98-15 in favour: shame on Catholic MSPs who supported same-sex marriage bill…

98-15 in favour: shame on Catholic MSPs who supported same-sex marriage bill…

98-15 in favour: shame on Catholic MSPs who supported same-sex marriage bill...

Legislation to introduce same-sex marriage in Scotland has been approved in principle by parliament, after MSPs voted on it for the first time.

The Scottish government’s Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill passed the first of three parliamentary hurdles by 98 votes to 15 with five abstentions.

Ministers said the move was the right thing to do, but the Church of Scotland and Catholic Church are opposed.
Religious and belief bodies would “opt in” to perform same-sex marriages.

Same-sex couples in Scotland currently have the option to enter into civil partnerships, and there has been an indication that the earliest gay marriage ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015, if the legislation is passed.

Click on the Scottish flag to read the rest of the above report.

Then tell us whether, in the cases of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) who either voted in favour of the same-sex marriage legislation or abstained, the Bishops should be enforcing Canon Law, # 915 “…(Those) who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion”.

Given the extent of public debate on this issue and the pronouncements from the Church both nationally and from the Vatican, no MSP can claim ignorance. Catholic MSPs have clearly chosen to vote for this legislation in the full knowledge that they are defying a very serious moral law – God’s moral law (not “the Church’s). For them to go forward, therefore, to receive Communion in their parish churches is a source of huge scandal.

But are the Bishops of Scotland likely to enforce Canon Law? They tend only to point to Canon Law when it serves their own purpose, and falling out with MSPs is unlikely to be on their wish list.

Finally, a word about voting habits. If your MSP voted with the Government today, will you vote for him / her again?

Comments (77)

  • Josephine

    I can’t honestly say I was surprised when the news came in this evening, but I definitely think that any Catholic MSP who goes up for Communion has a nerve. The bishops should absolutely tell the priests to refuse them under Canon 915, without a moment’s hesitation. Otherwise, they are saying that it really isn’t an issue.

    I forgot to say that I most definitely will not be voting for my MSP if he voted for same-sex marriage.

    November 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Most of them probably don’t really support SSM. They likely make fun of homosexuality in private. They have to vote “yea” to appease the gay lobby, who are so powerful that to go against them would jeopardise their precious careers.

    November 21, 2013 at 9:32 am
    • gabriel syme

      I agree Miles – the whole thing is a pantomime, designed to pander to the homosexual lobby and allow MSPs to indulge in the empty self-praise and back-slapping so typical of public servants.

      There is no support for this in society at all, people are either firmly against it or are ambivalent. And those who are ambivalent tend to be those who are ambivalent about everything in life.

      The excuse for a debate shows the intellectual poverty of the MSPs. Marriage is an anthropological reality, not a “right”.

      November 21, 2013 at 10:22 am
  • editor

    Miles Immaculatae,

    Career before Truth – that makes Pontius Pilate their patron saint.

    November 21, 2013 at 10:22 am
    • gabriel syme

      A very apt comparison Editor!

      November 21, 2013 at 10:22 am
  • gabriel syme

    How many Catholic MSPs are there?

    It would be worthwhile finding out and then writing with the data to ++Cushley, to ask if he wants to reconsider his opinion that “the fundamentals are good” in Catholic Scotland.

    November 21, 2013 at 10:24 am
  • crofterlady

    Well folks, herewith the list of how your MSP voted. Mine has just lost 8 votes in this family and I intend to canvas all my friends. I hope you all do the same. And, I agree with you Miles, most people are against but afraid of being politically un-pc. Our bishops are not shepherds at all but hirelings who scatter the flock. Shame on them! All it would have taken was to denounce this bill from the pulpit (if one could be found!) and most “catholic” MSP’s would have thought again.


    November 21, 2013 at 10:30 am
  • catholicconvert1

    Let us all be clear at one thing: these MSPs are no longer Catholic. Remember what St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, said- ‘who disbelieves [even] one article of faith does not have faith, either formed or unformed’, therefore when these individuals approach their Priest for Holy Communion, they are disrespecting the Sacrament, and therefore disrespecting God Himself, and we all know what the punishment for that is. These people are in a state of sin, mortal sin because they are causing a public scandal by supporting something that is both against the laws of nature and the laws of God.

    Crofterlady, I don’t believe that even Priests denouncing it from the pulpit would have changed anything, they are a law unto themselves.

    Miles, I agree that David Cameron etc don’t really support it, I think they are all against gay marriage in private, they just don’t have the moral backbone to do what is right. They are moral cowards,

    November 21, 2013 at 3:26 pm
  • Petrus

    I got this email from an MSP today:

    Dear resident,

    I write to you in connection with the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill which had its Stage 1 debate in Parliament tonight.

    I took some considerable time to decide which way to vote as this issue has challenged some of my own beliefs about marriage. Therefore, before I voted, I had to ensure that I was content with my actions.

