Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Bishops ‘working together creatively’ for gay marriage


The new Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam (left), has already broken episcopal collegiality on sexual ethics. The announcement of the appointment of Jonathan Clark (right), an ex office Trustee of the so-called ‘Inclusive Church’ pressure group, as Bishop elect of Croydon, threatens to do the same. What has happened already with the Bishop of Salisbury will instruct us on what is likely to be the case for the Bishop elect of Croydon

The Bishop of Salisbury has spoken recently of ‘working together creatively’ on the notion of marriage. This is curious because, frankly, there really is no creativity to discuss. The introduction to the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer sets out the Anglican understanding of what marriage constitutes and means:
DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
The Bishop of Salisbury, on his Diocesan website, has stressed that he reaffirms his commitment to:

• Supporting marriage as it is currently understood
• Upholding the current discipline and practice of the Church of England
• Supporting those clergy whose standpoint differs from my own

The Bishop of Salisbury is, of course, utterly unable to do the first two of these things by maintaining his current position of campaigning for same-sex marriage. He cannot commit to supporting marriage as it is currently understood if, with the very next breath, he seeks to change the definition.

The same irrationality applies to the Bishop elect of Croydon, with his membership of both ‘Affirming Catholicism’, which opposes same-se marriage, and ‘Inclusive Church’, which campaigns for it. This must be a via media too far. The Ugley Vicar blogger John Richardson makes the point:
“If the Bishop disagrees with his clergy about the definition of marriage, but supports marriage as it is currently understood, then presumably they have a different view of marriage from the current one. Either that, or the reverse is true. What seems clear is that they cannot both be supporting the current view of marriage (whatever the word “current” is supposed to mean) and be disagreeing.”
Recognising that this is a matter of ongoing debate within the Church of England, and understanding that we all have an obligation to listen to each other with respect, it must be recognised that the General Synod does not condone the teaching of same-sex marriage. This was, of course, the line taken by the Lambeth Conference 1998 – that we should listen with respect but that the doctrine on human sexuality remains unchanged. What is worth asking is whether Jonathan Clark takes the same policy on other matters which have been determined by the church – on, for example, drunkenness, pre-marital sex, or dishonesty...?

There is a kind of integrity here, for we have someone who is theologically liberal who acts according to conscience. For that, he should be commended, for to act according to one’s conscience and conviction is something generally praiseworthy. But there is a manifest lack of integrity in matching that same action with a blatant disregard for the polity and doctrine of the church in which he is a senior leader. If Jonathan Clark wishes to push the homosexual agenda on the church, he is free to do so. But he should then be prepared to step aside for the sake of someone else who is prepared to keep the consecration promise to ‘drive away all strange and erroneous doctrine’ (The Ordinal). Now that would be real integrity, and utterly praiseworthy.

Blessings to the Rev’d David Ould for the inspiration for this post.

99 Comments:

Blogger Nowhere man said...

Oh what a tangled web we weave..........

28 February 2012 at 08:36  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
All things to all men, that is the face of the Church today. The traditional view of the all smiling, ingratiating cleric, ‘how nice to see you’ type of person, who would never say a bad word to anyone is a curse of Christianity.
God’s messengers need to be strong affirming types who do not fail to tell people where they are going wrong according to scripture. It is only then that they do anyone a favour by helping them to see their faults and encourage them to turn and follow the way of Christ.
We may not be popular for this but we are not called to be popular but to tell the truth. We will all be called to account for our actions and these Bishops will be required to explain why they have sanitized the Gospel to make it acceptable to all.

28 February 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"The new Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam (left), has already broken episcopal collegiality on sexual ethics."

From the look of the poor man, that's not all he has broken.

28 February 2012 at 09:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Homosexual ‘marriage’ is the most radically destructive of marriage itself: it slices apart marriage from the uniqueness of heterosexual sexuality; it divides marriage from its loving duty to rear children and substitutes marriage for serial transitory relationships – where nearly all - within a generation will be dependent on the welfare state.

28 February 2012 at 09:54  
Blogger rodney said...

Sam - this is a serious subject but your comment made me laugh! Its been a long day here - thanks for the moment of silliness! LOL!

28 February 2012 at 09:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace

The first thing Bishop Nick should do is carry out an exorcism of the house in the Cathederal close formerly occupied by the Traitor Heath. These premises seem to be emanating evil, (courtesy of Old Nick?), and may be having a markedly negative affect on Bishop Nick's ability to think straight.

Your communicant doubts that Bishop Nick's progressive ideas will meet with rapturous support amongst the good burghers of Salisbury. Brighton, it ain't.

28 February 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger graham wood said...

One complaint often made by homosexuals is that they are being discriminated against under current marriage laws, and they are being denied their rights. But these arguments are as fallacious as they are common. The truth is, no one has the kind of equality that the homosexual activists are clamouring for here. Indeed, homosexuals are no more (and no less) being discriminated against here than are all kinds of other people.

Yes it is true, homosexual couples cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other folk. A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. And I cannot marry, because I am already married. A girl cannot marry her pet goldfish, no matter how much she might love it. A father cannot marry his daughter, regardless of his affection for her. The list is endless.

However, under the law, almost all of us can marry, given certain conditions. If I divorce my current wife, I am then free to marry. The five-year-old could wait for around a dozen years, and then he will be free to marry. The threesome can decide to give one the boot, and then get married (provided they are an opposite sex pair), and so on.

And a homosexual too can marry. There is no law saying a homosexual cannot marry, if he decides to find a woman and settle down (or if a lesbian finds a man and seeks marriage). But it is nonsense for a person to eschew male-female relationships in favor of same-sex ones, and then complain of discrimination.

The bishop needs to grasp an understanding of these basic facts. If he cannot reconcile them with his own private view of homosexual marriage then clearly his position as a leader in the church is untenable, and he should resign.

