Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Roman Catholic hierarchy silences faithful blogging deacon


The Rev'd Nick Donnelly is a deacon of the Roman Catholic Church in the Diocese of Lancaster, who writes the highly respected Protect the Pope blog. It has never been entirely clear to His Grace from whom or what the Pope (which one?) needs protecting, but this blog receives a million views per annum and is read in 188 countries around the world. Deacon Nick is as zealous as His Grace for free religio-political speech and open theological debate, and has dedicated the past four years of his learned life – (he holds a BA Divinity in Theology and a Masters in Spiritual Formation) – to defending the orthodox Catholic tradition. And unlike one or two of his co-religionists, he has done so with immense grace, courtesy and Christian charity.

The concerted defence of religious orthodoxy invariably brings one into occasional conflict with progressives and liberals: such factions and divisions are as prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church as they are within the Church of England and throughout the entire Worldwide Anglican Communion. The difference between them, of course, lies in the structure of ecclesial authority by which theological differences and disputes are managed and dealt with: the Church of Rome has its authoritative Magisterium, presided over by the Pope who sustains traditional teachings and infallible doctrine; the Church of England has its consensual Synod, presided over by the Supreme Governor who delegates authority to her bishops, clergy and elected laity to interpret Scripture and develop doctrine more or less as they see fit. 

Deacon Nick has been nothing but faithful to his vocation: he seeks fidelity and spiritual truth, occasionally correcting, rebuking and exhorting "with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2Tim 4:2). And in this ministry he has corrected and rebuked Roman Catholic theologians, quite a few bishops and the odd cardinal. But on 2nd March 2014 he went quiet.

On 7th March, his wife posted an explanation for this absence: "Nick has been asked to observe a period of prayer and reflection."

She did not specify why this reflection was being observed or by whom it had been requested. But the Diocese of Lancaster (ie Bishop Michael Campbell) helpfully issued a swift statement to the press, freely disclosing the Bishop to be the initiator of the request. It read:
After learning that a notice had been placed upon the Protect the Pope website on 7 March saying: ‘Deacon Nick stands down from Protect the Pope for a period of prayer and reflection’ the Bishop’s Office at the Diocese of Lancaster was able to confirm that Bishop Campbell had recently requested Deacon Nick Donnelly to voluntarily pause from placing new posts on the Protect the Pope site.

Meanwhile, it was also confirmed that the Bishop asked Deacon Nick to use this pause to enter into a period of prayer and reflection on the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church.

Deacon Nick has agreed to the Bishop’s request at this time.
Interesting phraseology: Deacon Nick was "requested..to voluntarily pause" from writing his blog. What is one to infer from this other than that Deacon Nick has been somehow failing to fulfil his diaconal duties or has been otherwise deficient, disobedient or unfaithful to his church's teaching?

This "period of prayer and reflection" is manifestly nothing of the sort: the "request" carries more than a whiff of absolutist clericalism; an enforced disciplinary censorship imposed upon the Deacon for daring to defend Roman Catholic orthodoxy against the more liberal winds blowing through the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (CBEW). It is even more disconcerting when one considers that a conversation between a bishop and a member of his clergy remains, by convention, totally confidential: while the Diocese is happily issuing its defensive press releases, Deacon Nick is faithfully Trappist, having evidently been given no dispensation to speak or write about any conversations he may or may not be having with his Bishop.

Filling the void – as nature requires – a number of interesting explanations about the reasons for the Bishop's censoriousness have surfaced. The Tablet states (print version; not on-line): “Protect the Pope.. regularly criticised groups and individual bishops – including Cardinal Vincent Nichols – for being at odds with church teaching on issues such as homosexuality, women’s ordination, contraception and abortion. It is understood that concerns about the site had been raised with Bishop Campbell by fellow members of the English and Welsh hierarchy."

Fr Z, who runs the popular eponymous US blog, says: "I, for one, can imagine that a lot of pressure was exerted on the Bishop of Lancaster to have gone to such an extreme as to command a cleric under his charge not to think aloud in public."

And Fr Tim Finigan of The Hermeneutic of Continuity writes: "I think that it is no great secret that Catholic blogs are indeed a frequent topic of conversation at the meetings of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales."

Fr Z and Fr Tim may be on to something: after all, certain Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals have form on this (see HERE).

It appears that Deacon Nick is just a bit too Catholic for the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. For as long as Pope Benedict XVI sat upon St Peter's Throne issuing the occasional motu proprio favouring the old paths (Jer 6:16), Deacon Nick's commitment to immutable truths and infallible moral law were tolerated, not least because they chimed with the Vatican under Benedict if not with the CBEW. But under Francis, the traditionalists appear to be on the retreat: they are sidelined or censored while those progressive Roman Catholics who advocate inter alia a more tolerant approach to priestly celibacy, same-sex unions, abortion or divorce and re-marriage are not merely tolerated but actively promoted. 

Benedict XVI was a Catholic Herald pope; Francis inclines toward The Tablet. Or at least that's how it appears. Certainly, the Diocese of Lancaster isn't averse to promoting the latter on its website, giving high profile coverage to liberal bishops who are calling for a “radical re-examination of human sexuality”.

For Deacon Nick, such a radical re-examination is unnecessary, unholy and un-Catholic. Indeed, it amounts to apostasy. For him, such teachings do not 'develop' through synodical debate and legislative resolution, for that would incline toward the more heterodox Anglican view. No, if the Magisterium be infallible, its teaching must be protected and the Deposit of Faith defended. Dissenting bishops and cardinals must be called out, corrected and rebuked using Scripture and referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Those who do not repent ought to be excommuniacted.

But it is Deacon Nick who has been "requested" to "prayerfully reflect".

The Catholic Herald writes that it is impractical for bishops to seek to “censor the blogosphere”, not least because this sort of medieval inquisitorial heavy-handedness has a tendency to backfire in this fragmented digital age. Indeed, an irate (if not deeply upset) Mrs Martina Donnelly has now boldly taken over the blog, and the comment threads are replete with outrage over the injustice. While her husband is prayerfully reflecting, Mrs Donnelly is administering Catholic truth. They may have muzzled the ordained Deacon with appeals to lofty episcopal authority, but they'll never gag the faithful wife or refine the rawness of the new media.

If this were His Grace, he would carry on blogging (if only to spare his wife). If the episcopal advocates of heterodoxy sought to silence the blogging defender of orthodoxy, he would patiently await his kangaroo Spanish Inquisition and take his punishment as he was wont to do. This is England in the 21st century, not Spain of the 16th.

The Church needs more prophetic blogging watchmen like Deacon Nick, exposing hypocrisy, challenging double standards and shining a light into its mysterious workings and often impenetrable darkness. Who knows, if he had been writing decades ago, how many children might have been saved from predatory paedophile priests, or if his church might have been spared the global degradation of graver scandals and moral abominations?

135 Comments:

Blogger Bruvver Eccles said...

An excellent analysis of the situation. The way that Deacon Nick has been treated is simply shameful. Meanwhile, rebel organizations such as ACTA rampage around like a roaring lion seeking whom they may devour. Or something.

18 March 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Terrible way to treat someone. Just out of interest I always thought that Roman Catholic clergy had to be celibate/not married?

18 March 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Interesting to see how threatened the heirarchy is by the libertarian free speech ethos of the internet.

They look as if they cannot cope with a lowly deacon (in old heirarchical terms) with million person influence in new terms.

Thank God for Tim Berners Lee.

18 March 2014 at 11:10  
Blogger meema said...

“In state and church too many decisions are reached by compromise – steam-rollered by a consensus of rubber stamps and yes-men. It is fast becoming the unpardonable sin to be a lone dissenter on any issue. The big idea is to present a united front at any cost. A prominent churchman has reminded us that this can be a sinister device, smothering all opposition and excluding passion for rightness and reform. Under the pretext of a solid front to enemies without, we are told to overlook al deserters and traitors within our own ranks, since this causes division. Unification, unanimity, and uniformity are the order of the hour, and woe unto any Micaiah who disagrees with four hundred false prophets bidding Ahab and Jehoshaphat go up against Ramoth-gilead! This will, of course, in time produce a monolithic world state and world church with the mark of the beast and plenty of trouble for any who do not wear his brand. This is the advance program of Antichrist.” Vance Havner 1901-1986

18 March 2014 at 11:10  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


Mr Kavanagh,

RC priests are indeed unmarried and celibate, but not deacons (or, indeed, married ex-Anglican priests).

18 March 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger Len said...

'Deacon Nick has been nothing but faithful to his vocation: he seeks fidelity and spiritual truth' .

Therein lies his problem... to much poking around in Catholic theology is liable to make all those skeletons start to fall out of the cupboard..

Best quietly shut the door walk away and spend some time 'in quite reflection.'


18 March 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger Wynn said...

"It has never been entirely clear to His Grace from whom or what the Pope (which one?) needs protecting …"

I assume you're unaware of the origins of the blog, YG. It was set up in the run-up to the Pope's visit to Britain, in response to a self-important group calling itself "Protest the Pope" who intended to dog the visit with demonstrations of noisy opposition, and even boasted that they were going to arrest His Holiness.

18 March 2014 at 11:36  
Blogger Wynn said...

"(or, indeed, married ex-Anglican priests)"

Or, indeed², priests of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in union with Rome.

18 March 2014 at 11:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr C,

I think you enjoyed writing this post! Personally, I don't read the blog in question and cannot comment on its contents or the decision. In principle, I would defend the right of the Bishops to silence a member of the clergy. If Deacon Nick feels he has been wronged, he can appeal against the decision to a higher authority.

The concerted defence of religious orthodoxy invariably brings one into occasional conflict with progressives and liberals: such factions and divisions are as prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church as they are within the Church of England and throughout the entire Worldwide Anglican Communion.

That is certainly how it may appear from the outside - it seemed that way to me too, when I was in the CofE. But in the end, when one becomes a Catholic one finds that it isn't true.

But under Francis, the traditionalists appear to be on the retreat, and those progressive Roman Catholics who advocate inter alia a more tolerant approach to priestly celibacy, same-sex unions, abortion or divorce and re-marriage are being sidelined or censored.

Is that what you meant?

18 March 2014 at 11:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Albert,

No, indeed not. Now corrected. Bless you for your diligent scrutiny.

