Sun 27th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Sun 27th Jul 2014 at 17:37pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Have the Soho Masses really been stopped? Their organisers are delighted: they have been put in charge of the new regime, and are bent on growth

They won’t be organising Masses for themselves: they say they’ll just take over what’s already provided in Farm Street

By on Wednesday, 9 January 2013

The Soho Masses community is moving to the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Farm Street

The Soho Masses community is moving to the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Farm Street

I don’t like writing successive blogs on the same subject, it makes one look obsessive. But my last post and various responses to it have increasingly brought me up against a nasty question, which I need seriously to address as a matter of urgency: have I mistaken as to the real meaning of Archbishop Nichols’s recent démarche in apparently “stopping” the Soho Masses?

Those most closely involved certainly seem to think so. “RIP Soho Masses: Long Live Soho Masses!” swaggers the headline on the website “Queering the Church”. On his own website, Protect the Pope, which I always take seriously, Deacon Nick might almost be addressing me personally: “An appeal to The Catholic Herald and Catholic clergy bloggers,” he ends his last PTP post. “Please don’t be taken in by the spin, and report what’s really going on behind the transfer to Farm Street. Why aren’t you reporting that the Soho Masses Pastoral Council has not been disbanded? This is the Gordian knot that has not been cut.”

Well, Deacon Nick is quite right to bring that crucial fact to our attention. Not only is it true: the SMPC itself is jubilant about the whole thing, and is even, unwisely perhaps, and I hope prematurely, actually bragging about precisely that, as though it were (as it may well be) a great coup: “The opposition are crowing with delight,” boasts SMPC member Terence Weldon, in an article headlined “To Soho Mass Foes: ‘Be Careful What You Wish For’”, that we (their “foes”) suppose that the Soho Masses are being shut down – “but we are not. We are simply being moved, to a situation which in many respects offers far more opportunities for … further growth and development. We will be meeting not just twice a month, we will have far better meeting facilities, we will have far superior structures and opportunities for growth in faith and spirituality, and for meeting and engaging with other Catholics, many of whom could thereby become straight allies.”

And they won’t have the responsibility of organising fortnightly Masses: they’ll just take over the weekly Mass already provided. Weldon goes on to draw attention to the words of Archbishop Nichols’s statement: “I am, therefore, asking the group which has, in recent years, helped to organise the celebration of Mass on two Sundays of each month at Warwick Street, now to focus their effort on the provision of pastoral care.”

Terence Weldon comments: “Now, look again at the words of his statement: ‘The group which has helped to organise…’ that’s the existing SMPC, including me, as he knows only too well (the opposition have reminded him, frequently, of the ‘heretic and homosexualist blogger’ in our midst).”

He again quotes Archbishop Nichols: “This includes many of the activities which have recently been developed and it is to be conducted fully in accordance with the teaching of the Church.”

“Ah!”, ripostes Weldon, “Precisely, those activities that I described, in my posts and in my letter [to the archbishop]“?

“Such pastoral care [the archbishop’s statement again] will include support for growth in virtue and holiness.” “Is this threatening to you?” Weldon asks Soho Mass attenders. “I don’t think so… So – what about that ‘faithful to Church teaching’?

“It’s instructive to note also, what +V did NOT say.”

Weldon then outlines this as follows (I reproduce it verbatim, complete with his original bullet points):

“ • He did not “abolish” the SMPC (“Soho Masses Pastoral Council
• He said that we would not “organise” the Masses – he said absolutely nothing about contributing to them, making them our own, ensuring their relevance to our needs, singing, reading etc. (my emphasis)
• He said absolutely nothing condemnatory of the Masses or of our behaviour and activity.
• He did not withdraw our status as the Diocesan Pastoral Provision.
• His [statement] did not respond directly to the points I initially raised in objection to the move – … but careful reading of his text shows that he heard them.
• He did not say that he was under pressure from Rome – in fact the only remotely relevant comment he made to me is that Archbishop Müller is a very reasonable man.

“I would add,” continues Weldon, “he did not define ‘virtue and holiness’ – leaving that to our own interpretation. [my emphasis]. Nor did he spell out what he meant by “church teaching”. If he meant by that (which I think is unlikely) spelling out the Catechism rules on sexual behaviour, I would be entirely prepared to present, fully, what those rules are, provided that this is done on a completely non-discriminatory way.” In other words, in a way which makes it clear they don’t have to pay any attention to them.

