The scandal of the Soho Masses

This happened in Queensland and the priest was dismissed with six months warning and a big hullabullu in the local papers. I know it is corrupting because although devoted to the church my brother started taking the rebel side. He was shouted down at the family gathering. Its best to make a clean end of it with plenty of public notice. If this does not happen people with get the wrong ideas and these will gain an unwarranted foothold among Catholic families

Where in Daphne McLeod's reply is the Love for one's enemies that our Lord asked us to practise?
Jesus also came to fulfil the law - he took the bread from the sanctuary on a Sabbath, he healed on the Sabbath and he touched the dead as he brought them back to life and the Jewish authorities, like Daphne, accused him. Christianity is not about keeping strictly to the rule book as Jesus showed in his actions because the rule book can prevent us from loving people.
The genealogy of Jesus from both his parent's sides is suspect and God has often used the unlikely as his workers.
We do not know who are the wheat and whom the tares in our society. God will judge. In the meantime Daphne needs to look at how she is loving.
Irene Threasher

In Catholic writings since Aquinas people are told to obey their consciences and be responsible for the decisions and actions. That we must do.

Irene Threasher,

Listen. I don't know where you got the ideas presented in your post above, but you didn't find them in Scripture or any other authentic Christian source. No way.

It is patently untrue to suggest that Jesus somehow made the Law redundant. He explicitly said the opposite: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Till the end of the world, then, God's Law will stand. Like it or lump it, that's Scripture for you.

As for your blasphemous comments about Our Lord's parentage - again, there is no reputable scripture scholar who holds to that ridiculous conclusion, based on a few words in the gospel, always taken out of context. If there had been any serious question about that matter, it would have nipped Christianity in the bud, well and truly. First century Judaism? You kidding?

Not that scripture scholars have any teaching authority anyway, of course, but, I repeat, there is absolutely no mileage in that daft allegation, so let it go. Funny, isn't it, how Modernists and other heretics select phrases to quote ad nauseam to suit their cause but ignore other verses and whole passages which blow their heresies out of the water. Like Hell for example. The Gospels are riddled with references to Hell and damnation but you won't find that in your average Pink newspaper...

Now to your false beliefs about conscience. St Thomas Aquinas did not teach that conscience is an independent teacher of faith and morals - quite the reverse. We must inform our consciences and defer to the infallible teaching authority of the Church if there is any conflict. Cardinal Newman said: "Christ gave us the Church to save us from ingenuous speculations and reasonings of our own."

If, in the end, our conscience teaches us that God will be displeased with us if we defer to the Church's teaching, that we go against His will in following Catholic doctrine and morals, then we must up and say clearly that we no longer choose to remain in Christ's Church. The Church is infallible in definitively teaching faith and morals and if you conclude that the Church is wrong about homosexuality, a major moral issue, a sin traditionally "crying to Heaven for vengeance", then you cannot remain in it in good conscience. You must leave. You cannot remain in the Church, and then defy God's law on the pretext that you are "obeying" your conscience. Behave yourself.

Oh and less of the judgmental remarks so shamelessly directed at Daphne McLeod. It is a very basic charity indeed to correct a neighbour whom we see to be in danger of eternal damnation. Modernists and other heretics spend a lot of time lecturing us all about the temporal works of mercy such as feeding the hungry etc but no time at all on the spiritual works of mercy. So, you should be thanking Daphne McLeod for her charity, especially if you frequent those "gay" Masses in Soho at the behest of the shameless Archbishop Vincent Nichols, whom, we must never forget, will one day be called to very serious account for this scandal which is a scandal of monumental proportions.

EditorCT
There is an 'Irene Threasher' listed as a Reader / Eucharistic Minister in the Soho Mass newsletter - so unless there are two Irene Threashers . . . then I would say that it's fairly certain that she does frequent these Masses.

Kevin, that is very interesting. I've always found that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and active homosexuals are extremely belligerent and intolerant of anyone who challenges their position, the former being a (by now) institutionalized liturgical abuse and the latter, of course, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance.

Put them together and, well... stand clear folks!

Well, Dr. Oddie, you have hit upon a tried and true technique of those who have transformed the Church into a shambles since Vatican II: use a word or phrase that sounds traditional, and of course compassionate, but give it a radically different meaning that promotes secularism and sin. In this case, "pastoral care" means complete acceptance (which is even further down on the depravity scale than "uncritical support"). But, as we've discussed many a time on the Catholic Truth Scotland blog, nothing other than this "doing nothing" should ever have been expected from His Arch-Excellency.

That's the opposite of what I said: what I said was 'can it ever be right to describe as “pastoral care” a consistent uncritical support for a “lifestyle” which the Church teaches is gravely sinful?' I did NOT say that it means complete acceptance of what anyone happens to want; but that that's precisely what it didn't mean and that homosexuals are called to chastity. I think you should withdraw your accusation.

Dr Oddie,
I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I think Torkay's letter was in support of you. I did have to read it twice, but on the second reading, I understood it as he was congratulating you for 'hitting upon' the technique used by people like the SMPC, which is causing problems in the Church today, i.e. them making requests for 'pastoral care' in order to secure something which is the antithesis of true pastoral care . . .

W Oddie,

I think you have misunderstood - I believe Torkay is supporting you and by "you have hit upon a tried and true technique....of those who use a word or phrase like pastoral care....etc" he means (I'm pretty certain) that you have exposed that technique.

Torkay, would you confirm that I am right in my interpretation of your post - bearing in mind that,while I may not always be right, I am never wrong?????

OK, I've probably been a bit paranoid here: but after reading nearly 11,0000 words of comment you can't blame me. As you were, Torkay.

Paul: I have done some study - a theology degree - though not an in-depth study of the passages of Scripture to which you allude. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the sin of the men of Sodom was merely inhospitality, serious as that might be. Such an interpretation looks like airbrushing the Scriptural record; not that we have to rely on the Bible alone for our understanding.
It isn't casting stones to say that certain acts when committed deliberately are sinful.
Jesus came to call sinners of all varieties to repentance, not to leave them in the mess they had got themselves into.

RJ
This revision of the meaning of Sacred Scripture with regard to any mention of homosexuality has been pushed by the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement for some years now. It can be seen on their website - which has been promoted in the Soho Mass newsletters. Please bear in mind that the Soho Masses were originally under the aegis of the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, who adopted the name Soho Masses Pastoral Council, when they moved the Masses from St Anne's Anglican Church, Soho, to their current venue. Their statement of conviction, on the RC Caucus website, says:- "It is the conviction of members of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement that human sexuality in all its richness is a gift of God, gladly to be accepted, enjoyed and honoured as a way of both expressing and growing in love, in accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is their conviction that it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship."

