Archbishop Nichols Supports Dissident MPs – Anyone Out There Surprised?

Archbishop Nichols Supports Dissident MPs – Anyone Out There Surprised?

Archbishop Nichols Supports Dissident MPs - Anyone Out There Surprised?

I have received the following email from Chris Whitehouse of the misnamed Catholic Legislators’ Network, giving advance warning, I mean notice, of an article in this week’s Universe, by Archbishop Vincent Nichols of aren’t “gay Masses” terrific fame:

Please find attached a whole page article to be published in this weekend’s edition of The Universe in which Archbishop Vincent Nichols reflects on the same sex marriage legislation and the way in which the debate has been conducted. Colleagues who have faced criticism, from whatever quarter, for the position that they took might find the closing section quoting St Paul’s letter to Titus a source of solace!

The Hierarchy has been very aware of the pressure that some Members have been under, on both sides of the debate, and are, I know from personal contact with them which Rob Flello and I have had, keen to reach out and to enhance the pastoral support that is provided to Members both in Westminster and in their home dioceses not only in relation to controversial legislation such as that which has just received Royal Assent, but also in the wider aspects of their role as Catholics in public life. END

Now, why would I be included in Mr Whitehouse’s circulation list on this topic, if not to scare me into thinking “WOW! An archbishop who thinks the MPs who voted for same-sex marriage are right to cite conscience”?

I could scarcely make out the text of the article but I read enough of the globbledegook on “freedom of conscience” towards the end of the piece to know that Archbishop Nichols is as wrong on this as were Mr Whitehouse and Mr Flello when they first made the mistake of contacting me. I mean is anyone, apart from these clueless Members of Parliament, surprised that Archbishop Nichols supports their dissent? Don’t they know his reputation as a “liberal”?

What would I say to the archbishop if I bumped into him in Sauchiehall Street? One word, folks. You guessed it: gerragrip!

For background: read Letter from Rob Flello MP

And reply from Catholic Truth

Comments (76)

  • Josephine

    Archbishop Nichols said openly on TV that those who criticised his gay Masses should hold their tongues. I think we all know where he is coming from on the issue of same sex unions. What he says about conscience in that article is the usual liberal waffle. Nobody can go against the law of God and say their conscience commanded them to do so and it is only if our conscience commands us that we can justify going against something always accepted as the right thing, such as the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life.

    August 4, 2013 at 1:54 pm
  • Marietta-Anne


    I totally agree that we all know where + Vincent Nichols is coming from. He seems to be very much in favour of gay rights and I would imagine if any bishop in England is likely to conduct the first gay wedding in a Catholic church it would be him.

    His confusion over conscience is a natural outcome of his liberalism. That, too, is to be expected.

    August 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    • crofterlady

      Am I reading this correctly? Is the Archbishop a homosexual?

      August 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm
      • editor


        Having met him at a feminist meeting some years ago (don’t ask) I very much doubt that he’s a homosexual.

        August 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm
      • freud

        Why would the Archbishop’s sexuality be of any concern to you? Are you a Lesbian???

        August 4, 2013 at 11:02 pm
      • Athanasius

        Here’s a quote about active homosexuality from St. Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah:

        “…Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind … It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise … It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity … It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things …

        “This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church … it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God. She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice … She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. … this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence…”

        August 5, 2013 at 12:29 am
  • Prionsais

    It is obvious that the law courts aren’t as easily conned by the conscience loopholes as the Archbishop is, otherwise the jails would be empty. Any half decent lawyer would be able to convince a jury if this stupid excuse was acceptable and someone like the Archbishop was on the bench.

    August 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Archbishop Nichols’ dissent on ‘gay’-related issues is long-standing and well-documented. In complete defiance of the 2003 Vatican document on civil unions he said that he took a more ‘nuanced’ approach:- His support for the dissenters that run the notorious Soho Masses is very well documented:- .