28 February 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Part 1 of 2

Your Grace

According to Stanley Kurtz (American anthropologist) this is what happened to Norway’s national church:

‘Norway's gay marriage debate, which ran most intensely from 1991 through 1993, was a culture-shifting event. And once enacted, gay marriage had a decidedly unconservative impact on Norway's cultural contests, weakening marriage's defenders, and placing a weapon in the hands of those who sought to replace marriage with cohabitation. Since its adoption, gay marriage has brought division and decline to Norway's Lutheran Church. Meanwhile, Norway's fast-rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has shot past Denmark's. Particularly in Norway--once relatively conservative--gay marriage has undermined marriage's institutional standing for everyone.

‘Norway's Lutheran state church has been riven by conflict in the decade since the approval of de facto gay marriage, with the ordination of registered partners the most divisive issue. The church's agonies have been intensively covered in the Norwegian media, which have taken every opportunity to paint the church as hidebound and divided. The nineties began with conservative churchmen in control. By the end of the decade, liberals had seized the reins.

‘While the most public disputes of the nineties were over homosexuality, Norway's Lutheran church was also divided over the question of heterosexual cohabitation. Asked directly, liberal and conservative clerics alike voice a preference for marriage over cohabitation--especially for couples with children. In practice, however, conservative churchmen speak out against the trend toward unmarried cohabitation and childbirth, while liberals acquiesce.

28 February 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Part 2

‘This division over heterosexual cohabitation broke into the open in 2000, at the height of the church's split over gay partnerships, when Prince Haakon, heir to Norway's throne, began to live with his lover, a single mother. From the start of the prince's controversial relationship to its eventual culmination in marriage, the future head of the Norwegian state church received tokens of public support or understanding from the very same bishops who were leading the fight to permit the ordination of homosexual partners.

‘So rather than strengthening Norwegian marriage against the rise of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth, same-sex marriage had the opposite effect. Gay marriage lessened the church's authority by splitting it into warring factions and providing the secular media with occasions to mock and expose divisions. Gay marriage also elevated the church's openly rebellious minority liberal faction to national visibility, allowing Norwegians to feel that their proclivity for unmarried parenthood, if not fully approved by the church, was at least not strongly condemned. If the "conservative case" for gay marriage had been valid, clergy who were supportive of gay marriage would have taken a strong public stand against unmarried heterosexual parenthood. This didn't happen. It was the conservative clergy who criticized the prince, while the liberal supporters of gay marriage tolerated his decisions. The message was not lost on ordinary Norwegians, who continued their flight to unmarried parenthood.’

28 February 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

Outside-in people living inside-out lives.

28 February 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

>>...which is an honourable estate...<<

The Church of England no longer sees honour as an impediment to what liberals regard as 'progress'. Witness the shabby treatment of traditional Anglicans who have been shown the door now that feminist theology dominates the church despite promises made when women were allowed to be ordained to the priesthood. Women bishops in same sex unions will follow the US Episcopal Church example as the church continues its decline into oblivion. What a legacy!

28 February 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Couldn't happen in the Catholic Church....

28 February 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Editor's Note: I very rarely repeat comments from other weblogs, but since the posts are so closely related, I will repeat the comment I made at Stand Firm.

If Jonathan Clark wishes to push the homosexual agenda on the church, he is free to do so. But he should then be prepared to step aside for the sake of someone else who is prepared to keep the consecration promise to ‘drive away all strange and erroneous doctrine’

Well, OK, but let’s also remember that religious liberals operate in a different universe, so to speak. The same rules of consistency don’t apply.

1. In the first place, they don’t accept the possibility of fixed, immutable doctrine. Therefore, they don’t feel any obligation to defend it when they don’t agree with it. In essence, they are demanding the right of ‘Theological Academic Freedom’ to assert any theological postulate on any subject. It’s an Hegelian model of truth constantly recreating itself, and that requires both Thesis and Antithesis. To a liberal, any challenge to settled doctrine is a good thing. It’s the beginning of the next progressive comprehension of truth. A cynic might say that a liberal wouldn’t consider a challenge to (say) WO to be a good thing. That’s true, but a liberal also generally assumes that progress in truth is irreversible.

2. Liberals see unity in the church in organic and relational terms. They are fond of referring to a church as a family, and love to make the analogy that one doesn’t get to pick his family. Implicit in this understanding is the idea that one becomes a Christian without reference to Creed. This is important because it means unity is never based upon shared doctrine. Indeed, unity can never be so founded since liberalism denies the existence of knowable truth. This leaves the task of producing institutional coherence to external ritual, membership, and common authority. Doctrine must be free to move so that Synthesis can occur. The progressive unfolding of truth cannot be short-circuited by stubborn ideas about the persistence of doctrine.

Liberals really aren’t being inconsistent according to their understanding of consistency. It’s just that their understanding of consistency is driven by adherence to a completely different religion.

carl

28 February 2012 at 12:06  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Spot on Carl.

---

"• Upholding the current discipline and practice of the Church of England"

Was I the only one to read this and think: what discipline and practice?

28 February 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger Jon said...

It doesn't appear that anyone in the comments section is changing their views any time soon.

I guess we'll just have to await the outcome of the votes of our elected representatives. Of course, if gay marriage is the unmitigated disaster many commenters here predict, it can always be repealed. I suspect the real fear is not that it's evil, but that suggested by D Singh - that it will expose divisions in the church. Well - there's a solution to that - don't have any divisions in the church! It's not up to "liberal opinion" to fix the divisions you have in your ranks!

Having said that, I understand the pleasure in doctrinal purity (Dodo revels in it regularly) but I have far more respect those who are prepared to approach each issue for themselves, armed with their Bibles (or whatever document guides their thoughts) and their conscience. If we respectfully disagree at the end, so be it. But if all that's traded for genuine thought is the thinly veiled propaganda of foreign power, then I'll pass, thanks.

Not incidentally, D Singh, the analysis you cite isn't really relevant for the UK, since the CoE has largely already given up the battle against adultery (given it's future head's re-marriage) and pre-marital straight sex. The only front it wants to wage war on now is homosexuality - having been (it would say swamped by bien pensant liberals - I would say utterly compromised by cherry picking of bible verses) routed on the others.

28 February 2012 at 14:11  
Blogger Anglican said...

C. S. Lewis, in 'Christian Apologetics' wrote, "[Clergy] are apt to protest that they came by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defence of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs....But this simply misses the point....We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is [their] continuing [their] ministry after [they had] come to hold them."