18 March 2014 at 11:49  
Blogger Corrigan said...

It is not quite correct to say that Francis inclines towards The Tablet more than the Catholic Herald; in fact, he has said or done nothing which is not in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The problem, as far as traditionalists are concerned, is that he has equally said or done nothing to put the Catherine Pepinsters of the Church back into their box.

It is the position of the Catholic Church (and you don't have to agree with it; I'm merely stating here what it is) that the Church IS different, that it IS unique, that nothing else, no religion, no sect, no Protestant, Jewish or Islamic creed has the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church received directly from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Himself: you are Peter and on this rock, and on no other do I build My Church. Again, before the fundamentalists assail me, I state this here simply to clarify the official position of the Catholic Church.

Here's the problem. That attitude works like a dream a) when everybody's on the same hymn sheet and b) when the officer corps (the bishops) uphold and advance it. Where b) is lacking, however, a) starts to crumble, and ever since Vatican II, that's exactly what's been happening. It cannot be repeated too often that Vatican II changed absolutely nothing in the Church as regards its moral teachings. It was a purely pastoral council and it didn't alter one scintilla the beliefs and commands of the Church. Unfortunately, it came at a time in history when the concepts of service and obedience were collapsing in civil society, and the rot crept into the Church through the back door of the Council. We were visited with a legion of new, young, trendy priests and especially nuns who publically gave respect to the authority of the Church, but in private "knew better" than a 2000 year old Magisterium and figured they'd just move into the presbytries and they'd only have to wait a few years until they could move their boy/girlfrieds in with them.

Unfortunately, that kind of attitude in a body like the Catholic Church (and again, I'm merely stating cause and effect here; I'm simply describing a process) is pure poison, and the body reacted badly against it. The result has been a fifty year long war between what are sometimes called conservatives (like Deacon Nick) and liberals (like Cathering Pepinster), but whom I would rather refer to as traditional Catholics and (and I use the following term in its neutral sense, not as a term of abuse) what are essentially Protestants.

Now, despite my credentials, I'm not actually saying there's anything wrong with being Protestant. It's a perfectly fine thing to be, in the Church of England; in the Catholic Church, not so much. And in his appraisal, Cranmer was right about one thing: Deacon Nick was tolerated (just about) by what may be termed (again, in the neutral sense of the word) the "protestant" bishops of the Catholic Church for as long as Benedict reigned. Now that's he has abdicated, however, the liberals are doing what liberals, clerical or civil, always do - silencing the opposition and using the levers of the institution to destroy it.

18 March 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr C,

Yes, that makes much more sense now:

But under Francis, the traditionalists appear to be on the retreat: they are sidelined or censored while those progressive Roman Catholics who advocate inter alia a more tolerant approach to priestly celibacy, same-sex unions, abortion or divorce and re-marriage are not merely tolerated but actively promoted.

I would be important to give another side of this issue:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100264057/a-miracle-oxford-oratorian-who-celebrates-the-old-mass-is-to-be-made-a-bishop/

18 March 2014 at 11:58  
Blogger Len said...

The Catholic Hierarchy do not want anyone poking around in their dark and dusty closets because who knows what will turn up?.
To drag Catholic theology out into the light is the last thing that they want that`s why those who published the bible in 'the language of the common man' were tortured and burned at the stake.Catholic Priests did not want 'the common man' to read the bible for himself for fear of what he might discover(God`s Truth and that Catholicism was not the religion of the Bible)until they could sort out 'the theology' to appear to line up!
So you obey the Catholic Hierarchy or they wield the big stick ....
'excommunication'.


18 March 2014 at 11:59  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Albert,

Not sure you're right about Deacon Nick being able to appeal to higher authority. In the Catholic Church, the bishop answers to nobody but Rome, and Rome rarely speaks.

18 March 2014 at 12:00  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Your Grace

Apart from the pedophile clergy I am curious to know what the even graver degradations and moral abominations
are of the Catholic Church to which you refer. You are not going to bang on about the Pope ditching his red velvet slippers and getting a haircut at the Local Barbers I hope.

18 March 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger The Pope said...

I demand all catholic bloggers stop right now!.
Pack up your keyboards switch of your computers and spend some time in quite reflection.

18 March 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Len, what the hell are you talking about? There is nothing more transparent than Catholic theology. It's all right there, explained line by line, in the Catechism if the Catholic Church, broken down by mystery, sacrament and commandment, and available for tuppence ha'penny from Amazon. And there is nothing stopping any Catholic reading the Bible, contrary to popular propaganda. I read it every day. I ever pay attention to what it actually says.

18 March 2014 at 12:06  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Here's a link to someone who says much bette than I ever did exactly what is wrong with the hierarchy and direction of the Catholic Church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWf1Wnxzw90&list=UUX17igkZ9JhU64JoTBVSWeQ

18 March 2014 at 12:11  
Blogger Wynn said...

It should be noted that when Deacon Nick was silenced, Bishop Campbell was either in, or very immediately returned from, a visit to Rome, in particular to the English College and the Beda. It appears that while there he was leant on very heavily by one or more influential figures. It would be most informative if more could be discovered about this – who did the leaning, and at whose behest? And to serve what purpose? Was it just to get rid of an irritatingly off-message voice, or did someone feel specifically threatened?

18 March 2014 at 12:17  
Blogger Martin said...

Corrigan, regarding your 12:00 comment about the ability of the deacon to appeal the decision. Canon 1737 of the Code of Canon Law states that "A person who claims to have been aggrieved by a decree can make recourse for any just reason to the hierarchical superior of the one who issued the decree." The deacon is within his rights under Canon Law to appeal the decision to the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome.

18 March 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Congratulations to Fr Byrne of Oxford
on his impending consecration as a Bishop and for having the courage to celebrate the Mass in its traditional extraordinary form.
Christus vincit
Christus regnat
Christus imperat

18 March 2014 at 12:38  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

"But under Francis, the traditionalists appear to be on the retreat: they are sidelined or censored while those progressive Roman Catholics who advocate inter alia a more tolerant approach to priestly celibacy, same-sex unions, abortion or divorce and re-marriage are not merely tolerated but actively promoted."

No, no, no – as the Baroness might have put it.

The liberal media has heralded Pope Francis' arrival as a nod to the progressives, but they are entirely wrong in their assumption. Every time they 'quote' him – on gays, the curia, anything really, they misquote him. The Catholic League has written a number of very good and accurate press releases on the way the liberals have mangled his words – they are worth reading.

Pope Francis has changed nothing doctrinal at all and has, many times, spoken of his admiration, gratitude and respect for his predecessor – the revisionists are celebrating in vain, if they are celebrating at all.

If homosexuals, people of other faiths and women feel they now have a place in the Catholic Church then they are right, but it is exactly the same place that they had before Pope Francis' appointment. They may not like it, but there you go.

As for the appointment of Cardinal Vincent Nichols, again this does not herald a change of direction. He is (as even the Guardian acknowledged) "at the very top of an institution that opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and the ordination of women as priests".

And still opposes them.

18 March 2014 at 13:14  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Some slight shift in the rules governing divorced and remarried Catholics is clearly to be expected in the near future, presumably at the Synod scheduled for October. Two German cardinals, both of them occupying posts at the very highest level of the Curia, have made this quite clear: first Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (appointed by Benedict in 2012), and now also Cardinal Reinhard Marx, a rising star under the Bergoglio pontificate. The changes that are on the way will certainly not even come close to meeting the demands insistently voiced by the liberal or Tablet wing of the Catholic church in the UK, but they will likely be quite sufficient to upset some traditionalists.

Reinhard Marx, by the way, looks like an interesting cardinal to keep an eye on. A member of the Council of Eight, he is now also the Coordinator of the fifteen-member Council for the Economy, the body charged with coordinating and supervising all Vatican economic and administrative activities. In addition, earlier this month he was elected president of the German Bishops’ Conference. He apparently enjoys making jokes about his surname: one of his books even bears the title Das Kapital.

Two recent posts on Roman blogs approach Marx’s career and prospects from different angles and are complementary, as well as distinctly complimentary:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/marx-marx-marx-32695/

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350740?eng=y

18 March 2014 at 13:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Roman Blogs"?

VaticanInsider is actually written by an Anglican ;o)

18 March 2014 at 13:41  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Good Lord, this has become an even more Catholic Blog than it was.
There are many very sincere people in the world, the trouble is that many of them are sincerely wrong.
The young Snow talking on last nights ITV's Agenda programme said regarding SSM that the CofE should start to serve the people or else lose their status as the established church. I never knew that the church was to serve the people! I thought the people were to serve God.

Many would tell you not to leave an organisation but try to sort it out from within. Sounds good but it rarely works because it is a biblical principal that you can't minister upwards. That is why so many within the CofE are being side-lined by the laity managers and the Bishops.

Within the Conservative party there are some good people but they will never change things for good whist they cower in their corners and hang on to what they had hoped the Conservative Party would be.
Traditional conservatism is dead within the party hierarchy. Best be moving on.

18 March 2014 at 13:42  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Good Lord, this has become an even more Catholic Blog than it was.
There are many very sincere people in the world, the trouble is that many of them are sincerely wrong.
The young Snow talking on last nights ITV's Agenda programme said regarding SSM that the CofE should start to serve the people or else lose their status as the established church. I never knew that the church was to serve the people! I thought the people were to serve God.

Many would tell you not to leave an organisation but try to sort it out from within. Sounds good but it rarely works because it is a biblical principal that you can't minister upwards. That is why so many within the CofE are being side-lined by the laity managers and the Bishops.

Within the Conservative party there are some good people but they will never change things for good whist they cower in their corners and hang on to what they had hoped the Conservative Party would be.
Traditional conservatism is dead within the party hierarchy. Best be moving on.

18 March 2014 at 13:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Uncle Brian

they will likely be quite sufficient to upset some traditionalists

The word my very consistent RC friend used was Apoplectic. He wouldn't actually give his opinion on it beyond that. I suspect because he knows I am Protestant. We have had conversations in the past about what would happen if the Pope goes off the rails; how he would avoid acting in a very Protestant manner under such circumstances.

Not a good time for him.

carl

18 March 2014 at 13:53  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Your Grace

Archbishop Cranmer said...
"Roman Blogs"?