    As was mentioned in a comment above, he did publicly tell those who opposed the Soho dissent to ‘hold their tongues’. His recent pastoral letter on the same-sex ‘marriage’ issue was another problem. In one part he wrote:- ” “We must pay particular and respectful attention to those who experience same sex attraction, offering them consistent pastoral care in love and truth”. That rings very hollow considering Westminster has never achieved that for people with SSA to date, given its wholehearted support for the dissent paraded at the Soho Masses. Exactly why do we have to pay ‘particular and respectful attention’ to impious and blasphemous enemies of the Church? The Soho Masses brigade will use loaded phrases like ‘respectful attention’ to mean that we should seriously listen to their entrenched homoheresy and take it on board. These people have form for cherry picking documents like this for sentences they can (mis)use, and Abp Nichols has given them plenty of scope here.

    Ditto this section “The second principle is that we are to make every effort to accompany one another through the difficulties and trials of life. We offer to others unfailing respect as they strive to do their best. We defend them from harshness and prejudice. Ready always to attribute the best of motives to others, we are slow to judge them in the particularity of their circumstances. Within our families and within the Church, in our parishes and groups, this loving support should never be withdrawn even in the times of confusion and disagreement about the right course of action to be taken. Together, with patience, we strive for that stability and peace for which we long”. But the Soho Mass attendees state that ANY opposition of the ‘gay’ lifestyle is ‘harshness’ and ‘prejudice’! They call the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ‘homophobic’!

    Dissenters will seriously misuse Abp Nichols’ pastoral letter. Support can and must be withdrawn on occasions until some sign of repentance or openness to change takes place. If a man went to confession and said that he was having sex with another man and wasn’t going to stop it, can he now receive absolution, on the grounds that Abp Nichols said we must never withdraw support even in times of disagreement? Also, will public ‘gay’ dissidents now be given free rein to use diocesan premises (in defiance of the 1986 CDF document) on the grounds that ‘support should never be withdrawn’? Can Holy Communion now be given to those who publicly flout Catholic teaching on homosexuality, because ‘support should never be withdrawn’? This is very dangerous and a charter to justify doing nothing in the face of the dissent that is undermining the Church, and gives groups like Soho Masses a blank cheque.

    There are, sadly, other examples of dissent, undermining Church teaching and ambiguity from Abp Nichols, and not just in the issue of homosexuality. Please pray for him and for Westminster Diocese.

    August 4, 2013 at 3:22 pm
  • freud

    What do you do if the Priest celebrating Holy Mass in you parish is homosexual, and distributing communion?
    What do you do if your Doctor is homosexual and is going to treat you for an illness?
    What do you do if your child tells you that he/she is homosexual?
    What do you do if the parishioner next to you at Mass is homosexual and offers you the sign of peace? Your postman, milkman or your boss at work?? You must lead a very reclusive life!!!!

    August 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    • editor

      How on earth would I know if my priest were a homosexual? Or my doctor? Or the postman? Milkman? Boss at work?

      August 4, 2013 at 8:47 pm
      • freud

        You appear to know a lot about people who are ‘Gay’ from many of your posts and I thought you were an expert on homosexual lifestyles. You certainly give that impression, and seem to comment lots about the ‘lifestyle’ what ever that might be. You saying you don’t know now You naughty girl, thought this blog was entitled catholic TRUTH

        August 4, 2013 at 10:47 pm
      • Athanasius


        I don’t think editor or any of the rest of us at Catholic Truth have ever claimed to have the powers of Uri Geller!

        August 4, 2013 at 10:58 pm
      • Constantine the Great

        I thought every priest in Scotland has come under your gaydar.

        August 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm
    • Athanasius


      You assume we would know the private lives of the people you mention in your list of suppositions. In reality, only militant homosexuals are shameless enough to promote their sin with pride. These types are by far the minority, although you wouldn’t think so by the government and media support they get.

      It really comes down to supporting those who are conscious of the seriousness of this “grave disorder” and who seek by the grace of God to live chaste lives. Such people are worthy of admiration.

      Militants are a different proposition altogether. In this case, the Christian wisdom of G. K. Chesterton applies as follows:

      “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.”