The only change since Lewis' time is that such views are now probably necessary, if not essential, for advancement in the Church of England.

28 February 2012 at 14:38  
Anonymous LondonVicar said...

Thank you Mr Singh for your chilling history of Norway and its church.

Are there any figures available, do you know, for how social security costs have risen in Norway, tracking the decline of marriage there?

28 February 2012 at 14:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that bishops were elected by their congregations in the early church. Such a system would quickly sort out our present problem. The only alternative is culling.

28 February 2012 at 15:52  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

A question I ask in my essay on homophobia (Three Men in a Hut and other essays, Kindle) is 'How many men and women of orthodox view have left, or are about to leave Anglicanism for Rome or a conservative free church because of the Christian gay lib campaign, compared to the number who will leave if the church comes off the fence unequivocally on the side of orthodoxy?

I also opine that some of the gay libbers in the church, up top teh level of bishop, are not merely doctrinally deluded, but are revolutionary atheists, knowingly working as deep moles to destroy the church from within. It woudl explain a lot of things.

C S Lewis was right about this. I am currently an Anglican exploring a local free church where the Bible is taught, not the opinions of women.

28 February 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Anonymous honestly but hilariously stated @28 February 2012 15:52

"I believe that bishops were elected by their congregations in the early church. Such a system would quickly sort out our present problem. The only alternative is culling."
*the sound of uncontrollable titters heard in the Greater London area at the sight of bishops strewn across the 43 dioceses of England!)

Ernst 'Titter if inevitably, that's all we have left and must' Blofeld

28 February 2012 at 16:51  
Anonymous John Waldsax said...

On this subject I posted on Fulcrum:-
Surely we are making some assumptions in the liberal analysis that the "church" (let's say denomination) is similar to any other kind of association, like the National Trust or the RHS. These have worthy aims for the general benefit and establish specific programmes for their members. So far, so C of E. They expect nothing in common of their members other than a weakly articulated belief that built and natural beauty is a self-evident good. A church is more, much more. It's beliefs are much more precisely articulated, interpreted, researched and its organisational behaviours and procedures aim to be designed with integrity, i.e. to be consistent with those beliefs. It does this for many reasons, but mainly two. Firstly because their understanding of the church is historically founded and builds on the experience of two thousand years of the practise of life and faith; their doctrine demands unity because it worked. Secondly, like any other organisation, they will fail to achieve their goals unless they have shared values (refer to any school of government or business school, or read about successful organisations in the business pages).

Sadly the Anglican Communion appears to be in a much closer condition to that of the British political parties. They claim to have beliefs and express them in policies which they then use in a beauty parade to win votes. They change these cynically and their leaders' behaviour often fails abjectly to live up to their own standards. They are amazed and worried when their easy and powerful lives are threatened by steadily increasing public cynicism, easily measured by non-particiation in the political process; party membership is replaced by corporate corruption, public duty is expresed in falling attendances at polls.The one characteristic they all lack is integrity (actual, but more importantly perceived). We are going the same way.

On Maunday Thursday, and later in ordinations across the land our clergy will make promises and swear oaths which every person witnessing it knows they do not mean and have no intention of keeping. And this is Christ's body on earth!

We desperately need a Clause 4 moment where we will eliminate our lack of integrity, our mismatch of Word with deeds and sermons, and revise our constitution to promote integrity and enable the mission which Jesus demands. What we replace our Clause 4's with is open to prayer and debate, but until our members' lives reflect the constitutional promises we make we will lack all public credibility and our churches will die. Eating too much fudge BTW will kill just as effectively.

28 February 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Supporting those clergy whose standpoint differs from my own

More evidence of the CoE eating itself from the inside out. You wouldn’t get that kind of rot in the RCC but let’s imagine…

Catholic Bishop: “I understand you have a problem with doctrine”

New Priest: “Not so much a problem, I don’t agree with all of it”

“I’d like you to reconsider your position”

“No point, my mind is made”

“No, really, listen, I want you to reconsider”

”Give me just one reason why”

“BECAUSE I’M YOUR F_____G BISHOP, AND WHILE YOU REMAIN A PRIEST IN MY JURISDICTION, YOU’LL SAY AND THINK EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU !!!”

28 February 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld the sound of uncontrollable titters heard in the Greater London area at the sight of bishops strewn across the 43 dioceses of England!)

Slight improvement old chap. How about “slewn”

28 February 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

John waldsax;
If you want Integrity in Politics, just vote for Integrity.

28 February 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "The only front it wants to wage war on now is homosexuality [...]"

I think you're right. This isn't really about two blokes or two birds getting civil-married, it's about the ongoing division of the Church from society and the internal divisions in the Church itself. A final battleground has been chosen. If the conservative wing lose this then they think they're done for, I reckon. This is why it takes up such an inordinate amount of religious energy.

28 February 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, a handy hint for you with this new format. At the tool bar at the top of your PC screen, click ‘View’ ‘Zoom’ ‘150%’ and you can see the text. Blofeld, am thinking of you here...

28 February 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Oswin said...

Rambling Steve @16:00 : so, you are considering running away?

28 February 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 February 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger len said...

This not about 'waging war' on homosexuals!.

This is Christians standing up for their belief system against a rising tide of aggressive Atheists (and unbelieving' believers') who wish to re -define the nature of man.These aggressive atheists( and some Church of England members ) want to re define the nature of man to encompass his fallen nature and to re -define this fallen nature as 'natural'.
If they accomplish this(children are being indoctrinated into Evolutionary theories and Creation is being ridiculed in the classrooms)then they( Atheists) will have advanced their Godless World a little further .

There are apparently members of religion(cannot be called Christians in the true sense of the word)who believe the can do as they like and still' be saved'.

These 'false Shepherds' are an abomination and the Church could well do without them.

If the Anglican Church cannot get 'its act together' then we would be better off without it.

A 'redefined Christianity' which is the God loves you so he will turn a 'blind eye to your sins' is a total travesty of Christianity.