Thanks for the background. Obviously, expressing "that love ...in a ...sexual relationship" is not compatible with the Caucus' claim to be a Catholic entity. If homosexuality is a disorder (for which compassion is appropriate), 'enjoying and honouring it as a way of expressing and growing in love' is also problematic.

Kevin, you suggest that it is only Lesbian and Gay Christians that have 'pushed' this view. That is far too narrow minded of your. Many hetrosexual Biblical scholars have also 'pushed' his view...including those on the inside of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps we need to open or minds to the wider world rather than continue to wear the blinkers that some people seem to within all religious denominations and beliefs.

Paul, you do seem to split hairs. . . the fact is that the LGCM do push this view. I didn't state that they founded this view, or that it isn't found outside the LGCM, merely that they push it, and as they are the largest homosexual Christian group in this country then it stands to reason that many will have heard these views from the LGCM at some point. However, hair-splitting aside, if you are a Roman Catholic - which I think you claim to be - then your loyalty and obedience should be to the Magisterium of the Church, and not to theologians of dubious orthodoxy - whether claiming to be Roman Catholic or from any other denomination. We have been warned in Sacred Scripture about seeking out teachers of error in order to affirm our own errors:- "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Tim 4:3). In 1998, when Pope John Paul II put out his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a doctrinal commentary on this Letter, pointing out the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Catholic Church http://www.adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html Please read this, Paul. It is not 'blinkered' to have the humility to submit to Church teaching. On the contrary, it is prideful to think that we know better. Paul, it isn't easy for me or any other human being to submit at times. There will always be a tension as a result of the Fall, and we often want to go off at a tangent which will not be good for us. If the teachings of the Church, i.e. Christ's teachings, were a doddle, then there would be little or no merit in keeping them.

As a theology graduate and post-graduate student of Theology and Religious Studies, who studied a great deal of scripture whilst at University I am aware of the current misinterpretaion of this passage. Even Jesus himself confirms that it refers to inhospitality...'if the people of that town do not greet you and treat you with hospitality, then leave and wipe of the dust of the town. One the day of judgement those people will be treated worse than those of Sodom"...

Interesting interpretation, though he doesn't say that it was only a matter of inhospitality. I mean: it's not a restrictive interpretation by Jesus. It could still mean: 'that rejection of the Gospel would be a greater crime than the heinous sin of Sodom', however such a sin was interpreted.
When it comes to interpretation, I would have thought that the latest is not necessarily the best. We have to take into account the tradition, e.g. the Fathers. Continuity would be a criterion of authenticity. Then there is the fact that a magisterial teaching is more authoritative than the opinions of theologians.

Having read numerous articles similar to this and read many of the responses, I find it impossible not to reply.

Firstly, assuming that all of the participants who take part in the celebration of the Holy Mass in Soho are ‘practising homosexuals’ is an utter disgrace. Many of us who attend Mass are not practising and are happily single and gay.

Secondly, the Catholic Church itself has openly declared (including Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – prior to his election at Benedict XVI) that the Catholic Church has an obligation of Pastoral Care for those within its community that are homosexual.

Thirdly, I find it insulting to anyone who has any form of education and sits on here spouting about what the Bible says about homosexuality when they are obviously uneducated in the current understanding of the translations in Scripture. When the Old Testament was written there was no word within the Hebrew language for someone who is ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’. It is a relatively modern misinterpretation, and there are many scripture scholars out there (who are not homosexual) who will attest to this. As for mentioning ‘Sodomites’; this shocking and totally unacceptable mistranslation which has led many to their views really does need to be the first that altered. This has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, but it all to with in-hospitality. Perhaps those that feel is acceptable to use Scripture should first do some study…and not just into old translations, but get themselves up-to-date. The same goes for the mentioning of homosexuality by St. Paul; who is generally referring to people who are heterosexual but are following an earlier Greek concept of having sex with men despite their heterosexuality. Not, as it is assumed referring to those who are born homosexual.

It may also interest those who seem to condemn homosexuality within the Roman Catholic Church (or shock them) to believe that they belong to an establishment that once accepted, honoured and blessed same sex unions, and had church services similar to our modern day heterosexual marriage service. Strange that it was only changed from around 1700 CE onwards.

Jesus had a wonderful way of making those who were outcasts feel included in the society of the day. Those who the leaders of the Jewish faith said were ‘outcasts’; the lepers, the disabled, women, etc.

If Jesus were to return to earth today, where would he be…sat in Rome with Pope Benedict, outside the church in Soho with those praying the Rosary…? No, I don’t think so… He would be visiting the sick, the homeless, the disabled and sat in the pews of the church in Soho with those that others still see as ‘outcasts’ today.

Let us remember… Let she/he that is without sin cast the first stone!

Paul
Your comment merely confirms what most people are saying on this thread - that the raison d'etre of the Soho Masses is to provide a focal point for those who dispute Catholic teaching on homosexuality, as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - whether they practise homosexual acts or not. The evidence of this dissent is well-catalogued. You stated " . . . the Catholic Church itself has openly declared (including Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – prior to his election as Benedict XVI) that the Catholic Church has an obligation of Pastoral Care for those within its community that are homosexual". I think you need to see what the Catholic Church and Cardinal Ratzinger actually did say:- once again, I refer to the 1986 CDF document on homosexuality http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html which was actually signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger. A few quotes from this document will suffice:-

" . . .Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual. The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage . . . "

" . . . The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination. . ."

" . . . With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve. . . "

" . . . All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous. . . "

As an undergraduate university student I studied Homosexuality and that Roman Catholic Response. You may like to read later documents other than just the 1986 document that you have mentioned and you will find that my comments earlier are quite correct...

Which documents did you have in mind? - an honest question, not intended sarcastically.

While I agree with the substance of the comments by EditorCT and William Oddie, I would hope we could also apply the teaching of the Catechism when it says: that we should treat with 'love, prudence and patience those who are in error'. Please have a concern not only for the wider argument but also for the individuals you are talking to. Christ did not break the bruised reed. It would be a pity if misguided people were to be driven towards the misguided 'compassion' of those who compromise the Gospel taught by the Church.

Wonderful example of Jesusless Christianity in the arrogant and self-important tone of this article. I heard on a Christian radio station this week, a Pentecostal pastor quipping that the stories of the Gospels were merely "stories to make children feel good", and that he himself was put off by their fluffiness. You are the same William Oddie. Jesus to you is a joke; nothing more than a kind, fluffy character to attract the dumb, naive and young into your true religion of blood, animosity, judgmentand self-righteousness.

Jesus did not pass judgment upon others, and did not come to uphold the pedantic laws of the Torah. When asked what is the most important law by arrogant Pharisees of a certain ilk, he replied that the most important law is to love the Father, and the second most important is to love one another because it is only in loving one another that we demonstrate our love for our Father. He said if these two things are accomplished, that is the whole Law accomplished. Good intentions, positivity and understanding towards one another are more valuable then 10,000 dictats on sexual behaviour.