      August 4, 2013 at 9:11 pm
      • freud

        Athanasius, ALL Serious /Mortal sin is a grave disorder. If you consider yourself a sinner, welcome to the club

        August 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm
  • Eileenanne


    I can’t speak for anyone else, but here are my answers to your questions:

    1. I receive Communion as usual. The priest’s sexuality has nothing to do with the validity or graces of the Sacraments.
    2. If I trust his medical skills I let him go ahead,
    3. I continue to love him / her and continue to pray that he/she will live a good life. I will also continue to encourage him / her to live according to the law of God and the precepts of the Church.
    4.I return the sign of peace to any parishioner who offers it and I offer it to those sitting closest.
    5. I accept the mail from the postman and the milk from the milkman. I do whatever my boss lawfully tells me to do.

    August 4, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    • Petrus

      I agree with everything apart from the “Sign of Pest, I mean Peace.” This is a novelty and was never part of the Roman Rite.

      August 4, 2013 at 7:26 pm
      • Petrus


        That’s an interesting post. Do you think homosexuality is a big problem within the Scottish clergy?

        August 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm
      • Constantine the Great


        ‘That’s an interesting post. Do you think homosexuality is a big problem within the Scottish clergy?’

        Big ‘sha seems to think so.

        August 5, 2013 at 3:42 pm
  • spiritustempore

    Rightly or wrongly, I would not receive Communion from a priest whom I knew or suspected to be homosexual.

    Homosexuals may not be ordained, according to the teachings of the Church, and as re-confirmed by Pope Benedict in 2011.

    A homosexual priest who seeks ordination also seeks to oppose himself to the Church’s teachings. How then can I trust that he intends to do as the Church has always taught in respect of the Sacraments?

    As for Abp Nichols, the sooner he retires, the better.

    August 4, 2013 at 9:43 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Spiritus Tempore,
    If the 1961 document by Pope John XXIII would have been implemented, the Church wouldn’t be in this mess right now. It clearly stated:- “Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers”. Note that it did not make a distinction between those who are practising homosexuals and those who remain celibate and fully accept Church teaching.

    August 5, 2013 at 9:30 am
  • Athanasius


    I agree. The inclination, whether acted upon or not, represents a grave risk of scandal to the Church. No one with homosexual tendencies should be ordained to the priesthood.

    August 5, 2013 at 10:44 am
  • maryangela

    (This is really Christina, but I can’t get into the blog again since I returned from a holiday! )

    I agree, spiritustempore, because I was taught, and believe, that the merits of the holy sacrifice of the Mass applied to my soul are in accordance not only with my own dispositions but also with the holiness of the priest who offers that Mass. Therefore it behoves me to seek out celebrants whom I believe to be holy priests, and, if I know or suspect that a priest is homosexual, then, for the reasons admirably expressed by some of the recent posts here it would be imprudent to frequent his Masses if at all possible.

    August 5, 2013 at 11:16 am
  • spiritustempore

    Westminster Fly and Athanasius

    We each agree. The Post-Vatican II Church seems to have taken a fair degree of licence – ignoring inconvenient teachings and sowing the wind which we’re now reaping as a whirlwind.

    It’s a greater pity that the faithful have been left with so little protection from the wolves destroying the flock from within the fold.

    Recognition and resistance as best we are able… substitute for truly holy pastors, but it’s all we have.

    August 5, 2013 at 11:26 am
  • Christina

    I was taught, and believe, that the merits of each Holy Mass as applied to my soul depend both on my own dispositions and the holiness of the sacrificing priest. For this reason I agree with spiritustempore and would, if at all possible, avoid the Masses of a priest who was known, or suspected of being homosexual.

    I was horrified when I read what Abp. Nichols has said above. Since the Church places sodomy among the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance, I assume that if we should treat those who commit this sin in the manner recommended by him, then we should do the same for murderers et al. Silly me, I always thought Lord Longford was just a tad misguided.

    August 5, 2013 at 11:58 am
    • Margaret Mary


      I cannot believe that the merits applied to our souls depends at all on the holiness of the priest. I was never taught that – quite the opposite in fact, that as long as the priest used the correct matter and form, then his own personal state of soul was irrelevant. If we had to be sure of the holiness of the priest where would we go to Mass? How would we know any particular priest was holy enough?

      August 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm
      • lucellie1

        Margaret Mary, you are confusing two separate issues.

        Indeed you are right to say that if a priest uses the correct matter and form and intends to do what the Church does, then the Mass is valid and the state of his own soul is irrelevant.