VaticanInsider is actually written by an Anglican ;o)

18 March 2014 13:41


No kidding, Your Grace. Who'd a thunk it. I've been reading Vatican Insider, on and off, all these years, without ever suspecting anything of the kind.

Thank you, Your Grace.

18 March 2014 at 14:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Unlce Brian,

Some slight shift in the rules governing divorced and remarried Catholics is clearly to be expected in the near future, presumably at the Synod scheduled for October. Two German cardinals, both of them occupying posts at the very highest level of the Curia, have made this quite clear: first Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (appointed by Benedict in 2012), and now also Cardinal Reinhard Marx

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Muller seems opposed to the change (as far as I can see). Moreover, isn't all that is being proposed a discussion on whether there is some way of reconciling Catholic teaching with giving communion to those who are divorced but remarried?

That's a very painful situation. I cannot see how the question can be answered "Yes", but it's hard to see that the pastors of the Church are wrong to try to see if they can come to a better pastoral arrangement (which remains faithful to Church teaching) than they have now (even if it looks like it is impossible to do so).

18 March 2014 at 14:34  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Len @ 11.59
I agree

Corrigan @ 12.06
For starters, where in your Bible does it say anything about a Pope? My Bible says we have only one mediator between man and God, Jesus.My Bible also says that nobody on earth has power to forgive sins.

18 March 2014 at 14:37  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

It wasn't a blog I ever read more than once or twice - but I don't like censorship in any shape or form. I think it's hideously counterproductive, and one of the great strengths of the Internet is that it's almost impossible to manage - there's nothing like an official slapdown of any form for a hundred thousand people to suddenly go and read whatever-it-was on the basis that anything that the Powers That Be are throwing a spittle flecked nutty about is almost certainly worth reading.

I do find it amusing - and ironic - that Deacon Nick's wife has taken over the site. The RCC has always underestimated strong women :) God bless her and good luck to her.

18 March 2014 at 14:38  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Busy Mum

For starters, where in your Bible does it say anything about a Pope?

That's an easy one, Busy Mum. Matt 16:17-18: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.

Len will tell you that "ecclesia" has been deliberately mistranslated as "church", but we needn't go into that now.

18 March 2014 at 15:15  
Blogger George Gissing said...

Although personally I find Deacon Nick to be a toxic homophobic bigot who has a disproportionate interest in homosexual dissent and sin and dissent in general often delivered with all the subtlety and balance of a dalek on crack cocaine who's articles range from the truthful to the obviously biased it has to be said ,...that one cannot have a dialog with no one. Although I wonder if anyone has much of a dialog with him. He reads like a monologue or the catechism in human form. While I am greatly enjoying slagging him off without him being able to reply though ... it does seem a tad unfair. But then again he holds holy office and one does wonder how many pops one can have at one's superiors in any profession without feeling their wrath. (Those who are about to say that being a Deacon/Priest is not a profession please form an orderly queue).

Of course it is a great irony indeed that the man who has spent the last 4 years telling us exactly which nuns and priests have been "silenced" by the CDF has himself been "silenced". Anyone would think that the Papacy he purports to support is an overly top-down organisation. Quelle surprise. I have greatly enjoyed Deacon Nick doing all the RCC's dirty laundry in public but I have to wonder if this has always been a good idea.

A greater problem than the Deacon himself are some of his commentors who are given to some wild unsupported comments. For example the one that accused me of having drinking buddies who talk about their wives hair removal. I have to say that I do not have any buddies. Okay a few but you can count them on a mitten.

Anthony Miller

18 March 2014 at 15:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

The liberal tendencies of the English and Welsh bishops are well known in the Vatican. That is said to be the reason why the Personal Ordinariate for traditionalist Anglicans was established directly by the Vatican, through Cardinal Levada and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, rather than by the Bishops Conference here. Their attitude was "We have enough trouble with conservatives of our own, without taking on the Anglican ones too." That is supposed to be a direct quote, though I never discovered from which Bishop.

18 March 2014 at 15:24  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"Not sure you're right about Deacon Nick being able to appeal to higher authority. In the Catholic Church, the bishop answers to nobody but Rome, and Rome rarely speaks."

He could try these people
http://www.thomasmorelegal.org.uk/
Who I believe are cannon law specialists

18 March 2014 at 15:28  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

carl jacobs (today at 13:53)

Even in the C of E it's only very recently that they have allowed wedding ceremonies for divorced people, and even so, from what it says here (see link below), apparently a vicar who doesn't agree with the idea can't be forced to do it.

http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/marriage-after-divorce.aspx

18 March 2014 at 15:50  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 16:21  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...



It is funny (in both senses of the word) that neither the Bishop of Lancaster himself nor his fellow prelates who are supposed to have been leaning on him had any awareness of the so-called "Streisand effect". Now they've been taught a lesson they're not likely to forget, though I don't suppose it'll stop them making the same mistake again. Intolerance of dissent is a deeply rooted character flaw.

18 March 2014 at 16:23  
Blogger Len said...

Every time the Pope stands up and declares he is the' vicarius christi' the Pope is actually announcing that he is the' Anti Christ'.
I am surprised that none of his followers have had a quite word with him about this?.

Perhaps they tried?
(
Where is 'the Pope' found in the sacred texts?.(indeed you might ask!)

"After Peter, the centuries roll by, full of
controversies, any one of which today would
involve immediate recourse to Rome for a
decision ... We have already noted that not a
single Father can find any hint of a Petrine office
in the great biblical texts that refer to Peter.
Papal supremacy and infallibility, so central to
the Catholic church today, are simply not
mentioned. Not a single creed, nor confession of
faith, nor catechism, nor passage in patristic
writings contains one syllable about the pope,
still less about faith and doctrine being derived
from him.
" Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ:
The Dark Side of the Papacy.

18 March 2014 at 16:28  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

YG,

Thank you for the explanation.

Albert,

It seems to me that whatever the Bishop's formal powers ( I cannot comment on that) there seems to have been a bit of a 'Streisand effect'- e.g. I would never normally visit that particular site, but have had a quick look today...

Mr Integrity,

'Good Lord, this has become an even more Catholic Blog than it was'.

I think it is fairer to say that this blog has always been into - within broad limits- freedom of expression and speech. So is it hardly surprising that there is an article about a popular blogger being in effect 'gagged' by his own side?

18 March 2014 at 16:40  
Blogger FrereRabit said...

Many who left the Church of England looked for more secure doctrinal authority, but only to find themselves governed by the liberal "Magic Circle" regime in the Catholic Church in England and Wales. After several years of confusion - and even a temporary return to the CofE - I discovered the only way forward was to hold fast to Catholic Tradition. If the bishops will not hear that, and the signs are they will not, SSPX will be the beneficiaries of our continuing Catholic desire.

18 March 2014 at 16:46  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Albert (at 14.34)

My impression is that Müller takes a more conservative line on tbis issue than, for instance, Maradiaga, with whom he engaged in a rather odd argument in print a month or so ago. (In one of the German papers, but I don't remember which one.) Even so, I'd say it's a fair bet that the concessions Müller is prepared to make, come the Synod, go a bit farther than the traditionalists would like.

18 March 2014 at 16:52  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"It is funny (in both senses of the word) that neither the Bishop of Lancaster himself nor his fellow prelates who are supposed to have been leaning on him had any awareness of the so-called "Streisand effect". Now they've been taught a lesson they're not likely to forget, though I don't suppose it'll stop them making the same mistake again. Intolerance of dissent is a deeply rooted character flaw."

To be honest I think Deacon Nick and his acolytes are so embarrassing for the RCC they are now beyond caring. He has already broken into mainstream conciousness
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=63713914

"This
http://protectthepope.com/?p=6442
, and some of the comments beneath the article, demonstrate unequivocally just how nasty and bigoted so-called religious people can be. It's a good thing that God doesn't exist, for if He did these people would be going straight to hell for their hatred and bigotry."

Very much my feelings on reading many of the comments on PTP. Probably this article is the nadir of PTP's ouvre.

Philosophical gems such as

"despite a good 2.1 from Cambridge in English her [Clare Balding's] background knowledge of religion (of all stripes) is as extensive as mine is of neuro-surgery or civil engineering."

Or

"It is common sense that it is not right to have a Muslim present a Christian show, a Christian present an atheist show etc and a non religious person to present a show about religion, it is not appropriate"

I have been engaged in a social study of Deacon Nick's readers over the years ... rum lot they are.

an army or ex-army bloke called Rifleman819 (who counters every argument with “have you seen someone murdered”, “I’ve lived longer than you” or variations thereupon),

a repressed “non-active” homosexual called “Wake Up England” (who counters every argument by telling us he doesn’t mind being hated personally)

a man called Julian Lord who goes under the name “Jabba Pappa” and is prone to Marian Visions http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ and thinks Vatican II should be declared anathema.

Deacon Augustine http://quovadispetre.blogspot.co.uk/ another Deacon who writes long boring letters to the Prime Minister about the Same Sex Marriage Bill

The odd wandering atheist or representative of the BHA who thinks they’re ever going to change anything …and the usual collection of other oddballs who frequent religious websites.

Exactly the kind of media unfriendly people the RCC would like swept under the carpet?

Sickest of all I go there sometimes to laugh at it all.

18 March 2014 at 17:18  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"Terrible way to treat someone. Just out of interest I always thought that Roman Catholic clergy had to be celibate/not married?"

There have always been Deacons but they kind of went out of fashion (and became just the job the trainee priest got) till they were resurected to square the circle of there not being enough priests to go round. They can be married when they take up the office but they cannot remarry once ordained in their wife dies.

The difference between deacons and priests is they can perform all the roles of a priest except "the sacrament" (that is the transubstantiation of the host in the Eucharist)

18 March 2014 at 17:24  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

George Gissing

Until 48 hours ago, at the outside, I had never heard of Deacon Nick or his Protect the Pope blog. Even now I haven't bothered to look at it. I've seen others that fit the same description, though, and my remark "Intolerance of dissent is a deeply rooted character flaw" can apply equally well to some of the commenters there whose words you quote.

18 March 2014 at 17:35  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ George Gissing

At one moment you seem to be pro free speech and yet at another suggesting the RC heirarchy (which you seem to hate anyway) have a right to muzzle him and that you enjoy posting knowing he cannot answer. So enjoying the fruits of muzzled speech from an organisation you don't respect which attempts to do the work of a God you don't believe in.

