Thursday, June 13, 2013

"Gay Lobby"

Pope Francis' didn't use the phrase "gay mafia" or "gay subculture" he used the phrase "gay lobby, granted he tends to be somewhat imprecise in what he means but could he mean this.
Various Cardinals and high ranking are certainly lobbying to change the Church's teaching on gay partnerships and marriage, even our own Bishop's Conference have changed their position on "gay civil partnerships".


Frederick Oakeley said...

When we all accept that gay people are only attracted to people of their own sex and not disorientated heterosexuals, we can begin to build a theology which expresses God's love for all His children. As long as gay people are seen as scapegoats - Samaritans with whom good people do not associate - we will deny this minority the full measure of God's love.

Gillineau said...

They can do or say what they like. It doesn't dent the truth and it won't change how good, faithful Catholics behave. the crap the Church has thrown at her childrenthis last few decades is almost beyond belief, but still we keep coming, ignoring the defamations, the insults, the creeping relativism, the hodge-podge liturgies.

The Church has got itself into the ludicrous state it now finds itself because it overextended itself, concocting silly theory into the nature of sexual relationships and marriage, as if it invented either, which it didn't. Confident that they did, they now feel, like Cameron and co, that they can redefine it. But of course a natural law argument is predicated on the naturalness of a given action, which is to say its compliance with a divinely constructed nature. The Church has no power to redefine nature, and never has.

Let Her say what she will, preaching to ever emptier pews. One day She'll get it again.

My main worry about this pope is that he doesn't seem to appreciate the existential threat that relitavism poses, as if we just need to side with the poor and then the world will come on side. I don't think he gets quite how anti-Catholic the modern world has become.

Damask Rose said...

Excellent thread, Fr Ray. Very brave.

Re: the Chiesa article:

"Six more votes for "gay" unions"

"Three Cardinals and two archbishops, plus the Vatican spokesman."

One wonders why these prelates are coming out of the woodwork now trying to relax church teaching on this sin of sodomy. And US, France, England, all these gay marriage laws. Plus, as Fr Ray points about the E&W Bishops Conference softening up on "gay".

Something stinks.

Pope Francis is right. "Gay lobby" indeed.

How gayed-up is the Catholic priesthood? Obviously it's gone to the higher levels of the hierarchy. But what are we talking in numbers? I remember reading that at one time 90% of priests in Miami Diocese were gay. I'm assuming with that new seminary document that hardly any/fewer gays are being accepted to study for the priesthood. It's why we have girl altar servers - the notion of a masculine priesthood has become twisted. Ditto feminisation of the Church.

Well, I guess we're now going to reap what has been sown. It's going to get harder for faithful Catholics to practise. Exactly what Gillineau said.

- Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the pontifical council for the family, who afterward corrected himself.[What a joke!]

- Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna. [He would, would'nt he. Sorry, but I don't trust the new Catechism, he oversaw its compilation - too much on the respect and compassion for gays in there, but what type, repentance, conversion? I think Catholics have been stitched up with the homosexual section in the new Catechism.)

Just wait, gay priests will start having practising gays on the Parish Council (ala Schonborn) and they'll be coming up for their "priestly blessings" at Communion time. Might even have blessings given or Masses said on the anniversarys of their "unions". I wonder how emboldened gay priests will become once legislation is in place? The gays won't need a Soho or Farm Street Mass because their sodomy will be accepted at at parish level. (That word, "accepted" again.) Quest's agenda?

We're in the Age of Aquarius. This homosexuality must be the biggest challenge facing the Church today, nevermind the Counter-Reformation.

God forbid that faithful Catholics will become laughed at a Parish level because they follow sexual morality.

Deacon Augustine said...

Gillineau, the Church has not changed her teaching on natural law, the nature of marriage or attempted to redefine nature by one iota.

The fact that a handful of Cardinals and Bishops have embraced heresy does not constitute a change by "the Church". Please remember that nearly every arch-heretic in history has come from within the ranks of the Catholic clergy, and we have no evidence to suggest that this phenomenon is ever likely to vary.