An immoral woman, we are told, washed Jesus' feet at a Pharisee's house with her tears and dried them with her hair. Jesus said that the woman was better than the Pharisee for he offered Jesus no water to wash his feet, yet she washed his feet with her own tears. Her kindness surpassed that of the Pharisees. And I am sure that the kindness of many gay men has saved them the judgment that perhaps awaits you in your self-righteousness and self-proclaimed purity.

The Father does not ask impossible tasks of us. We are only asked to do the best that we can. That includes gay men. Chastity means moderation, it does not mean abstention. All persons are called to chastity. Nobody is called to abstention of human emotion and love. The gay man who lived his life in moderation, and the married man who lived to excess, who shall pass through into Our Father's house I ask you?

Ebraist, give it a rest. We've heard this "all you need is love" message till it's coming out of our ears.

Christ did NOT say "love" is all that matters. Quite the reverse. He said "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments" and He bequeathed His own divine authority to His teaching Church.

So, less of the painfully predictable allegations of judgmentalism and self-righteousness. Yawn, yawn. The Catholics on this thread who are defending the moral law and Christ's Church, invested with His divine authority to teach, are about as judgmental as a policeman who catches a robber with his hands in the till. Get real.

"Yawn Yawn"??
"Get real"??

That is the response of a 14 year old teenager who's been told to mow the lawn by his Father. It's not a serious or mature response.

Jesus said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". You don't love him, you just keep Y-WH's commandments. You don't know what love is.

If you give someone a precise recipe, even if they have never cooked before, they can make something resembling the desired dish if they are competent. But one who has learned the fundamental principles that underlie cooking, he is able to make any dish from any ingredients without the need for any recipe. That is all good. But how does someone who knows the fundamentals of cooking react when he is given a recipe by someone who has just cooked one dish in his life?

That is your "moral law". To follow a moral law doesn't make you good morally. It just means you can read and follow instructions. It doesn't mean you should become a teacher of it.

Ebraist,

"Yawn, yawn...Get real..." Forgive my writing style - it's not important. That's just me. You don't know me? Let me enlighten you. I'm that person who is excluded from all the "inclusive" policies - "gays" can say and do what they want and anyone who questions them is "self righteous" and "judgmental" - Me? I can't even yawn, literally, without being insulted. Yip. that's me.

Your cooking analogy is, she said cutely, a recipe for disaster as far as I'm concerned. I can't even boil water without the smoke alarm going off so let's leave that little ole dish to one side, to cool...

When you say "to follow a moral law doesn't make you good morally" followed by "It just means you can read and follow instructions..." you puzzle me. I never claimed to be "good" (I'm frequently very bad) but there is merit in following instructions. For example, I follow the rules of the road because I can read and follow instructions and by doing so I help to keep myself and others safe.

I think you may be confusing keeping the moral law with sanctity. I never lie or steal (honest) but I'm no saint. Adhering to the moral law is basic - it's like observing the rules of the road. The Commandments are the synthesis of charity: if you love your neighbour you wont steal his wife or his wallet; you won't lie to him. Keeping the moral law is merely the foundation of the spiritual life. It is so basic, like the rules of the road. If you want to be reasonably sure of reaching your destination, you won't drive through red lights. You'll obey the STOP signs. Same with the spiritual life. Once the foundation is in place, we can pray and work to higher things. If we are living a life contrary to the moral law, then there is no foundation for holiness. I can't live a life of lying and stealing, committing adultery etc. and then take out my prayer book, light some candles and sing "Faith of our Fathers" with any kind of heavenly credibility. God knows the truth about me so I'm only fooling myself and a few credulous others.

I hope that's clarified my position for your Ebraist. I'm no saint. Just an ordinary gal who can read and follow the Maker's instructions - which, of course, includes Confession and a firm purpose of amendment when I break His law.

Oh and did I mention that I'm cute?

The difference is that laws of the road are reviewed and amended as and when it is deemed to be fit by experts in that field, with the opportunity of input from those very people who use those roads.
If a STOP sign exists where it isn't necessary, it is removed. If there is a junction where it is clearly needed, but none exists, responsible authorities will place one there. Speed limits are modified as is sensible so as to provide safety, but not to hinder the progression of traffic.

And this also is a changing world. It never stands still however much we might like it to at times. Thus the laws that govern us must also always be up for review by those appointed with wisdom and the confidence of the people. Unfortunately, the Vatican seems not to understand this simple point, and its total stubbornness on a number of subjects, even to the point often of expressing a dismissive and arrogant attitude towards the young particularly, will inevitably mean that the Church loses all credibility and has no influence over anyone but a tiny minority. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but then it loses the right to call itself a universal religion. It is no longer Catholic. Just the Church of Rome.

I am happy to hear that you are a cute girl who frequents Confession. I think W Oddie was also very happy to hear this. And I wish you well in your faith.

EditorCT - this thread is now becoming so tiresome because of the fact that people like you refuse to show any degree of respect for anyone with an opposing viewpoint. Ebraist is right - your self-righteous replies seem to be the work of a stroppy adolescent teenager at times. Take your own advice and "get real".

Oh, come on Danzibar; I never read anything LESS self-righteous than Editor CT's last comment (incidentally, what is CT?). She makes it clear that she is a sinner , that she isn't holier than thou or anyone else, and that she is 'Just an ordinary gal who can read and follow the Maker's instructions - which, of course, includes Confession and a firm purpose of amendment when '[she breaks] His law'. It seems to me that you're the one who doesn't begin to consider than he might be wrong.

Incidentally, not wishing to be non PC or guilty of harrassment (I'm just too old now) Editor CT's avowal that she's cute does cause to me to wonder if the Catholic Herald ought not respectfully to be asking for a photo? It5 might cheer us all up after the rather grim debate currently taking place.

W Oddie,

W Oddie,

Thank you for your kind words: however, your generous indulgence may disappear when you realise that the CT in EditorCT stands for Catholic Truth (the bi-montly newsletter for informed Catholics in Scotland and beyond .I'd put the URL but last time I did that, I got executed, I mean censored...)

Well, I said I was a bad girl.

As for that photo - well, I've no idea how to do that online, so just imagine slim, glamorous, witty and intelligent, with a fashion sense to die for, and you've got the picture...

An interesting thread. The rationalising homosexuals notwithstanding, it is a measure of how far and low the local Church has fallen that others of goodwill have expressed surprise at William Oddie's post. These somnolent latecomers to the postconciliar battle against the so-called Liberal Catholics ("The worst enemies of the Church" - Blessed Pius IX), will find the background provided by the following feature articles from Christian Order helpful. Documenting the roots, rise, establishment and corrupting purpose of the Soho Masses, along with the hierarchical complicity starting with Cardinal Hume, they place William’s brief critique in fuller (and righteous) perspective.