28 February 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The problem is, Creationism is actually ridiculous.

28 February 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OoiG offered a more 'correct' phrasing however...

'near the altar lay strewn a bumbling bishop in his diocese..Anonymous had already suggested the method (culling) of 'strewning'! *Ernsty washing his hands*

14 words that end with EWN.

bestrewn
foreshewn
handsewn
hewn
oversewn
overstrewn
resewn
roughhewn
sewn
shewn
strewn
unhewn
unsewn
unshewn

Slewn is Not a word, you Clewn you.;-) but thanks for trying, my good fellow..

"Blofeld, am thinking of you here..." Dear fellow, much appreciated but nothing you can suggest makes the new format desirable or easier.

Ernst is reminded in Jeremiah 6:16

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Want to go back to the old format. Flipp'n changes. HUMBUG!

Ernsty, that chap.

28 February 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 18.34 said, ' If the conservative wing lose this then they think they're done for, I reckon.'

Wrong.

The resistance simply goes underground and perpetuates itself on an inter-generational basis, like the repressed nationalism of EU states.

The homosexual community may well succeed in winning this battle through the support of the political elite, for whom the madness of crowds is natural; it saves them from critical thinking. You will however, lose the war.

The problem you face is twofold. Firstly you are now and will always remain a minority if the human race is to survive. Thus if democracy means anything you are vulnerable to a change in the climate of opinion from the current tolerance. It appears the homosexual community is working very hard on this front and may shortly succeed in alienating the majority.

The second point is that you are not self-replacing. You will never dandle your son on your knee, saying, 'Son, when you grow up, I want you to continue the family tradition of being gay." And he will never reply, 'Please Dad, show me how', with a proud look at your partner du jour. In short, there is no continuity in your ability to transmit your ideas. Even if the schools promote your ideology, you face massive resistance at home within the family, where everything you say will be disparaged and refuted. By forcing parents to act as saboteurs of the school curriculum you are literally undermining their childrens' belief in society. In the long term you will therefore fail as parents seek to recapture society from influences they know to be wrong. The ability of parents to recapture the school curriculum is greatly enhanced by the devolution of responsibility for school governance.

All of which summarises the power relationship between you and us, without reference to Biblical text.

28 February 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Ernst

Bit of free advertising for the EWN - thank you.

Inspector

Dear chap, a Bishop would never speak in such a crude manner to a
misguided brother in Christ. He would point out the errorof his thinking, invite repentance and resturn him gently to the correct path.

len

Whilst I tend to agree with the theme of your post.However, if one believes in 'sola scripture' and the Holy Spirit bringing clarity, how then do you explain divergent and inconsistent 'understandings' and just who determines orthodoxy and on what basis?

Isn't that a central problem with Protestantism in all its manifestations? It stands against the authority of the Bishop of Rome and Catholic doctrine but apart from that what does it actually agree upon?

28 February 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld Want to go back to the old format. Flipp'n changes. HUMBUG!

Ah yes. Just after your mumblings, your confident and intellectual superior, the cat Tiddles, slipped in a bit of sense. The ‘old format’ is of course, Rome, and the ‘flipp’n changes’ are everything that’s happened to Protestantism since the split. Good show, that cat !

The English language is all the poorer for not having ‘slewn’ in it, sure you will agree (...although if you don’t, the cat surely will...). What !

Well done that Blue dog, excellent post...

28 February 2012 at 22:44  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Office of Inspector General said...
Your Grace. Supporting those clergy whose standpoint differs from my own

More evidence of the CoE eating itself from the inside out. You wouldn’t get that kind of rot in the RCC but let’s imagine…

You are right there, the RCC rots from the very top down. The RCC has a long history of getting others to do its most dirty work for it, Hitler for example.

Mystery Babylon moves in mysterious ways. One of these well tried and tested ways is to first infiltrate, and then subvert its competition into self-destruction.

Patience is the key, which is something The Vatican has proved time and time again, it has more then enough of.

28 February 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. An Irish bishop from Dublin would !

28 February 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas. Rather than criticise your latest offering, let it stand proud for all the blog world to see. (...Don’t be naughty and delete it now..)

28 February 2012 at 22:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Golly, this is complicated.

Am I permitted a sly Papist smile?

28 February 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Inspector

Survived the nurses then?

28 February 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Anonymous
Golly, this is complicated.
Am I permitted a sly Papist smile?


A wry Catholic smile maybe - not a sly Papist smile.

28 February 2012 at 23:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way of dodo ben soze

Thank you.

28 February 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger Owl said...

Bluedog,

Very well put.

This has really very little to do with religion.

Stonewall are really screwing up their fellow homosexuals.

The masses are well pissed off.

28 February 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Owl: Stonewall are really screwing up their fellow homosexuals.

Language, Sir!

29 February 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

"Affirming Catholicism" is a misnomer. They must be affirming a minute part of 1% of Catholic Christendom and affirming their own version of things.

Orthodoxy it isn't!

29 February 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OoiG

Just ran it by tiddles and she says;

"Tiddles never want to go back to being Rome's old doormat.purrrr.
Flipp'n CATechism. Meow, she asked 'Is that violent social and political discrimination against Felidae' she inquired. Explained to the poor thing she was getting confused with cataclysm, which is also not Catholicism but which sometimes can have the same effect and meaning on an individual (You are drowning in the biggest deluge of stagnant water imagineable and it ain't like being baptised). It all made Ernst wish he had'nt bothered! *COUGHDROPS*!"

"The English language is all the poorer for not having ‘slewn’ in it, sure you will agree (as you have plainly 'shewn' (...although if you don’t, the cat surely will...as FORESHEWN). Indeed !"

...your confident and intellectual superior, the cat Tiddles (ps, she's not half as smart as she thinks she is but Mums the word, ols boy), slipped in a bit of sense (well what do you expect with you talking it so glibly,in such a sincere or undeceptive manner, of course she slipped in it. Surprised you didn't hear her pawing the litter box she found it in! Oh, my apologies old sport, you said 'sense'! Specsaver glasses, bah.

A wry Born Again smile definitely ;o)

Regards to Dodo Ben Sozzled and Empire.