    I believe the Scottish Government have brought forward this legislation with the best of intentions and I would like to commend the Equal Opportunities Committee (EOC) for their scrutiny of the bill and their Stage 1 Report (The Report). I have read it thoroughly and found it to be detailed and fair.

    I decided to vote for the bill. The bill has a number of safeguards in place which appear to provide security for churches and individual celebrants who do not wish to take part in same sex marriage. Paragraphs 122 and 123 of the Report highlight the ‘opt in’ provisions and in evidence given to the EOC, the Reverend David Coleman of the United Reformed Church stated:

    “… we have been convinced that the guarantees that are contained within the bill are adequate. From one point of view, they might even be seen as excessive, but it might be sufficient guarantee that they are there and that no one is forced to engage in something that they are spiritually disinclined to do … As I said, we support the bill, because we believe that it contains guarantees, both to enable same-sex marriages to happen and to protect those who wish not to be party to that, while, from a public order point of view, not allowing them to bully those who wish to go ahead and prevent them from doing that.” (para 162)

    A further issue that has been raised is that concerning Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and whether a legal challenge could force all churches to perform same sex marriages. During the EOC evidence session on 19th September, both Lynn Welsh and Aiden O’Neill QC provided their legal opinions on this matter. Lynn Welsh is head lawyer at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said at column 1494 of the Official Report for that meeting, in response to a question

    Marco Biagi: My first question concerns the opt-in protections in the bill and whether any attempt on human rights grounds to require a faith group that had not opted into performing same-sex marriage to do so would succeed. I already have Ms Monaghan’s opinion on the record from what has been supplied to Liberty, but I would be grateful to hear the two other legal views.

    Lynn Welsh: In short, the Commission believes that the opt-in provision will work and will not be open to human rights challenge.”

    Aidan O’Neill QC responded by saying:

    “In Scotland, there is a different relationship between church and state. The Church of Scotland is not and has never been a department of the state; indeed, we have always had what might be described as a Calvinist notion of the separation of church and state and in Scotland marriage law has a completely different history. Because, unlike the Church of England, the Church of Scotland cannot be seen as a public authority, the arguments that have been advanced on this issue are perhaps more plausible in the English situation and are less likely to have as much sway in Scotland.

    Marco Biagi: Would article 9 of the European convention on human rights offer strong protection to a church against such a challenge?

    Aidan O’Neill: Yes. Article 9, which stipulates

    “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”,

    is a rather overlooked ECHR provision. In addition to those absolute rights, there is also a right to manifest religion either

    “in public or private … in worship, … practice and observance.”

    That right to manifest religion can be modified or subject to interference if there are good reasons for that, but the other rights—

    “to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”—

    cannot. There would therefore be quite a hurdle and a strong protection under article 9 if churches can prove that they are not part of the state. That is the issue, and it is why there is the possibility of challenge with the Church of England, because of its peculiar status”

    After reading the Bill, the EOC report, the Official Report of evidence sessions, various pieces of literature from both sides, the many emails and letters from constituents as well as meeting representatives from both sides of the debate, I decided to vote for the bill.

    I recognise some people still have concerns about the issue of safeguards and Article 9 so I will continue to monitor these issues as the bill progresses through the Parliamentary process.

    I hope this has been helpful.

    November 21, 2013 at 7:49 pm
    • Theresa Rose


      A shocking vote 98 – 15 for “homosexual marriage”.

      It is very telling that at least one MSP who says that the Bill has a number of safeguards in place WHICH APPEAR to provide security for churches and individual celebrants who do not wish to take part in “same sex marriage”.

      Is it not that “appearances” can be deceptive or will be as opposed to fact?

      For those Catholics MSPs who voted for this Bill should remember that as has already been mentioned has a nerve going up to receive Communion, should take note that it may well be a Sacrilege to boot. Josephine mentions that Bishops should inform priests to refuse them Communion under Canon 915, and here is the link:


      November 21, 2013 at 9:00 pm
    • editor


      Yes, that letter is helpful all right – it should help you to realise that you have a numpty MSP who has put in plenty of time and effort to insult your intelligence.

      Does he/she really believe those solicitors when they offer assurances that there will be no legal challenge in Europe? The very minute the legislation went through in England, a “gay couple” appeared on the TV news announcing that they were going to the European court in order to have a “church wedding”. I wouldn’t mind, but they didn’t even ask me to be bridesmaid 🙂

      The political class is rotten to the core – especially the alleged Catholics. I wouldn’t trust them to feed my budgie (if I had one) let alone run the country.

      November 22, 2013 at 12:43 am
  • Clotilde

    Thanks Petrus, Thats all well and good but to even think that this can be set down in a law just shows how far down the road we have come in our society that the vast majority of MSP’s have voted fot this iniquitous law.