Have we — have I — been taken in by the “stopping” of the Soho Masses? Are they simply being moved across town, and given improved facilities and greater frequency? That is the real question. I would, of course, like an answer to it from some authoritative person in the Westminster archdiocese though I don’t suppose I will ever get one.

But I have already had my answer from the SMPC. Meanwhile, have a look at this, from the Quest website: it’s an article entitled “Epiphany: Soho Masses Community Celebrate the Feast of Coming Out”. It ends with the following words: “We’re here, and not going away. Not under sentence of execution – but moving on, into a new and stronger, probably expansionary phase of our development.”

We can’t say we haven’t been warned.

  • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

    Thank you for the publicity – but allow me to make one important correction of fact. Nowhere has there been any suggestion of the Soho Masses community “taking over” the Masses. What we will be doing, is integrating with an existing congregation, with Masses continuing to be organized by the existing parish team – as before. We hope and expect to participated fully, as readers, special ministers, and musicians, just as any other parishioners – but that’s not the same as “taking over”.

    What we will be doing, is organizing our own “activities” for meeting after Mass: mostly just tea, cofffee and biscuits, and our own repository, as so many parishes do. In addition, we will be giving far more attention to the provision of pastoral care: just as we were in any case planning to do. 

    And what do we mean by this broad term, “pastoral care?” In very general terms, growth in faith and spirituality – for which a strong Jesuit parish is ideally suited, with its extensive resources for training in Ignatian spirituality.  What on earth is so offensive and upsetting in that?

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Come off it Terence!  Anyone reading your blog would have no doubt that you believe that homosexual sexual activity is something to be celebrated.  The very name of your blog “queeringthechurch.com” indicates your desire to mire the Church in sodomy.  Unfortunately for your agenda the gates of hell will not prevail!  Anyone who allows you or your like-minded mates to provide pastoral provision needs his head examining.

  • paulpriest

    Stopping’s not the same as stopping:Taking over’s not the same as taking over.
    Isn’t this all on the level of ‘he’s not a homosexual – he’s just a man who has sex with men’?

    Now Terry we know who you are and are fully aware of your agenda – fair play to you – you are neither insincere nor untruthful in stating your purpose and your ultimate aims. You’re a rogue but you’re not a scoundrel…

    But your position regarding the same-sex horizontee does not conform with Catholic moral teaching, the liturgies expressing this opinion and the far-from-reticent peripherals are blatantly defying the Church – now yes you can consider yourselves as revolutionaries and freedom fighters and seekers after recognition and social justice etc etc…

    Fine: Do what you want.
    But the Church is getting a little peeved at the confrontationally divisive fifth column ‘enemy within’ – and has had enough and not going to take it any more…

    The Vatican has told Archbishop Nichols that the scandalous masses had to stop and pastoral care had to conform to magisterial teaching and directives.

    [and even you will concede that they were scandalous - in that they promoted same-sex sexual activity - they publicly recognised and endorsed civil partnerships etc] 

    So we’re left in a bit of a quandary:

    Are you lying about what’s happening? Soon to be reprimanded by His Grace for misrepresentation of the situation and for distributing false propaganda about the new set up?

    Or is it another scenario where you’ve been reassured that you can print everything you’ve said recently with informed authority? and without any repercussions?

  • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

    The only point I want to object to, is your statement that the Masses ” promoted same-sex sexual activity”.  That is simply not true. We have never “promoted” sexual activity, of any kind.

  • parepidemos

    Thank you for the
    clarification. I looked, in vain, to find any claim – from the GLBT community -
    that you would be ‘taking over’ a Mass. This is obviously a scare tacit
    by certain Catholic bloggers. It would be quite understandable for those
    involved in the “Soho Masses” to become involved at Farm Street.

    I find it deeply
    regrettable that some Catholics also focus on what gay people may – or may not
    - be doing sexually, rather than on the person. Indeed, I have always found
    that those who focus on the alleged sinful behaviour of others tend to be
    avoiding necessary confrontation of their own sinful tendencies or actions.

    I pray that your
    community’s experience at Farm Street will be mutually enriching and lead many
    GLBT people back to the Christ and – one hopes – to the Church.