I don't have a horse in this particular race being an Evangelical Anglican but I respect his right to hold and express views, some of which I would disagree strongly with. It is unusual if not unhealthy to enjoy debate with one prevented from speaking. Where is the communication and the respect for the other person there? It would feel uncomfortable and a form of sadistic debating plus bondage - and those are the types of things sane people abhor, along with ad hominem arguments.

Debating people and controlling people cannot constructively occupy the same space..

18 March 2014 at 17:52  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

There appears to be some confusion which has resulted in today’s missal. Our host and several communicants propound that something awful has taken place within the Diocese of Lancaster. Nothing of the sort has happened. It’s like this: The Inspector adheres to the RCC. He thus is free to criticise at will, suggest improvements, and generally let his feelings be known. He feels no disloyalty whatsoever, as he indulges in the aforementioned at his own volition, and importantly, it being perfectly clear that he does so as a free individual.

Not so with our deacon. He is OF the church, not an adherent. He is thus subject to something called discipline. (If there are any young types reading this, ask your grand parents about that word). And the reason ? Well, here’s another word to reckon with - his bishop is his superior, no less.

So there you have it. Quite straightforward really. Nothing sinister at all. In fact, it is said that if you go back in time, almost before living memory, you used to find discipline in the Church of England, at least so it is rumoured. Of course back then, you didn’t find women priests, or atheistic bishops, or clerics prepared to marry divorcees or some demanding to marry homosexuals in the future. It was also said that in those times, the Archbishop of Canterbury ran the place. Can you imagine that being the case today ! ({AHEM} Yes Mr Welby, you do indeed have your dreams, Sir. Let not this man rain upon them..)

So there you have it. It’s all to do with discipline, and the knowledge that if you defy it, you are out on your ear…



18 March 2014 at 18:24  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Inspector General

Even conceding your point that the Bishop had the right to act as he did, silencing the troublesome blogger, it doesn't follow that exercising that right was a sensible thing to do.

18 March 2014 at 18:31  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Uncle Brian, one is sure the discipline was itself the product of a “a period of prayer and reflection”

So that’s alright then...

18 March 2014 at 18:38  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"At one moment you seem to be pro free speech and yet at another suggesting the RC heirarchy (which you seem to hate anyway) have a right to muzzle him"

Well, my view as a promoter is that if I'm putting up the money and you're using my brand to promote yourself then I have a right to censor what you say on my stage - even if I dont exercise it very often. I imagine the RCC (from which I stole many promotional techniques) operates in exactly the same way. There is a problem as far as I can see in the deacon being under the bishop's authority that his views may be seen as the official church line ... whereas Cranmer and myself are of course lay people so can say what we want. I dont pretend to speak for the church - just for me. Dont get me started on trying to explain dissent, the Magisterium and all that we'll be here all day ... but ... it's complicated. Perhaps the problem is it is unclear when and in what capacity Deacon Nick is speaking. His personal capacity or his official capacity ...and when he is speaking for the official church and indeed Jesus. It gets complicated.

Of course all of this is why Deacons were phased out (except as a role for trainee priests). To answer the other question above... they are allowed to be married but if their wife dies they are not allowed to re-marry and if they become deacons before they are married they have to stay celibate. They can perform some of the sacrements but not the Eucharist.

"you enjoy posting knowing he cannot answer"

Yes, it does feel like shooting fish in a barrel.

"Debating people and controlling people cannot constructively occupy the same space.."

What do you think Dimbelby does on Question Time?

"I don't have a horse in this particular race being an Evangelical Anglican but I respect his right to hold and express views, some of which I would disagree strongly with"

The RCC doesn't work like that. Religious persons take vows of obedience. Exactly what obedience means is a difficult question but generally the bottom line is if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith doesn't like the cut of your jib or defines it as heretical you have to shut up or be fired. Of course some well known dissenters are allowed to dissent sometimes at high levels because no one can run a political organisation of any kind with no dissent but ... come on ... everyone knows the RCC is not a democracy. And yes I am afraid that I am enjoying the sight of a man who catalogs who has been "silenced" being told to shut up himself.

But I am trying to be grown up I really am. I suppose on the plus side Deacon Nick gives a platform to people that allows them to let off steam somewhere rather than picketing arts centres etc ...
No, I cannot get all weepy about a man who campaigned to ban a student production of the Vagina Monologues being "silenced". HE dont believe in free speech and yes I AM enjoying watching him pay the price of that belief.

18 March 2014 at 18:41  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

To come to the deacon’s defence on another matter, what has been perceived as the man’s ‘toxic homophobia’ should really be the congratulating of the fellow on reminding us all that the homosexual lifestyle is not part of God’s plan. We know this as what one could consider as God’s living hand on this planet, Mother Nature, has concocted a most alarming disease that has claimed at least 25 million already. If it had not been for the sterling efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, each new case today would be a death sentence, as it most surely continues to be in less developed regions of the world...

18 March 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger Corrigan said...

I wonder if we should run a competition like at the funfairs, where they ask you to guess how many sweets are in the jar. In our case, we could run a contest to guess how many uses of the word "bigot" and its variations George Gissing will use before this thread is over. Cranmer could give a prize of a Book of Common Prayer, perhaps, or Blofeld could donate one of his mangy cats.

Word to the wise, Georgie - shotgun accusations of bigotry are a liberal speciality which, while they may make you feel like a big man, usually imply you don't actually have any commitment to anything bigger than yourself. Fine if you're a Nietzschean, not so good otherwise. Are you a Nietzschean, George?

18 March 2014 at 20:02  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Saints be praised !

You have a cruel tongue Corrigan...

Bless you my son, and keep up the good work, as God would have you...

18 March 2014 at 20:17  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

I could donate a packet of hobnobs, dear Corrigan, though I'm currently fiddling with a Charlotte Russe...

18 March 2014 at 20:19  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Corrigan

And how about rejection of the wonders of the female body and crass jokes about how unattractive women are, which I understand are pretty common in male gay circles? Just how are they not bigotted? To me it is extremely bigotted, as it is to say mothers are redundant, and just a "quick bake oven" as Elton John and partner have effectively done. How bigotted is that? And saying infertile couplings with the human waste system are equivalent to male female fertile couplings with the womb? Bigotted or what? Exceptionally bigotted.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

18 March 2014 at 20:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

What's happened to Corrigan? He's become the voice of sweet reason @ 11.56. Great post.

18 March 2014 at 20:51  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Lucy. One was contemplating the situation of a ‘loving God’ the other day. The obvious product of ‘modern’ types from hundreds of years ago. We know that Christ’s father was the scary fella of the OT which makes us all hide behind the sofa, not the ‘God who is my buddy’ espoused by idiots today.

He is going to bin the likes of Elton John, whose multi millions cannot save him. We need to worship and fear God. He is not our buddy. That he has so arranged for some of us to experience immortality should not be considered an open door for whomever wishes to come in.

The Inspector remains, a God fearing man, as he and the rest of us should be.

18 March 2014 at 20:58  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ IOG

Both transcendent and immanent! Orthodoxy itself. Friend, brother, King and so on. Meekness and Majesty, and so on.

Elton John is not on the right path at all, which is a shame as I liked his early work, but acc. to Bernie Taupin he has a large collection of witchcraft artefacts, which speaks for itself.

Incidentally if you are interested in all the dodgy stuff in the music scene vigilant citizen does a good job of unpacking the imagery- black, red, flames, altars, Baphomet sweatshirts and so on. I looked into it after seeing my children watching MTV, and I saw clear image patterns in a Madonna song- eating rosaries and Nazis and body altars and so on; they didn't believe that it was occult, oddly, though it clearly was, though I guess my subject is English so it is pretty much obvious to me.

Amusingly a schoolboy atheist troll came on telling them they were all mad and stupid to which one guy responded by asking him why he thought he could patronise the people on there who knew each other and many of whom had several degrees each!!

18 March 2014 at 21:35  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

All Golden Calf stuff, Lucy, and the universities truly are the dark Satanic mills that were spoken of. God help the young today. They too will fall into the the pit, but we know that eventually it will turn full circle, and perhaps their descendants will fare better...


18 March 2014 at 21:48  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ iog
Yes, golden calf stuff indeed. To be fair to universities it rather depends on what tutors you land up with. My own, decades ago, were all or nearly all avowedly Christian. And that is true for quite a lot of my children's, mercifully. And even in the music world there are some decent Christian artists, like the lady who walked out of the recent awards ceremony in protest at a staged invocation of Satan during a song. And quite a number more. Of course they need to be more talented, more resilient and more determined but it is possible.

As for young people, we need to equip them with the ability to interpret the imagery confidently and correctly, and see the nonsense for what it is, and then they can negotiate their own way through -and help others too, and also support the decent people's art! AtB

18 March 2014 at 22:18  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Inspector

"The Inspector remains, a God fearing man, as he and the rest of us should be"

Why do you fear God?

Phil

18 March 2014 at 22:19  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Phil. It’s not fear as in todays meaning. You need to go to the OED to understand the flavour of this man tastes. God is also terrible, he has to be, again, the OED is your man.

The Inspector revels in the use of the English language, and the words belonging that have long since lost their original meanings. Due to emotion inflation, if you will...

18 March 2014 at 22:41  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Just as hope has two objects, one of which is the future good itself, that one expects to obtain, while the other is someone's help, through whom one expects to obtain what one hopes for, so, too, fear may have two objects, one of which is the very evil which a man shrinks from, while the other is that from which the evil may come. Accordingly, in the first way God, Who is goodness itself, cannot be an object of fear; but He can be an object of fear in the second way, in so far as there may come to us some evil either from Him or in relation to Him.

From Him there comes the evil of punishment, but this is evil not absolutely but relatively, and, absolutely speaking, is a good. Because, since a thing is said to be good through being ordered to an end, while evil implies lack of this order, that which excludes the order to the last end is altogether evil, and such is the evil of fault. On the other hand the evil of punishment is indeed an evil, in so far as it is the privation of some particular good, yet absolutely speaking, it is a good, in so far as it is ordained to the last end.

In relation to God the evil of fault can come to us, if we be separated from Him: and in this way God can and ought to be feared.


Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica, in answer to the question, Is God to be Feared?