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2006/features_junejuly06.html

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2007/features_nov07.html

http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2007/editorials_nov07.html

There are a few comments I want to summarise and respond to, because I think this is an unhealthy direction these comments are taking. I believe there are a few things all people here would agree upon – these are my assumptions and the basis for my rationale. First, Jesus himself ministered to all and quite explicitly rejected the alternatives. Secondly, each of us is a sinner and Jesus deliberately warns each of us not to judge others, lest we be judged ourselves. Third, placing oneself in the presence of the Eucharist and participating in the holy Mass works mysteries and we do not pretend to understand how God works; we do believe that by participating and remaining open to His will, we are enriched and have a better chance of leading a holy life.

I believe the fundamental concern of those opposed to the twice-monthly Mass is that it appears that the Diocese and those participating flaunt the teachings of the Church, and therefore are making a mockery of the Holy Mass. This is certainly a serious concern and one that deserves exploration. Let’s break down the typical Sunday experience at the Soho Masses into several components: (a) the Mass itself; (b) the attendees; (c) the after-Mass tea and coffee social. When we examine the Mass itself, it passes with high marks – everyone should be perfectly satisfied that it is a completely regular Mass, relevant homilies and much the same as you would find anywhere. So that would seem to indicate the concerns relate more to the attendees or to the tea and biscuit social in the hall after Mass. When one looks at the usual attendees, one sees a cross-section of people typical of Soho – singles and couples of all races, ages and genders. Are some of these people chaste? Are some of these people gay? Are some of these people straight? Are some of these people sexually active? I’m sure the answer is yes to all of those questions. But I doubt any of those answers indicate why most of these people come to the Mass. From what I can tell, people come to be closer to God, to participate in the sacrifice of the Mass, to be part of the holy, catholic and apostolic church, and to celebrate in fellowship as Jesus intended. So I can’t see that any well-formed Christian would find offense or want to exclude people who seek to be closer to God in such a manner. So this leaves us with concerns over the tea and biscuit social held after Mass in the church hall. Do people socialise, chat, share in fellowship with others, and discuss current affairs? I imagine so. Are there secret meetings to plot an overthrow of the diocese? I imagine not. Similar to how any after-church social might raise topics where individuals express a personal opinion different from – or in line with – the Vatican’s stand on a particular topic (women priests, birth control within marriage, etc.), these personal conversations surely could come up. I see no causal relationship to whether a Mass should be celebrated or not.

Let’s assume for a moment that everyone involved in these discussions wants what truly is best for the church, for all the individuals involved, and to be as close to holiness as possible. We are all sinners and not one of us is perfect, so let’s drop the holier-than-thou attitudes. I would guess that most people here in these comments most likely consider themselves Catholic. It is a testament to the universal church that such a wide range of diverse opinions exists and that dialogue amongst the faithful can take place. Is the Roman Catholic Church a democracy? Of course not. That does not mean that the church itself – the whole of its peoples – should never discuss issues. I would argue that we owe it to ourselves and to the institution we love to question ourselves, our motivations, our biases, the world around us, the principles Jesus lived and preached on this earth – and through that process, strive to improve and help shepherd and navigate the whole church as it itself evolves in the ever-changing world. Do we as individual people own the final decision at any moment in time? No. But do we have a moral obligation to use our God-given intellect and reasoning to strive for the best, most just, and truest approach to modelling ourselves and our church after Jesus’s life and preaching? Absolutely.

I would summarise Soho Masses as a twice-monthly gathering, open to all, and ministering to the numerous LGBT Catholics in the area. Just as with any cross-section of Mass attendees at any parish in the area, not all of these LGBT Catholics are the same, and not all share identical views, lead identical lifestyles or are at the same stage of faith formation. But a common bond that does hold them together is a desire to grow closer to Jesus and to remain engaged instead of distanced from the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure Jesus welcomes this!

I see that my question to Tee Earls has been removed. That is quite something. It is surely pertinent to the debate whether or not this very reasonable sounding gentleman who is spouting heresy (Christ does NOT welcome sacrilegious Communions and "gay" Masses) is, in fact, in a homosexual "marriage" himself?

I tend to ignore blogs with this kind of unreasonable censorship. I'm not about to waste my precious time doing my Columbo research and posting comments, only to have some scissors happy censor remove them before I've boiled a kettle.

The comment was removed because of the URL, rather than because of the question.

The URL was the reason the question was raised, so that makes no sense at all.

EditorCT
Seeing your comments above and the reply from the Catholic Herald about your comment being removed because of a URL, am I to assume that you discovered evidence on the internet that Tee Earls is male and 'married' to another male?

Got it in one, Kevin. The URL reported a "wedding" between two men and I wondered if the "Tee" in the article was Tee Earls - that was my question. Here's an extract from the report:

"Troy and I wrote our own vows - simple and to the point. In retrospect, it's a good thing that they were short because we barely could manage to hold back emotions and say these to each other: "Troy/Tee, as your husband I promise to make the most of every moment with you. I will be your loyal friend and companion. I will take care of you, through laughter and tears, and every day look forward to happily growing old together. I love you today and always will." For the exchange of rings, it was simply "Troy/Tee, take this ring as a symbol of my unending love and faithfulness." When the vows and ring exchange were done..."

I'd be interested to know from Tee Earls himself if this report refers to him. As I say above, I think it is important to know why Catholics defend the "gay" lifestyle and "gay" marriage. Obviously, if a defender has attempted to contract such a marriage himself, that is very pertinent to the debate.

TeeEarls
I find your contribution to this debate one of the unhealthiest so far. Although couched in calm and measured and reasonable-sounding terms, once again, as with Terence Weldon, you have introduced this 'Vatican stand' myth into the equation - as though the teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is merely a 'Vatican stand' which can be open to debate/rejection, according to one's personal desires. Please read this document which gives the correct attitude that Catholics should have to Catholic teaching:- http://www.adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html Also, you overlook the fact that it has been proven that dissent from Catholic teaching has been promoted during the SMPC Mass itself, also dissent has been blatantly promoted in the SMPC newsletter, on its website, and dissenting books have been sold/promoted after Mass during the tea/coffee period, also, meetings have been arranged with dissident speakers - either in person or on video - the list goes on. For a group which supposedly prides itself on being 'inclusive' - the one group to have been noticeably excluded from the Masses (they have never been promoted in the newsletter, or mentioned in any way, although dissenting groups have always been promoted) is EnCourage - the Catholic group for homosexuals who wish to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church - the Universal Church, that is, not some local group which claims to be part of the Church while rejecting Her teachings. Odd that, isn't it. Clearly, inclusivity doesn't like to stretch to include those committed to orthodoxy/orthopraxis. And that is not a 'holier than thou' attitude - to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, as best we can, whatever our different struggles may be, always with the help of God's grace - without which we can do nothing - is the ONLY way to achieve holiness in this life and eternal salvation in the next.