     

    I find it deeply
    regrettable that some Catholics also focus on what gay people may – or may not
    - be doing sexually, rather than on the person. Indeed, I have always found
    that those who focus on the alleged sinful behaviour of others tend to be
    avoiding necessary confrontation of their own sinful tendencies or actions.

    I pray that your
    community’s experience at Farm Street will be mutually enriching and lead many
    GLBT people back to the Christ and – one hopes – to the Church.

     

  • paulpriest

    We know that publicly – technically – officially – your non-negatives and silence and non-dissociations – your internet links or references to heterodox , heretical, idolatrous, blasphemous and pornographic websites cannot be recognised as ‘endorsement’, ‘advocacy’ or ‘promotion’…none of this – no matter how blatant – can be inferred as
    ‘silence indicates assent’…

    So this is how it’s going to work?

    That’s how +Vin’s going to work round it?
    You’re going to have some sort of ‘official printed’ ‘code of conduct stating loyalty to the magisterium and adherence to the pastoral directives of the CDF?

    Which will be akin to anglicans swearing to uphold the 39 articles?

    A ‘don’t ask:don’t tell’ plus?
    Name, rank, serial number and official statement of non endorsement of anything contrary to the moral teachings of the magisterium?

    Clever!

    So the whole procedure has to start again – anyone wishing to disprove/counter/repudiate your claims has to begin afresh – garnering new evidence to the contrary – they’d have to repeatedly prove you were wilfully defying and contravening the stated official policy?

    Delay tactics?
    A return to the cycle of ignored complaints – rosaries – more complaints – ‘I suggest they hold their tongues’ etc complaints etc – until the present Pope dies when you’ll take your chances?

    How many extra years do you reckon you’ll get from this? Five? Ten?

  • teigitur

    I fail to understand the whole thing. I mean we do not have special Masses for fat people, red-haired people, divorced people, the list could be endless. Any Mass for anyone I say.( Preferably in the EF of course!)

  • ConfusedofChi

    “regrettable that some Catholics also focus on what gay people may – or may not
    be doing sexually, rather than on the person”…uhmm!….what a person does or does not do, partially  defines ‘the person’

  • Michael Petek

    “Bent” on growth. I have a feeling they’d have to be.

  • Jon Brooks

    “Any mass for anyone”, but that does not negate our obligation nor the obligation of the Church to teach what is right and wrong.  What the homosexual agenda consists of is to fundamentally change the way the Church thinks in order to force the Pope to accept their actions.  However, if the Church were to change, they would lose their integrity (and a ton of followers).

  • http://www.facebook.com/laurence.england Laurence England

    A special Mass for smack addicts and Twitter addicts?

  • teigitur

    Never said it did Jon.We both know the Church will not change.

  • http://www.facebook.com/laurence.england Laurence England

    Your repulsive blog! Your publicly state views which are divorced from anything that resembles Catholic teaching! That’s what’s so offensive and upsetting! It’s the fact that the Catholic Church allows you any closer than a hundred miles from Her homosexual members. That’s what is so offensive!

  • teigitur

     I never said it did Jon. We both know the Church will not change 2000 years of teaching.

  • Solly Gratia

    As I read around the sources on this, including Terry’s website, i saw comments about whether they would be able to have input to the bidding prayers. You don’t have to run the whole Mass to make it your Mass.

  • Patrickhowes

    You have hit the nail on the head.There is no such thing as a church within a church.

  • Col. M.

    If a particular group of people with something in common, be that their age, nationality, employment, state of life, georaphical location (that one’s called a parish), or addictive compulsion, is a very laudable practice indeed! But the Mass isn’t a vehicle for promoting something other than Jesus, nor is it about our ‘feelings’, nor how the Church should bend to our opinions. SMPC has, as commentors have noted already, failed to realise this, and simply does not help people live good Catholic lives, encouraging them instead to distance themselves from Jesus, and congratulate themselves on a being dominated ny a small part of their personality, instead of trying to become more like the Lord. Talking of encouraging good behaviour, His Grace should have dissolved the SMPC, and given the status of patoral provider (whatever than means) to their Catholic counterpart, EnCourage. Now that would have been the pastoral thing to do.