Even if every bishop in the world bar the Pope said they approved of civil partnerships, that would not make it right or change Catholic teaching.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Am I right in thinking that Sandro Magister, to whose blog you have referred us, has always been a dissenter from the teaching of the Church?

Is it correct that the Bishop's Conference, here in the UK, has changed its mind on civil partnerships? I understood that at the time of the legislation for CPs they opposed it. But last year Archbishop Vincent Nichols came out of a meeting of the Bishops Conference saying that CPs were ok. However was this really a statement on behalf of the Bishop's Conference or just his personal view? Could you find out for us? It would be good to have a straight answer.

It was of course a disastrous statement by ++VN as the Government immediately must have thought: "Oh well they were against CPs a few years back but their thinking has now matured and they accept them. The same will happen with Same-sex marriage".

Mr Oakeley: Where do bisexuals, who say they are sexually attracted to both sexes, fit into your scheme of things? As for regarding people with homosexual inclinations as scapegoats such has never crossed my mind. I just regard them as ordinary sinners like myself. I think we surely all have disordered inclinations from time to time towards such things as committing adultery in our hearts in the way Christ mentioned. My objection is to people who promote the idea that sex outside marriage is not a sin.

Konstantin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On the side of the angels said...

Has Conference changed its position Father?

Bishop Hines's 2003 deposition on Civil Partnerships stated we strongly opposed them.

Archbishop Nichols [eagerly aided and abetted by Catholic Voices] made a vainglorious attempt to rewrite history and say we don't oppose CPs as they don't mention a sexual aspect
[failing to realise that the Church doesn't recognise homosexual mutual masturbation as lovemaking in the first place anyway - so that 'appeal' holds no grounds - that CPs are condemned fully without any sexual aspect and the three CDF documents stand as written]

In December 2011 the Vatican directly ordered His Grace to clarify the position
- and although His Grace's personal comments at the time gave no such solid affirmation of Church opposition [e.g. instead deriding 'Mischievous' commentators/bloggers - the obvious target being Dr Oddie] he instead implied that there was no such disagreement and they held the Catholic 'opposition' position.

& Austen Ivereigh had few qualms with accusing Dr Oddie of misrepresenting Catholic teaching by 'exploiting the ambiguity' of CDF statements

& a few Catholic Voices instead fell back on arguing
'Rome has not spoken on the specific version of CPs in the UK therefore it's all a matter of 'prudential judgment'

but in the meantime the Diocese of Westminster re-published online the Bishops' Conference 'Hines' deposition of 2003 and said - in the name of Bishops' Conference - that this was their position.

So although so many might think we officially don't have a problem with CPs [especially if one listens to media commentators over the past year]
The Hines deposition does remain the official position and we do strongly oppose them.

Genty said...

The theology of love is already there, a given, following Christ's commands. Yes, He commanded.
I don't know where you get the idea that homosexuals are not loved and given equal status as children of God by the Catholic Church, or by Catholics themselves.
If what you are seeking is the Church's blessing on sexual relationships between same gender partners, then you will go on being disappointed.
As will heterosexuals who want a blessing on a sexual relationship outside marriage, or divorce or subsequent civil marriages.
The whole point is that we bend to God, not the other way round. The argument that Christ never condemned the practice of homosexuality so it's okay is a specious one. The Gospels record only a fraction of what He did or said.
What we do know is that while He forgave the sin of the woman taken in adultery He qualified His forgiveness by saying: "Go and sin no more." That's the bit that is often conveniently forgotten.
It applies to us all whatever our sexual proclivities. That's the equality and it ain't easy for any of us. The hardest part of all is to love God more than ourselves which we all conspicously fail to do in every possible way. But our human flaws are not the get-out clause simply because it's difficult to be other than we are.

Fr Mark said...

Mr Bellord
not only is Sandro Magister not a dissenter of any kind but he is one of the few faithful followers of Benedict XVI among Catholic journalists. I think you must have confused him with someone else.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Fr Mark: Thank you for reassuring me. It was just an impression gained by his publicising what these dissidents had said/

OTSOTA: Thanks for your narrative. But what a shambles. I took issue with one Greg Daly of Catholic Voices on this issue at the time. He finished by making a personal attack on me on his blog but refused to publish my reply in defence!

Konstantin said...

Genty is right on point. There is also a false perception of love here. The Church loves her children, therefore she forbids things that are harmful. Nobody would say a mother letting her children put their hands in a meatgrinder is a loving mother; it's rather the one who prohibits it. So God through the teaching of His Church prohibits sins, among them homosexual conduct, because He desires our salvation more than we can imagine. That is True Love.

John Kearney said...

I have just been reading Dignitatis Humanae. Every person whatever race or creed, and need I add, sexual orientation, is a person of dignity and worth created by God in his own image. This is the teaching of the church. No, I cannot approve of homosexuality, but why should I be held in contempt for not doing so? the complaint from Catholics is more about the Church saying noting on the subject than orchestrating hatred as described by the political active gays. They are not hated, but any hatred in the feud very much comes from the gay lobby.

Cosmos said...

Is the Bishop's conference the Church? Is it protected from proclaiming error? I doubt it.

The problem is not that the official teaching of teh Church has changed, its that its teachers and guardians are purposefully obscuring and distorting it UNOFFICIALLY, and then relying on people's loyalty and/or lack of understanding to submit to their abuse of authority.

That seems to be the great discovery of the contemporary Church: you can teach all the errors in teh world as long as nothing is ever proclaimed dogmatically.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Cosmos: I think one of the problems is this idea of collegiality as set out in Lumen Gentium. The idea that some 5,000 bishops are together going to define doctrine seems a bit of a stretch to me. The advocates of "more collegiality" seems as a result to promote the idea that subsets of the College of Bishops could define doctrine - hence the idea of Bishops Conferences or even individual Bishops defining doctrine.

Indeed I went to a talk on VII last week where the priest seemed to be suggesting just that - he thought that the Bishop in Tasmania, whose resignation the Vatican required, should have been left alone. I suppose in the end we could have a situation where something could be a sin in one diocese and not in the next!

Sadie Vacantist said...

Nobody can make head nor tail of this papacy which is pretty much what we deserve as a Church. It's the endless "how many feet have you kissed today?" spirituality which baffles. Ironic coming from a Pope who's not into counting.

Jacobi said...

We must be careful about terminology. The word “Gay”, in this context means active sexual activity with others of the same sex. So “Gay” lobby has a particular meaning.

I f there is a pressure group in the Vatican advocating a more understanding approach to those of homosexual inclination, that is one thing, and is good. If some in the Vatican wish to change the Church law on allowing homosexuals to enter into a ”marriage” type of arrangement, with sacramental implications, or indeed if they are "gay" that is a completely different matter.

Physical sex between people of the same sex, sodomy, one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance, is always grievously wrong. The Church cannot change that and cannot ever agree to it. Any priest, bishop or cardinal of the Church who advocates (or practises) this, directly or indirectly, openly or secretly, is in grave sin. (Reference CCC 2357). Such people should be stood down immediately from any priestly or other office in the Church – no matter how short of priests we are.

Pope Francis, I presume is a man of decision and action, with a remit to sort out the many problems in the Church, at least I hope he is. So we should be seeing some prompt action!

Jacobi said...

Nicolas Bellord

“I suppose in the end we could have a situation where something could be a sin in one diocese and not in the next!”

Indeed we could. That might well be the next stage, widespread heretical schism, just as after the last Reformation. I wonder what they will call themselves?

Sadly, the Church is going to be much smaller, just as was foreseen by Belloc in “The Great Heresies” writing in 1938 only 24 years before Vat II.

Konstantin said...

I'm sorry Frederick but you are missing something here. Although it is not in itself sinful to feel attracted to people of your own sex if you don't will it, it is a disorder and has to be treated as such. If you consciously commit this sin, it is a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance, that's just Catholic teaching. And "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a principle that seems to be forgotten. It is neither of the two extremes "hate the sinner, hate the sin", nor "love the sinner, and make the sin look ok".

