Tue 21st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 16:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

The scandal of the Soho Masses

The Westminster diocese is still encouraging grave sin by approving Masses for non-celibate gay people

By on Friday, 16 July 2010

When Archbishop Vincent Nichols moved from Birmingham to Westminster, Daphne McLeod, of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, welcomed him back to London, and warmly added that she looked “forward to watching this new broom making a clean sweep of problems which have troubled the Archdiocese of Westminster for the last few years”.

“First on the new archbishop’s list,” she went on, “will undoubtedly be putting an end to the sacrilegious Masses held every first and third Sunday of the Month in the Church of Our Lady and St Gregory in Soho.”

Archbishop Nichols, it now has to be accepted, has had plenty of time to “make a clean sweep” of this problem and not only has done nothing but almost certainly presently intends to do nothing about these Masses. The fiction which justifies the archdiocese in its support for the Soho Masses is that they are celebrated for the benefit of gays who accept the teachings of the Church and therefore refrain from any form of sexual activity. A statement issued by the cardinal at the time the Masses first began in a Catholic church, according to the Telegraph, “stressed that the move did not represent a shift in Church teaching, which says that homosexual practice is a sin and that non-celibate gay people should not be given Communion”.

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, which is that homosexuals (Catechism art 2358) “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”, but also that (2359) they “are called to chastity”.

The whole ethos of the Soho Masses is a committed denial of this teaching, a denial in which they are encouraged by the Archdiocese of Westminster, whose justification is that they are responding to “a number of homosexual Catholics” who have expressed “their desire for pastoral care from the Diocese of Westminster”.

But the question is this: can it ever be right to describe as “pastoral care” a consistent uncritical support for a “lifestyle” which the Church teaches is gravely sinful? And by doing so are they not placing themselves under judgment too? The archbishop might care to ponder Luke 17: “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that causes of sin should not come: but woe to him through whom they come” (verse one). And what about verse three? “… If your brother does something wrong, rebuke him and, if he is sorry, forgive him”. That is also a fundamental part of “pastoral care”.

  • EditorCT

    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.

  • Rod Pead (Editor, CO)

    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

    http://www.christianorder.com/features/features

    http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editor

  • http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/ The Catholic Herald

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

  • EditorCT

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

  • Kevin

    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?

  • EditorCT

    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.

  • Ebraist

    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?

  • EditorCT

    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…

  • EditorCT

    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.

  • EditorCT

    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!

  • I saw with my own eyes

    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!

  • Ebraist

    “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.

  • EditorCT

    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?

  • Danzibar

    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”.

  • W Oddie

    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.

  • RJ

    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.

  • Paul

    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

    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!

  • EditorCT

    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…

  • Kevin

    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.

  • RJ

    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.

  • Kevin

    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… 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. . . “

  • Kevin

    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.”

  • Paul

    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

  • Paul

    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”…

  • Paul

    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…

  • Paul

    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.

  • Torkay

    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.

  • W Oddie

    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.

  • Kevin

    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.

  • EditorCT

    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?????

  • Kevin

    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

    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.

  • RJ

    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.

  • RJ

    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.

  • Ebraist

    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

    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.

  • Irene Threasher

    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.

  • EditorCT

    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.

  • Hoops

    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

  • Kevin

    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.

  • RJ

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

  • EditorCT

    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!