  • Caroline Farrow

    Would the Masses for Twitter addicts include bidding prayers and collects with a limit of 140 characters? ;-)

  • Kevin

    This is interesting detail but it is superfluous to an appreciation of the problem.

    Every temptation with which one struggles should be met on an individual basis with the pastoral response, “Snap out of it!”, as in, “Snap out of it, she’s married!”, “Snap out of it, it’s insider trading!”, and “Snap out of it, he’s a bloke and so are you!”.

    There is nothing else to talk about, and certainly not in a get-together.

  • parepidemos

    I agree “partially”; however, some people who make comments appear to focus on the partial element, and that is my point.

  • parepidemos

    Your response made me smile. Thank you. I just wish that my own temptations could be so swiftly handled.

  • Chrismanchester

    Gay catholics ARE ‘the Church’ you speak of, along with every other member of the Body of Christ.  The Church is not just ‘the Vatican’ (thank God), and far from getting ‘peeved’ at gay people, many Catholics (straight and gay) applaud our stance in challenging certain teachings.  Your comment that the Church is ‘not going to take it anymore’ is slightly ominous yet ultimately redundant; for as long as there are gay Catholics it will have no choice but to ‘take it’.  You see, I and many thousands of gay Catholics like me see it as a duty to continually challenge teachings that are wrong and harmful.  We won’t be going away.

  • W Oddie

    That’s the point. Isn’t it? 

  • Alba

    They may just be talking big, so as not to lose face. But maybe they do intend to defy the CDF, which, despite what Weldon says, did order ++Vin to act. The archbishop comes across as a weak character, and if he does not sort this out as required, it will be done for him.

  • Romsbar

    ” You see, I and many thousands of gay Catholics” – these are the immortal, unchanging teachings of the church and cannot change because they are the teachings of God and not man.  You and all other Catholics (regardless of sexual orientation) are to be conformed to Christ through the teachings and sacraments of the Church.

    If I were +Nichols I would  formally excommunicate the lot of you for the scandel you give to the faithful until such time as Weldon and the rest of you publically repent.

    One more thing, do you not think of nails you are driving into the hands and  feet of dearest Jesus when you commit your filthy acts? or the thorns pearcing his forehead? If you have never watched the Passion I urge you to and reflect on how lightly you spit on your God when you defy the successors of St Peter

  • W Oddie

    What about this, from your analysis of the archbishop’s statement: “He said that we would not “organise” the Masses – he said absolutely nothing about contributing to them, making them our own, ensuring their relevance to our needs, singing, reading etc.” What does “making them our own” mean, if it doesn’t mean taking the masses over?  You know very well that[‘s what you intend to do: because you have been indiscreet and have now been rumbled by what you have called your your “foes” you are pretending you didn’t mean it (probably after pressure from SMPC colleagues exasperated that you have let the cat out of the bag). But it’s too late: we know you now and we know your intentions. We will be watching you like hawks: and so should the Jesuits and the archbishop;  for if they don’t they, and you, are in trouble.

  • Caroline Farrow

    Mr Wheldon’s response reminds me of of the oft misquoted phrase attributed to Mandy Rice-Davis “well he would say that wouldn’t he”…

  • Higher Line

     If you think it is your duty to challenge teachings which the Church believes come down from Jesus Christ and the Apostles, via scripture and tradition, simply because you claim a higher authority (‘wrong and harmful’) then you are not a Catholic but a Protestant. And you do not have a place among the faithful. May I recommend you to pray hard rather than assume that you know better than the Church?

    By the way, editor where did my earlier posts go? They weren’t knowingly offensive or subversive.

  • paulpriest

     Where do you get the idea that the Church is ousting, alienating or disenfranchising those with same-sex attraction?

    Where has the Church denied exclusive intimacy and expressions of love and devotion within chaste continent disaffected friendship?
    It hasn’t!!

    But it teaches that mutual masturbation greatly compromises and jeopardises any potential love between the partners ‘called to celibacy’ because lovemaking is intrinsically unifying as opposed to the narcissistic selfishness of using another’s body for sexual gratification – and genital use is intrinsically directed on a biological, psychological and spiritual level towards the love overflowing into new life – something absolutely deprived from mutual masturbation…

    What is gravely wrong and harmful is lying to people with SSA that using and abusing their partners to gain an orgasm and constantly – reminding themselves every time they engage in such activity that they can’t fulfil a procreative end – won’t corrupt and threaten any loving bond they share…

    The Church won’t – CAN’T lie to those with SSA…whom it has a moral duty to cherish and care for, to console and advise, to nurture and support.