18 March 2014 at 23:22  
Blogger Anthony Miller said...

"Word to the wise, Georgie - shotgun accusations of bigotry are a liberal speciality which, while they may make you feel like a big man, usually imply you don't actually have any commitment to anything bigger than yourself. Fine if you're a Nietzschean, not so good otherwise. Are you a Nietzschean, George?"

I've been wading through Deacon Nick's blog for 5 years how can this be a "shotgun" opinion that I have? What other words would you use to describe sentiments such as...

"We know this as what one could consider as God’s living hand on this planet, Mother Nature, has concocted a most alarming disease that has claimed at least 25 million already. If it had not been for the sterling efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, each new case today would be a death sentence, as it most surely continues to be in less developed regions of the world..."

...this is not RCC church teaching, natural law, church law, divine law, God's law or Jesus's law. Neither is it a cogent discussion of the RCC's teachings on homosexuality. What it is however is hate ...and the comment section of the Deacon's blog is full of such comments. I cant think of a better word than bigot to describe people who express such views but I doubt Archbishop Cranmer would let me use it here as it only has four letters.

On the blog at the moment Deacon Augustine instructs us about how "human respect and how this vice may be overcome". It's hard to think of a more twisted perversion of Christian teaching than instructing people not to respect each other.

18 March 2014 at 23:42  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Corrigan. For those, like this man, who doesn’t follow Thomas Aquinas fully in this issue, and humbly admits this from lack of brain neurons required, the default position of fearing God, as expressed before is perhaps the best to take before our Creator’s presence.

18 March 2014 at 23:45  
Blogger Anthony Miller said...

Okay I've only been wading through his blog for 4 years. I seem to be Anthony Miller instead of George Gissing again now ... what a relief.

"How many souls has Human Respect – that great enemy of our salvation – sent to hell!"

Frankly none.

18 March 2014 at 23:46  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Anthony Miller, George Gissing, or whomever else you are posting as...

Quit the indignation will you. Just bloody well calm down...

State your case, and stop quoting this man and claiming it to be hate material. It is not, it’s the blasted truth. If you disagree with it, let’s see a proper discourse from you...


19 March 2014 at 00:00  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Anthony Miller, I'm not sure if you're quoting Deacon Nick or some anonymous commenter on his blog, and you haven't made it clear. As to Deacon Augustine's reference to a "vice", if you are talking about homosexual practice (again, not clear from your post), then I'm sorry, but Catholicism certainly does regard it as a vice and I'm not at all sure how you figure Catholic condemnation of it to be a "twisted perversion" of Christian teaching. You may consider the teaching a perversion, but not of Christianity. It is unfortunate that so many bishops have spent so much time trying to be "inclusive" that they've allowed people to forget what Christianity actually is.

19 March 2014 at 00:00  
Blogger Anthony Miller said...

"It is not, it’s the blasted truth"

Erm... come again how is this

""To come to the deacon’s defence on another matter, what has been perceived as the man’s ‘toxic homophobia’ should really be the congratulating of the fellow on reminding us all that the homosexual lifestyle is not part of God’s plan. We know this as what one could consider as God’s living hand on this planet, Mother Nature, has concocted a most alarming disease that has claimed at least 25 million already. If it had not been for the sterling efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, each new case today would be a death sentence, as it most surely continues to be in less developed regions of the world....."

...which is on this blog Mr Corrigan (by Mr Inspector General) ...erm... "the truth"?

It is some idiot stating homosexuality was somehow a cause of AIDS. Really drivel. And dangerous. And hateful. And nothing to do with Catholicism.

19 March 2014 at 00:10  
Blogger Anthony Miller said...

I mean basically it is a statement that AIDS was sent to punish homosexuals or something. Bigoted. Untrue. Poison.

19 March 2014 at 00:11  
Blogger Anthony Miller said...

"Anthony Miller, I'm not sure if you're quoting Deacon Nick or some anonymous commenter on his blog, and you haven't made it clear. As to Deacon Augustine's reference to a "vice", if you are talking about homosexual practice (again, not clear from your post), then I'm sorry, but Catholicism certainly does regard it as a vice and I'm not at all sure how you figure Catholic condemnation of it to be a "twisted perversion" of Christian teaching. You may consider the teaching a perversion, but not of Christianity. It is unfortunate that so many bishops have spent so much time trying to be "inclusive" that they've allowed people to forget what Christianity actually is."

Never mentioned homosexuality in this context read this...

http://protectthepope.com/?p=10150

... and tell me it isn't drivel.
It is a manifesto of hate.
How can it be wrong to respect people?
Jesus : "Do to others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31
Deacon Augustine on PTP "Oh! How many souls has Human Respect – that great enemy of our salvation – sent to hell!"

These people are bonkers

19 March 2014 at 00:17  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

At risk of sticking my head above the parapet again - the evidence suggests that AIDS originally spread across Africa from the eastern sub-Saharan region down long distance truck routes, along which truck drivers routinely used female prostitutes.

If the Almighty created AIDS to punish homosexuals, he chose a very funny way of going about it. The Church teaches that ALL sexual acts, be they gay or straight, outside of marriage are sinful, yet the proportion of time devoted to condemning heterosexual sins varies considerably from that devoted to homosexual ones.

19 March 2014 at 00:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"We know that Christ’s father was the scary fella of the OT which makes us all hide behind the sofa, not the ‘God who is my buddy’ espoused by idiots today."

Jehovah's Catholic, are we.

Deny that Jesus was Jehovah do you?

JESUS CLAIMED TO BE JEHOVAH

I AM - Jesus claimed to be "I AM" (Jn 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5-6). The "I am he" in the original Greek of those verses is ego eimi - "I am" - with no "he".

In the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint or LXX) ego eimi - "I AM" - is the self-designation of Jehovah (Ex 3:14-15; Dt 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6).

In particular, Jesus claimed to be Jehovah in His statements that, "Before Abraham was born, I am [ego eimi]" (Jn 8:58 ESV), and "unless you believe that I am [ego eimi - no "he"] ... you will die in your sins" (Jn 8:24 ESV).

Likewise, Jesus also claimed to be Jehovah when He walked on the stormy sea and told the disciples in their sinking boat to, "Take heart; it is I" (ego eimi - "I AM") (Mt 14:23-27; Mk 6:47-50; Jn 6:16-20 ESV).

What do those Jesuits teach you at Campion Hall, Oxford University and for how much?

However much it is, its a terrible waste!

*Chortles*

Blofeld

19 March 2014 at 00:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Blofeld,

Is not the issue that when in the Bible God is described as "Father", the expectation of fatherhood then is very different from that of today?

Loving fathers in ancient times (i.e. before the 1970s) would not shrink from tough love where offspring were considered wayward, whereas today so much as frowning at a misbehaving child can see one up before social services and the family courts.

19 March 2014 at 00:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Darter Noster said...

Blofeld,

Is not the issue that when in the Bible God is described as "Father", the expectation of fatherhood then is very different from that of today?" Indeed but Jesus is the 'scary' person that Inspector remonstrates wrongly is Jesus' Father..it were not Him who sent Him but Him who came that revealed Himself as Jehovah and who declares His love endlessly in the OT!

Loving fathers in ancient times (i.e. before the 1970s) would not shrink from tough love where offspring were considered wayward, whereas today so much as frowning at a misbehaving child can see one up before social services and the family courts."

Does Christ ask less of us as Fathers but what you state is the secular state at work, which unfortunately has the upper hand in these things.

Ernst does not disagree at all and Christ disciplines us also but with love. It is a thin line between discipline and abuse and a wise parent needs to know the difference?

The Lord is no softie namby-pamby as the world will find out when He returns. Praise be I am going to be by His side and not one of the objects of His judgment *gulp*

Blofeld

19 March 2014 at 01:06  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Blofeld,

I've always looked at the Old Testament as the story of mankind's journey, with wrong turnings along the way, towards God, and the New Testament as the fulfilment of that journey. Jesus himself states (re. divorce, for example) that the OT generations did not always get things right.

19 March 2014 at 01:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Jesus himself states (re. divorce, for example) that the OT generations did not always get things right."

It was called by the Lord our hard heartedness "Moses," He replied, "in consideration of the hardness of your nature permitted you to put away your wives, but it has not been so from the beginning."

May I use the wonderful expounding of this verse by Matthew Henry which I cannot improve on in my own words;

Jesus replied by asking whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven.

When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own.

As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer.

Blofeld, Darter my lad.

Off to bed to try to get some sleep and be up right and early as I have been granted a job interview on Friday for some part time work and I must destroy my competencies given, without them knowing I know they will ask me to do this this!! ie.

How was this problem affecting others?
Why did you regard this problem as significant?
What obstacles did you encounter when resolving this problem?
What information did you use to resolve the problem?
What resources did you call on to help?
What did you learn from this situation?
What would you have done differently?

They have to learn, these young un's, we is old but not stupid and know to think in advance to solve problems presented!!!

*Huge Titters and Chuckles*

Please pray it goes well.

Nighty night all and God bless.

19 March 2014 at 01:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Homosexuals were especially vulnerable to AIDS because of sodomy and because of the frequent interchange of sexual partners in the homosexual community. It wasn't like people weren't aware in the late 70s of the possibility of a virulent STD getting loose in the Gay community. Is that God's judgment of homosexuality? Is emphysema God's judgment of smoking? In the ordinary course of events, certain behaviors are naturally dangerous. The libertine sexual practices associated with the homosexual community were naturally dangerous. That's why AIDS became pandemic in the Gay community.

I remember in the late 80s and early 90s the (one could almost call it) eager anticipation of the expected heterosexual AIDS echo. It was almost ghoulish. AIDS didn't discriminate, you see. Everyone was equally vulnerable. That was the coming lesson of heterosexuals getting AIDS. It would have vindicated homosexuality by separating it from AIDS but it never happened. At the time one could feel the palpable disappointment.

carl

19 March 2014 at 01:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Is emphysema God's judgment of smoking? ..therefore is emphysema God's judgment of those that went/go down mines?

Are both Biblical or are these parameters traditional limiting/definite admonishments?

Blofeld + Tiddles says Hi.

19 March 2014 at 01:57  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Reject all the conspiracy theories above. His Mrs got miffed because he was spending too much time with his computer.
I well know this situation and had to do the necessary penance.
Now for something completely different.....
Today is Guan Yin's birthday and it will soon be Nowruz.
For a bit of Lent reading
Is Atheism A Theism?
The Unnecessary Conflict
by Ronald Ford
George Ronald Publisher

19 March 2014 at 03:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ernst

The answer to the question is intentionally indeterminate. It is extremely problematic to start throwing around assertions of God's judgment. But it's not problematic to identify danger.

carl

19 March 2014 at 03:51  
Blogger Ivan said...


The main vector in the spread of AIDS in the West were that (possibly large) fraction of homosexuals that engaged in numerous unnatural copulations. This should have been apparent from the first days, when the disease syndrome known as AIDS appeared in the bathhouses of San Francisco in the early eighties. The reckless behaviour compounded with the heavy use of nitrate and other poppers resulted in heavy casualties in that underworld.

The narrative that developed around AIDS, that death was inevitable upon contraction suited two sets of partisans. On the side of the (few) moralists, this was meet and well deserved punishment. On the other side, the far more numerous hedonists, took this as a license to indulge in even greater bouts of debauchery, on the principle that; it is well to be hung for the sheep as for the lamb. In support of the hedonistic narrative, various humbug theories, now mostly forgotten were bruited about. Those who dissented such as Duisberg were ridiculed, Mullis of PCR fame had to sit out on the beach. Oprah and her crybaby Greek chorus were full on; lamenting that numberless normal people were going in to die, and we had better hand over all our money and good sense to the homosexual lobby and its attendant carnival barkers. The UN got into the act and proclaimed that all of India, China and Russia will be decimated by the dreaded AIDS.

Now I am familiar with developments in both India and China, nothing of this kind has transpired in more than a decade, and this in the face of increased promiscuity as opportunities multiplied.

Essentially AIDS is a disease kept in being by promiscuity, anal sex and the deleterious effects of the prescribed treatment itself - akin to devastations of chemotherapy. This should be obvious to anyone studying the epidemiological data.

Promiscuity keeps in circulation a pool of diseases, the lethality of their active agents be they bacteria or viruses, honed by repeated exposure to the medical regimes. The fundament was not designed in nature to take repeated assaults of the battering kind, torn tissue immediately exposes the bloodstream to the above agents, bypassing the natural defenses of the skin and digestive system. Would anyone knowingly inject infected blood into the veins? But this is exactly what is happening here. Perhaps as bad as all this is the side-effects of the treatment itself, the destruction of the beneficial T-cells, the body's own foot soldiers and consequent weakening of what remains of the immune system. At one time the course of treatment included AZT, a drug deemed so dangerous that the FDA refused to allow its use in chemotherapy, though now they have moved on to protease inhibitors. Whatever the provenance, one has to understand that these drugs interfere in the production of desirable cells much needed by the body.

As to the prevalence among certain categories of heterosexuals, one has to control for the number and frequency of occasions when they play for the other team. When they indulge in AC/DC, or as madams in Malaysia used to arrange it: two-way 20 dollars, three-way 30 dollars. Absent this, data concerning female agents are diffuse.

Chastity and purity of mind is the way to transcend all these fears, the doors of perception are cleared. The body itself feels lighter. One is no longer anxious about the wheels of karma. Faith in the Lord Jesus frees us from sin and the terror of death.

19 March 2014 at 04:07  
Blogger Ivan said...

I am more or less on the same page as Carl

19 March 2014 at 04:11  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Ivan
I hope you are svoiding all that unclean food and going vegetarian avoiding all that karma like the followers of Guan Yin.

19 March 2014 at 04:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Spread of Aids

I have regular desensitization treatment for an allergy trigger in a clinic in Germany. The doctor also treats STD.

He was describing a patient who was HIV positive and what they get up to. He had been whipped too hard by other Gays and was suing them for assault so he had come to the doctor to certify his injuries.

It is not just Anal sex they get up to. This guy apparently, HIV positive, would voluntarily be tied to a bed and whipped. Apparently according to the doctor even in a "normal" whipping there must have been a thin mist of blood all over the room. Amway when they had stopped whipping him they all had anal sex with him (apparently up to 20 men) and if they were still up to it with each other.

Correct me if I am wrong but most women even promiscuous ones will draw the line at being whipped half to death and then fucked in the arse by a score of men (say, I don't know how often) 2 or 3 times a week.

It makes HIV transmission a little easier.

It also makes you wonder what sort of porn Stonewall wants our kids to see (Desensitised to) in schools

Phil

19 March 2014 at 06:27  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness, dear Phil Roberts! I am aghast! It makes our evenings at The Palace with Moody and Sankey seem rather tame, doesn't it? However, I was prompted to cover up the legs of the grand piano in green velvet to remove any possibility of rousing passions amongst the Vicars Choral. My my, this blog is an education, it really is!

19 March 2014 at 08:20  
Blogger Ivan said...


Manfarang, I'm trying. Its Lent anyway.

19 March 2014 at 09:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Don't forget the billiard table (Boroughs & Watt?) either, Mrs Prudie.

19 March 2014 at 09:42  
Blogger The Explorer said...

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Proverbs 9:10.

19 March 2014 at 09:54  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

All covered with swags and tassels dear Bluedog (which just about describes Signora Neroni, but I digress). I note with some disapproval that you have been playing about with my name...hmmmm...tsk tsk! All this unseemly talk of whipping and analistical activity has made me desperate for a strong Darjeeling and a Garibaldi.

19 March 2014 at 09:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ivan @ 04:07

Great stuff: real argument stopper!

Second only to your discussion last year with Avi about the Cathars and the Dominicans.

19 March 2014 at 09:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs Proudie @ 09:56

Signora Neroni. Tassels, yes. But all covered?

19 March 2014 at 09:58  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"The main vector in the spread of AIDS in the West were that (possibly large) fraction of homosexuals that engaged in numerous unnatural copulations. This should have been apparent from the first days, when the disease syndrome known as AIDS appeared in the bathhouses of San Francisco in the early eighties. The reckless behaviour compounded with the heavy use of nitrate and other poppers resulted in heavy casualties in that underworld. "

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Yes, homosexuals and indeed drug users are more at risk of AIDS than promiscuous heterosexuals. However, there is a massive deductive leap between stating this fact and drawing the conclusion from this fact that is being insinuated that God somehow created AIDS to punish gay people for their unnatural lifestyles.

While the disease could be said to be more easily spread by gay sex than straight sex and it would be irresponsible to not state this... it is quite clear that the disease is crossed over from African primates and is a human version of older simian immunodeficiency viruses. The disease was passed to humans probably through eating raw bush meat. This combined with the long incubation period of the virus is probably a better explanation of why it passed around the world so quickly and effectively.

The inference of statements like
"We know this as what one could consider as God’s living hand on this planet, Mother Nature..."
are clear. The poster believes Mother Nature (i.e GOD) created AIDS type viruses to punish gays.
But what about the monkeys?
Why is God punishing them?
Dont tell me there are gay monkeys.
That would be completely unnatural.

Such mean spirited homophobic tripe percolates through the comments section of Deacon Nick's blog even if it doesn't directly disseminate from the Deacon himself and he does nothing much to challenge it.

But leaving the gay issues aside he'd probably still get away with it if he wasn't simultaneously at was with ACTA, Quest, Enda Kenny, his own fellow clergy who have clearly had words before
http://protectthepope.com/?p=8586
bishops (who he wants to censor other people but not himself), the government, the EU (which he describes as anti-Catholic... erm has he seen the flag?), the UK government (castigating them for censorship while also encouraging everyone to report hate crimes - have cake and eat), the Irish government, the US government, Vincent Nichols, Cormac... the list goes on and on.
Maybe he just needs to pick his battles more carefully. He is to the RCC what CRT is to socialism.

19 March 2014 at 10:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Most sincere apologies Mrs Proudie. It was in fact a fortuitous typo, but seemed to fill the spot perfectly in the circumstances, so was left intact.

As to infused beverages, my own bitch has been instructed to cancel the order for Russian Caravan. One must do one's bit in the sanctions against that odious Mr Putin. The possibility of another Crimean War inevitably leads one to speculate whether Lord Lucan will re-appear in time to answer the call. Will you being going out again?

19 March 2014 at 10:31  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George Gissing (as in 'New Grub Street'?) @ 10:15

"Blah Blah..." sees to me to be an inadequate response to a well-informed, well-reasoned post.

You also seem to me to be conflating Ivan's argument with the Inspector's. Where does Ivan do so?

19 March 2014 at 10:49  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"You also seem to me to be conflating Ivan's argument with the Inspector's"

Not at all I am pointing out the differences between what one has said and what the other has said... although I could have made clearer which one was speaking.

However, it's a good example of the Deacon Nick problem. One person says something reasonable, another person says something that sounds reasonable but is really homophobic. No one seems particularly bothered by this or challenges this homophobic sentiment so it assumed that the blog owner and the commenters are all of the same mind and what passes over to the general casual reader is that it is all just one long homophobic moan.

It is not clear to what extent Deacon Nick endorses the comments of his commentators. Whether he leaves them up to show a range of opinion or whether he leaves them up because he endorses them. It's Guido Fawkes syndrome. Someone may post something cogent below his articles but who's going to wade through all the filth to find the gemstones? Staines calls his posters all kinds of rude words. Is that how the Deacon views his contributors? I wonder....

19 March 2014 at 11:12  
Blogger George Gissing said...

That said what does this mean:

"Essentially AIDS is a disease kept in being by promiscuity, anal sex and the deleterious effects of the prescribed treatment itself - akin to devastations of chemotherapy. This should be obvious to anyone studying the epidemiological data. "

What are the deleterious effects of the prescribed treatment itself that are keeping AIDS alive? Sounds potty to me to argue treating AIDS is spreading AIDS.
But then maybe I haven't studies enough epidemiological data.

19 March 2014 at 11:16  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George G @ 11:12

That does clarify. Thank you.

@ 11:16. Surely the bit you quoted is explained in Ivan's following paragraph?



19 March 2014 at 11:22  
Blogger Ivan said...

Explorer, until I read Neville Hodgkinson's AIDS: the failure of contemporary science in 1996, I was a votary of the mainstream view that AIDS was an invariably fatal disease caused by the HIV retrovirus. I was an avid reader of the Scientific American and the (defunct?) IHT which carried the science pages of the NYT and occasionally scan Nature when I was at the university library. I had reason to consider that as a layman I was quite well informed. I would scan the news for AIDS partly for reasons of self-preservation from the 80s onwards. Imagine my shock at finding out from Mr Hodgkinson's book that there were a whole series of different and plausible etiologies for the symptoms of AIDS which differed from that offered in the mainstream organs. Why was there not even a hint of this in mainline publications elsewhere? (Apart from Hodgkinson's columns in the Sunday Times which I was unaware off). It may well be the case that refutations were or were not published. But is not in the public interest to know as many competing theories as possible? One recalls that were instances when upon diagnosis of AIDS - though the tests themselves were notoriously unreliable - the unfortunate patients committed suicide. Happily some of Mr Neville's articles are available online.

George Gissing, some of the medical regimes are or were devastating, in that since one believes that death is inevitable anyway there is nothing to lose in submitting to treatments that leave the patient a frail wreck.

19 March 2014 at 12:25  
Blogger Ivan said...


Anyone suffering from AIDS or taking care of a such a sufferer owes it to himself to peruse the pages at http://www.virusmyth.com/
in the interest of broadening his options.

19 March 2014 at 14:31  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Explorer, I think you will find Signora Neroni's swags are quite pendulous...

Dear Bluedog, all is well, never fear! As for The Crimea, that's Florence's Gladstone bag, not mine. I shall knit balaclavas for the Grub Street news corps who seem to have invaded already...poor Ben Brown looked positively shiverish. One of those Russian saunas might sort him out...but the beating with twigs might lead to other things, as Phil has already mentioned. I shall order less beluga next month, that should strike fear into the Bolsheviks!

19 March 2014 at 14:51  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"Anyone suffering from AIDS or taking care of a such a sufferer owes it to himself to peruse the pages at http://www.virusmyth.com/
in the interest of broadening his options"

Or they could discuss antiretroviral drugs with a doctor rather than a bunch of conspiracy theorists on the internet.

"being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist."

Ted Goertze

The website is out of date too. It quotes Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician, founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR)

"The marketing of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing AIDS without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die." (Sunday times (London) 17 May 1992)

who has since changed his mind to the view that there is a real link between HIV and AIDS

"The evidence now strongly supports a role for HIV… Drugs that can save your life can also under different circumstances kill you. This is a distinction that denialists do not seem to understand." - 2006

Antiretrovial treatment has come a long way. Still, why ask a doctor when you can discuss it with a bunch of fruitcakes on a website written by a dead Archbishop who burnt John Frith to death for his views on the real presence?

19 March 2014 at 15:19  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George G:

Should he have burned John Frith, but not to death?

(If you want a REAL fruitcake issue to discuss.)

19 March 2014 at 15:47  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Fellow Fruitcakes:

I like George; his posts make me laugh. Hope he stays around for a while.

19 March 2014 at 16:14  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"Should he have burned John Frith, but not to death?"

Perhaps a small branding.

It's not many people who have the privilege of having been arrested by Thomas More and burnt to death by Archbiship Cranmer on grounds that the latter later decided was nonsense himself. But I forget the exact details... during the 1500s real presences went in and out of fashion almost as quickly as Lord Percy's ruffs.

19 March 2014 at 16:30  
Blogger George Gissing said...

Stop press - fascinating piece here dated Feb 10th 2014
http://www.torchofthefaith.com/news.php?extend.577.1

"Deacon Nick Donnelly is well known for his articulate proclamation and defence of the Catholic Faith; both through his ministry as a deacon in the Diocese of Lancaster and via his blog at Protectthepope.com.

His latest blog-post says that he has caught a virus which is exacerbating a chronic disease and he needs to rest through February to make a recovery.

Rather than close down his blog for the month, Deacon Nick asks faithful and loyal Catholic readers of Protect the Pope to research and write posts on issues that are of concern to the Protect the Pope readership and to submit them for his approval via the comment facility at his blog.

To be considered for approval, submissions must be:-

1. Totally loyal to the fulness of the Catholic Faith.

2. Not disrespectful or insulting to Pope Francis or any pope.

3. Free from ad hominum attacks.

4. Free from gossip or information received in private conversations.

Deacon Nick's decisions as editor are, of course, final.

Torch of The Faith wishes to thank Deacon Nick for all he does for the Lord and for the Church. We have learned a lot about the true motives and developing organization of the dissenting group ACTA from the extensive research presented at his blog."

Except, of course, Deacon Nick was posting through the whole of Feburary and this pre-dates his instruction to pray by several weeks?

I wonder what virus he has caught?

19 March 2014 at 17:06  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

An insightful post from Carl at 01:46 on AIDS. If anyone missed it, do go back and enjoy, if enjoy is the word.

The ‘palpable disappointment’ that HIV / AIDS did not rip through the heterosexual society with anything like the same devastation is still very much around in militant homosexual circles. The thinking behind the stance is this: It is NOT the gays fault that this awful disease is around. Gays have been unfairly targeted by it. It’s a damnable disgrace these gentle and decent folk should suffer in this way. It is the result of homophobia. It has to be. Everything that blights the gay life is down to homophobia.

To say that it rankles the gay community is an understatement. The gays are on the move, you see, and want to leave disease behind, but of course, it’s in the suitcases they are carrying. The gays are busily journeying to the world of ‘Post Criticism’. We see that here with Anthony Miller / George Gissing, and he is no one off. He rants and raves and blindly stumbles around on this site like the bully he is, but he’d rather save himself the effort and have ANY critical analysis of the homosexual condition made a police matter. They all would, and that is a certainty. The recent banning of bus adverts is only a part manifestation of what they are working for.

By the by - It was Anthony Miller / George Gissing who introduced the idea on this thread that HIV / AIDS is God’s judgment, wasn’t it ? No one else has put forward that proposition, then or now.







19 March 2014 at 18:09  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

George Gissing

So HIV is a "human version of older simian immunodeficiency viruses"

So did the apes used to tie each other up whip each other half to death and then have group anal sex with them?

I thought not.

One wonders how it crossed over species though!

Phil

19 March 2014 at 18:52  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Phil:

I have a theory about that. I'll bet you have, too.

19 March 2014 at 19:06  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"By the by - It was Anthony Miller / George Gissing who introduced the idea on this thread that HIV / AIDS is God’s judgment, wasn’t it ?"

No it wasn't

"...homosexual lifestyle is not part of God’s plan. We know this as what one could consider as God’s living hand on this planet, Mother Nature, has concocted a most alarming disease that has claimed at least 25 million already."

This is a statement that God's living hand has created the disease because the homosexual lifestyle is not "part of his plan"... which I read as very long way round of saying God invented AIDS to punish gays. I may have misread it but I'm not sure how. Still if in doubt libel.

Erm...

"So did the apes used to tie each other up whip each other half to death and then have group anal sex with them?"

...no but maybe they might if God had given them opposable thumbs.

"but he’d rather save himself the effort and have ANY critical analysis of the homosexual condition made a police matter. They all would, and that is a certainty"

You see the problem with this argument is Deacon Nick's website banner has a section encouraging Catholics to use hate legislation to protect themselves. You cant slag off hate legislation and simultaneously be promoting people to utilise it? Deacon Nick encourages people to use secular authority when it suits them and slags it off when it doesn't suit him. Well, render unto Ceasar Deacon Nick.

"The recent banning of bus adverts is only a part manifestation of what they are working for"

I'm actually not against many of Deacon Nick's campaigns for free speech but he, like you, sees militant secularists under the bed.

19 March 2014 at 19:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George:

Why would militant secularists be under the bed? They're mainstream.

19 March 2014 at 19:23  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Have to split hairs with you here Gissing. You are assuming nature is under the direct control of the Creator. Whereas one has no problem at all in appreciating nature as a agency thereof, and operating independently within parameters set. There is thus, no direct malice involved. Why should there be, with the final judgment of individual man assured us...

19 March 2014 at 20:01  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ george gissing

Opposable thumbs? Monkeys are well capable of handling sticks. In fact I once saw a male monkey poking a child inappropriately with a stick. In an instant the mother boxed his ears and drew all the rest of the monkeys in around to scold him, and he slunk off to sit in a corner alone skulking and ashamed.

You see they have some sense of right and wrong. But even the wrongdoer did not sink as low as sadism.

19 March 2014 at 20:03  
Blogger Ivan said...



SIV to HIV, monkeys as incubators? There must be some money here for down and out PhDs to earn some bread.

20 March 2014 at 07:33  
Blogger Ivan said...


There is more wisdom in the pithy dismissal that some friends made in the early 80s of AIDS - the Anally Injected Death Sentence - than in all the useless studies conducted in a partisan manner.

It sounds even better in my native Malayalam, there were some serious wags then:

Assenithil Ididuchethin Devathinda Shikhsa

Malayalam scans like French, a word for word translation reads:

Rear Pounding
God's Punishment

20 March 2014 at 08:06  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Ivan, is Malayalam the same as Bahasa Melayu? I once spent a wonderful holiday in Malaysia...so exotic and beautiful. The poke bonnet and crinoline did get in the way a bit, not to mention sticky with the heat, but we 'white ghosts' had to maintain standards.

20 March 2014 at 08:24  
Blogger Ivan said...



Dear Miss Proudie, if you are following the news on flight MH370, Bahasa Melayu - literally Language of the Malays - is the native language of the officials answering questions in Malaysia. It is also the official language - with some variations - of Indonesia. Malayalam is the language of the Malayalee people of the state of Kerala in southern India, about 4000 km to the West of Malaysia, closer to the Britannic Realm. Chances are the fetching maids in the secondary hospitals dealing with aftercare are Malayalee.

20 March 2014 at 08:52  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Only the other day His Grace observed that the Russia-Ukraine standoff had driven Syria off the front pages. Now it's MH370 that has eclipsed Ukraine and given Putin the chance, who knows, to snaffle Donetsk unobserved.

20 March 2014 at 09:17  
Blogger George Gissing said...

Lucy Mullen

"Opposable thumbs? Monkeys are well capable of handling sticks. In fact I once saw a male monkey poking a child inappropriately with a stick. In an instant the mother boxed his ears and drew all the rest of the monkeys in around to scold him, and he slunk off to sit in a corner alone skulking and ashamed. You see they have some sense of right and wrong. But even the wrongdoer did not sink as low as sadism."