    Crofter Lady,
    I would not know who to vote for in an election on this or any other matters as it seems that in order to be an MP nowadays one has to agree to all the barbaric laws that this country has in place regarding abortion and sexual rights issues. I know that all female candidates have to be on Emily’s list before they can be considered so they dont have any morarity in the first place.

    Marriage is not recognised for what it really is anymore hence the general acceptance from most of the public to not bat an eyelid over of SSM, and I think that most run of the mill Catholics have no conscience about it. When did you last hear a priest speak about the issue or have anyone in Church leadership
    decry the law by rallying objections to it…?

    November 21, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    • editor


      I agree with you that most Catholics have no Catholic sense on this (or most other) issues of sexual morality. It’s all part of the diabolical disorientation prophesied at Fatima.

      Having said that, I also think there is a certain sense of helplessness – that this law will come into being no matter what anyone says or does. Those Catholics with power are either too cowardly, career minded as they are, to stand up for what is right, (Catholic legal eagles and politicians spring to mind) or they are genuinely ignorant of the seriousness of their dissent, exacerbated by the worsening crisis in the Church, lack of preaching and a truly Modernist Pope.

      God help us all!

      November 22, 2013 at 12:50 am
  • Lionel (Paris)

    I cannot understand the “catholic” MPS’ position. For me, they are no longer catholic…
    Here most of the people are against, but they do not care and pass the law.
    More than ever before, let us show our disagreement and keep it in mind when you have to vote!
    We do not protest on behalf of any person, but to defend a specific cause which is important to us, the categorical rejection of the “distortion of marriage”.

    November 21, 2013 at 11:24 pm
    • editor


      Here in Scotland the overwhelming majority of people voted against the re-definition of marriage (to allow same-sex marriage) in the various consultation exercises held by the Government. They just ignored us and went ahead to process the legislation anyway. They’ve shown nothing but contempt for the electorate and I, for one, have no intention of voting for any MP or MSP who voted for this legislation. Ever.

      You are right – there is nothing “personal” in our objections. It is a moral issue and unthinkable that any responsible Government would legislate to re-define marriage. We have a serious duty to oppose all such evil legislation.

      November 22, 2013 at 12:48 am
  • Petrus

    I thought that reply from the MSP was outrageous. I replied to his email and made one, brief point. Even if you disregard the moral argument, which he clearly has, you cannot disregard the medical facts – homosexual activity is unhealthy. So, the Scottish Parliament has now given it’s official stamp of approval to an unhealthy lifestyle. We should remember that when these hypocrites decide to lecture us on healthy eating, smoking in public places etc.

    November 22, 2013 at 8:03 am
    • editor

      Excellent reply, Petrus. Terrific points. Let us know when he comes out of hiding !

      November 22, 2013 at 9:09 am
  • Lionel (Paris)

    I cannot understand the “catholic” MPs’ position. For me, they are no longer catholic…
    Here most of the people are against, but they do not care and pass the law.
    More than ever before, let us show our disagreement and keep it in mind when you have to vote!
    We do not protest on behalf of any person, but to defend a specific cause which is important to us, the categorical rejection of the “distortion of marriage”.

    November 22, 2013 at 8:07 am
  • Lionel (Paris)

    By the way, I found Robert Flello MP very insolent in his letter of July 15, 2013

    November 22, 2013 at 8:09 am
    • editor


      I’d forgotten about the Flello business when I first posted this thread – later thought “oh no! Not again!” But he and his sidekick Chris Whitehouse appear to have learned their lesson – don’t mess with Catholic Truth !

      November 22, 2013 at 9:13 am
  • editor

    Here’s an account of the way the MSPs voted – from the Catholic Parliamentary Office:

    Yesterday the Scottish Parliament gave overwhelming support to a bill to change the legal understanding of marriage. The bill has another two stages to complete before it becomes law but the strength of support given by MSPs to the bill makes it inevitable that it will pass. Only 15 people voted against the bill. They deserve our thanks and support. Their names and emails are as follows:Alasdair Allan, (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) –

    [email protected]
    Gavin Brown, (Lothian) (Con) – [email protected]
    Roseanna Cunningham, (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) – [email protected]
    Nigel Don, (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) – [email protected]
    Fergus Ewing, (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) – [email protected]
    Alex Fergusson, (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) – [email protected]
    Murdo Fraser, (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) – [email protected]
    Alex Johnstone, (North East Scotland) (Con) – [email protected]
    Richard Lyle, (Central Scotland) (SNP) – [email protected]
    John Mason, (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP) – [email protected]
    Jamie McGrigor, (Highlands and Islands) (Con) – [email protected]
    Nanette Milne, (North East Scotland) (Con) – [email protected]
    Margaret Mitchell, (Central Scotland) (Con) – [email protected]
    Elaine Smith, (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) – [email protected]
    Liz Smith, (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) – [email protected]