    Now yes..people will fall…the hormones and the yearnings will overtake the will and resistance and the evolutionary longings for completion…and with someone willing to oblige they will mutually masturbate..but it’s an abuse of the other and a violation of the self…and it’s intrinsically morally disordered – and when freely entered into to achieve its own ends it is gravely sinful…

    …You want to try to break the Church?
    You’ll only end up breaking yourself…

    If you want everything your way so you can get and give orgasms – sorry the price is too high..because you have to violate yourself and your neighbour in the process..

    The Church is not preventing you from being a lover…but it will do everything it can to stop you hurting yourself and anyone else in a distorted vision of ‘love’…
    ..and why?
    Because it loves you….

  • http://www.facebook.com/laurence.england Laurence England

    Almost certai…
    (Expand)

  • paulpriest

     …so says the woman who defiantly disobeys CDF directives and Conference teaching regarding our duty to strongly oppose Civil Partnerships???

  • Chrismanchester

    No. We have to distinguish between the unchangeable God-given deposit of faith on the one hand, and how we understand and try to live it out on the other.  With regard to the latter the Church has changed its non-definitive teachings in a whole host of areas over the centuries (e.g. on women, Jews, slavery etc) in the light of new knowledge.  I see no reason why the same will not eventually take place with regard to some of the errors in its various ‘teachings’ on homosexuality. However, for as long as such errors persist it is only right to challenge them.

  • Caroline Farrow

    As I have stated several times, I support our Bishop’s stance taken in 2003 against civil partnerships, as well as CDF teaching. 

    I support the right of people to enjoy certain legal protections offered by civil partnerships such as inheritance rights and hospital visiting rights and to be acknowledged as next-of-kin.

    What I do not support is the way these relationships have been framed as romantic relationships within law and are not open to those who are not in any sort of sexual relationship. Neither do I support the granting of parental or adoption rights to those in civil partnerships, especially when this places them on an equivalent footing with marriage. 

    I would appreciate not being misrepresented or being the subject of yet another one of your ad homs. 

    When it comes to being hectored on disobeying Church teaching – motes and beams Mr Priest.

  • Romsbar

     Perhaps you need to re-read St Paul’s letter to the Romans and the corrinthians along with the Apocalypse of St John, all three explicitly condemm homosexual acts as sins that will send one to hell.

    If you cannot accept those teachings then you will damm yourself to an eternity of hellfire, REPENT !!!

  • paulpriest

     Yes you’ve stated you support Bishop Hines’s deposition – then repeatedly say the exact opposite online  in blogs, microblogging and in the comments boxes i.e. that you support CPs and want them extended – or do you require the multiple citations?

    Far from hectoring you – I’m merely reminding you of the position you so often seem to forget…even as recently as two days ago what did you say re CPs?

    …and as for myself – I commit sins and confess them because I never once deny their sinfulness – you’re the one saying certain sins are acceptable.

    If you REALLY want to help rather than hinder – get your fellow Catholic Voices to retract its defence and advocacy of Civil Partnerships.

    ..and if you can’t remember what side you’re on in the argument and change your position like a weather vane depending upon with whom you’re talking? There is one expedient solution!

  • Chrismanchester

    And so the venom flows.  I suggest that you take a look at the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and reflect  before you write any more, especially that part of the Catechism which speaks about the REQUIREMENT to accept gay people with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  The absence of these in your reply might, I fear, drive the nails in far deeper than  two people of the same sex simply loving each other.  You do not know what my sexual practices (if any) are.  You seem to be making the mistake of equating sexual orientation with certain sexual acts.  How do you know how a particular gay couple express their love for each other?  You don’t, but you judge anyway.  

  • James

    Thank you Mr Oddie for your article and rethink. I am inclined to agree with you, I think + Vin has shifted the goalposts in the hope Rome would think he was finally obeying the Holy Father. The faithful of the Archdiocese will have to be vigilante and keep the cameras rolling. Rome needs evidence and if the SMPC continue their old tricks and indeed go further, that should be recorded and sent straight to the Holy See via the Nuncio. It may be a case that a red hat will not be given, but rather a new appointment to the Pontifical Office for Toiletries may be on the cards.

