and unconventional is now what is seen to be doing right.

Dodo's mention of popular soap opera's influencing lives made me think of the current producer of Coronation Street who is a homosexual himself and it shows. There appeared the gay barman, the gay son now the lesbian daughter and her lover who were church going bible following Christians until they discovered their love for each other. We even have a middle aged cross dressing man now who has been beaten up. And there is the promise of a gay adoption storyline to come. And all this set in a very small town surely does not mirror our socity or is it how our society is going to become?

Then we had over on ch 4 a documentary about two women who transformed into two men, one of whom retained womb and had a baby girl. They up sticks from tolerant California and moved to New Mexico right in the heart of the Bible belt. Then they moan how hard done to they are because they have to keep quiet about their lifestyle and the 2 adopted boys they already have came into a bit of a misunderstanding at their school. But they want to have another baby so one of the “men” stops the testosterone to attempt to become pregnant again. How selfish society is becoming they don't think about the damage to their bodies all this does and the impact on the children they already have.

Freaky Documentary's like this were once the reserve of obscure American channels for early hrs of the morning viewing when you couldn't sleep not mainstream channel 4 9o'clock family viewing!

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bodyshock/episode-guide/series-24/episode-1

9 April 2011 at 20:03  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

^ for example :)

9 April 2011 at 20:12  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Mr J said:
9 April 2011 18:53

I would say it first arose at the coast of Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-19)circa 33AD and then on Holy Thursday!

It only became a matter of dispute when, for reasons other than theology, the authority of the Pope and Magisterium was challenged - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

Sadly, Christendom is not and never has been, starting with Judas, free from the influences of this world.

9 April 2011 at 20:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Oooh, it's all gone popey!

I feel dirty.

9 April 2011 at 20:33  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Last Dodo "...at the coast of Caesarea Philippi..." _That seems to be the official teaching of the Roman Church today. It is a claim not without meaning and purpose, but that may be veiled from those who uphold it and those who oppose.

As before said, for those to whom it is a dearly held article of faith, so be it.

But there are obviously many for whom it is otherwise.

9 April 2011 at 21:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr J,

Consider me 'otherwise'.

9 April 2011 at 22:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

MrJ said...

"Last Dodo "...at the coast of Caesarea Philippi..." _That seems to be the official teaching of the Roman Church today. It is a claim not without meaning and purpose, but that may be veiled from those who uphold it and those who oppose."

Indeed. For me it just makes sense that Christ would establish leadership for the Church on its journey in faith and in its unfolding, dynamic understanding of Scripture and its application. There is considerable literature on either side of the 'divide' and much of it well argued and presented.

The nature and extent of the leadership of the church in matters doctrinal has been and remains a sad source of bitter division in christianity for which the Catholic Church has accepted its responsibility. It's a divide that has allowed the enemies of God to reek havoc and gives the likes of Dawkins ammunition.

Let's just focus on what we do share, build bridges and agree to differ on the rest.

9 April 2011 at 23:20  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Mr J,
Consider me 'otherwise'."

Whatever ....

It's the likes of you that makes this planet such a difficult place to live. Put your axe down and behave like a true man.

9 April 2011 at 23:23  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Last Dodo, 23:20_ Just so.

9 April 2011 at 23:48  
Anonymous len said...

The Last Dodo( 23:23,)

Amen to that!

Bless you and all who search for the Truth as revealed by God in Jesus Christ.

10 April 2011 at 08:32  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Much of the discussion here, and elswhere on His Grace's blog, reminds me of my old Alma Mater, a small, but very 'radical' college. I was the only 'TORY in the village' amidst a hot-bed of Commies, International Socialists, Maoists and anarchists. The most right wing contingent being members of the Labour Party.

Everyone loathed everyone else; vehement and violent argument prevailed from dawn to dusk ... excepting myself. I was so far removed from their petty differences that I was free to be everyone's friend, free to make whatever point of view I chose, and to get away with it. I even won a 'mock election' as a 'National Front' candidate!

'Come the Revolution' they would have killed each other on the very first day.

Perhaps we ought to concentrate more on our REAL enemies, yes?

Please forgive the torturous analogy.

10 April 2011 at 16:13  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Wise words indeed, Mr Oswin @ 16.13.

11 April 2011 at 07:42  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Interesting article here of Sir Ian McKellan going around schools trying to turn and recruit young people to the geigh. Or something like that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/12/ian-mckellen-gay-tour-schools

;)

12 April 2011 at 19:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done! You are a very brave man Your Grace to stand up to the intolerance of the left. There is a great need for Christians to stand up and direct the youth of today who are lost and cannot see the wood from the trees. The Devil is rampant today as he makes his incessant, insidious and relentless ways into God's Kingdom here on earth. Hate the sin but love the sinner and remember always St Philip of Neri's words: "There but for the Grace of God go I"

18 April 2011 at 10:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older