Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Wed Jan 31st


A comment to this blog (which I haven't published, as it was rather muddled) claims that if one tries to affirm traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality, some one is bound to be able to say "Well, the Pope doesn't agree with you!" or "The New Catechism doesn't agree with y0u!" Uh? The Pope most certainly DOES affirm traditional Catholic teaching, and did so again just this week, in a clear-cut statement against same-sex "marriage" in an important speech to the Roman Rota, the Church's highest marriage tribunal. It is not the first, or the second, or the third, time he has spoken out, with great seriousness and with marked publicity, on this subject, and as events unfold across the various countries of once-Christian Europe, I daresay he will speak out again.

And the Catechism speaks with an extremely clear voice on this subject too: much clearer in fact than the old "Penny Catechism" which referred to the subject with Biblical quotations, in language that was clear to those who understood the relevant word, but otherwise covered with a certain discreet Biblical allusion. It was possible - although dishonest and totally wrong - to claim that the "Penny Catechism" - based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent - didn't actually teach that all homosexual activity was sinful, as the relevant Old Testament words could be interpreted to mean something else. The new Catechism, however, while also referring to Scripture, devotes a whole section to the subject with an explicit and detailed analysis, allowing of no ambiguity whatsoever, and stressing that the homosexual inclination is in itself disordered (something largely omitted in previous materials aimed at the ordinary Christian, probably because it simply didn't need to be said as the subject was not one for common debate) and giving the reasons why homosexual activity is contrary to God's plan for the human race. It also offers a pastoral approach which emphasises the value of each human being and the need for sensitivity and respect towards everyone.


Anonymous said...

This is OT, but I read in wiki discussion that King Henry V of England is eventually going to be beatified by the Vatican. What do you think? imho, it's wonderful! If he is made a saint, he'll be the first monarch of England to be a saint since St. Edward the Confessor.

Anonymous said...

I think you mean King Henry VI, the founder of Eton and King's College, Cambridge. Despite powerful support from people like Mgr Ronald Knox, his caused was abandoned in the 1920s. Joanna, you add sensitivity to others as an afterthought in your ravings, but face it, you hate homosexuals, full stop, and have no sensitivity to their condition whatever. Odd, considering you know so many, priests included.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anonymous' accusation of Auntie Joanna excites great hope within me. Since this person can see right into people's souls, and has no qualms about accuracy or bias, we must have here a genuine psychic!

Tell me, O Great One, what will the Lottery numbers be? How will Nu-Labour manage to weasel out of this current situation? What is the meaning of 42?

(Other alternatives probably too rude to mention on a blog like this)

Anonymous said...

It is so gratifying to see such sensitivity and non-judgmentalism on the part of anonymous. No hate there, right? It is interesting that in the name of freedom and diversity that some use the concept of "hate" in an attempt to silence those that they...well...hate. The little insult thrown in about priests was a nice touch. Being a priest myself I find such a comment...hateful, but sensitivity towards the feelings of priests doesn't concern very many people nowadays. We are not a protected class. Mrs. Bogle accurately described the Church's teachings on homosexuality. This whole debate is about how people like anonymous wish to persecute those who disagree with them. How strange that the persecutors still wish to play the victim.

Fr. Jim

lourdes said...

For anonymous and anyone else who sincerely wants to understand the Church teaching, I recommend that you visit David Morrison's blog entitled "sed contra." Mr. Morrison has also written a book entitled "Beyond Gay" which explains his own struggles and his appreciation for the wisdom of the Church.

Struggling with any kind of disorder is difficult. Struggling with same sex attraction is a special kind of difficult. It becomes all the more twisted when government forbids society from calling it a disorder.

The Church is honest in its assessment. Keeping in mind always that the person is human being deserving of our love and compassion. The disorder, however, must be kept in check.

Aunty Belle said...

Ah, Anon #2, you find Auntie Joanna to be "raving" and that she should "face" her hatred for homosexually inclined persons? Please....let us
note that love must be based on truth--homosexual acts give fleshly expression to an untruth.

Further, such acts are destructive to the body (leave aside the soul for the moment) and cannot ever constitute a loving expression.
No one can claim to be "sensitive" to homosexuals as human beings UNLESS they tell this truth.

Anonymous said...

Blogs are new to me and I only see them when I am staying with a nephew who knows how to negotiate the Internet. I don't have a computer myself but I am beginning to wish I did because I enjoy the debates. What, however, prompts me to comment is the reaction to an earlier comment by an anonymous priest who writes about sensitivity towards the feelings of priests. 'We are not a protected class', he writes. Yet the comments on another item on this blog write the most appalling things about bishops, quite terrible - yet no priest, anonymously or otherwise, has come to their defence. There is something wrong here. They are our shepherds and have a most difficult job in this country where Catholicism is a minority religion. I cannot help being shocked by the tone of many of the comments on a wide range of subjects but this strikes me as being particularly awful. Surely there are more important subjects to address - like the weakening understanding of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Mass, or the decline in confessions, or ageing congregations to identify but three - than harping on moral issues so frequently?

Anonymous said...


It is one thing to criticize a bishop or priests actions or lack of action. In particular when it comes to matters of Church teaching on faith or morals. If someone points out where I have misrepresented Church teaching I would thank them and be grateful that I was corrected. After all it is incumbent on me to pass on the true faith. If I failed morally it would be kind if someone were to offer me fraternal correction out of concern for my soul. That's why I go to confession. This kind of criticism can be helpful.

However, general statements such as implying that all priests are homosexuals is not fair criticism. It is rank bigotry. In this case done while claiming Mrs. Bogle is insensitive! Criticism for teaching what the Church teaches, done in charity, is also unjust. That's our job. I expect persecution and have not been disappointed. But that doesn't mean I enjoy it.

Bishops do have a difficult job. Some have failed and as a result the problems you mention such as lack of devotion to the Eucharist have arisen. Some of us priests have also failed miserably. A few have even acted in ways that create scandal. I have no doubt at times I have failed in my duties. Sometimes we need faithful Catholics to help bring us back to our senses and remind that we are accountable. Just criticism can be a way to do that. The lay faithful have the right to expect fidelity and truth from their pastors. When we don't give it to them they have the right to complain.

Fr. Jim

Anonymous said...

Has anybody ever suggested that all priests are homosexuals? If so, they are outrageously wrong. But some are, and homosexual candidates for ordination may be ordained if they show evidence that they do not lead, are not involved with, and have renounced (if they ever led, which many did not) a homosexual lifestyle.