  • Caroline Farrow

    Paul – your obsession and bullying needs to stop. This is just another piece of evidence. You are blocked from my Twitter feed – how and why do you continue to obsessively trawl and monitor it. 

    I will publicly state that I am finding your attention and fixation disturbing and distressing and it is undermining any valid points that you may have to make. 

    I should not have to be frightened of publicly commenting under my own name on a Catholic website, but this is the affect that your behaviour is having. Any comment is met by lies, accusations and a lengthy screed and very quickly turns any thread very sour and off topic. 

    I am sorry that you feel unable to abide by the norms of civilised discourse and I should like the Catholic Herald to be aware that your behaviour is causing much alarm and distress as well as preventing and deterring people from adding to the debate. 

    This really is a woeful state of affairs and I am not really sure what to do other than alert various authorities that you seem to have an unhealthy obsession along with a propensity to bully. You are making my online life a misery. Please desist and attend to the topic in hand (in this case Soho Masses) instead of making constant attacks upon others in the com-box. 

    I shall not contribute further to this discussion. 

  • paulpriest

    Sorry Ma’am but you declare yourself a Catholic commentator and a Pro-Life activist – the issues involved here are those within the Church who are wilfully misrepresenting Church teaching on homosexuality and civil partnerships.

    Far from browbeating or having any fixation with yourself the only recent interactions have involved my defending SPUC against your attacks against their character[which you now admit were uncalled for] , my defending Damian Thompson against your false allegations that he was undermining the Church position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage [despite his repeated claims to the contrary] and on here where you have sneered at Terry Weldon for committing the exact same offence yourself and Catholic Voices commit i.e. misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

    The sum total interaction between ourselves must be a few dozen words lasting about 20mins exertion – hardly intimidation considering absolute silence for nine months.

    Nothing would give me greater pleasure than never having to disagree with you again or exchanging a single heated word – all you need to do is defend the Faith to which you so vehemently claim to support

  • Chrismanchester

    How interesting.  I didn’t once mention sexual acts of any kind in my post and yet that’s what you focus on, alleging that my aim is get everything ‘my own way’ so that I ‘can get and give orgasms’.  Perhaps it isn’t.  
    You write about the Church not denying exclusive friendships and chaste intimacy. But rather than  simply not denying such friendships, surely for gay Catholics it should actively nourish, support and celebrate such relationships.  It could do this without necessarily changing its teaching on genital sexual acts.  It doesn’t refuse to celebrate the ‘friendship’ that is marriage, for example, even knowing that the majority of married Catholics will sinfully use artificial contraception.  It just states its teaching and then leaves those matters to the individual man or woman, their confessor and God.  The church in fact does not cherish, nuture and support gay Catholics in the way that you state; but it is precisely these things that I and many like me want.

  • Chrismanchester

    And perhaps you should take a course in New Testament exegesis.

  • Charles

    The liberals are overjoyed that the gay masses will continue in a much nicer and bigger church and that the small chapel in a gay/low income neighborhood, bordering on a ghetto, will be dumped on the Ordinariate.

  • Charles

     The liberals are overjoyed that the gay masses will continue in a much
    nicer and bigger church and that the small chapel in a gay/low income
    neighborhood, bordering on a ghetto, will be dumped on the Ordinariate.

  • paulpriest

     Heard of EnCourage – they do exactly that: Console, reaffirm, support, cherish, nurture and give truly solidaritist acceptance to all who bear the cross of SSA – but remain loyal and unswervingly faithful to the moral teachings and guidelines of Holy Mother Church…

    You want authentic pastoral support?
    Look to them – officially authorised and endorsed by the Church Universal.

    They won’t lie to you – or attempt to use you as a political pawn in the furtherance of a political agenda seeking to destroy the Church and all for which it stands.

    Where does the Church accept or promote or dismiss or even mitigate the use of artificial contraception?
    A sin more grave than any homosexual could ever commit – for life is being wilfully denied and God’s unifying and procreative grace is being spat upon…?