Kevin, the last part of your post I think summarizes thoughts quite well: "to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, as best we can, whatever our different struggles may be, always with the help of God's grace - without which we can do nothing - is the only way to achieve holiness in this life and eternal salvation in the next." That's exactly the sentiment I would encourage people to have. I would also caution that those of us who sit and presume to act as judge and jury for others' motives, struggles, private behaviours, etc. do so at our own peril. Quite frankly, you or anyone else know nothing of my state of grace, struggles, sins, challenges, and successes, just like I know nothing of yours. As such, it strikes me as dangerous to presume this knowledge and make gross stereotypes based on these assumptions. There is nothing at Mass that "promotes" dissent and to state otherwise is simply false! On the contrary, we are called to lead our lives to the best of our ability and Mass encourages this. You make a good contribution to mention EnCourage and I see no reason why this would or should be excluded from making sure Mass attendees are aware of this resource. It seems that when the essence of this discussion is boiled down, it comes down to whether a group of people of a typically under-ministered minority should be encouraged to come together in fellowship periodically to worship and celebrate Mass. I simply lack understanding why there appears to be such an aversion to this and why people professing to be Christian spend enormous energy on this topic, instead of devotinig a fraction of that energy practicing what Jesus actually taught as important, such as ministry to the sick, visiting those in prison, clothing the naked, and feeding the hungry.

I'm not going to engage in further discussion board posts on this, since I've articulated my perspective and have no desire to get into personal arguments. I continue to welcome the prayers for anyone who wishes to pray for my salvation - that's never going to hurt - and I will continue to do the same for you.

I'm sorry Tee, but you state "There is nothing at Mass that "promotes" dissent and to state otherwise is simply false!" You cannot accuse me of speaking falsely as I have solid evidence to the contrary. Dissent is promoted at the Soho Mass in various ways, and as I say, I have solid, written evidence. I do not act as 'judge and jury' but if people openly proclaim that they reject Catholic teaching on homosexuality or anything else come to that, then I have to take them at their word. Not to do that would be to defy reason.

yes the Soho masses are a real scandal, Dr Oddie. I'm scandalised by gay Catholics who continue to commune with the hateful hypocritical organisation that is the Vatican Church. I miss my relationship with the divine but I dont miss the Church and its horrid functionaries and champions.

CJ,

You make a fatal mistake when you separate Christ from His Church. As Cardinal Newman said: "God gave us the Church to save us from ingenuous speculations and reasonings of our own."

You miss your relationship with the divine? Then get yourself to confession pronto, before some DM (Dopey Modernist) decides it's unnecessary pre-Vatican II froth to confess our sins, express contrition, and make a firm purpose of amendment, so we don't commit that sin/those sins again. Quick!

The Church is concerned for all souls. We are all sinners and need to attend Mass to adore God and beg for His grace. There is no need to single out any one group of people at a Mass. We are all sinners and come to Mass for help both by the grace of God and the teachings of the Church in the Word of God. The Masses in Soho for the Homosexual community are a scandal and should be stopped immediately. Fr. George M. Roth, FI. St. Joseph and St. Anne Monastery, Lanherne-St. St. Mawgan, Newquay, Cornwall, UK

The Church is concerned for all souls. We are all sinners and need to attend Mass to adore God and beg for His grace. There is no need to single out any one group of people at a Mass. We are all sinners and come to Mass for help both by the grace of God and the teachings of the Church in the Word of God.

... is followed by the complete non sequitur:
The Masses in Soho for the Homosexual community are a scandal and should be stopped immediately.

Twisted logic if ever I read it

Ritthichai
I think what Fr Roth is trying to say is that there is no need for special Masses for dissenting groups. Please read:- http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html The Mass is not about promoting dissident views. As Daphne McLeod mentioned in a previous comment, she is aware of homosexuals who do not seek out Masses which promote dissent. They simply attend ordinary Masses in their own parishes and try, with the help of God's grace, to live by the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, as all sinners are called to do.

The Bishops, in their surrender to secular ideology, are an utter disgrace. Which great Saint was it who said that few bishops would save their souls?

After a second look at this post and the comments, I have been astonished by the people who reveal that at these Masses, they have been directly told by participants that they are in sexual relationships with their partners. How has this come about? In six years of regular attendance, I have never yet had anybody volunteer information to me about their sexual activities. I cannot imagine that any one of them would do so to a complete stranger without being asked a direct question. Now, that really is scandalous.

I would never dream of asking married couples after Mass in a family parish if they practised contraception; or ask a young unmarried couple if their relationship was sexual; or ask a teenager if he masturbated. (Although I could probably guess at the answers.)

Why, oh why do so many Catholics assume that their own sexual activities are strictly personal and private, but those of gay men and lesbians are open to public dissection and scrutiny?

Terrence - the church is quite clear that heterosexual couples who practice birth control are in a state of sin and should not come to communion, because they commit sacrilege. The problem with the Soho masses is that they legitimise something that is doubly sinful i.e. the practising of a vice which both unnatural and one that invariably takes place outside marriage, because homosexual unions can never exist in the church.

The problem with todays priests is that they do not preach enough on the effects of sin or why such things are sinful: we have gone from one extreme to another, which is deadly to souls.

You are either a Catholic that accepts the teachings of the church, instituted by Christ himself, or you are not. There can be no pick and choose.

I am quite happy o follow the example and teachings of Christ - who had not a word to say about either homosexuality or birth control. Indeed, his clear example is that he was happy to heal the centurion's gay lover ("paidion" incontext would have implied a sexual relationship), and did not condemn the Samaritan woman at the well for her numerous partners, but instead engaged her in discussion. In fact He had remarkably littel to say on sexual ethics of any kind.

The Vatican teaching (not the teaching of "the Church", which includes all of us) on homosexuality and contraception is plainly the work of men, not of Christ.

terenceweldon,

You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Our Lord did not speak about issues such as homosexuality, abortion, contraception etc. We hear this all the time from people who do not understand either the nature of Sacred Scripture or the nature of the Church. Christ did, indeed, speak about all of these moral issues. Yip. He did. Loud and clear. He said to His teaching Church: "He that hears you, hears Me" - clear as the proverbial bell.

Terrance, you really need to read the bible one of these days before making rash comments like the one above. I suggest 1 Rom: 23-28.

If you cannot accept the teachings of the Catholic faith with the same submission as the saints, then please do yourself a favour and don't pretend to be a Catholic. Even most Protestants have the humility to accept that homosexual acts are sinful and contradict the plan of God for men and women.

Well said, Thegrassysageknoll !

Maybe - just maybe - Vincent Nichols is less of a right-wing bigot qand fundamentalist than most Catholics seem prepared to accept they must be these days. He is probably as embarrased as the majority of the UK population at such intolerant nonsense.

