tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post5355900875356017374..comments2023-12-16T16:17:43.886+00:00Comments on Fr Ray Blake's Blog: The Illiberality of a Local MPFr Ray Blakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-17175228337490475042011-09-26T11:43:36.217+01:002011-09-26T11:43:36.217+01:00I received a response from Mike Weatherley to my e...I received a response from Mike Weatherley to my earlier email. I have posted it on my blog below :<br /><br />http://menarelikewine.blogspot.com/2011/09/response-from-mike-weatherly.htmlPétrushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539025631125425710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-3653108582393558652011-09-10T14:48:13.279+01:002011-09-10T14:48:13.279+01:00@Aron
From Athiesm
@ mr Ashby
I cite the Fat...@Aron <br /><br />From Athiesm <br /><br />@ mr Ashby <br /><br />I cite the Fathers as evidence that my position is that of Holy Mother Church and in justification of my polemical attitude towards Mr Sharpe.<br /><br />In DomminoJust another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-64469242430015899992011-09-10T08:28:13.198+01:002011-09-10T08:28:13.198+01:00'Mad Catholic'
I have to say that my resp...'Mad Catholic'<br /><br />I have to say that my response to your calling St Augustine and others to your aid is 'so what?'. I would also suggest that being more charitable to those with whom you disagree might get you some time off purgatory. I am glad that the study of Thomas Aquinas and the natural law theory gives you such intellectual pleasure but you really cannot go around these days asserting something which cannot be proven. You should know that the opposite of 'faith' is not 'doubt' but 'certainty' and it is certainty which brings out the most unpleasant aspects of Christian belief, which are arrogance, uncharitableness, exclusivity and condemnation. I am not sure what being a convert has to do with it except to say that converts are often more Roman than the Pope.Richard Ashbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-72745004602618333512011-09-10T08:04:28.061+01:002011-09-10T08:04:28.061+01:00A convert from what pray tell!! I say the money...A convert from what pray tell!! I say the money's on Protestant evangelical Christianity...(?)<br /><br />God Bless,<br />AAaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-86424482718361213912011-09-09T20:50:30.038+01:002011-09-09T20:50:30.038+01:00Mr Ashby
It may please you to know that for two ...Mr Ashby <br /><br />It may please you to know that for two years I have been studying the Proofs of God's existence given by St Thomas Aquinas and his natural law theory. Therefore if I wished to I could demonstrate the imorality of homosexual acts without reference to scripture. <br /><br />I also consider my remarks to be in the same vein as those of Augastine, Anselm, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp et al. <br /><br />All of the above are Cannonized Saints who at this moment enjoy the Beatific vision.<br /><br />I am also aware of my status as a sinner and I gennerally go to confession once a week.<br /><br />BTW it may interest you to know that I am a convert.Just another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-45390274423317811102011-09-09T16:17:53.607+01:002011-09-09T16:17:53.607+01:00I suggest that 'just a mad catholic' shoul...I suggest that 'just a mad catholic' should take note of the beam/plank in his own eye rather than fulminate against the specks in other peoples'. That he aspires to become a priest is truly frightening and I hope that those charged with discerning his vocation see his mad postings here.<br /><br />It realy will not do in this day and age to say that 'because I say so', or 'because it's in the bible' something is true. That will never win converts and indeed will put off all who think for themselves. Unthinking compliance went out with the reformation, or perhaps that hasn't yet got through to some parts of the church.<br /><br />I shall be very glad to join Mr Sharpe in hell, though I expect to see the 'mad catholic' there as well.Richard Ashbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-51673814588217936022011-09-09T14:29:17.060+01:002011-09-09T14:29:17.060+01:00@Keith Sharpe
You do realise that the rural dean ...@Keith Sharpe<br /><br />You do realise that the rural dean of Brighton is in fact not a member of "The Church"Pétrushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539025631125425710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-77215391069234354362011-09-09T11:09:27.424+01:002011-09-09T11:09:27.424+01:00One last parting comment, for Physiocrat: I apprec...One last parting comment, for Physiocrat: I appreciate your rational analysis of volcanic activity to explain the destruction of Sodom. As a Christian, however, I do believe the story is explicitly intended to teach the most crucial lesson: if you do not show kindness and hospitality (love) to others you cut yourself off from the love of God. It is a colossal tragedy that in the second millenium of Christianity this true meaning has been distorted simply in order to justify homophobic prejudice.