Ernst

29 February 2012 at 00:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Ernst:

Regards to Dodo Ben Sozzled and Empire.

Thank you.

A wry Born Again smile definitely ;o)

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
(John 3:3)

But how?

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
(John 3:5)

And the command?

"Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

Sleeptight you baptised, born again, if innocently heretical, Christian.

29 February 2012 at 00:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, Mainline Protestantism should make being gay a precondition for ordination. You're really not appealing to any other people anyway and they do so like dressing up.

29 February 2012 at 00:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo Ben Snorezzled..zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nighty Night, that cheeky chappie.

Ernst

29 February 2012 at 01:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Ernst slipping into a well earned period of REM.

Sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite.

Dodo the Uninominal Dude.

29 February 2012 at 01:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These two Bishops should read Aesop's fable, the miller,his son and the donkey and check out the bible on the subject of marriage as well.

If this is what the Anglicans are producing as Bishops then Christians have nowhere to go.

Catholicism in its original is acceptable but all the unnatural and bizarre addendi over the centuries has turned it into a weird cult.

Tis a pity for all those Christians who would like to belong to a sane secure wholesome Christian establishment based on the original precepts of Christianity.

I feel sorry for the memory of Jesus..having all this dreadful stuff happen in his name.These religions are so removed from the orignal message.

Signed

Jesus the Carpenter supporter.

29 February 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger David Ould said...

Your Grace is very kind to acknowledge me in this post. I insist that much of the credit should go to John Richardson for pursuing the argument to its logical conclusion.

We are currently suffering from a slightly different, but nonetheless related, disunity through unity down here on the other side of the world which your readers may also be interested in.

29 February 2012 at 03:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "It appears the homosexual community is working very hard on this front and may shortly succeed in alienating the majority."

You say this in spite of the various surveys showing otherwise, some of which I have posted. They show a steadily increasing acceptance over recent years. All you're doing here is imagining your personal viewpoint is a generally held one. As it happens, I think it is the vocal-religious who are turning people away and I think the statistics tend to support that.

29 February 2012 at 04:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "The second point is that you are not self-replacing."

Well, it seems that your god is replacing us as it has done across societies and throughout history.

"You will never dandle your son on your knee, saying, 'Son, when you grow up, I want you to continue the family tradition of being gay."

For sure. Yet lots of parents will still face the situation where their offspring say "I'm gay". The decent, loving ones will reply "We love you deeply whatever you are" and continue to support them through their difficult teenage years. In a decent, tolerant society, that should be easy. We're not quite there yet but we're well on our way.

29 February 2012 at 04:51  
Blogger len said...

Speaking as a parent ...if any of my offspring were to tell me that they were 'gay' would I love them any the less?....certainly not!.

God loves humanity but Jesus died to release Humanity from the bondage of sin.Is it love to say'I love you' but I am going to leave you in bondage to sin!. This is not love at all and those who call it so do not know love at all!.

This is exactly the point I made earlier.... suppose I had the cure for a terminal disease but withheld that because the patient had accepted his condition as inevitable and Society had told him (or her) that this was a 'natural condition' and they had to accept it. Would it be right for me to say nothing or (even worse) to go along with them?

29 February 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, as for the differing opinions of Protestants and validity of being 'born again'.

I can tell you with a degree of certainty that many of those leading and following the 'organised Church' are not' born again'and get into religion as a 'career move' that is why they do not stand for Biblical principles and do not have the backbone to stand for the Gospel.It is merely a 'job' to them.They are 'blind guides' leading others to destruction.
Whilst many are looking to the Church for authority on Biblical precepts these' blind guides' are worse than nothing at all!.

If the organised Church cannot organise itself under the power of the Holy Spirit then it would be much better for it not to exist at all!.

29 February 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 04.39 said, 'All you're doing here is imagining your personal viewpoint is a generally held one.'

An unsubstantiated assumption and you could not be more wrong. The views I expressed are commonplace, don't kid yourself.

And @ 04.51, 'Yet lots of parents will still face the situation where their offspring say "I'm gay". ' All parents love their children equally and unconditionally.

Your point is neither exceptional nor controversial. I should add that it is the privilege of every parent to support their offspring at all times, not just 'during the difficult teenage years'. The only thing that changes is the cost of the solution to the problem, ever upwards.

29 February 2012 at 09:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

LondonVicar

This is the best study I can find on what happens to societies before, during and after homosexual 'marriage' is introduced.

You need a vast welfare state to support society.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

29 February 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

len: I can tell you with a degree of certainty that many of those leading and following the 'organised Church' are not' born again'and get into religion as a 'career move' that is why they do not stand for Biblical principles and do not have the backbone to stand for the Gospel.

If you're 'telling' me then I suppose I had better accept it as true then!

What 'degree of certainty'?
How many is 'many' - leaders and followers?
And what Biblical principles are you refering to?

29 February 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Uncanny Nordic 'prophecy':

http://www.churchisraelforum.com/Jesus_is_coming_soon_suddenly.htm

29 February 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger Jon said...

It's funny - there's a lot of stuff on this blog about how persecuted Christians are. And then I read the Economist's excellent piece on Rick Santorum "Water into Whine" (hilarious title too!)

Well, it turns out that there are 8 US states which ban atheists from public office entirely. Congress itself only has one avowed atheist. And so the real litmus test for public office is a profession of Christian faith, in a country with no established religion whatsoever. Who knew? Christians are intolerant of those who aren't Christians when they feel safely in the majority?

It's moments like these that you realise that you lot are spouting utter bunkum in defence of a religious settlement which works for neither your purposes (declining attendance, political indifference, waning doctrinal adherence), nor the large numbers who don't share your faith who resent your place in the lawmaking process.

And bluedog, your point about gay people being non- reproductive is preposterous for two reasons. 1. Christianity is not reproductive either - as I understand it, it takes an individual professional of faith rather than one which one's parents take on one's behalf. Second, being gay isn't a religion - you don't choose it. Gay people aren't evangelising society to make more gay people, we're asking to be treated as equal citizens before the law. We can't make anyone gay any more than you can make anyone straight!