Ritthichai

No informed Catholic believes that Archbishop Nichols is even remotely "right wing" - he's a Modernist to his finger tips. Those who fell for his attendances at the Latin Mass Society courses at Oxford in response to Summorum Pontifium can be categorised, as the Communists ever did with their ignorant supporters, as "useful idiots".

And I'm not sure what you are getting at with your "he's probably embarrassed" comment - he's certainly not embarrassed about the scandalous Soho Masses or he would put an end to them. That fact that he is continuing to permit them - which is to condone and approve them - comes as no surprise to any truly informed Catholic in the UK. I'll put it no more strongly than that, she said naughtily...

Exactly what does the Soho Masses threaten and are there bigger threats to the Church?

Inigo,

The Soho Masses are a scandal for a number of reasons, not least because the priests and Archbishop Nichols are actively encouraging people who are living in objective mortal sin, to receive Holy Communion. That is, assuming that the Masses are valid which, frankly, I would doubt. The priests - I believe - are notoriously pro-homosexual which makes their own situation questionable and it is at least doubtful whether or not they believe what the Church teaches about the Mass. Can their intention really be to offer the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary on the altar?

By having "Masses for homosexuals" these priests and Archbishop Nichols are giving the impression that this grave sin of sodomy is now acceptable and that the Church's "current" rule (as they wrongly see God's moral law) might change to approve this sin, traditionally described as one of the four "sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance" - so serious is it.

And no, there is no bigger threat to the Church than blatant heresy and dissent. That's why God gave us a Pope and bishops to protect our souls for this kind of poison.

You listening, Archbishop Nichols?

It is not the teaching of the "Church" that we should refrain from sexual activity outside of marriage, but the doctrine of the Vatican. The "Church" includes all Catholics, from the Pope in Rome, down to ordinary lay people in the pews. Research shows clearly that most Catholics differ from the official doctrine on virtually all matters of sexual ethics. The overwhelming majority reject and ignore Humanae Vitae, and most Catholics in the UK and the rest of Europe, and the US are also known (from research evidence) to disagree that sexual relations before marriage, masturbation, after divorce, or between same sex couples are morally wrong. Even in overwhelmingly Catholic Argentina, recent opinion polls showed that 70% of people supported the law to allow gay marriage and adoption.

Sorry Terence, but you can't just dismiss the teaching of the Universal Church, as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1994 as mere 'Vatican doctrine'. In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum (found at the beginning of the CCC 1994) Pope John Paul II states:-

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the result of very extensive collaboration; it was prepared over six years of intense work done in a spirit of complete openness and fervent zeal. In 1986, I entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work. The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work, attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to produce a better text. In the committee various opinions were compared with great profit, and thus a richer text has resulted whose unity and coherence are assured.
The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favorable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church. This response elicits in me a deep feeling of joy, because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the "symphony" of the faith. The achievement of this Catechism thus reflects the collegial nature of the Episcopate; it testifies to the Church's catholicity." And whether it personally suits you or not Terence, the Catechism clearly and unequivocally re-states the sinfulness of any sexual activity outside marriage, including homosexual activity.

Kevin, your response simply confirms my point: it may have been extensive collaboration between Cardinals and bishops - but where were the rest of us?

In all the contributions on sexuality, where was there any input from people with any real-life experience of sexual love?

terenceweldon,

We don't need real-life experience of robbing banks to know that it's wrong, so away with that non-sequitur. Get thee to a monastery, man, and do some prayer, penance and pondering though not necessarily in that order.

terenceweldon,

This notion that the Church is or should be some kind of democratic club where we all have a say in what is taught, is patently ridiculous. I have no idea of your age, so must make allowances for the fact that there has been no substantial or even remotely accurate teaching in Catholic schools or parishes since "that Council." Maybe you've grown up in this era of confusion into chaos, in which case there is some excuse for your theologically untenable views.

The Church, the early Christians believed, was the reason God created the world. He didn't create the world (or, if you must, leave it to make itself over trillions of years - yeah right) and then chuck in the Church for good measure. (cf no. 760, I think, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "God created the world for the sake of His Church - to give everyone a share in His divine life" From memory but that is the sense of the CCC on the subject.)

In the simplest possible terms, God reveals His will to us through the Church, as long as it is teaching what has been believed from the beginning. He's not revealing to us that any old religion will do, because, whatever the ecumenists tell you, the Church has ALWAYS condemned false religions, from the beginning. And, from the beginning the sexual aberrations that are now almost mandatory in our society - contraception, abortion, sodomy - have ALWAYS been condemned by the followers of Christ. So, sorry terenceweldon, we can't just take a show of hands on the matter. The Soho Masses are an almighty scandal and the Archbishop is totally, one hundred percent in the wrong to permit them to continue. Puts a massive question mark over his mitre. Massive.

Catholics must accept that Christ meant it when He promised to be with his apostles - that is, His teaching Church - until the end of time. Those who don't are, de facto, Protestants.

I have not suggested or implied that the Church should be democratic club: but ir is most certainly more than just the cardinals and bishops. The idea that teaching must have the support of all the faithful or is not valid is completely orthodox Catholic teaching.

Frankly I find your personal remarks and assumptions about my background completely offensive, and will have no futher part in this discussion.

terenceweldon,

You are making another common mistake, confusing the sensus fidelium (the sense of the Faith/Faithful, the Catholic sense) with the Modernist error that to be valid, a Catholic teaching must "have the support of the faithful".

Two entirely different things. Here's the test. The Faithful include the Church Triumphant in Heaven, the Church Suffering in Purgatory and the Church Militant on earth - from the first century until the present time. Thus, those of us who hold firmly to what the Church has always taught, to what the Faithful have always believed, those in Heaven and Purgatory and from the beginning of the Church: WE display that Catholic sense, that "sense of the Faith or Faithful". Those who go for the latest novelty, who embrace dissent have placed themselves outside of the Church. End of.

And who cares if you are offended because I thought you may be too young to remember normality before Vatican II. I wish someone would make the same assumption about me. I'd add them to my Christmas card list in a heartbeat.

The Catholic Church equally teaches that contraception and cohabitation are grave sins. Why not write about the countless Catholics who ignore those rules? Or about the priests who as confessors or spiritual directors will privately approve those decisions, when taken in good conscience?

The simple facts are that no body has any business judging the interior state of another's conscience, and that the history of the Masses has shown that they have drawn back to the Church many hundreds of people who had not seen the inside of a Catholic church in decades. Frequently, they come initially out of simple curiosity after hearing of us by word of mouth , or at London Gay Pride, but then return more regularly. Often, they then become more actively involved in a local parish closer to home as well.