    For those of us who see so clearly the natural essence of marriage it can be hard to understand how so many can be supportive of such folly. Supporters of the idea of “same-sex marriage” are equally incredulous that we cannot understand the pursuit of what they see as the latest advancement in social enlightenment. It is a testament to the power of the narrative that has been built up in the public mindset that such a situation has arisen. The narrative has been that a homosexual couple is exactly the same as a heterosexual couple. Movies, journalists and popular culture have worked hard to re-enforce this narrative. A mass of public funding has allowed it to be re-enforced in every avenue of public life. It has ironically worked much more effectively on those who see themselves as the leaders of society. Perhaps seeing their role as leading society they are quicker to ignore tradition and more open to fashionable changes. That may explain why MSPs repeatedly described traditional views as “outdated”. The mindset that such a strong support of the new narrative creates makes the mind almost immune to the first principles of reason. In a way it is like a campaign that has convinced people that eating has nothing whatever to do with weight loss or weight gain. Many are thus supporting the change in good faith and oblivious to the momentous harm that they are bestowing on our society. The reality is that very few same-sex couples actually want to marry and we also know that obscuring natural marriage, for example with divorce and cohabitation, always puts children at most risk. An effort to re-tell the true story of marriage as a commitment between prospective parents for the sake of each other and their children has to be undertaken. That will take some time and meanwhile we have to ensure that the dismantling of marriage is not exacerbated by efforts to remove the notion from society. Equality laws really could do that by enforcing a view that all relationships are equal and by crushing those who dissent. There is therefore a need for amendments to the bill and thankfully some mention of that was made during the parliamentary debate. Please continue to encourage your MSPs to support the amendments for safeguarding civil liberties.

    In particular we wish to ensure that supporters of traditional marriage:

    Do not suffer discrimination in their career or workplace.
    Do not have their freedom of speech restricted.
    Are not denied access to public services.
    Are not disallowed from fostering or adopting children.The names of those who abstained from voting and those who voted for the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill are given belowBest wishes

    John Deighan
    21 November 2013

    Those who abstained:

    Chic Brodie, (South Scotland) (SNP)
    Angus MacDonald, (Falkirk East) (SNP)
    Hanzala Malik, (Glasgow) (Lab)
    Michael McMahon, (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
    Siobhan McMahon, (Central Scotland) (Lab)

    Those who voted for the bill:

    George Adam, (Paisley) (SNP)
    Clare Adamson, (Central Scotland) (SNP)
    Christian Allard, (North East Scotland) (SNP)
    Jackie Baillie, (Dumbarton) (Lab)
    Claire Baker, (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
    Richard Baker, (North East Scotland) (Lab)
    Jayne Baxter, (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
    Claudia Beamish, (South Scotland) (Lab)
    Colin Beattie, (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
    Marco Biagi, (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
    Neil Bibby, (West Scotland) (Lab)
    Sarah Boyack, (Lothian) (Lab)
    Keith Brown, (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
    Cameron Buchanan, (Lothian) (Con)
    Margaret Burgess, (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
    Aileen Campbell, (Clydesdale) (SNP)
    Roderick Campbell, (North East Fife) (SNP)
    Jackson Carlaw, (West Scotland) (Con)
    Malcolm Chisholm, (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
    Willie Coffey, (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
    Angela Constance, (Almond Valley) (SNP)
    Bruce Crawford, (Stirling) (SNP)
    Ruth Davidson, (Glasgow) (Con)
    Graeme Dey, (Angus South) (SNP)
    Bob Doris, (Glasgow) (SNP)
    James Dornan, (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
    Kezia Dugdale, (Lothian) (Lab)
    Jim Eadie, (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
    Annabelle Ewing, (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
    Linda Fabiani, (East Kilbride) (SNP)
    Mary Fee, (West Scotland) (Lab)
    Neil Findlay, (Lothian) (Lab)
    John Finnie, (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
    Joe FitzPatrick, (Dundee City West) (SNP)
    Kenneth Gibson, (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
    Rob Gibson, (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
    Annabel Goldie, (West Scotland) (Con)
    Christine Grahame, (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
    Rhoda Grant, (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
    Iain Gray, (East Lothian) (Lab)
    Mark Griffin, (Central Scotland) (Lab)
    Patrick Harvie, (Glasgow) (Green)
    Hugh Henry, (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
    Jamie Hepburn, (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
    Cara Hilton, (Dunfermline) (Lab)
    Jim Hume, (South Scotland) (Lib Dem)
    Adam Ingram, (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
    Alison Johnstone, (Lothian) (Green)
    Colin Keir, (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
    James Kelly, (Rutherglen) (Lab)
    Bill Kidd, (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
    Johann Lamont, (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
    John Lamont, (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
    Richard Lochhead, (Moray) (SNP)
    Kenny MacAskill, (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
    Lewis Macdonald, (North East Scotland) (Lab)
    Ken Macintosh, (Eastwood) (Lab)
    Derek Mackay, (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
    Mike MacKenzie, (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
    Jenny Marra, (North East Scotland) (Lab)
    Paul Martin, (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
    Michael Matheson, (Falkirk West) (SNP)
    Joan McAlpine, (South Scotland) (SNP)
    Liam McArthur, (Orkney Islands) (Lib Dem)
    Margaret McCulloch, (Central Scotland) (Lab)
    Mark McDonald, (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
    Margaret McDougall, (West Scotland) (Lab)
    Alison McInnes, (North East Scotland) (Lib Dem)
    Christina McKelvie, (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
    Aileen McLeod, (South Scotland) (SNP)
    Fiona McLeod, (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
    Stuart McMillan, (West Scotland) (SNP)
    Duncan McNeil, (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
    Anne McTaggart, (Glasgow) (Lab)
    Elaine Murray, (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
    Alex Neil, (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
    Gil Paterson, (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
    Graeme Pearson, (South Scotland) (Lab)
    John Pentland, (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
    Willie Rennie, (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lib Dem)
    Dennis Robertson, (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
    Shona Robison, (Dundee City East) (SNP)
    Michael Russell, (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
    Alex Salmond, (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
    Mary Scanlon, (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
    John Scott, (Ayr) (Con)
    Drew Smith, (Glasgow) (Lab)
    Stewart Stevenson, (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
    David Stewart, (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
    Kevin Stewart, (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
    Nicola Sturgeon, (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
    John Swinney, (Perthshire North) (SNP)
    David Torrance, (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
    Jean Urquhart, (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
    Maureen Watt, (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
    Sandra White, (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
    John Wilson, (Central Scotland) (SNP)
    Humza Yousaf, (Glasgow) (SNP)