        However, the degree of merit applied to the individual soul by attendance at any Mass DOES depend on one’s own dispositions and the holiness of the priest. Attendance at a (valid) Mass of a practising homosexual priest and that of a Padre Pio, for example, cannot bear comparison in this matter of the merit that may be obtained by hearing the Mass.

        We cannot ‘be sure of the holiness of the priest’, we simply have to use our normal powers of observation and instinct. I know many priests that seem to me, by virtue of their care of souls and faithfulness to the teaching of the Church, to be holy men and I know a few others who seem to me to be less so for various observable reasons. I make my choice accordingly, and hope for the best.

        August 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm
  • Christina

    (Just testing if I’m recognised yet)

    August 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm
  • lucellie1

    Just checking if I’ve been let back into the blog again!

    August 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
  • Athanasius


    Yes, indeed! The flock has certainly been handed over to the wolves by the hirelings of the last 50 years, whose eagerness to befriend the world has despoiled the Church of her sanctity, authority and respect.

    By their desire for novelty and innovation, the reforming popes and bishops have only succeeded in opening the door (or windows) of the Church to sacrilege, immorality and indifference on an unprecedented scale. Yet, still they clamour for more of the “spirit of the Council,” the new Pentecost that never was.

    Our Lord in His Mystical Body stands once more accused, mocked, scourged and crowned with thorns before a pagan world thirsting for His crucifixion, the result of internal betrayal, cowardice and an ecumenical and inter-religious programme that amounts to a re-echoing of Peter’s denial “I know not the man!”

    And in this state of desolation in which Our Lord is robbed of His Kingship over the nations, stripped of His royal garments and universally dragged through the streets beggared and beaten to the jeers of the baying mob, weighed down beneath the heavy cross of man’s pride and human respect, abandoned by those He has loved most, what do we hear from within the Church?

    We are stupefied to hear: ‘Yes, let us have more of this, for it is the way of humility. Let us strip Him of His fine garments and divide them amongst the poor of all religions and none. Let us have no more talk of divine royalty and majesty, which is pretentious and intolerant, but rather of earthy liberty, equality and fraternity in the new cult of man that recognises no king but Caesar.

    August 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm
  • editor

    Constantine the Great,

    I thought every priest in Scotland has come under your gaydar.

    Whatever a “gaydar” is, why on earth would you think that?

    The only priests we’ve ever included in our reports, were already publicly known for their views and visits to “gay” bars, even, some of them, featuring in the national press in defence of “gaiety” so to speak…

    So, why on earth, do you think, would they object to being mentioned in Catholic Truth? That’s the REAL question…

    August 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm
  • pewcatholic

    What I find really irritating are headlines such as that in the SCO last weekend – ‘Holy Father reaches out to female and gay Catholics’ – which refer to women and gays in the same breath, as if they are equally problematical. Gays are a controversial minority, and as priests, cause much grave scandal. Women are fully half the population and are, well, women. And there are none in the priesthood (a pity, in my view).

    August 5, 2013 at 3:15 pm
  • editor

    Pew Catholic.

    An even worse headline in the Catholic Times reads Church softens stance on gays. The more “liberal” the Pope the more brazen the so-called Catholic papers are becoming.

    A pope using the term “gays” is a scandal in itself. I’d like the translators to confirm that he actually used that word.

    And since no women permitted in the priesthood is of the deposit of faith, Pew Catholic the real pity is that you appear to be denying a doctrine which we are required to hold as infallibly revealed by God. Now, that IS a pity.

    August 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    • Constantine the Great

      HH actually said, ‘non battere fino a che si prova’.

      August 5, 2013 at 4:01 pm
      • editor

        Constantine the Great,

        I seriously doubt that even a liberal pontiff like this one, would say anything so crude in public, if at all.

        August 5, 2013 at 4:11 pm
  • Petrus


    No idea what, or who, “Big Sha” is – but what’s your opinion? Do you think homosexuality is a problem in the Scottish clergy?