One of the impressive features of the Masses is the depth of participation we have. I suspect that as a proportion of the total congregation, the numbers actively participating as special ministers, musicians, and in the increasing range of after-mass or outside activities is higher than in many conventional parishes. This is in spite of the very long distances some of us travel to attend, and the an often heavy involvement of some in home parishes. Discussion with our parishioners also demonstrates that the level of knowledge and interest in theology and church far exceeds what I have generally encountered in other parish settings.

The only scandal around these Masses is not that they exist, but that some bigots appear to believe they are doing the Lord's work by trying to prevent other Catholics attending Mass. I am proud to have been associated with these Masses for the past six years, and hope I will continue to be for many more,.

I'm amazed by what I read here.
The fact is that Our Lord said it is the sick that need the doctor, not the healthy. I am sure that Our Lord did not intent the Eucharist to be used as some kind of bargaining tool.
The fact is the Catholic Church has no moral authority any longer. And it will only start to recover once the Church starts preaching the Gospel and stops preaching the Church!!!

And what did Our Lord say about the "sick" who don't think they ARE sick, let alone need the doctor? He spoke about Hell and gnashing of teeth. That sort of thing...

Perhaps you might like to read the gospel where it says that one must be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion in the first place 1 Cor 11: 27-30?

My friends and I were there at Warwick Street a few years ago when those Masses began. I, myself chatted with various members of the Gay Attendees after Mass. All of them that I spoke to admitted that they were practising sex. Two Lesbians told me that they were very much in love and to defend their undying love for each other, they told me that they have been sleeping together, sharing the same bed for over 20 years. I have seen men actually kissing in the congregation. I actually seen with my own eyes, a man fondling another man's backside, rubbing him and squeezing him on the way up to Holy Communion.
I have witnessed overt flirting amongst homosexuals. They seem to get extra FLIRTY when Fr Timothy Radcliffe is the celebrant. God help us, thats all I can say. And yes Archbishop NIcols has the power to stop these Masses. The Pope has the power to say the word if bishops are opposing him 'I am the Pope" so Archbishop Nicols has this same power. Whilst we are delighted to see many refreshing changes under Archbishop Vincent, the CHANGE most needed has not come - Stopping these Masses - many Catholics have told me that they are so disappointed with our Archbishop over this. This is the ONE issue that we thought that Archbishop would put a Halt to it. And if the truly values his own soul, he really needs to listen to Pope Benedict about using the Rod. But I have always told catholics to give the Archbishop time, but that itme is now well and truly up!
I was so appalled, so shocked that I wrote a very serious letter to Cardinal Murphy O'Connor.

To be fair to the homosexuals who attend these Masses and receive Holy Communion at them, they are quite honest and they have openly admitted to those of us who pray the Rosary there in reparation that they are living the homosexual life-style. One young man crossed the road and said, kindly, to me "It's alright now Daphne, or else the cardinal would not have sanctioned these Masses."
I have the privilege of knowing some good homosexuals who do strive to live by Church teaching and who do not want special; Masses drawing attention to them. They attend Mass in their own parishes like the rest of us.
Please pray for these Catholics and for those who facillitate this scandal.
Daphne McLeod.

The Bishops who facilitate these Masses have the greater fault. It is they who will have to stand before God, when He asks then why they encouraged His children to live in open rebellion to His Law.

We must pray that our leaders may come to know real compassion - always tied to the truth, and God's Law - as opposed to false compassion, which seeks to conform to the wicked ways of this world.

I will join you in your prayers, with a burning concern for those poor souls who are being deceived not only by the world, but by our own pastors!

So relieved to see something so wrong exposed in print - and in the Catholic Herald. Thank you William Oddie and of course thank you Catholic Herald

To quote Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham (former Auxiliary of Westminster) "It's never been the practice of the Catholic church, as it were, to 'means-test' people before admitting them to the celebration of the Eucharist. It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions or to generalise about anybody's particular lifestyle, or their state of grace." With this outlook in mind, I think it is clear why Archbishop Vincent is yet to put an end to the Soho Masses – because, barring the certain knowledge that someone is continually committing a grave sin without repentance, Holy Mother Church is open to all.

No, and the Church doesn't 'means-test' people as to whether they can go to Holy Communion. In 25 years of being a Catholic, I've never been asked if I were in a state of grace before I went to receive Holy Communion - but if groups are organising Masses and promoting dissent at those Masses, then that is another matter altogether. Also don't forget that the members of the SMPC also wrote the following about their negotiations for the Soho Masses with Bishop Longley on 'Pink News':- http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01/new-archbishop-of-birmingham-helped-organise-gay-masses :- Martin Pendergast (founder of the SMPC) said:- “I can assure others who have commented that there was no demand on us to ‘remain celibate and agree that homosexual acts are wrong’ ” and also Terence Weldon (Eucharistic Minister and SMPC committee member) said:- “I agree with my friend and colleague Martin (above) who notes that during the extensive consultation process around the Soho gay Masses, Bishop Longley at no time expressed any demand that we remain celibate or agree with Church teaching”.

As I mention in my below post, Kevin, you have written a lot to convince me.

Thank you Dr Oddie for this comment. As EditorCT said, it is spot on. There is a WEALTH of evidence in the public domain, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt the dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality and related issues, by former and present members of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council (SMPC), who run these Masses. This dissent from Church teaching has been openly displayed since they began - at the Mass itself; in the SMPC newsletters given out at the Masses, on their Soho Mass website and on related websites - and even some of the priests they choose to celebrate Mass for them have publicly aired their doubts about Catholic teaching on homosexuality, such as Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP (see The Tablet 28/01/06). Archbishop Vincent Nichols is FULLY aware of all this and for whatever reason chooses to turn a blind eye, as did his predecessor Cardinal Cormac and also Bishop Longley.

William, you state, "It is now clear beyond peradventure that those who attend the Masses are nearly all what the archdiocese calls 'non-celibate gay people' who intend to continue to defy Catholic teaching." On what evidence do you base your assertion that "nearly all" of those who attend the Soho Masses are non-celibate? How could you possibly know this? Unless, of course, you are in possession of intimately-acquired knowledge of every Soho Mass-goer's sex life.

Do Gay Pride think that homosexually inclined Catholics should live chastely according to the Church's teachings?

Paul, I'm afraid I don't really understand what Gay Pride (I'm assuming you mean the organisation, London Pride, here and not the concept) has to do with the Soho Masses.

Danzibar - In answer to your question to Paul Smeaton, I have SMPC Mass newsletters promoting the London Gay Pride rally, also showing that they have taken part in the London Gay Pride rally (marching and also putting info out on a stall), also that they have 'Pride' Masses, usually held on the Sunday after the Pride rally. This year, I was informed by those who attended, that the Warwick Street church of Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory was draped with the rainbow banners that the SMPC members carried on the Pride march. I hope that this answers your question about any connection.