    Catholic Parliamentary Office
    5 St Vincent Place
    G1 2DH

    November 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
  • editor

    Here’s some news about the unhealthy “gay” lifestyle – straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, i.e. via the Pink News

    November 22, 2013 at 6:32 pm
    • Lily

      That is a very open indication that gays are at more risk than anyone else. That’s not the thing to say these days, but they say it in that newspaper report:

      In September, the deputy executive director of the United Nations’ HIV/AIDS agency said the worldwide HIV epidemic could potentially be over by 2030 – but only if infection rates among most at risk populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM), fall substantially.

      Who would want to marry someone who could infect you with such a serious virus?

      November 22, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    • catholicconvert1


      I thought condoms were supposed to work? Are you trying to tell moi, a staunch and devout Catholic who follows Church teaching to the line, that condoms don’t work. Mon Dieu, as they say in the Latin quarter!!!!

      November 24, 2013 at 1:43 pm
  • Clotilde

    Pope Francis, the Catholic Church, and Homosexuality – YouTube

    I have just read this article in the Remnant by Fr. Micheal Rodriguez. What a hero!
    He addresses the issue and the churches teaching and makes it clear and crystal just what we should be taught to believe and puts Pope Francis in his place.or rather tells us what Pope Francis and all our oriests should be telling us.
    If you can’t download from this reference you can view the talk on youtube if you search Fr. Micheal Rodriguez and scroll down the headings.

    Most of the bloggers may have read or heard the talk as it was given in october but my Remnant is always behind the times.

    November 22, 2013 at 8:57 pm
  • Clotilde

    I am off to thank the msp’s (2)in my area, for voting against the bill.
    Thanks for the above info.

    November 22, 2013 at 9:02 pm
  • Leo

    “The empire of Christ the King includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith: so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.” – Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, 1899

    Not very long ago one would have been considered a lunatic to predict the legalisation of homosexual “marriage” (surely an unmatchable oxymoron). So what’s next? A man “marrying” his sister? Or his three sisters? Or his dog? Along with abortion, euthanasia, divorce, and contraception what we are dealing with is the latest wave in the tsunami of depravity inundating the western world. Does all this not reflect Our Lady’s warning at Fatima?

    Without a shadow of a doubt, as was the case in the sacrificing of the unborn, the State sanctioned and approved and mandated celebration of perversion will be enforced throughout the West. So now it’s Scotland’s turn. It’s scheduled for Ireland next year, or the year after.

    This particular assault on Divine Law may be relatively recent, but it is really only another bitter fruit and progression of the satanic Masonic Revolution that has been in full flight for over two centuries. It represents one more example of open mockery and repudiation of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His right to rule over societies as well as individuals. That luciferian repudiation was enshrined in the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man which proclaimed with supreme insolence that authority resides in the people. Surely this is Modern Man’s “Non serviam”.

    Pope Leo XIII explained in his encyclical Immortale Dei, Nov. l, 1885, that:

    “Every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme lord of the world. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. ‘There is no power but from God.’ (Rom. 13:1).”