    Chris in all sincerity and truth – a person with SSA bearing their cross and accepting celibacy is a moral giant on the very threshold of Heaven – for they have conquered the scars of original sin and have shown a way forward for those sharing that burden and give more Catholic witness than a million sermons – for they are a living, breathing sermon in themselves…

    I apologise for the tone of my previous post but you were the one referring to a great wrong within the Church..an argument identical with that of the Queering the Church brigade who want mutual masturbation to be given an acceptable equanimity and moral neutrality…something which simply cannot exist…arguments which can compromise and jeopardise the friendship and support from those they love and with whom they wish to be loved.

    Please do not think that in opposition to Civil Partnerships the Church is any way opposing the majority of social justice rights which same sex couples deserve – but the CDF ;considerations’ makes it perfectly clear – these rights should never be encapsulated in a scandalous emulation of marriage – for marriage is something diammetrically different to anything a same-sex couple may share.

    And when it comes to the proposed ‘same-sex marriage bill’ – what it really is – is nothing of the sort – it’s rather the enforcement of civil partnerships on all married couples – a false homogenisation where there is no unifying loving contract at all, no obligation to live together, consummate the relationship or even remain sexually faithful to their ‘contractual cosignatory’…one would no longer be able to sue for divorce on grunds of adultery..because this universalised civil partnership [renamed marriage] would not involve love or fidelity…
    Do you understand what the proposed legislation is?
    It’s not about allowing same-sex couples to marry – it’s about abolishing marriage altogether!
    ..and already existent civil partnerships wil falsely be renamed marriage – while all those presently married will become ‘married’ [sic!] civil partners

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Hughes/100000562751914 Jack Hughes

    Put this way Christmanchester

    1) in August 2011 I met Lawrence England (AKA the Bones) on the lms walking pilgramige, Lawrence is trying to live a chaste life with the cross of same sex attraction, he is to be commended for his fidelity to Holy Mother Church. I would treat him with the same fraternnal love that I would treat any Catholic trying to be chaste.

    2) Weldon et all on the other hand have publically abandoned the Teachings of Holy Mother Church and whilst claiming to hold the Catholic faith, do their utermost to try and distort her teachings and  demand that she changes her Moral teachings to suit their life of debauched lifestyle, therefore if +Nichols were to excommunicate them he would be well within his right to do so.

    3) That document you qoute also affirms that SSA is intrinsically disorded and that sexual acts between two people of the same gender are mortal sins. The Church is never going to change its teachings on sodomy, so if you want to go to heaven I advise you to get with the program and conform your views to those of the Church, if you don’t then at least be honest in your heresy and leave.

    4) Elsewhere Romsbar cites not one but two Apostles whose writings condemmed sodomy, not only is it condemmed in the NT but  also in the books of Genesis and Leveitcus (and probebly in Duetoromoney as well), it is not he who needs to take a course in New Testament exegises but  you.

    5)  Long Live Christ the King to whom every knee shall bow,  in the Heavens, on the earth and under the earth.

  • liquafruta

    However there seem to be special Masses for ex-Anglicans.

  • Charles Martel

    “Queering the Church”….Wow. What I’d like to know is what Cardinal Heenan would have said about it, or in fact any priest or prelate of the Church before the insane age we live in. Message to Terence Weldon: We don’t want our church queered by you or by anyone, thank you.

  • liquafruta

    My goodness this is very extreme and worrying language from someone ( ie all of us) whom Our Lord tells to turn the other cheek; to forgive those who persecute you; to bear each others burdens and not to judge in case you yourself are judged …or have I got it wrong since I learned my catechism off by heart for my first holy communion? (By the way it is spelt piercing although you got spit right.)

  • Deacon_Augustine

    As these people identify and define themselves by their disordered sexuality and support these so-called “Pride” parades where they flaunt their perversions and sexual sins in public, it seems quite reasonable to make reference to their behaviour.

    The thing about the sinful tendencies and actions that the rest of us have to deal with is that we don’t brag about them or expect other people to accept, applaud or approve of them.  When I start the “Wife Beaters Pride” parades through London next year and demand a special Mass for people who enjoy giving their wives a thick lip, I promise not to be surprised or offended if you start questionning my behaviour.

  • Deacon_Augustine

    Now, now, you’re not suggesting that our Vin has affinities with public conveniences are you?