    August 5, 2013 at 3:59 pm
  • freud

    Homosexuality is a BIG problem for those in CT who seem to consider that they and they alone are the arbiters of mens / womans souls. The editor playing coy ‘what is a gaydar’ doesn’t actually fool anyone. Homosexuality is as old as Heterosexuality, GET OVER IT. Being GAY is a fact of life, GET OVER IT. The LORD JESUS CHRIST’S love and mercy extends to ALL; YES even to those who constantly show bigotry and prejudice to others and wish them harm either physical or emotional. Perhaps if these people spent more time fighting abortion and euthanasia, child sex abuse and trafficking of women they would be in a better position to promote not only the KINGDOM OF GOD but also the teachings of the catholic church. Homosexuality would be less of a burden to them.

    August 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm
    • Petrus


      Homosexual acts are just as grave as abortion. Surely you know that both are sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

      August 5, 2013 at 4:33 pm
      • Petrus


        The homosexual inclination is a grave disorder. Not sinful in itself, but a grave disorder nonetheless. The human body is designed in a certain way. Homosexual acts are not part of this design, therefore homosexuality/homosexual acts are unnatural and not part of the natural order. They are, therefore, disordered.

        August 5, 2013 at 4:37 pm
  • freud

    Petrus the murder of the innocents in the womb is not in any way nor ever can be equated with ‘homosexual acts’
    Explain to me what EXACTLY in your understanding is a homosexual act. These phrases are bandied about liberally by those who seem to know better than those they seem to accuse. Exactly what do you mean???

    August 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    • Petrus


      You may not like to admit it, but all I do is repeat the Traditional teaching of the Church.

      The sin of sodomy – which in fact is any unnatural sexual act between persons of the same sex – is described as an abomination in Holy Scripture:

      “There were also the effeminate in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the people whom the Lord had destroyed before the face of the children of Israel.” 1 Kings 14:24.

      So, the sin of sodom, which involves all sexual acts between persons pf the same sex, is just as sinful as Wilful murder. Abortion must be one of the most heinous forms of wilful murder, so I conclude that they are both equally as abominable in the eyes of God.

      August 5, 2013 at 6:02 pm
  • sixupman

    Is it not time to stop playing Freud’s and his playmate’s game? They will always have to have the last bitching word and it is becoming boring – indeed trolling on their part.

    August 5, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    • Athanasius


      I agree with you. Freud and Constantine the Great are trolls, this is now patently obvious.

      August 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm
      • Petrus

        Actually, I disagree. We can’t be certain of another’s motives. Freud et al could be touched by our comments. Who knows?

        Also, infinitely more people read the blog than contribute to it. Our reasoned explanations could help them in their confusion or help them explain things to others. Bearing in mind the educational nature of this blog, I don’t think we are at the stage of dismissing these contributors as trolls….yet!

        August 5, 2013 at 7:33 pm
      • Athanasius


        I hear what you’re saying, but there comes a point when the education side of things gets pretty much exhausted and the exchange becomes a pointless exercise for all concerned. The line has to be drawn somewhere. If they show no signs of paying heed to Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church, best shake the dust from your feet and move on.

        August 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm
      • freud

        Athanasius, please explain the reasons you have come to the conclusion that myself and Constantine the Great are now trolls?????. Just because someone disagrees with you and yes may even disagree with the interpretation of Scripture, is that sufficient to become a Troll. Really I would like you to explain.
        I will assume that the label is meant to be somewhat insulting; in that case may God Bless you and open your heart to His eternal love++

        August 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    • crofterlady

      I agree, sixupman, it is time to ignore Freud and his playmate.

      August 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        I don’t think we should publicly blacklist someone. If blogging is an apostolate then dealing with dissenters and homosexual dissenters is part of the work, surely? I am learning from the posts from Petrus and I’m sure there are other people benefiting from them as well.

        I think anyone who doesn’t want to deal with Freud should ignore him but he should be allowed to have his say. That’s the only way to correct the wrong-headed thinking of homosexuals like himself.

        August 5, 2013 at 9:30 pm
      • freud

        Crofter lady/ Margaret Mary, from whence do you assume that I am a Homosexual??? As I have said elsewhere I am a Son of God and a member of the Royal Priesthood of Jesus Christ. So what makes you assume homosexuality on my part

        August 5, 2013 at 9:42 pm
      • Athanasius


        The reason I have come to the conclusion that you in particular are a troll is because you have failed to engage in debate with anyone here. There has been no disagreement on your part with comments I have posted, for example, because you have just ignored them and continued to pose a series of questions to Petrus, sometimes slipping in a little blasphemy, such as your reference to God as He/She.