    The voting predicament of the people of Scotland appears to be the same as that facing the defenders of Divine Law in all those countries where Civilization was built on the foundations laid by the Church.

    National politicians are now little more than local councillors, or functionaries of the EU empire. Quisling is another word that comes to mind. The cracks in the veneer of democratic representation become ever more visible. The lands of what was once Christendom are now being ruled from behind closed doors by faceless EU bureaucrats, while national governments dance to the sinister tunes of the Trilateral Commission and Bildenberger organ grinders.

    “When the foundations of religion are overthrown, the restraints of civil society are also necessarily shattered. Behold the sad spectacle of our time! Beholding the impending danger of the future! However it is no danger to the Church, for the divine promise leaves no room for doubt. Rather this revolution threatens the family and nations, especially those who stir up or indifferently tolerate this unhealthy atmosphere of irreligion.” – Pope Saint Pius X, Editae Saepe, 1910

    November 23, 2013 at 12:22 am
    • catholicconvert1


      When gay ‘marriage’ was passing into law in France, the government slogan was ‘Marriage pour tous’ or in Anglais, ‘Marriage for all’. ‘For all’- a most curious term. As you say Leo, why aren’t polygamists and the incestuous included in this bizarre catch-all slogan? If I fall in love with two women and they love me and are happy to enter into such a union, why don’t we have the right to? The same argument applies to incests. I always put this to gay activists. They say ‘well, multiple person marriages are a taboo- not socially acceptable’. To which I reply ‘strange, that is just how your unions were treated until several years ago’. Equal marriage has so many holes, you could make a sieve out of it. Indeed, the Dutch version of Peter Tatchell, equally as vile, Boris Dittrich, said that the consequence of gay unions are polygamous unions-


      People will start listening to sane people like us one day.

      November 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    • editor


      “This particular assault on Divine Law may be relatively recent, but it is really only another bitter fruit and progression of the satanic Masonic Revolution that has been in full flight for over two centuries. It represents one more example of open mockery and repudiation of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His right to rule over societies as well as individuals.”

      Those words are timely in that I’ve been writing up a piece on the awful Association of (anything but) Catholic Priests (Ireland). The ACP are well on record with their “of course” view that State and Church should be separate (it’s in their Constitution) because the State must enact laws for ALL citizens (not just Catholics). So, having demoted Our Lord, there’s no doubt on which side they’ll be fighting next year, when, as you say, it’s Ireland’s turn to have to battle this evil legislation.

      I tried that – this legislation means someone can marry an animal etc.- when I completed my consultation form (total waste of time) but nothing sways the pro-same-sex “marriage” brigade.

      So, best of luck next year but my guess is that all efforts to fight this particular war are set to fail until God sees fit to intervene, probably after the Consecration of Russia.

      November 23, 2013 at 10:37 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Talking of the Kingship of Christ- listen to Fr Rodriguez’s sermon on this video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtDUfspk5GE

        November 24, 2013 at 1:54 pm
  • Leo

    The subject of this thread, highlighting the unswerving drive for normalization of homosexuality through the utter abomination of so called same sex “marriage”, shows just how far into the pit we have descended. A few short years ago, I doubt that more than a minuscule number of Europeans would have even considered the possibility. Now, in accordance with classic Alinskyite methods, anyone who refuses to join the parade to celebrate sexual perversion is to be labelled a backward, intolerant bigot, on a par with some knuckle dragging Klu Klux Klan supporter.

    “…Men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled…These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them.”- Pope Leo XIII, Sapientia Christianae, 1890

    And what about the salvation of souls? When will Catholics stop talking about the Civilisation of Love versus the Culture of Death and call the struggle for what it is; the Kingdom of God versus the Kingdom of Satan? What was all that talk about “razing the bastions”?

    Apart from being State sanctioned celebration of perversion, it is surely beyond reasonable doubt that aberrosexual “marriage” is being promoted with the intention of completely undermining, and grotesquely distorting how Society views, the institute of marriage and the family, as well as being a very convenient (surely not accidental) means of instigating State persecution of those who adhere to basic Christian teaching. We have enough examples already.

    “With God and Jesus Christ excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall.” – Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 1925

    This latest attack on marriage and Natural Law is just one more battle waged by the forces of organised naturalism against Christendom over the last two centuries. With that in mind, its’ worth calling to mind the warnings of Cardinal Pie, the nineteenth century Bishop of Poitiers, whose writings had a great influence on Pope Saint Pius X.

    Condemning the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State, by which society does not formally deny the existence of God, but rather rules itself as if God does not exist, the Cardinal states that “He [God] will reign; and if he does not reign by the benefits inseparable from his presence, he will reign by calamities inseparable from his absence.”