29 February 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Jon, moaned and groaned ...

"Congress itself only has one avowed atheist. And so the real litmus test for public office is a profession of Christian faith, in a country with no established religion whatsoever. Who knew? Christians are intolerant of those who aren't Christians when they feel safely in the majority?"

Why intolerant? They just might not want atheists in office and express this through democratic means. So now you want a quota system, do you? Positive discrimination, perhaps?

"Gay people aren't evangelising society to make more gay people, we're asking to be treated as equal citizens before the law."

You are equal before the law. One man/woman, one vote. Deal with it! You're a minority who want the majority to change the basic institution of society, marriage, to 'normalise' homosexuality and spread the 'message' to young people at school. The majority don't want it and you play the 'we're a disadvantaged group' group card. How is that equality?

And who are these large numbers who resent Christians in public office?

29 February 2012 at 15:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

Mr.Singh: chilling stuff!

29 February 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "An unsubstantiated assumption and you could not be more wrong. The views I expressed are commonplace, don't kid yourself."

I substantiated it on a recent thread but despite a small amount of inconvenience I'm happy to supply the inconvenient facts again here and here. What I haven't seen is you substantiating yours, you merely generalise from your specific opinion as I said.

29 February 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Take a good look at 'organised religion'.Try and see the Churches not as denominations but as a dis- unified whole.

'The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. (Timothy 4:1)

'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,' and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to annoint your eyes so that you may see." Rev. 3:15-18.'

The Church cannot see!The Church has become blinded!.'The World' has entered the Church and corrupted it.

Read what Jesus says to the Churches and it will put things into perspective.

29 February 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Jon said...

No, Dodo, that isn't what I said, is it? You've taken a small part of my post out of context and suggested that I want a quota. I'm not talking about a quota, I'm talking about 8 US states with an outright ban on atheists standing for all public office. And you blether on about Catholics being barred from being monarch like it's something your average catholic could realistically aspire to anyway! Why would there be a ban on atheists serving in public office? I'm not an atheist, so it's not my battle to fight - but if Christians are so tolerant - why would such a ban be passed?

I'm not playing the "we're a disadvantaged group" card - you are! (Christian hoteliers etc etc.) I've almost got my complete set of rights and responsibilities - I just want one or two more and then I'll build hotels on them. And when our elected representatives ignore your whingeing, I'm sure you'll accept it because you're all about the democracy, eh Dodo? After all, if it was such an issue, the "large numbers" of catholics and others massively opposed to this would rise up and order the legislation struck down or form their own party. I rather hope they do!

I think you're actually afraid of this because it will show up the divisions which already exist in your church and the CoE, and it will demonstrate your impotence in a society to whom have chosen to make yourself irrelevant having picked your battles so poorly. Jesus would have a lot to say to today's wealth and celebrity obsessed society and the growing gap between the haves and have nots, the wilful ignorance of the impoverishment of nations for our enrichment etc. As well as the wealth of Catholicism Inc, I'm sure. I wonder if he could make himself heard over the gay-obsessed squawks of a certain long extinct bird and his flock of intellectual sheep, though?

29 February 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Jon

Touched a raw nerve, did I?

"I'm not an atheist, so it's not my battle to fight - but if Christians are so tolerant - why would such a ban be passed?"

No idea. Maybe because atheists are more inclined to support socially dangerous policies. It does seem a bit anachronistic, I agree, but that's democracy for you.

And you are whinging that you're not equal before the law.

"I've almost got my complete set of rights and responsibilities - I just want one or two more."

One being marriage, when 'homosexual marriage' is an oxymoron and not wanted. What others? Lowering the age of consent to 14 years? Surrogracy on demand? Explicit education on homosexual practices within schools?

Do tell!

29 February 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector is sure that seemingly naive lad Jon appreciates what would happen if homosexuality became mainstream. One shudders at the thought of their future demands. There is one which would definitely be on the agenda – ‘anal’ studies for our young. It can’t be easy being a school child in these times, yet the LBGT wouldn’t hesitate in adding that to their burdens.

PS. One hopes he doesn’t consider the Inspector one of your sheep !

29 February 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Inspector

That was "intellectual sheep",friend! ;o)

Some think all Catholics are sheep. But they forget Jesus appointed Peter and his successors to tend His sheep. Personally, I'm grateful to be one.

29 February 2012 at 21:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Supporter of Jesus the Carpenter says:

Dodo,If you had any country life experience you would know sheep are stupid animals.

I agree that the indoctrination of the young to think that homosexuality is natural and not an aberration is alarming and will have some serious consequences for society.

It would be an interesting survey to get people to admit honestly (apart from the religious ) if they found the homosexual act repugnant and repellent

A survey like this would of course now fall into the homophobic category and probably would be disallowed.

It would be interesting to know the number of heterosexuals who would react like this.No one seems to realise anymore that the rectum was not specifically designed for sexual gratification.

Unless the red blooded genes kick in, is it possible with indoctrination and the decline of religion or religions like the C of E that condone homosexuality, that society may become bisexual and heteros and homos may become the minority groups of the future.?

Homosexuality has alway been a part of society as a minority group.They should not be discriminated against. In the past too many were forced to marry because of the lack of job opportunites etc causing misery to their wives and children while still conducting homosexual activity.At least this does not happen any more. For this reason I am in favour of homosexuality not being a social taboo of the leper category.

Their civil unions should be legally recognised with regard to superannuation and inheritance rights etc.the same as married or de facto couples.

But,there is no reason or need for homosexuals to play at heterosexuality roles by getting married and having children.This is taking charades too far. They are supposed to celebrate their difference and not want to be part of the nappy valley herd(breeders)

I suspect malevolence and bitterness
being the motivating factor behind this to the greater majority because of past discrimination.

1 March 2012 at 02:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It would be an interesting survey to get people to admit honestly (apart from the religious ) if they found the homosexual act repugnant and repellent"

*ticks box* ;)

I reckon most people would find sex acts between very fat people, or the elderly pretty repellent too. I mean, who would actually want to see (say) John Prescott's sex face? Perhaps we should force the elderly or the very overweight to be celibate, or perhaps to divorce, for everyone else's peace of mind?

1 March 2012 at 02:39  
Blogger len said...

Jesus made a very interesting statement regarding sheep.....'My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.'(John 10:27)

MY sheep... (its seems there may be 'sheep' that are not His?.)

MY sheep listen to MY voice.
(are there sheep listening to other voices?)

MY sheep follow Me.
(are there sheep following someone else?)

MY sheep hear My voice
(are His sheep hearing His voice?)

Jesus never said anything carelessly, without meaning.Thoughts to ponder perhaps?.

1 March 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger len said...

God established a divine order at Creation. He created Order from Chaos.

Since the fall of man that divine order has been thrown into confusion and the result was sin disease and death. .

Jesus Christ came to regain that divine order and restore order from chaos.(Just as God spoke into the darkness and created light.)

Man wants to overturn the divine order and establish his 'own order 'because he loves the darkness more than the light.

'This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.'(John 3:19)

This is the dilemma of Humanity and one needs first of all a revelation of his fallen condition, then God`s remedy for this ..'a new heart and a new spirit I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.(Ezekiel 36:26)

We live in a time of God`s Grace but it will not always be so.Sin was judged on the Cross of Calvary and remains under God`s judgement.

God clearly defined sin so that no one should remain ignorant.

1 March 2012 at 08:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ !7.43, interesting surveys I concede. Clearly I talk to the wrong people, or more likely, those surveyed don't understand, yet, the extent to which they are being conned. The Scottish survey is less esignificant being older and with a small and self-selecting audience, possibly stacked by Stonewall ring-ins. In other words, it is likely that 99.999 per cent of Scots had no idea that the survey was being undertaken and have their heads in the sand regarding matters PC anyway. In short, they just hope the whole thing will go away.

My own arguments against same-sex marriage are made from a purely secular perspective, a point on which other communicants seem to concur. One advantage that homosexuals have in political activism is that without children they have more time and more money to promote their agenda.

1 March 2012 at 09:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Like sin couching in the corner indefatigably working to master us all – something sinister is behind this debate. When you think deeply about it, what it really is, is a lethal attack on our ability to reason. Law in connection with the redefinition of marriage – is divorced from nature, from reality, from what is.

It’s like using the law to ‘change’ gender. All the law can do is establish a fiction which is enforced by the State through law. So on the basis of a legal fiction people are threatened by the potential for being sued.

But what that does, at a fundamental State level, is to lay the foundation stones for State tyranny: if the State says white is black and black is white then that – divorced from reality – is oppression.

Emotion - through law - divorced from reality - is trumping reason itself.

1 March 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Jon @ 14.44, your posts are usually well informed and well argued. What went wrong? How can you seriously conflate the abstract with the animal, vide: Christianity is not reproductive either - as I understand it; - frankly, gibberish. More to the point is that a man-woman union is self-replacing and until the mid-teen years the parents values are imparted to the child. These values may include Christianity.

You say, 'Second, being gay isn't a religion - you don't choose it.' Are you sure that is 100% correct? There are certainly young people who are homosexual from their mid-teens and obviously so. But isn't human sexuality more subtle, consisting of shades of grey rather than black and white? In other words, there do seem to be individuals who start in one sexual preference and migrate to another. For example I know one ex-gay who is now happily married and father of four. And from the other sex, a very attractive woman who seemed confidently heterosexual but now leads a lesbian life in a university city scorchingly familiar to His Grace.

How do you explain that?

1 March 2012 at 09:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "One advantage that homosexuals have in political activism is that without children they have more time and more money to promote their agenda."

Well I spend mine on exotic holidays rather than on exotic costumes for Gay Pride marches, you'll be glad to know.

1 March 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "But what that does, at a fundamental State level, is to lay the foundation stones for State tyranny: if the State says white is black and black is white then that – divorced from reality – is oppression."

That captures the essence of one of the arguments against the State being polluted by one religion or another. To many, perhaps most, people the Woo Stuff put about by religionists looks very different to our perceived reality.

1 March 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

That captures the essence of one of the arguments against the State being polluted by secularism or antheism.

2 March 2012 at 08:03  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Oswin

not thinking of running away, more going home.

When heretics in the church are a minority, they should be lovingly but firmly confronted and, if they remain impenitent, asked to leave. But when heretics gain the upper hand, the orthodox may have to leave. Its called Reformation. 'Come out of her my people lest you share in her sins.'

2 March 2012 at 10:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Sighn: "That captures the essence of one of the arguments against the State being polluted by secularism or antheism."

We seem to be at an impasse. ;)

2 March 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

Rambling Steve: don't let Dodo hear you talk of ''going home'' - he'll be on you like a shot! ;o)

3 March 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Funnily enough Oswin it did cross my mind. However, I was put off somewhat by his use of the 'R' word!

3 March 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger len said...

Which brings us to the question ...what is the true Church?.

The RC Church claims to be the' true and original Church' but is it?.

Is the C of E merely an offshoot of the R C Church and do members need to return to it?.

We need to define what the 'Church' really is, its origins , and how it has become what it is today.

Serious questions which demand serious answers!.

defendingcontending.com/.../error-everybody-was-catholic-until-the-

(explains this more fully)

4 March 2012 at 08:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Regarding the above link - len you really do need to stop relying on those who distort and twist church history for their own ends.

The Catholic Church is the universal church with an unbroken line back to Peter and the Apostles. It is the church that formulated early dogma about the Incarnation, the Trinity and God's plan of salvation. It is the church that faithfully preserved and spread the Gospel throughout the world.

This article simply rehashs all the old arguments about the authority of Rome versus sola scritura and sola faith. It adds nothing new.

4 March 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 17:48 : ah, and there you have it! Better you refrain from slagging-off the old C-of-E for fear you might get something a lot worse. Not everyone is a nice Anglican Catholic like me.

5 March 2012 at 01:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see the Catholic Church is committed to the political arena now. Here we have a foreign power calling its fifth columnists into action, in a manner of speaking, to serve its own agenda and purposes. It's a Catholic Ummah.

5 March 2012 at 07:03  
Blogger Jon said...

Bluedog - well, I'm flattered that you think I'm well informed and well argued (I think it's the first time I've been accused of either! ;-) )

I don't think I explained my point well, so I'll try to expand on it instead.

Your assumption that being gay is a choice would make it on a par with choosing to be Christian. It is no more inter- generationally replicable than a religious view. This isn't to deny that parental values can be imparted successfully, but for a person to be a Christian, as I understand it, they have to make an active choice to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. This cannot be done for them by their parents - you can lead a horse to water etc. To that extent, it's therefore as vulnerable to changes in the political weather in the UK as Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

My contention would be that (certainly in my case and in the cases of my many friends who are gay) that it wasn't a choice so much as something we had to come to terms with. It's certainly a much harder way of life in many respects, since society is largely set up for heterosexual relationships. I'm reluctant to use the analogies for a number of reasons, but I believe it's rather like being left- handed or being black. It's not something you think or believe, I'm firmly of the view that it's something that you *are*. This would mean that one doesn't require to accept a set of precepts in order to be gay or black - since we could perfectly legitimately be conservatives, liberals, christians or jews and still retain our essential gay-ness or black-ness or left-handedness.

As to my other points, I think DanJ0's cartoon link sums it up better than I did. Christians in the UK and US are used to having all the running in the universe of ideas where social and familial structure are concerned. Now that people who don't share their view are becoming a little more assertive, they are claiming discrimination, when of course this is ridiculous.

Since the younger generation is more relaxed about issues of *being* and less tolerant of issues of conscience which make it harder for people to be who they were born to be, I can see the inter-generational appeal of Christianity in the UK waning unless it rediscovers a purpose other than the relentless alienation of a minority group in society for the exercise of their natural loving desires. Jesus' ministry was far more all-encompassing than that, but the Church appears to have chosen to test its strength on this one issue, which I think is probably a tactical error.

5 March 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo @ 07:03 :

NOT the 'Day of the Dodo' ?!?!?!?

Yikes!

5 March 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin @ 01:58
The maxim 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't hold with Truth. One is either for it or against it! No compromise! Unlike the Church of England who piles compromise upon compromise.

DanJ0
Ever heard the quote:

"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."

The Catholic Church has always asked people to vote responsibly and to bear Christian principles in mind when doing so.

Oswin
One expects more from a member of the Established Church. Well, no, there again, maybe not. Has the Archbishop of Canterbury made any public statement? Has any senior Anglican figure?

5 March 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The Catholic Church has always asked people to vote responsibly and to bear Christian principles in mind when doing so."

It's effectively a political party, or a special interests lobby group like a union, and needs to be treated as such. Everything about the organisation ought to be open to criticism and people should not be at all afraid to lay into everything about it, including using ridicule like people do with other political parties. Let's get these people on Question Time and Newsnight and subject them to a grilling.

6 March 2012 at 02:06  
Blogger Jon said...

Fortunately, the youth is well ahead of the Cardinal on this one, DanJ0.

See this article in the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/21548961?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/itsgettingbetter

Witness the graph on the right hand side. One powerful line I've heard time and again elsewhere is that "Among these boys homophobia bore the same stigma as racism." The kids are alright!

You're right about the Church though. It's a self- perpetuating lobby group/ fund and property management entity. The only difference between them and a politician is that most politicians will at least attempt to point to evidence to support their position, whereas the Church will just say "because we say so".

6 March 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "Fortunately, the youth is well ahead of the Cardinal on this one, DanJ0."

I saw another article on that book. I'm astonished myself at how quickly attitudes have changed for the better. I'm sure social media and the internet has had a lot to do with it.

6 March 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ...
"Among these boys homophobia bore the same stigma as racism."

And in that quote you betray your own prejudice - dare one even use the 'b' word here?!

To object to homosexual marriage and to regard homosexuality as morally wrong, is not homophobia. Is it? If you equate the two then say how you arrived at this conclusion.

And the Church says much to justify its position more than "because we say so". It has a well defined position based on natural law and on the Bible. You may disagree but don't say they simply tell people what to think.

6 March 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"To object to homosexual marriage and to regard homosexuality as morally wrong, is not homophobia. Is it?"

No. But the kids I remember in school were always displaying overt homophobia, not carefully working through some Catholic manual on human sexuality. That it is changing, and rapidly, is rather welcome, I think. If lots of kids see homophobia as similar to racism then good on them.

6 March 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 March 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You would agree then that refusing to accept a behaviour and viewing it as disordered, is different to attributing negative characteristics to the colour of someone's skin?

6 March 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger Jon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 March 2012 at 09:48  
Blogger Jon said...

No, Dodo, I wouldn't. Because you see homosexuality as a "behaviour" I can choose to avoid, I don't see why I should have to, when I see my behaviour as my relationship with the person I love!

If God is love, how can love be disordered?

7 March 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So Christians homophobes? You can chose to avoid homosexual acts, just don't see why you should.

Here's the Christian thinking - posted on another thread:

"Sapientis est ordinare."

God's provident wisdom orders the world. By recognizing the goals preestablished in God's plan, the wise and faithful person is able, through Grace, to order his actions and dispositions in line with God's ends.

The expression "objectively disordered inclination" in relation to homosexuality refers to tendencies where the person is not oriented towards the attainment of the end that God's plan assigns to sexuality.

The Council of Trent spoke in an analogous sense of the disorder of concupiscence. As a result of sin, the sense powers are no longer subject to reason in accord with their original ordering, but resist and rebel against God's purposes, thus pushing men to actions contrary to the moral order.

In itself, in Catholic theology, concupiscence, homosexuality, or any other disordered inclination, is not viewed as sinful in the strict sense, but is called "sin" by the Apostle Paul insofar as "it derives from sin and inclines to it."

From the moral point of view, Catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, because they activate the sexual inclination of such persons without (1) that unitive meaning of total self-gift to the other which can be realised only in the matrimonial union of man and woman and (2) openness to the procreative meaning whereby human sexuality is further ordered to the good of the child.

The disordered inclination in itself is not in the strict sense sin; acting on the disposition is sin.


Are you saying I have no right to hold these views and in so doing I am no different to a racist?

7 March 2012 at 20:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older