        You do not have a different take on Scripture to me, as you claim. Rather, you are contemptuous of Sacred Scripture which is obvious from your refusal to comment on the Scriptural texts, such as St. Paul, that have been quoted to you. You even ignored the writings of St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church.

        Your intention, then, from where I stand, is to attempt to defend the indefensible by quoting certain Scriptural texts out of context and ignoring those which prove inconvenient to your cause. That is patently dishonest and I will have no part in it.

        August 5, 2013 at 10:12 pm
  • Therese


    I believe a homosexual act involves anal penetration by one man on another*. An act which is not only an aberration, but intrinsically sinful, deadly to the soul, and and extremely dangerous to the body. Medical science backs this up.

    *There are commonly also other extremely perverse and disgusting practices which decency prevents me from describing on this forum.

    I’m left wondering what YOU think a homosexual act is?

    I am very pleased, however, to read your passionate condemnation of abortion.

    God bless you.

    August 5, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    • Petrus

      I think we should avoid graphic descriptions of what is an what isn’t a homosexual act. Freud knows fine well what constitutes these revolting outrages. He’s playing silly beggars. Suffice it to say that any sexual act between two persons of the same sex is abominable.

      Now, I’ve heard it said that the “sin of sodom” refers to only one specific act. This is false. Homosexual acts of any nature are all part of the sin of sodom. This article from new advent is particularly helpful.

      “In a recent homily our parish priest said, “No matter what anyone tells you, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a sin against hospitality.” He said that Genesis 19, where the incident of Sodom’s destruction is recounted, is one of the most misinterpreted sections of the Bible. He claims the inhabitants of those cities were destroyed by God for not being hospitable to strangers. What is the official Catholic teaching on the nature of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? I’m worried that modern interpretations like this priest’s are used to downplay the sin of homosexuality.

      If there’s any misrepresenting going on, it’s being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . .” (v. 20). What was the sin which “cried out” for punishment?

      Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham’s nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and “the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old,” gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them.”

      Notice what’s going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn’t cry out to Lot that they wanted to be “inhospitable” to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.

      While it’s true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it’s clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God’s wrath, was homosexuality.

      If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you’ll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won’t find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.”

      Please, let’s avoid getting into the nitty gritty. It is crude business.

      August 5, 2013 at 6:10 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        I’m sorry to disagree, Petrus, but it is because people don’t know the “nitty gritty” of this “crude business” that it is thought to be harmless. I have seen some of the graphic stuff which is in school worksheets, and it is truly horrible. If pupils in schools can be taught this, then adults should know as well. Knowledge is power.

        August 5, 2013 at 9:33 pm
      • Athanasius

        Margaret Mary,

        Knowledge is power, as you say. But as someone else once said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There are perhaps some things that do not bear in-depth examination on a Catholic blog. I suggest St. Peter Damian as the best source for those who want to understand the truth about homosexual practice. Graphic detail should not be required for those who have any semblance of Christian modesty and morality left in their souls.

        August 5, 2013 at 10:24 pm
  • Therese


    Forgive me, but I think that’s a mistaken point of view. These are gross and unnatural acts; we should not allow them to be mistaken for “acts of love”, but challenge them forthrightly. Homosexuals are very successful in promoting their “lifestyle”, and have been very successful with the general public, but they (and the media) are still very careful to shield the public from what, in fact, homosexual acts entail. With good reason.

    August 5, 2013 at 8:27 pm
    • Petrus


      I know where you are coming from but we must avoid vulgarity. Everyone knows what homosexual acts entail. Your comment was a little too graphic. Homosexuality can be challenged without going into detail.

      August 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm
      • Josephine


        I don’t think everyone does know what homosexual acts entail. I agree that vulgarity is to be avoided but I think it’s because an awful lot of people don’t really understand the depravity of the activities that they think it’s only about two people who “love” each other. I don’t know what the answer is as to how to provide such information,but I think the facts about what exactly goes on between two homosexuals has to be part of learning about why homosexual behaviour is considered evil and perverted.