<br /><br />It is vitally important that the Church returns to the original teaching, which as I pointed out earlier Jesus himself gives us. Some churches are moving in this direction. In today's Argus (leader page Fri 9/9) the Rural Dean of Brighton makes absolutely clear that he believes the Church should bless gay marriages. The denial of the Church's blessing to the unions of loyal committed gay Christians is a denial of the love of neighbour which Christ taught.Keith Sharpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07792289448964311321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-37249208838644367232011-09-09T08:58:51.425+01:002011-09-09T08:58:51.425+01:00Why all this discussion about Sodom? It was eviden...Why all this discussion about Sodom? It was evidently destroyed by some kind of volcanic action. The area in question is on the edge of the rift valley which commences north of the Sea of Galilee and extends down the Jordan Valley, the Red Sea and down into East Africa. The entire valley is slowly widening and is consequently subject to seismic activity. So it is not surprising that a violent eruption took place in that location. It is not productive to view the event as evidence of the finger of God at work.<br /><br />The scriptural prohibition against homosexuality is derived from Leviticus 18:22. The suggestion that the inhabitants of Sodom persistently engaged in unpleasant sexual practices seems to be a gloss on the text. It is not a specifically same-sex action and it leaves open the question of what was going on in the other cities that were destroyed at the same time.Physiocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13682019625346594568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-44473839921055386912011-09-09T00:16:23.461+01:002011-09-09T00:16:23.461+01:00Mr Keith
I have presented arguments from the Nat...Mr Keith <br /><br />I have presented arguments from the Natural Law (I have mentioned Aristotle but I could mention many more fine philosophers), Scripture (1 Romans 18-31 specifically), I have warned you that you imperil your own soul should you deny explicitly or implicitly the inspiration of Scripture and yet you continue to try and defend your heretical and immoral views by selectively quoting Scripture in order so that you may continue to walllow in sin. <br /><br /><br />Furthermore in the contents of your book it would appear that (among other things) you defend the blasphomous view that Jesus was Gay. <br /><br />If you truely have any Christian decency sir you will disavow this work of Blasphomoy, ensure that it is never published and do penance for the rest of your days.<br /><br />Otherwise Sir the fires of hell await you not only for your own sins but for the sins of those you lead into falsehood and error through your worksJust another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-86355375210463465662011-09-08T22:40:14.000+01:002011-09-08T22:40:14.000+01:00"...that we may know them.."
Is a refer..."...that we may know them.."<br /><br />Is a reference to sexual acts, especially when Lot offers his daughters to the crowd of perverts.<br /><br />The Sin of Sodom was sodomy, their quick punishment was due their lack of resistance to sin; that brought God to great anger.<br /><br />They no longer resisted sin, and were sodomites in the wrong way.<br /><br />Do not overlook the obvious.<br /><br />The Sodomites were punished, and also their sympathizers, the pro-homosexual crowd that might not have been homosexuals, but approved and supported that behavior.<br /><br />*Pablo the Mexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09384415590309803327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-9708328111333716392011-09-08T21:08:15.375+01:002011-09-08T21:08:15.375+01:00Since it has been repeated by a couple of people I...Since it has been repeated by a couple of people I will respond one last time about the 'sin of Sodom'. <br /><br />What the sodomites did was offend against the ancient law of hospitality to strangers. This law is the OT precursor to Jesus' NT commandement to love your neighbour. The story explicitly contrasts the sodomites violent attack on strangers with the hospitality (love of (stranger) neighbours) shown first by Abraham then by Lot, his nephew. <br /><br />This story has nothing to do with same sex love, even if it is the case (which is not certain)that the sodomites were intent on male rape. Would you condemn heterosexuality because some men engage in rape, even gang rape? Of course not.<br /><br />But the Bible is clear that their sin is inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-49 'This was the guilt of your sister, Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy'.<br /><br />Even more powerful is what Jesus himself said: 'And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city.' Matthew 10: 14-15. Jesus clearly locates the sin of Sodom here in inhospitality and failure to respond to the message of God's love. This text would make no sense if the sin of Sodom is taken to be male anal rape.<br /><br />For the first 1000 years of Christianity nobody thought this story was any kind of condemnation of homosexuality. Only later was it dragooned into this role to support prejudice (in the absence of any other clear Biblical condemnation).<br /><br />Finally - if 'sodomy' = sinful homosexuality how can this possibly apply to female homosexuals? This is just nonsense. <br /><br />For these reasons very few reputable biblical scholars, catholic or otherwise, are prepared to use the Story of Sodom in any religious discussion of homosexuality.Keith Sharpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07792289448964311321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-10804349189351060392011-09-08T20:14:07.786+01:002011-09-08T20:14:07.786+01:00@Aroan