Kevin,

In response to your response to me. There was a rainbow flag in the church after pride, however, I didn't say there weren't. I responded to your comment which states that "the the Warwick Street church of Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory was draped with the rainbow banners that the SMPC members carried on the Pride march", which is catagorically and unequivocally incorrect. The flag had not been carried by memeber of the SMPC on the Pride march... Which is what I said originally in my reply....


Paul

I will check with the person who told me this. At present, they are not around, but as soon as they return, I will confirm what I heard from them. In the meantime - can you categorically and unequivocally state that there were absolutely no rainbow flags or cloths or LGBT banners of any description, anywhere in the Warwick Street church on the Sunday after the Pride Rally? As for the rest of my comment about the link with London Pride and the Soho Mass, everything else stands. I have all the evidence right here.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/hj7ge

Kevin, I have written a long reply to all the comments on this blog above, however I want to make a point quite clear here. The church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St. Gregory was not 'draped wtih the rainbow banners that the SMPC members carried on the Pride march'. This is a total fabrication of the truth - in other words a lie!

Paul
I will check with the person who told me this. At present, they are not around, but as soon as they return, I will confirm what I heard from them. In the meantime - can you categorically and unequivocally state that there were absolutely no rainbow flags or cloths or LGBT banners of any description, anywhere in the Warwick Street church on the Sunday after the Pride Rally? As for the rest of my comment about the link with London Pride and the Soho Mass, everything else stands. I have all the evidence right here.

I know it because I am not a fool. If you doubt it, visit the soho Masses Pastoral council website, and read it carefully from beginning to end. That is not the only evidence I have: but I do not propose to present it here. The point is that it is up to them to deny it: AND THEY WILL NOT, BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

William, have you or The Catholic Herald put the question: 'Are the vast majority of your attendees at the Soho Masses practising, non-celibate homosexuals?' or indeed a similar question to the Soho Masses Pastoral Council? If not, how can they possibly deny the charge unless you put the charge to them? And even if you did decide to put such a question to them, I would assume, much like yourself, they would not possess intimate details of the sex lives of their congregation. Just as in any normal Catholic parish up and down the country the Priest and Parish Council would, in the vast majority of cases, have no certain idea whether their parishioners are sexually active (whether indulging in homosexual sex, married sex, pre-marital sex or indeed remaining abstinent). Unless, of course, there's a new Church policy of conducting a sexual census of parishioners every Sunday which I haven't heard about! Therefore, it's clear that your viewpoint regarding the assertion that nearly all Soho attendees are "non-celibate gay people" is simply guesswork. If you had the courage to say that it is your 'gut instinct' that this is the case, based on what you have been told, then I would have a great deal more respect for you and for this blog post. As it stands, you refuse to provide any further journalistic evidence in support of your argument, and as such, for many of this website's readers (conservative Catholics though they are), I am sure your opinion will only be adjudged as biased. As I cheekily alluded to in my previous post, the only perceivable way one could know for sure is to have acquired the information through what I shall describe as 'intimate personal involvement'. Since I presume this is not what you are referring to when you write, "that is not the only evidence I have", maybe you'll be good enough to either provide the evidence or apologise for making an unsubstantiated claim?

I HAVE put the charge, they haven't denied it and they won't. The evidence is plentiful (see Kevin's response to your original post. There is NO QUESTION OF GUESSWORK HERE.

I think, Dr Oddie, you may be missing the point. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that there might be dissent from Church teaching going on at the Soho Masses. I have not seen evidence myself to suggest there is and indeed, I had never heard of the Soho Masses until today. However, in the interests of this discussion, I shall take you and Kevin's joint word for it that there is. What I take exception to is your claim that you know beyond doubt that the majority of parishioners of the Church of Our Lady and St Gregory are regularly engaging or have previously engaged in homosexual sex. It simply cannot be proved! And therefore, this assertion is guess work. I cannot believe that a man of your intellect who has written book upon book and previously edited The Catholic Herald with apparent distinction, can allow your anger and obvious bias to colour today's blogpost with such lazy journalism, worthy only of a downmarket red-top.

Furthermore, have you considered the fact that if we were to start closing Parishes in the UK just because they routinely catered for Catholics who dissented against Church teaching, we wouldn't be left with much of a Catholic Church to speak of?

Danzibar - there is firm proof available that dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality is being promoted at and through these Masses. Regardless of Dr Oddie's knowledge / lack of knowledge of actual sexual acts by members of the SMPC and congregation, this public proof of dissent is enough to remove these Masses from the aegis of the SMPC and place them under the pastoral care of those who fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality. The same would be the case if any groups started up parish Masses advocating dissent from any other Catholic teachings. Yes, we all know that individuals go to Mass and Holy Communion up and down the country who reject various key doctrines on faith and morals, and this is completely wrong (not, of course, for them to attend Mass, but to receive Holy Communion), and the Church makes this clear to them, but I am not aware of any other parishes that hold official Masses for any other groups of individuals who openly dissent from Catholic teaching. Why should the SMPC be so favoured?

Kevin, I am perfectly happy to accept what you are saying. If it is true that dissent against Church teachings is blatantly at play within the SMPC and at these Masses, then you're right, an intervention should be made by the bishops in Westminster. I've just read an article, for instance, about bidding prayers being said in support of civil partnerships, which is a ridiculous thing to be going on in a Catholic Church. However, you'll notice that my gripe on this particular thread of discussion, has consistently been with regard to Dr Oddie's statement that "It is now clear beyond peradventure that those who attend the Masses are nearly all what the archdiocese calls “non-celibate gay people”'. It can't be proven, Kevin, it's lazy, and I object to it on the grounds that I am one of Dr Oddie's fellow journalists and detest the use of clearly unsubstantiated information to seemingly prove a point. Kevin, you have done more in your posts to convince me of the initial argument, than Dr Oddie came close to in his blog post.

Danzibar,

Where on earth (or elsewhere) have you been living these past umpteen years. This scandal is so well documented it makes the Magna Carta look suspect.
http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/soho-masses/

EditorCT, Dr Oddie: you have clearly been raging about the Soho Masses for so long that you seemingly can't answer a simple question. How do you know that the majority of Soho Mass-goers are engaging in homosexual sex? It's clear why you won't answer - because you can't. You can have your suspicions but you can't know for sure. I get why it must be so irritating for you all, but maybe the time has come, with regard to this question, to put up or shut up.

Danzibar - I can confirm, as one who went along to one of these Masses, and then went "downstairs" (to the hall underneath the church) for tea afterwards, that the vast majority of the men there were quite open a) about their dissent from Church teaching; b) their disliking of the Pope; c) the fact that they had "boyfriends".

If you want proof, just go to one of these sacrilegious Masses yourself, and you'll soon shut up.

Spot on William. Thank you for your clear, honest article. I really would not have given the Catholic Herald credit for publishing an outspoken, long overdue, article like this.