        August 5, 2013 at 9:49 pm
  • lucellie1

    Just testing to see if I can get back to the blog

    August 5, 2013 at 8:47 pm
  • lucellie1

    OK well I can, but I’m really Christina, having acquired a newname

    August 5, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    • Josephine


      That happened to me once but when I logged in I clicked on my profile in the dashboard and then changed my name where it says “publicly display name as” and put in Josephine there. But you need to remember to save the change at the bottom of the page or it won’t show.

      August 5, 2013 at 9:44 pm
      • lucellie1

        Thanks Josephine, but I’ve done that to no avail. I’ve been having major glitches for a day or two, and I’ll have to stop moaning to Editor about them or she’ll be sacking me. Ah well, a rose by any other name, etc.

        August 5, 2013 at 10:22 pm
  • Petrus

    Margaret Mary,

    You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don’t think there are many people around who need a lesson in what homosexuals get up to!

    I’m interested in what worksheets you have seen. I’ve seen some horrific worksheets.

    August 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm
  • Petrus

    Margaret Mary,

    That’s an excellent post. We should all remember that it is for admin to suggest when someone should or should not be ignored. If individuals feel they cannot respond then they should just do so quietly without making an announcement.

    August 5, 2013 at 9:41 pm
    • editor

      Thank you for that Petrus – yes, would anyone who does not wish to engage with any particular blogger, just ignore them. In due course, if necessary, I will take the necessary steps to moderate his posts. Public criticism of an individual blogger (as opposed to challenging his/her arguments) creates an unpleasant tone on the blog and you all know how much I’m into tone and style… Seriously, this is a Catholic blog and we don’t want to risk being unkind to someone who appears to be a troll but may simply be a very mixed up homosexual – God help him.

      Thus, until I have had time to study the posts and make a decision, please would the rest of the blighters, I mean bloggers, either engage civilly with Freud, who must answer the points raised or I will have to presume that he is a troll and moderate his posts accordingly.

      I’ve been offline due to technical problems which mysteriously resolved themselves so, had there been kind enquiries about my prolonged absence, this would have been the time to express my gratitude.

      You have to laugh, don’t you?

      August 6, 2013 at 8:53 am
  • spiritustempore

    Petrus the murder of the innocents in the womb is not in any way nor ever can be equated with ‘homosexual acts”

    “Just because someone disagrees with you and yes may even disagree with the interpretation of Scripture, is that sufficient to become a Troll”.

    “From whence do you assume that I am a Homosexual??? As I have said elsewhere I am a Son of God and a member of the Royal Priesthood of Jesus Christ. So what makes you assume homosexuality on my part?”

    Freud, you’re a troll, and not a very good one.

    1. Murder and homosexual acts are two of the four sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance, according to Catholic doctrine.

    2. It’s not a question of “interpretation” of scripture. Scripture is categoric and perfectly clear on the subject.

    3. If you’re a priest, I’m a banana. Clues: Poor grammar, poor reasoning skills and a shocking ignorance on the fundamentals of the faith. I suppose that you could be the fruit of one of the Scottish seminaries, but I doubt that even they would turn out priests quite so inadequate.

    August 5, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    • freud

      Spiritustempoere, I didn’t realise I was talking /reading the comments of a banana. Hey you never know on these sites do you. I will continue to read your posts with a little more sympathy given your unfortunate condition. As for the grammar, am sure you will get over that given time. Sorry I am not a very good troll for you to abuse but there we are. God Bless and keep you and may He open your heart to the truth of the Lord Jesus++

      August 6, 2013 at 12:36 am
      • ignatius1970

        “God Bless and keep you and may He open your heart to the truth of the Lord Jesus++”

        You’ve got to laugh when pro-sodomites ask that our Lord open the hearts of those who don’t share their perverted view. Maybe they should also pray that our Lord should open the eyes of the NHS to allow sodomites to donate blood. I mean, why ever not… If it’s perfectly normal?

        Freud and his chums have turned Catholicism into a wholly subjective religion. Sad state of affairs.

        August 6, 2013 at 9:12 am
  • spiritustempore


    For the avoidance of doubt, you’re no priest.