Points 1&2 - Noted although I am focu...@Aroan <br /><br />Points 1&2 - Noted although I am focusing on homosexual aspect as that is what mr sharpe is trying to defend, both here and on his website.<br /><br />3) I am refering to MR Sharpe's views that Leviticus is not inspired scripture, admitedly he does not say so forthwrightly but his comments seem to imply that he thinks that the text is socially constructed rather than divinely inspired. <br /><br />4) I'm sorry that you think I sound like an American Evangelical (to be honest I take that as a compliment), I am simply warning Mr Sharpe that unless he Repents of the views that he has espoused both here and on his website then he runs the risk of eternal damnation as he does if he dies outside of Communion with the Apostolic See of Rome<br /><br /><br />4) I used Fr Blake as an example becuase he has blogged before about the unique situation of being a Parish Priest in England's 'gay mecca'. Should he wish to correct me he is free to do so.Just another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-5172307621952781402011-09-08T19:49:54.105+01:002011-09-08T19:49:54.105+01:00Aaron, glad you mentioned the ones about injustice...Aaron, glad you mentioned the ones about injustice to foreigners, orphans, widows and the wage earner, especially since the predominant economic system throughout the world is predicated on these. And usury.<br /><br />We Catholics really need to be more up-front about these even more prevalant deadly sins, otherwise people get the impression that we are obsessed with sex.Physiocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13682019625346594568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-92032000986478357612011-09-08T18:54:22.483+01:002011-09-08T18:54:22.483+01:00Good to see that Bishop Conry has made a statement...Good to see that Bishop Conry has made a statement saying that as catholics we have a right to abide by the rules of the Faith. (Catholic Herald website)pelerinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-56979603866728940202011-09-08T18:44:32.531+01:002011-09-08T18:44:32.531+01:00@Just another mad Catholic:
1. I would note that ...@Just another mad Catholic:<br /><br />1. I would note that sodomy extends to a number of sexual vices and is certainly not the preserve of homosexual men and women as you seem to suggest (e.g., heterosexual couples practise acts of sodomy).<br /><br />2. The Catechism teaches that there are Five sins which cry to heaven (1867) of which Sodomy is only one: the blood of Abel; the sin of the Sodomites; the cry of the oppressed, esp the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan; and injustice to the wage earner. All are to be pitied: sodomy is not a special case.<br /><br />3. I do not think that it is your place to assume that any person is guilty of the sin of sodomy, as you seem to; and I certainly do not think that it is your place to be telling who will "assuredly be cast into hell with the reprobate."<br /><br />I would suggest that you work on your Christian charity because at the moment you read/sound less like a Catholic and more like a certain kind of zealous Evangelical: as Catholics I think we are better than that.<br /><br />4. I think we should avoid assuming what our Parish Priest would testify to or otherwise... probably best that we speak for ourselves.<br /><br />best,<br />aAaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-92219031158042093452011-09-08T17:22:50.997+01:002011-09-08T17:22:50.997+01:00Mr Sharpe
1) May I suggest you re-read St Paul...Mr Sharpe<br /><br />1) May I suggest you re-read St Paul's letter to the Romans Chapter 1 something about <br /><br />2)Leviticus is the Holy word of God written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the third member of the Most Blessed Trinity, if you do not assent to that proposition then you seriously endanger your soul <br /><br />3)Apart from Holy Scripture ALL of the Fathers of the Church condemmed sodomy in the most stringent terms, citing Holy Scripture. <br /><br />4)The Pagans Plato and Aristotle also condemmed sodomy<br /><br />5) Whether Orientation is as you claim "a fundamental personality orientation" or not does not factor in to the question of whether the act is moral or not. Such people (as I'm sure Fr. Blake would testify) are to be pitied, shown mercy and encouraged in thier battle against this abnormal vice.