    The secularist minions of satan wish to consign to oblivion any notion of “the Christian State, of Christian Law, and of the Christian prince” and replace the Social Kingship of Christ with the tyranny of practical State atheism. Here, the “imaginary theocracy of the Church” is replaced with a “theocracy as absolute as it is illegitimate, the theocracy of Caesar, head and arbiter of religion, supreme oracle of doctrine and law.” In fact, this is a “renewed pagan theocracy,” soon to be carried out “in the reign of high-priest people and of the God-State” through socialism. The Cardinal claims that this “politics without God” has a name. In the Gospel it is called “the prince of this world” or “the power of the Beast,” but today it is called “the Revolution.”

    Is that not the very Revolution we are living through?

    November 23, 2013 at 12:27 am
    • editor


      “And what about the salvation of souls? When will Catholics stop talking about the Civilisation of Love versus the Culture of Death and call the struggle for what it is; the Kingdom of God versus the Kingdom of Satan?”

      Well said – and in a nutshell. It’s been the failure of Catholics to speak about sin in all these moral issues (including abortion) that explains our lack of success in preventing and overturning these dreadful laws. We’ve left God out of the equation and He, therefore, has left us to our own devices.

      November 23, 2013 at 10:41 pm
  • Leo

    No doubt, a lot of people are tempted to resignation on this issue, or are inclined to think the issue of same sex “marriage” is not a direct concern of theirs. Sure, everyone has plenty of every day cares and problems to worry about. And of course the thought police of political correctness are very vigilant in supervising the Liberal Group Think.

    Well, let’s remember that G.K. Chesterton once wrote that “Tolerance is the last virtue of a man without principle.”

    Certainly, any B and B or hotel owners, marriage counsellors, photographers, or florists who hold to Divine Law, and are prepared to stand up for it, have every reason for grave concern. But let no one be in any doubt that the battle being waged by the forces of organised naturalism against Christian Civilisation effects everyone whether they care to think about it or not.

    They following two articles will hopefully have some effect on the ignorant or apathetic. I think they are worth sharing with as many people as possible. I have followed the links with some quotations from the articles, which hopefully will encourage people to read them.


    “If we read them closely, however, the activists themselves have begun to explain it in quite straightforward terms. For them, it has never been about ‘equal rights’ but about the re-writing of our entire social order. The ‘gay rights’ movement has always been, in Peter Tatchell’s own words, ‘revolutionary, not reformist.’

    “Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of ‘gender studies’ and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through ‘anti-discrimination’ and ‘equalities’ legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.

    “Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.”

    “Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that ‘reform,’ in other words ‘equality,’ is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, ‘cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.’”


    “Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto of their plan for the ‘abolition of the family,’ to ‘replace home education by social’ or public schools, and to replace monogamy with ‘an openly legalized community of women’ (sharing women in common).

    “Their modern adherents continue to advocate for their anti-family vision on an issue-by-issue basis.”

    “Last June, the Communist Party of Australia urged its members to ‘strike blows against’ Christianity by endorsing same-sex ‘marriage.’”

    After reading the above, it might a good idea to reflect on the words of Pope Saint Pius X:

    “We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker – the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the new City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants.” – Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, 1910.

    November 23, 2013 at 12:32 am
    • catholicconvert1

      Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the Communists were anti-gay. It was illegal in the Eastern block countries and China etc, and was classed as a mental illness. I suppose they would have been classed as decadent.

      As for Peter Tatchell, there is nothing that man vomits up would surprise me. He is pestilent. Bring back the the Spanish Inquisition. He is a slug that needs salting.

      November 24, 2013 at 2:07 pm
  • Leo

    Can I make an appeal to readers to watch their language. I really think everyone should make a conscious effort not to use the word “gay” in discussions on the subject at hand and on sins against nature in general.

    The following article makes the point very eloquently.


    November 23, 2013 at 12:42 am
    • Josephine


      I read that article but although I agree about the word “gay” (I’m guilty of not putting it in inverted commas) I really wouldn’t feel comfortable using “buggery” as I’ve only known it as a crudity.

      November 23, 2013 at 11:28 am
      • Leo

        That’s fair enough, Josephine.

        I probably should have given some advance warning. That said, I do think the word in question was, and still is for all I know, used to name a criminal offence. The reason I say that, is that I’m as sure as I can be of hearing reports on BBC Northern Ireland, admittedly quite a few years ago, of convictions for the crime, using that particular word.

        November 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm
      • editor

        Leo, I have long been infuriated at the way the homosexual lobbyists have appropriated the word “gay” and I ALWAYS put it in inverted commas, a fact which has been noted, with irritation, on certain homosexual websites.

        I’ve head the arguments put forward in the article you posted lots of time, and in principle I do agree with “not using the language of the enemy.”

        However, the issue is now so serious, and has gone beyond the use of the “g” word, that we now need to look at being “wise as serpents…” and not hand the enemy a means of side-tracking us from the key issue.

        I think to stick to the term “homosexual/homosexuality” and, if we use it, to put “gay” always in inverted commas, is making the point that we do not accept that they have a right to pervert the English language any more than they have the right to pervert their bodies.