    August 6, 2013 at 1:14 am
    • pewcatholic

      Could he be Archbishop Nichols?

      August 6, 2013 at 10:26 am
  • westminsterfly

    Sorry folks, off topic, but I can’t comment on the general thread for some reason – two very worthy be-petitions to sign here – the first one about the Franciscans of the Immaculate being denied the right to offer the TLM:- and then one asking our bishops to consecrate England and Wales to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary:- (and before anyone says it, I KNOW that the only consecration that will bring about world peace is Russia, but I still think these other, lesser consecrations are still pleasing to Our Lord and Our Lady and bring blessings and protection to some degree).

    August 6, 2013 at 7:46 am
    • Athanasius


      I am all for petitions to consecrate England and Wales, but not so sure about a consecration to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart at the same time.

      Allow me to explain this strange statement. It seems to me that when people propose a dual consecration to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts it is because they fear that a consecration of the nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on her own somehow detracts from the honour due to God. This is utterly false and very dangerous. All is given to Jesus through Mary, she keeps nothing for herself.

      It is a common error today for Catholics to fear honouring Our Lady too singularly lest they offend God by excessive devotion to one who is not divine (Jansenism). Poor souls, they don’t seem to realise that there is not the slightest possibility that we, mere creatures, could ever come close to honouring the Blessed Mother in the way that God has honoured her.

      I hope I’m not misreading the intention, it’s just that we have to be careful.

      August 6, 2013 at 11:33 am
  • spiritustempore


    You might be onto something there…. 🙂

    August 6, 2013 at 1:27 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Point taken Athanasius. I know that the usual reason given for not doing such Marian consecrations is fear of upsetting the ecumenical applecart . . . I don’t know the person who created this petition, so I don’t know his motive for including both. But it is worth recalling a letter Sister Lucia wrote in 1936. Responding to a priest’s inquiry about the consecration of Russia, Lucia answered: “I have spoken to Our Lord about the subject and not too long ago I asked Him why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father making the consecration. He replied ‘Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cult later on and put the devotion to the Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.’ In a sense, devotion to the two Hearts is inseparable. I hope the petition creator intended it in that sense.

    August 6, 2013 at 1:52 pm
  • Athanasius


    I share your hope about the petition organiser and his motives. I suppose consecrations to the two hearts would have to be looked upon as a major triumph in Britain anyway. Such a consecration would certainly bring graces.

    Now, I have to mention the petition for the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I found this on Rorate Caeli’s website. It is a direct request from the Order in question:

    ‘Having learned of the online petition organized by the website of the Association “Corrispondenza Romana” in order to gather signatures to be presented to the Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life against the Decree of 11 July 2013 (Prot. 52741/2012), after having already expressed its position several times and after having released the official communication of its Father Founder, the Religious Institute of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate REAFFIRMS its obedience to the dispositions of the Holy Father, DECLARES that it will have NOTHING TO DO with the initiative of the aforesaid website or any like initiative, past or future, REJECTS any attempt to use a matter internal to the Institute to attack the Pope and the Catholic Hierarchy, and APPEALS TO ALL to maintain SILENCE, RESPECT AND PRAYER regarding the matter, in order to allow the competent authorities to carry out their task in peace for the good of the Church and of the Institute.

    In Corde Matris

    Fr. Rosario M. Sammarco, fi
    Encharged (sic) of the Institutional Website of the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate’

    To be honest, WestminsterFly, these Franciscans are trying to play both sides. I don’t mean that in a nasty way, but they are fence sitting when it comes to the Mass, hedging their bets by acknowledging both rites as equally edifying. Middle of the road is never a good place to stand! Besides, to say that both the old and new rites of Mass are equally worthy is theologically dishonest.

    August 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm
  • Jacinta

    I just want to say that I am not one bit surprised that Archbishop Nichols is supporting politicians who voted for same sex marriage. + + Nichols’s support for gays is now legend and I for one wouldn’t be surprised if he openly supported gay marriage himself. I really wouldn’t.

    August 6, 2013 at 11:25 pm
  • spiritustempore

    Me neither, Jacinta.

    I often wonder just why that should be….

    August 7, 2013 at 12:15 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: