Thursday, July 26, 2012

Anglicans criticise Cameron for misrepresenting the Church

Following his speech at 10 Downing Street on Tuesday July 24th, Anglican Mainstream has sent this letter to the Prime Minister asking him to correct his serious misrepresentation of the teaching of the Church. His Grace is happy to reproduce it:
The Rt Hon David Cameron P.C. M.P.,
10 Downing Street

July 25 2012

Dear Prime Minister,

We write to ask you to correct a serious misconception in the speech you made to representatives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Groups at Number 10, reported on your website on 25 July 2012.

In that speech you say that opponents of the redefinition of marriage within the church are “locking out people who are gay, or are bisexual or are transgender from being full members of that Church.” This is simply not the case. It is in fact the teaching of Christian churches that all people, including those self-identified as gay, bisexual or transgendered, are to be welcomed as members.

Your misconception suggests, first, that you are not adequately informed about the terms being used in the debates about same-sex attraction. For example, when you refer to ‘people who are gay, bisexual or transgender’, do you mean people who experience these attractions or people who engage in such experiences? For the churches, the distinction is critical: those who experience the attraction have always been fully welcomed. This is because ‘full membership’ of a Christian church comprises those who are baptised, i.e. those who have repented of their sins, and declared their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Since we are all sinners, all people are welcome. You are perhaps familiar with the most famous verse in the Bible: God so loved the world that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16, emphasis added). That is why the gospel is such good news for everyone.

Second, your statement suggests that you have not understood what ‘full membership’ of a Christian church actually means. When we are baptised, we make a commitment to live no longer according to our own lights but according to the love of God as expressed in the teaching of Jesus and the scriptures. This teaching allows for physical sexual expression only within marriage of a man and a woman, and calls for repentance when we transgress. This applies, of course, just as much to hetero-sexual activity outside marriage as it does to homosexual activity.

We are sure that you will agree that, whatever people’s views about a public policy issue such as your Government’s proposal for same-sex marriage, the public debate about them should be conducted as far as possible on the basis of correct information. We make no progress if we misrepresent the views of those with whom we disagree. We therefore invite you, in the interest of promoting healthy and effective public debate, to correct the misconception contained in your statement of 25 July.

Please be assured that, notwithstanding our differences with you on this question, we as Christians will continue to pray for you and your colleagues in government in the heavy responsibilities you bear at this challenging time for our nation and a needy world.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Philip Giddings (Convenor)
Canon Dr Chris Sugden (Executive Secretary)
on behalf of Anglican Mainstream


Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Spot on.

26 July 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Good for them. I just wonder though if the more Dave experiences opposition on this matter, the more he feels he has a moral duty to push it through.

26 July 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger Old Man Dreaming dreams..... said...

Absolutely right I wrote to Dave as a private individual in a non confrontational way my letter was passed on to the,equalities commission.
I strongly suspect his political Masters in Europe are pushing this agenda he's just the sap who's conforming.
Another example of Secular Europe attacking the freedom of Christian desent.

26 July 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I understand why this letter had to be written, but it's not really for David Cameron's consumption. He won't care about it. The harsh reality is that orthodox Christians don't have much political traction anymore. We have become a foil by means of which politicians communicate to other constituencies politicians consider valuable. Cameron wasn't speaking to the church. He was using the church to speak to homosexuals and their cultural allies.

I doubt he cares spit whether the church listens or not. It is a cultural irrelevancy in his world - to be dragged along or left behind as circumstances might warrant. But the idea that it must be persuaded by argument? That's laughable. Speed bumps on the road to post-modernism don't argue. They get driven over.


26 July 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Is there any case for supposing that Mr. Cameron knows anything more about this subject than he appears to about most others? It is good to begin to catechise him, but perhaps late in the say to hope for success.

26 July 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger David B said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 July 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

They will not get a straight answer

26 July 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger David B said...

Made A couple of mistakes in my previous effort, so now for anther go.

"Second, your statement suggests that you have not understood what ‘full membership’ of a Christian church actually means. When we are baptised, we make a commitment to live no longer according to our own lights but according to the love of God as expressed in the teaching of Jesus and the scriptures. This teaching allows for physical sexual expression only within marriage of a man and a woman, and calls for repentance when we transgress. This applies, of course, just as much to hetero-sexual activity outside marriage as it does to homosexual activity."

I wonder what is meant by the term 'physical sexual expression'.

If it means the f word, then I suggest that in this day and age where couples routinely find out whether they are sexually compatible before marriage, without any sign of regret, then I would suggest that the number of full members of a Christian church is much less than any figure generally quotes, and the number of full members under, say, 60 very much less than any figure quoted.

If on the other hand 'physical sexual expression means any or some combination of kissing, caressing, cuddling, fondling, mutual masturbation, oral sex or solitary masturbation, then I would suggest that the number of full members of the church would to the range of tiny to practically non existent.

Small to the point of complete irrelevance in fact.

David B

26 July 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Owl said...


"Good for them. I just wonder though if the more Dave experiences opposition on this matter, the more he feels he has a moral duty to push it through"

the massive forehead doesn't do "morals".

Carl Jacobs has got it about right. Dave doesn't care what any church might think. Why should he, they are not his superiors.

Actually, it doesn't matter either whether he gets re-elected or not, he has done his bit for the cause and when another placeman takes over it will just go on and on and...

It is time to look more closely at the powers controlling him.

26 July 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace.It’s not just Anglican Mainstream. The Inspector too laments at Cameron’s schoolboy reasoning. Is there no one else in the higher echelons of the party who can give this thicko the boot, and give the party back its right wing emphasis. You see, believe it or not, that’s why examples like the Inspector used to support it. It got the votes not because of how popular it was with gays, gypsies, muslims or anyone else come to that, but for what we knew it would do…

Nobody, and that really is nobody apart from Cameron, can predict what it’s going to do next – Damn scary stuff, what !

God help us preserve what we still have that is moral and clean, and that includes a major political party that Jesus would vote for…


26 July 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It seems that the Anglican Church is equating homosexual activity with heterosexual activity (outside of the married state ) in terms of being profligate. As David B said most couples live together or have sexual relationships before they marry. My local parish priest was flown to Italy by a wealthy family whose daughter has been living with her fiance for five years to marry them there. Prince William lived with his fiancee. It is gross hypocrisy and not relevent
to talk about heterosexual activity
particularly when it is a prelude to marriage when discussing the possibility of ssm.It is some sort of lame attempt to avoid appearing too harsh on matters pertaining to homosexuality and ssm which poses an imminent threat to society which sleeping with your fiance does not.As David B implies hardly
any one will ever be a virgin on
their wedding day in any Christian denomination.
And as for repentance, does anyone really believe that someone is sincere if they say I regret living with my partner for five years and I wish i had not indulged in any sexual activity before my wedding day?Bollocks!

26 July 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida,

Your comment about Hetrosexual sex outside of marriage is quite hypocritical for an apparently devout Catholic. It's not just the Anglican Church which holds the view that sex outside of marriage is wrong, I would have thought, but other churches too. I could be wrong but I thought the Roman Catholic Church said that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sin? Are you not perhaps twisting things to suit your own lifestyle in the way you have chided me in th past?.

Your comment about being gay being a threat to a society- boy have you changed your tune. Only last week you were calling Corrigan 1 plus other Catholics here homophobic.

26 July 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger David B said...


I thought the Roman Catholic Church not only says that sexual intercourse outside marriage is a sin, but that foreplay within it is a sin.


David B

26 July 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B and anyone else who is down on the Catholics....

The RCC exists to assist in getting souls into heaven. The afterlife, why we are all here. Every soul answers to God, not any church. We are NOT machinery to be programmed by the Vatican. Is one making himself perfectly clear ?

26 July 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Albert said...


I thought the Roman Catholic Church not only says that sexual intercourse outside marriage is a sin, but that foreplay within it is a sin.

Why did you think that?

But you raise in interesting ecclesiological problem for those who reject the Magisterium. Jesus says "Be perfect" but scripture says "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves." So what happens when people's behaviour violates church teaching? They refashion church teaching to suit themselves, and in so doing undermine those Christians who believe and try to live by Church teaching.

For Catholics of course it's straight forward: sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful. People can ignore the teaching but they cannot change it.

26 July 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger len said...

It is good that' Anglican mainstream' have corrected Cameron`s(and probably a lot of other peoples) error about attending Church and Church membership.

We all come to God as' sinners 'and this is a pretty level playing field as far as that is concerned but we are not supposed to remain so!.

26 July 2012 at 19:41  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, I'll have to seek out a link for you. I found one to a long document that purported to lay out the RCC view.

Inspector, would you care to establish, even on balance of probability, the existence of souls and/or heaven?

Failing such an attempt you are making a wild and unsupported assertion to my mind.

Dinner calls,

David B

26 July 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger Philip said...

Yes, spot-on letter.

26 July 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. would you care to establish, even on balance of probability, the existence of souls and/or heaven?

Can’t do that old chap. It’s called ‘faith’. In much the same way we have faith that we can walk into town without being relieved of our wallets at knife point. One instantly knows when something is right, as the old Cockburns sherry adverts used to say...

26 July 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not ‘instantly’ but ‘instinctively’. Damn word checker is making a lazy hound out of the Inspector.

26 July 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger David B said...


The first point on my search was to look for threads on my board, since I know I posted about it there.

I found a link to a thread on Catholic Planet, but when I clicked on it I had a file not found message.

Fortunately someone quoted from the link when it was still there, and the quote ran

"F. All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral."

I'll keep looking for the original.


26 July 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I'll have to seek out a link for you. I found one to a long document that purported to lay out the RCC view.

Thank you, but I'm quite sure there isn't the RCC view, as I don't think the Catechism says anything about it. Therefore, anyone who says anything about the matter on the internet is making an inference, rather than giving the view.

would you care to establish, even on balance of probability, the existence of souls and/or heaven?

Souls can be established by reason. We know that we use abstraction. Now when we abstract something we have its form in our minds, without its matter. As the abstraction has no matter it is not material. Does the power to abstract then come from matter? It would mean matter creating something non-material. No one has ever shown how this is even remotely possible even in principle (Dawkins in a wonderfully religious moment speaks of consciousness "emerging" from matter - somewhat imprecise for a scientist I would have thought). Indeed, to suggest matter can create such a thing would seem to imply a violation of the conservation of energy. To re-quote Conway Morris (paleontologist):

Of course our brains are a product of evolution, but does anybody seriously believe consciousness itself is material? Well, yes, some argue just as much, but their explanations seem to have made no headway.

So there's no reason to think this part of our minds is material (unless one is already a materialist, though to be a materialist in the light of this difficulty requires some faith as one would have thought one ought to resolve this difficulty before committing to materialism). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe at least part of us is immaterial and this we call our soul.

As it is not physical, there is no reason to suppose our soul will die when the physical part of us dies. The key move is to agree with Aquinas however: Since a soul is part of a body of a human being, it is not the whole human being, and my soul is not me. And thus, in order properly to survive out death, we need resurrection. That takes faith of course - but rather less than materialism, as the latter doctrine does not even seem possible in principle.

26 July 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger David B said...


I am no more down on Catholics than I am down on any other purveyors of unsubstantiated supernatural claims.

And cover up sexual abuse by hypocrites to maintain a reputation at the cost of more kids being raped, of course.


26 July 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, you might try

I don't think this is quite what I was looking for, and does seem to propose a peculiar catholic view, in more than one sense of the word peculiar.

I think, though I'm not sure, that he uses the actual text I was looking for, which might be in his references.

I've just seen your defence of the soul, which I shall have to return to later - if not in this thread, then in another.


26 July 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger David B said...

I should add that I regard Conway Morris as among the most eminent scientists who are Christian, phrased in order to avoid confusion with Christian Scientists.


26 July 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Owl @ 18.07 says, 'It is time to look more closely at the powers controlling him.'

An excellent thought. One hesitates to tread the path of Atlas Shrugged, but any ideas who that might be? The EU? The Bilderbergers?

26 July 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger David B said...


I'm more than half way down a bottle now, celebrating my first day off work in a fortnight, so a detailed look at your defence of souls will have to wait.

I anticipate that the discussion will be enjoyable, and will involve both of us making points that the other will have to think hard about to refute.

When, decades ago, I studied some formal philosophy, there were two aphorisms I remember, which I now think false.

'You cannot get mind from matter'

'You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'.

My questions for you in the meantime are:

Can you get a mind without matter?

Can you get an 'ought' without an 'is'?

If so, in either case, how?


26 July 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger Albert said...


Thank you for the link. Notice that although he quotes various authorities, he is, as I suspected, inferring from them. The issue, it seems is whether foreplay is an act independent of love-making. If it is, then the author is right, as that would be doing a non-unitive act. If however, foreplay is part of love-making, then it is not a non-unitive act, but part of a unitive act. I cannot see that the Church has adjudicated on this question.

What I would say though is that Pope John Paul II in his book Love and Responsibility spends a lot of time describing the evils that arise, if the woman does not orgasm. Although he rightly steers away from "technique" he points out the need for "tenderness" both during and before and after love-making. He also points out that women are likely climax more slowly than men.