The Church also prohibits alcoholism, is it to be tolerated now because some people say that they can't help but get drunk?

No matter how much the UNESCO and other groups push this gay agenda, it will never change the Church's and therefore God's position.

Let's also not confuse the Church with her human members. The Church can never proclaim falsehoods, only the members of her hierarchy, and also not infallibly. It is impossible for the Church to teach that homesexuality is ok. God will not let this happen.

John Nolan said...

The CDF ruled on homosexual civil unions in June 2003. No episcopal conference can override this.

momangelica said...

Apparently, a visiting priest, a Franciscan, came to talk to the lay order in one of our Deanery churches the other day, he spoke in defense of homosexuality and rallied against the churches stance. He spoke vehemently for S.S Marriage.
A sound catholic member spoke out saying marriage was for the the bearing of children and not solely for sexual pleasure and the priest humiliated her on her reasoning and accused her of being a 'homophobic'. God help us!
Interestingly, not one other member spoke up in defense of the churches teachings nor for the lady in question. Have they lost their God given powers of being 'Soldiers of Christ'?
I believe, from the similar stories I've heard, that this is a common activity of dissenting traveling religious.

Damask Rose said...

Interesting comment Nicolas Bellord at 5.34. Scary.

I think we need to pray for Pope Francis if he has it in mind to sort out the "gay lobby" in the Vatican. I wouldn't want him to have a short pontificate and dying in "mysterious" circumstances as JP I.

Honestly, the Catholic Church is so not in a position today to defend its teachings re marriage against the onslaught of gay marriage, it's, well, worse than embarrassing.

I do wonder if the Card O'Brien scandal was engineered to hit just at the time when the Church needed to appear strong re Cameron's push for gay marriage and an upcoming papal conclave.

Damask Rose said...

Dear Frederick

Just go to Confession, go to Mass, have Communion. Utilise the Sacramentals.

I particularly recommend the Brown Scapular. You can ask a priest to dispensate you from saying the Little Office of Mary for the Brown Scapular to the reciting of the Rosary instead if you wish. (With the Brown Scapular sacramental you are obliged to say one of these daily.) (Personally, I'd go with the Rosary, because of the Signal Graces one obtains - and you can just see how the Rosary helps you in your life.) But, if you want to say both, good for you. Our Lady's Brown Scapular will look after you.

Then all you have to do is go and live your heterosexual life.

Your making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Homosexuality is just a sin, that's all. We're all sinners. So we all go to Confession to be in a state of grace. Then we can receive Communion.

I do believe I read somewhere that Holy Communion is the best rememdy for concupiscence.

Cosmos said...

John Nolan-

I think you are missing the point that some of us were making.

It's true that an episcopal conference can't overrule the CDF, or the Pope, or the Sacred Tradition for that matter. But that does little good if the clergy--and more specifcally episcopal conferences-- simply refuse to acknowledge that Truth in public. Especially if the current Pope and CDF refuse to forcefully correct them. It ends up your word against your bishop's!

The result is the hierarchical Church can have Her cake and eat it too: it gets to teach error on a practical level regarding every uncormfortable and politcally charged issue, while remaining technically free of error in Her "official" capacity.

Orthodox Catholics spin their tails trying to win arguments about issues that have been settled without controversy for literally centuries, while those who are more "open to the Spirit" espouse all kinds of novelty (always compatible with the contemporary world) with the support of the hierarchy. The more moderate feel entitled to take the "pastoral" approach- befriending the innovators without a peep of correction and berating the orthodox for getting too wound up about supposedly non-essentials.

nickbris said...

His Holiness wouldn't need the brains of Winston Churchill to figure out that there was a Gay Lobby in the Vatican.

The Gay Lobby is all pervasive,the BBC has got to be top of the tree and the mob who dish out the gongs are as corrupt as it's possible to be.

Bryce Thomason said...

One of the "gay agenda recent victories was established when homosexual autoworkers were successful in coercing the UAW management to quietly slip their gay and lesbian partners into the autoworkers benefit package...These same-sex gay and lesbian people had nothing to do with the auto industry and didn't work for the companies or earn these benefits.