<br /><br /><br />Unless Sir you repent of your SIN and are joined in Communion with the Sea of Peter then at your death you will most assuradly be cast into hell with the reprobate.Just another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-92478208102235112011-09-08T14:11:38.561+01:002011-09-08T14:11:38.561+01:00Now that the debate is open, let us make the most ...Now that the debate is open, let us make the most of it. Any marrying couple should be entitled to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 as regards grounds and procedures for divorce, and any religious organisation enabled to specify that any marriage which it conducted should be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly.<br /><br />Statute should specify that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolved the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, with something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.<br /><br />That would be a start, anyway. The marital union of one man and one woman is a public good <em>uniquely and in itself</em>, and the taxation system, among so very many other instruments of public policy, should recognise that fact. It should recognise marriage as a unique public good, to which civil partnerships are not comparable. And it should recognise marriage as a public good in itself, whether or not there are children, a related but different public good of which other forms of recognition rightly exist.<br /><br />But will any Party Leader say this, as once they would all have done? What do you think? David Cameron, having proved himself the heir to Margaret Thatcher's legislation for abortion up to birth, which was opposed by John Smith, is doubtless also the heir of John Major's legislation to make divorce legally easier than release from a car hire contract, to abolish the fiscal recognition of marriage simply as such (in a Finance Bill against which every Labour MP voted at the time), and to end the situation whereby, by recognising adultery and desertion as faults in divorce cases, society declared in law its disapproval of them even though they were not in themselves criminal offences. But Ed Miliband? Over to him.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-84322592633546363642011-09-08T09:21:44.327+01:002011-09-08T09:21:44.327+01:00Can I just make the following brief points in resp...Can I just make the following brief points in response to comments about my post?<br />1. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a choice. It is a fundamental personality orientation with which individuals find themselves. Actually this is official Catholic Church teaching since the 1986 CDF pastoral letter written by J. Ratzinger.<br />2. It is not true that any biologist would agree with church teaching on 'natural law'. Research now reveals that homosexuality is entirely natural in the sense that it is a minority variant prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. Aquinas et al could not have known this but we do.<br />3. Statistics for lifelong commitment amongst gay people are skewed by the particular difficulties posed for such relationships precisely by the overt hostility and lack of social support given in the environning culture. The statistics on lifelong commitment for straight and married couples are not so impressive now either. <br />4. God does not 'condemn homosexual acts as an aberration in Scripture. Leviticus is about patriarchy, ritual purity and preserving male domination and female subjugation. St Paul is concerned about idolatry and exploitative fornication, not same sex love. Jesus commanded love of neighbour as oneself. Approximately 10% of the neighbours are created homosexual. The church is still coming to terms with this fact.Keith Sharpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07792289448964311321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-21272826371799485472011-09-08T06:56:09.148+01:002011-09-08T06:56:09.148+01:00@Keith: the Church's teaching on marriage is p...@Keith: the Church's teaching on marriage is premised upon sexual complementarity and openness to the fecundity of life in mutually giving sexual acts - the transmission of life.<br /><br />What the Church resolutely does not teach is that marriage is "reserved" for opposite sex couples as the most expedient way to produce children: marriage itself as a sacrament is a good, irrespective of whether those unions are blessed by God with children.<br /><br />Our Lord himself has this to say on the good of marriage: "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Matthew 19:4-6<br /><br />Gay men and women lack both the sexual complementarity and openness to the fecundity of life to fruitfully enter into marriage. It is for this reason that the Church encourages gay men and women to express their love fruitfully in chaste, celibate friendships, uniting themselves to the Lord's Cross.<br /><br />What the Church will never admit is that the "real purpose" of marriage is to "bond together two people who love eachother" as though the most august sacrament of Marriage is a sort of glue that Holy Mother Church applies to any two creatures that express romantic interest in eachother.<br /><br />"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another." John 13:34. This is the summary of the argument: we are absolutely not entitled to love one another as we see fit, but as Our Lord and His Church commands, for that is the only way that we will truly be free and enjoy friendship with God.<br /><br />saundersoncross@gmail.comAaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-16334127386063638722011-09-08T06:16:11.789+01:002011-09-08T06:16:11.789+01:00St Michael,