It is possible that sadism does exist in the animal kingdom but
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=7943
since we dont understand animal emotions very well who knows?
Still why bother with data when you can state theoretical ideas as concrete certainties.

Yes, indeed some primates do have opposable thumb capabilities but they do not have the range of dexterity that we do. Thus they can pick up sticks and ropes but they cannot make complex tools or ropes with which to bind each other etc
They can indeed make some simple tools
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4083517.stm

I'm not sure quite why you're all so obsessed with connecting homosexuality to sadistic sexual peversions however or what evidence there is that homosexuals are any more predelicted to sadism than Max Mosley.

But then as the late Kenny Everett said "being a homosexal isn't enough these days you have to be an [INSERT ADJECTIVE] homosexual".

20 March 2014 at 11:37  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George @ 11:37

All of us? My contribution to the sadism discussion is about heterosexuals burning one another, in response to a point raised by you. (An entertaining point, I might add.)

20 March 2014 at 12:04  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

I'm not really convinced by this argument about the divine punishment line on homosexuality re HIV/AIDS, given that God is just & not arbitrary. In this case one would quibble here because non-homosexuals also got HIV/AIDS, I'm specifically thinking of those whose only 'sin' was to have blood transfusions via contaminated blood. That does not seem like divine justice to me, if God wanted to punish homosexuals, then why did he also punish people who had nothing to do with such a lifestyle? (besides which I thought in Christian terms divine punishment comes at death and has nothing to do with activity, but whether one believes/follows Jesus?). This isn't something I particularly want to get into at great length, but I was bursting to share it with one and all.

20 March 2014 at 12:47  
Blogger George Gissing said...

@The Explorer "All of us?"

No, not everyone ... but then again where's the fun in writing if you dont stereotype everybody. I hugely enjoyed PTP even if it was for un-Christian reasons...

20 March 2014 at 13:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George:

While we're on the subject of sadism, the original GG used to beat both his wives (sequential, that is: not a bigamist, old George) with stair rods. He recommended stair rods to H G Wells as the best things for chastising women (presumably after due trial and error|).

One wonder's if GG's methods for disciplining female errancy hastened his first wife's death.

20 March 2014 at 14:01  
Blogger George Gissing said...

George Gissing's blog was a series of photographs of the errection of the Altitude 25 tower. It's pseudonymous because I was worried about people working out exactly where I live and go... i.e. that I was walking past the same place and time all the time ... then I decided I didn't give a toss but for some reason George now follws me round from computer to computer assuming my identity. Still, I suppose that's how abusive relationships work.

20 March 2014 at 14:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

GG the writer and erection... but let's not go there.

20 March 2014 at 14:25  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

George

"I'm not sure quite why you're all so obsessed with connecting homosexuality to sadistic sexual peversions however or what evidence there is that homosexuals are any more predelicted to sadism than Max Mosley."

Homosexuality is not what God describes is best for human flourishing.

Is that the sort of "nice" response you want to hear?

The bit where I described the homosexual (orgy does not seem to remotely describe it) was my contribution as to why HIV seems to have spread so rapidly as a proportion of their population in the homosexual community.

Lets face facts here if you are gay and you are male in the West you are around 2000 times more likely to be HIV positive that a non drug using exclusively heterosexual male in the same age range.

I was reading a study the other day of gay men in Vancouver. They studied 715 gay men over a 5 year period. Of these 338 were HIV positive at the start of the study. By the end of the study a further 133 were HIV positive. These are huge percentages and not even remotely approached or replicated amongst heteros even in Africa.

(The study was actually not actually about behaviour, it was studying whether other factors such as illegal drug use could be responsible for earlier onset of AIDS and if certain lifestyles were likely to prolong a good quality of life or even reduce/eliminate the progression to AIDS)

Phil





20 March 2014 at 16:25  
Blogger George Gissing said...

Phil

"Is that the sort of "nice" response you want to hear?"

I'm not denying that AIDS spreads faster through the gay community than in does through heterosexual community but let's face it the primary driver for this is probably that it is easier to contract the disease from anal sex than from vaginal sex.

There are probably many other factors too like needle sharing but I think it's fair to say that the number of people being infected by sadistic blood inducing roleplay whether heterosexual or homosexual is probably quite minimal and it is not a primary factor in disease transmission.

"The bit where I described the homosexual (orgy does not seem to remotely describe it) was my contribution as to why HIV seems to have spread so rapidly as a proportion of their population in the homosexual community."

Thankyou for your contibution. It, like many similar ill-informed, ill-researched and wildly extrapolated theories floating round the internet on websites such as PTP is only actually useful in so far as it is such an asinine comment it is unintentionally funny.

If you want to say something like "gay people have more sadistic sex than straight people" it might help you have to have something to back this up with other than on one incident you saw on the telly once.

20 March 2014 at 17:22  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 March 2014 at 18:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Phil Roberts said...

George Gissing

Quantitative evidence is very difficult to obtain but we should not dismiss qualitative evidence (BTW Coming from a doctor who treats SDTs not the TV )

Another piece of qualitative evidence is as follows.

In Germany there is a vibrant homosexual community. Near a hotel once I thought was a bar tuned out to be a homosexual meeting place when I went in through the door. What is interesting is that it was a bar, but very few customers as it was about 4pm. The guys were very friendly and laughed at my mistake and offered me a drink. What is interesting is that they had a "dark labyrinth" So I asked what it was. They said it was very popular in the gay scene in Germany. Apparently later in the evening they took off their clothes and went into the labyrinth and met up with whoever in the pitch black. They said it was fun. So I asked if they were worried about Aids and they laughed and said something in German that I could not follow. The guys were very friendly but non the less it was a very, very sick place. I was only in there for 10 min or so, but I felt sort of polluted after I came out for a few hours afterwards

The point I am and other have made here is that there is little or no similarity in behavour between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles. One is less healthy and far more extreme than the other.

You just cannot compare them, that is why the Bible states that tolerating this behavior is extremely detrimental to the church and society.

You see George, decisions are not always based on numbers and sometimes the right decisions are just based in instinct. Numbers would have told you nothing about the bar and how sordid it was. Numbers would not have described his HIV patient and his unprotected gay gang bangs.

You carry on describing things in numbers (Which actually tell you very little) and the rest of us will continue gathering qualitative data.

In the end descriptions tell us 100 times more than numbers

Phil

20 March 2014 at 18:52  
Blogger Ivan said...


David K, hardly anyone is arguing that HIV/AIDS is divine punishment meant specifically for homosexuals; in the sense that God intervened to create the so-called AIDS virus. That's just a straw man. The deaths and suffering due to AIDS is an objective correlate of a particularly dangerous lifestyle.
In the same sense that a person regularly driving dangerously can expect to be many times more likely to die than a careful driver. Being a matter of statistics and not absolute certainty, this does not preclude very careful drivers from meeting with death. The other day I heard of a pastor and his family who were crushed to death when a car speeding on the opposite highway, flipped over and landed on his car.

Now, the pastor's surviving, and badly mangled young son is entitled to ask of God - why me ? The offending driver on the other hand has no such recourse, as it was his own recklessness that had caused the terrible accident.

Further there is no religion in the world which guarantees that the good - however defined - will be spared suffering and sorrow. Jesus himself, spoke of "two women at the threshing, one taken one remaining", the moral worth of neither being an issue. Or when the Tower of Siloam fell on some on worshippers he warned that they were no greater sinners than those who had survived. There is a randomness to fate that cannot be wished away.


21 March 2014 at 06:04  
Blogger George Gissing said...

“Quantitative evidence is very difficult to obtain but we should not dismiss qualitative evidence”
Well, yes there is a balance somewhere but PTP doesn’t even attempt balance. I mean I’ve actually got some time for Deacon Nick’s opinions that ACTA is a schismatic group with its own agenda of watering down unpleasant doctrinal truths in the Catechism but…

Read this.

http://protectthepope.com/?p=10192

The latest philosophical gem from PTP. The author can hardly stop from inserting their own thoughts into the transcript of this radio interview. Not only that but the transcriber actually has a go at Mr Joe Wilson for not being able to spell.

“When he addressed the young people in Copacobanca [well obviously we aren’t dealing with Barry Manilow here, would someone inform him that it’s Copacabana!]”
It seems a bit mean to pick up someone for their spelling in a spoken interview that was actually transcribed by you yourself…? It’s just one example of how illogically petty PTP often is. Hammering away its points with all the subtlety of a pneumatic drill even when they’re just obviously wrong.

21 March 2014 at 09:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

George,

I hope you won't confine yourself to this one thread. You're a lively addition to this Blog.

21 March 2014 at 09:24  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2014 at 11:54  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ivan
@ 21 March 2014 06:04

I didn’t suggest anyone in particular was arguing on this thread that HIV/AIDS was a divine punishment for homosexuality. If I did feel that, I’d have addressed the post to the person in question. No, in fact, it was in reference to posts such as George Gisling's post of 19 March 2014 10:15, in which he cited a blogger on this Deacon’s blog who did seem to have that view.

I was attempting to show that this was a logical fallacy, for God did not seemingly just strike the wicked (if you see homosexuality as such), but also those who were entirely not guilty of such an action. In respect of what causes people,medically rather than divinely speaking, to get HIV/AIDS, that wasn’t the thrust of my argument, but I do see the point being made there. I am not a medical professional and I can’t claim any great knowledge of HIV/AIDS, so I do not feel that I can add much either way to this part of the debate.

My response to your last paragraph, which reflects the issue of religion and suffering in general, is to say that I never said that there is a religion which guarantees immunity from the world’s problems or suffering. I am fully well aware that people suffer and die in what seems to us to be cruel and unjust circumstance. I know from the experience of the Jewish people over the centuries and my own various personal experiences, such as when I lost my dear first wife and I was left to look after various children as a grieving husband. I would add that religion (or at least mine) does, at least, attempt to wrestle with this difficult to understand issues, to provide comfort and hope, rather than sweeping them under the carpet or explaining them away to fate and fatalism .

DK

21 March 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger George Gissing said...

@TheExplorer Thankyou for your kindly words but I feel unqualified to be as rude about the CofE as the RCC... and I would feel a bit sectarian if I did so... However, I sometimes pop up here

http://nickbaines.wordpress.com/

Where I attempt to wind up the former bishop of Croydon

24 March 2014 at 15:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older