None of this means that any act of foreplay is acceptable, but it does raise serious questions about the article you linked to.

26 July 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Enjoy the rest of the bottle, and yes, Can you get an 'ought' without an 'is'? seems an important question to me.

26 July 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Glad to hear it. You can rest assured that all front line clergy known to be homosexual have been ‘retired’ from those duties. As stated before, forgiveness is a key part of Christianity. However, it is now apparent that those who consider themselves gay cannot be trusted with children, as their urges can be so strong that they are prepared to break their priestly vows. A regrettable state, but we must not condemn the individuals outright, but pity them...

26 July 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger David B said...

Sadly, Inspector, when one looks at the history of sexual abuse by people in power, whether in churches, scout groups, sports teams or whatever, I think you will also find many cases of people who rightly consider themselves heterosexual as guilty of misusing their power over the young, and/or powerless and/or naive who can not be trusted with children.

Within the Catholic church are there not many cases of sexual abuse of adult nuns by heterosexual priests?

Google is your friend.

David B

26 July 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Rules for Catholic foreplay? Absolutely hilarious.This would not be possible in France or Italy. It must be some kind of Irish invention.This is really most alarming. Thank God middle class Catholics are spared this kind of nonsense. They obviously trust us not to be deviates.Who uses it? The missionaries on the natives in the third world or in lower socio economic groups.

26 July 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

In case, you were going to reply to my post about the soul etc., don't bother. I've had enough of blogging for a bit. I think I'll take a break.

26 July 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. The overwhelming situation regarding child abuse in the Catholic church is priest on boy. And that is relying on the BBC which we find tends to report cases of priest outrage with glee.

Can’t say one is familiar with heterosexual priest on nun. Not at all. We would of course be considering consenting adults. Let’s say there isn’t a problem there as the red top papers would be rolling around in their own mire if a case came to light. Even a national TV advert to buy their rags, he says despairingly...

26 July 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


Would you reconsider? I find you are a moderate Catholic voice in the current vortex of his Grace's cyber reality.

26 July 2012 at 23:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

In my (limited) experience Catholics do not trouble themselves with 'rules' of foreplay. None exist so far as I am aware other than showing respect for one's partner and not being a selfish lover or engaging in something one's wife or husband might be uncomfortable with.

The only 'rule' I am aware of that the Church has spoken authoritatively on, is how the sexual encounter should conclude. (I was going to say climax but thought better of it.)

What's all this preoccupation with the sexual lives of Catholics about, anyway? Even the uneducated and those from Irish backgrounds enjoy themselves!

26 July 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B

Come of it, please!

The author you offer as representing Catholic theology is a lay American and speaks on his own authority.

26 July 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


I was going to say I didn't think Rome had written its own version of Kama Sutra.

26 July 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo, I did post the link to the American bloke saying that it wasn't quite what I was looking for.

I think he draws strongly on what I was looking for, which I have yet to find, and which was, IITC (which I might not) a 19th century more official Catholic view.

It might be that I am mistaken, though I think not.

It might be that the 19th C version I think I remember has been superseded, but if so it would sort of give the lie to the idea that the RCC is concerned with eternal verities.

Not that the recent revision of the concept of Limbo, which hurt so many parents of convinced catholic parents with children supposed to have gone there, is not sufficient to give the lie to that.

Anyway, I'll see if I can find what I remeber as being my original source another time.


26 July 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger David B said...

His Grace has been gracious enough in the past to allow an occasional off topic post from me in the past.

I hope he will be gracious enough to allow another, particularly as it reinforces the idea that having a second house of parliament is a good idea.

I welcome the move in the Lords by Lib Dem Lord Sharkey, with cross party support, to pardon perhaps the single person who was most influential in bringing the end to Hitler, Alan Turing.

Under the laws of the day he was rightly convicted, but those laws have long been - rightly IMV - set aside.

Would the congregation here support such a pardon?

I hope so.

David B

27 July 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B

I take it you're through your second bottle and well into a third! You really are scrapping the barrel.

"Limbo" was never a formal Catholic doctrine but theological speculation about the Mercy of God for those dhildren who die unbaptised. It has since been updated and the Catholic view is represented in the Cathecism - i.e. the Church does not know but trusts in the Mercy of God.

For information, many Calvinists and other protestants believe the souls of children who die before baptism, including aborted children, are consigned to Hell without chance of salvation. Why not question them?

So far as some document from the 1800's is concerned, unless one knows its status it is impossible to comment on the point you have made. However, I will say the Church does not contradict itself.

27 July 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B

Still on the booze?

I don't suppose a pardon for Alan Turing will make a great deal of difference to the poor man.

In September 2009, Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government:

"While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him ... So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better."

Another campaign then started asking for an official pardon. The response from Lord McNally:

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted. It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd —particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

Seems a reasonable position to me.

All movements need icons. However, I don't think we should make a homosexual martyr out of Alan Turing. At age 40 he picked up a 19 year old youth, took him home and committed an act considered at the time to be gross indecency. He knew it was illegal and he knew the risks he was taking.

In my opinion, the crude hormone treatment, agreed to by him as an alternative to imprisonment, was horrific - not the conviction.

27 July 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B, you're probably thinking of Thomas Aquinas and his famous views about sex. The notion of sins against nature usually get linked to him.

27 July 2012 at 07:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Paul Twigg,

Thank you. It's tempting to carry on, but I spend too much time down here as it is. Although I enjoy a lot of the discussions, quite often people are very insulting, without knowing what they are talking about - either personally or theologically. And then they complain when they get a robust answer. For some reason your name - and IanCad's has been dragged into an argument on another thread. I don't know why, I've enjoyed discussing with you and many others. But I think I should take a break.

27 July 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Pace yourself better and discern who to engage with. Some bloggers, especially those of the incomprehensible, guffawing kind, will exhaust you and their contributions follow no logic. Others, such as the clever, philosophical kind, raise important questions however, some require major investment to answer and often cannot be without shared premises.

I enjoy your clear exposition on a range of matters. Enjoy your rest, come back refreshed and my advise would be to be more selective in future engagements.

And let the personal insults roll away like water off a duck's back. What are they anyway?

27 July 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dodo. Actually, I'm not that worried by the insults by themselves, it is the ignorance with which they are deployed.

27 July 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Ah, now I am going to have to tip my hat to the Anglicans on this.

Just hope they all sing off the same hymn sheet.

27 July 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...


all the best.

27 July 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


You can 'fight fire with fire' and just get into pointless rows, ignore the insults and comment over them or, as I said, be selective in those you communicate with.

Nec imperfectum manet dum confectum erit

27 July 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Albert said...


Nec imperfectum manet dum confectum erit


John Knox,

Et cum spiritu tuo

27 July 2012 at 14:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...


27 July 2012 at 16:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This commenting reminds me of that movie ' They Live'.

An old drifter discovers a pair of sunglasses that allow him to wake up to the fact that ID's have taken over the Blog.

He discovers people being bombarded by subliminal with messages like "Stay Asleep", "Have No Imagination Of Your Own", "Read Only What We Permit", "Submit to Rome's Authority".

Even scarier is that he is able to see that some usually normal-looking commentators are in fact ugly ID's in charge of the massive campaign to keep humans subdued by confusion.

It's all a matter of being conscious of the real intentions of a certain blogger and his view on society.

A quote.. "I come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass but I'm all out of bubble gum". *Chewing and Wheezzing sound, (POP)*

Ernst Blofeld . The 'one' and the 'only' ;=)

27 July 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. This is the police. Matron’s called us over. We know you’ve barricaded yourself in the IT room. Come out peacefully now, there’s jelly for tea...

27 July 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Albert said...


(re last Latin comment)

27 July 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

27 July 2012 19:18 & 27 July 2012 19:38

Nighty Night chaps.

Ernst Blofeld . The 'one' and the 'only' ;=)

27 July 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Excellent – Friday night lock down at the nursing home – praise be !

27 July 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJo @ 16.37. Perfect!

27 July 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Nullum est tam caecus, qui non viderunt.

27 July 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Quid nunc facio, old Bird ?

One recognises caecus from ones biology lessons. Lower intestinal tract ?

27 July 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


"Caecus" means blind ... you do not see through your lower intestinal tract!

Optimum te potest esse - dare optimum vobis potest.

28 July 2012 at 01:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I say, it appears Ernsty now thinks he has been given a special gift of discernment and is able to perceive a meta-reality hidden to ordinary men.

There are a number of possibilitie:

- He has a special mission;
- He is delusional; or
- I have misunderstood him.

My suggestion is he watches 'The Man of La Mancha' (1972), then undergoes a medical assessment.

28 July 2012 at 02:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


- He is in a nursing home, and can’t remember why...

28 July 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Homosexuality is "locked out" of procreation. Nature's lawyer hasn't lost a case yet :)

28 July 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I think that is probably covered under option two in its widest sense.

Anther possibility is that from time to time person or persons unknown 'borrow' hack into his ID and post under an assumed moniker, what, what, what!

28 July 2012 at 13:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Excellent – Friday night lock down at the nursing home – praise be !

27 July 2012 20:24"
There appears to be no such remission for other bloggers here over any given 24 hour echad, as 'YOU' appear to be a 'DID' in denial and on the run from a high security detention centre..Wonder which ecclesiastical fraternity are hiding you??Hmmm, let me think..


I say, it appears Ernsty now thinks he has been given a special gift of discernment and is able to perceive a meta-reality hidden to ordinary men. " Why, His Grace has seen you/they too, that makes both of us insane, does it? *Sniggers*

28 July 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld, ironic you should mention ‘insanity’. Now we know you lost your powers of reason some time ago. Testament to which are the increasing number of fellow communicants wondering what the bloody hell you are on about...

28 July 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Our host is in the privileged position of being able to know the truth and has remained silent. He shows no signs of insanity.

I should also remind you he has asked for such speculation to end. Yet we get your post at 18:41.

Let there be an end to all this nonsense.

28 July 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger Manfarang said...

I was recently in England and I was invited to a same sex church wedding.It was officiated by a Catholic priest. I don't know what the orioginal Presbyterian founders of that church would have thought of it but I thought it was good.
Nobody chooses to be gay.

30 July 2012 at 04:37  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Yeah sure Manfarang and the Pope was the best man LOL!

30 July 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I think I remember this. Yes I do! Wasn't it the day the cow jumped over the moon?

31 July 2012 at 01:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

And the dish ran away with the spoon
( an Anglican silver one i.e.)

31 July 2012 at 06:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


It was sexist steroetypical thinking to assume the Pope was the best man. It may have been a wedding between two lesbians thus making the Pope a transgendered Bridesmaid.

1 August 2012 at 01:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

All this gender bender stuff is so creepy and unwholesome.I have to be tolerant of it but will never be comfortable with it.I suppose a lot of heterosexuals feel like this and thus the reason we have to be indoctrinated and reprogrammed to think this is all terribly normal in
our Brave New world ( a misnomer)

1 August 2012 at 06:27  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Way of the Dodo
You don't remember it.
It was on the 14th July.
I am not going to say where exactly because
you might petrol bomb the place or something and it was a private occassion.
There was no best man but the sisters of the two who were seeking the blessing.
I found nothing objectional in the service.

1 August 2012 at 07:20  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Manfarang you are probably an atheist and do not have a religious background so that is why you support SSM !You cannot imagine what an offense this is to anyone with a Christian background..although having said this David Cameron supports SSM and still attends Church services...Disgusting hypocrite!

1 August 2012 at 10:15  
Blogger Manfarang said...

There you go again.
Completely wrong and completely prejudiced.

2 August 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Manfarang if you are a Christian, how do you justify your support for SSM?

2 August 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Manfarang said...

God is love.

2 August 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Just as well ... it means He permits idiots to continue to exist, thereby giving them a chance to see sense!

3 August 2012 at 00:51  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Way of Dodo
So you have been given a chance to see sense. Wonderful!

3 August 2012 at 07:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Indeed and I thank God for this gift. It is something you should pray for.

You might also ask His help to stop telling such blatent lies too. A Catholic homosexual marriage in a former presbyterian church! For starters, the Catholic Church would not purchase such a property. And anyway they usually end up as second hand furniture shops.

3 August 2012 at 09:24  
Blogger Manfarang said...

When did I say it was a Catholic Church. It was a Catholic PRIEST who conducted a service of blessing in a place of worship that certainly is not Catholic. Never was and never will be.
The place has Calvinist origins and is still a place of worship.

3 August 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


See, I just do not believe you if you are claiming an active Catholic Priest in full communion with Rome would do such a thing.

3 August 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Way Of the Dodo
Whether he is in full communion with Rome I don't know but Catholic Priest he is.

7 August 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger Manfarang said...

A gay pastor who married his musical producer boyfriend in New York last year has fulfilled a vow to hold a wedding banquet in his native Malaysia in what they believe is the first such event in the Muslim-majority country.

Malaysian-born Ngeo Boon Lin and African-American husband Phineas Newborn III, quietly held the closed reception Saturday with about 200 guests, including a handful of Chinese-language journalists who were asked not to report on the event until afterward.

7 August 2012 at 16:07  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older