Fascinating hermeneutic on the story ...St Michael,<br /><br />Fascinating hermeneutic on the story of the prodigal son.<br /><br />Just two small points, though. Corn, like potatoes, tomatoes and tobacco, was unknown outside America until the sixteenth century, so that is an anachronism. But as I have never liked anything made of maize, you could be right. About it being the devil's food, though I had always thought it was sulphur.<br /><br />Homosexual orientation is neither a sin nor a lifestyle choice. The church refers to it as a disorder (not the same thing as a disease).<br /><br />Sexual acts outside of marriage are a sin.<br /><br />Marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman.<br /><br />It is a good thing to hold to the church's teaching and to leave the matter at there.Physiocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13682019625346594568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-27762633951864468362011-09-07T22:41:47.120+01:002011-09-07T22:41:47.120+01:00Keith! You must write to The Vatican (tm) IMMEDIAT...Keith! You must write to The Vatican (tm) IMMEDIATELY!<br /><br />Why have none of those points ever occurred to theologians before? Why have none of your points ever occured to me before?<br /><br /> There will be [facepalm] all over the Official Church Hierarchy when They read your brilliant analysis!<br /><br />:)berenikehttp://exlaodicea.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-76176152967598326532011-09-07T22:17:57.220+01:002011-09-07T22:17:57.220+01:00Faithful that are prepared for the sacrament of Ho...Faithful that are prepared for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony in Holy Mother Church fulfill the command to go forth, be fruitful and multiply.<br /><br />Their end is the procreation of children for the greater glory of God.<br /><br />Heaven.<br /><br />When the Prodigal Son fell in with hogs, eating the corncobs that were the food for the hogs, he could not be filled by them.<br /><br />The hogs represent Demons, the corncobs represent Sin.<br /><br />When someone chooses sin, in this case homosexuality (including transsex, gender, lesbian, so on), that person has been lead to diabolical, partaking of sin like hogs at a trough.<br /><br />Their end is Death.<br /><br />This sin cannot produce, nor fulfill.<br /><br />When the State gives them more and more ‘Rights’, it will have to do so ad infinitum.<br /><br />Because the State has chosen Sin also, its ultimate end will also be Death.<br /><br />*Pablo the Mexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09384415590309803327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-54059939009163031692011-09-07T21:31:36.325+01:002011-09-07T21:31:36.325+01:00Neat bit of sophistry to advertise your book, Keit...Neat bit of sophistry to advertise your book, Keith. <br />Any mention of the sacramental aspect of marriage? If you need help with that, try a Catholic website. <br />I'm afraid that the gay lobby falls into the trap of believing that the louder and more aggressively it shouts the truer its message. Sorry, it don't work that way.<br />What beats me is why anyone who rails against the Catholic Church's teaching would be so anxious to push for a church service. It seems totally illogical to me. <br />The stats for lifelong commitment among gays are not that promising - dissolution of civil partnerships in 2010 showed a rise of 44% over 2009.<br />No mention of gay "marriages" in mosques, I suppose.georgemnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-15779499774761347562011-09-07T15:40:09.948+01:002011-09-07T15:40:09.948+01:00@Mr Sharpe
The reason that Sodomy is an unnatur...@Mr Sharpe <br /><br /><br />The reason that Sodomy is an unnatural act is because it frustrates the natural purpose of sexual union, as any natural law theorist would argue the purpose of the marital act is for it to achieve the end towards it is directed i.e. procreation. This is not something you have to be a Catholic to realise, any biologist would agree with you.<br /><br />Now any act which frustrates this purpose is by definition unatural and therefore imoral, this includes masturbation, sodomy and contraception.<br /><br />As for Holy Mother Church marrying the infertile; it is perfectly moral to the couple to engage in the marital act SO LONG as one party is not marrying the other BECAUSE they are infertile; also as Catholics we believe that God may grant this couple children who are concieved natrually (see Genesis 1,7 1st Samual and Luke Ch 1 for details).<br /><br />To be frank I am tired of gay people's appeal to emotion in their attempts to further corrupt the morals of society ,If you are a Christian sir (as you appear to be) then you are modernist heretic plain and simple, God condems homosexual acts as an aberation in scripture, tradition and in his laws both natural and divine.Just another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.com