        I fear that using the other terminology available, will only encourage the view that we are “bigots” – whether or not certain terms are used in criminal law. After all, when the Blood Transfusion Service banned homosexual men from giving blood (even if they had only had one homosexual encounter with another man) they were accused of being bigoted and – I think I’m correct in saying – shockingly, unthinkably – the ban was lifted and homosexuals are now permitted to donate blood.

        As someone said to me recently (can’t remember who, so it may even have been written on this blog somewhere) the only thing left to us now is to keep pointing out the health hazards and often terminal consequences of homosexual activity. Bible quotes, arguments about language etc. will not convince anyone who is not already aware of the evil nature of homosexual activity.

        November 23, 2013 at 2:37 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Buggery is not a crudity. In fact it was used as in the civil code in the UK and is still in use in the penal code where homosexuality is illegal, notably in the Caribbean. Our American friends use the word ‘faggots’. Use buggery or sodomy, they sound less supportive of this lifestyle.

        Did you know that homosexuality is actually still illegal in this country in public? It was only legalised in private, and therefore, by rights any gays caught ‘in amorous activity’ in public, could and should be locked up.

        November 23, 2013 at 3:35 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        With all due respect, I will continue to use the term “homosexual” and “homosexuality” and “gay” in inverted commas, when necessary. Given that I was a nominee for the Stonewall “Bigot of the Year Award” not so long ago, I doubt if anyone considers my use of language in any way indicative of support for homosexuality. In fact, any time I’ve used certain other terms in correspondence with individuals, they’ve replied “not all of us do that…” So, as I say, I prefer to avoid distractions and stick to the point. What homosexuals do in terms of sexual activity is unnatural, perverted and unhealthy. It’s much more important to get that fact across than to discuss the finer points f the English language, in my unworthy opinion.

        November 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm
      • Petrus


        Spot on. I think if we resort to archaic language we play Into the hands of out enemies. I always use “homosexual” when discussing this issue.

        November 23, 2013 at 6:09 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Did you accept the award?

        November 24, 2013 at 2:08 pm
      • editor

        I didn’t win the nomination. I would gladly have accepted it and asked if – assuming I won – would I be able to collect it in person. However, they say that would not be possible. I think it’s just a “verbal” award, nothing to collect. Anyway, my request to attend kept their blogs buzzing for a long time as they discussed my arrogance!

        November 24, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    • Clotilde

      That was an excellent article I am convinced that it is right to use words to mean what they represent.
      We live in a world of euphemisms and as the writer points out these words are the devils vocabulary. Abortion originally meant a natural loss of life wereas now the word is used for killing babies in the womb. Other euphemisms like terminations, unwanted pregnancies, embryos instead of babies and so on. It is a clever device to soften and mislead. Thanks for that reference.

      Fr. Micheal Rodriguez is not afraid to say that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil….

      November 23, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    • Clotilde

      Excellent article Leo about the war of Words!!!

      November 23, 2013 at 8:56 pm
  • Leo


    I’m confident that most, if not all of us here share the same views about the misappropriation of words and the distortion of language, and the grave damage they do. We’re certainly not at odds here, and I understand your point about tactics.

    Without wishing to labour things, I’ll just add that if all authoritarian regimes and propagandists appreciate the use of language, the target audience shouldn’t ever forget about it either. Those who use the typical Marxist, Alinskyite tactics of ad hominem attacks with labels such as bigot are never going to be willing to accept compromise. And such vicious tactics are really only a concession concerning lack of moral, reasonable arguments. I think the language tactic is also a tactic to mould the minds of the large group of people in the middle who are not too bothered about anything that doesn’t directly affect their own interests.

    I think the bigot attack is going to be used just as long as people are prepared to stand in front of the perversion juggernaut. We’ve gone, from Society turning a blind eye, to apathy, to toleration, to whatever you’re having yourself indulgence, to acceptance, and now to Group Think celebration. Unless someone is prepared to stand in the photographs and smile, and throw confetti, and talk about the “Happy Day”, I’m afraid the hissy fits are going to keep on coming.

    Apologies for not remembering their name, but there was nothing “gay” about the undoubtedly exemplary financial ruin inflicted on the heroic English couple who refused two sodomites a single bed, not accommodation, in their B & B, their own home.

    Let’s not forget that what this is all about: the destruction of marriage and the persecution of those who defend the Natural Law. Homosexuals are being used as pawns in this agenda. In fact, the demand for so-called same sex marriage has been miniscule in France since it was legalized. That hasn’t stopped mayors being threatened with very heavy penalties for refusing to conduct the so-called “marriage” ceremony.

    In case anyone missed it, Hilary White’s Lifesite News article that I posted at 12.32am sets out very clearly the Marxist agenda at work.

    Hopefully, the health arguments will, for their own sake, deter those engaged in perversion. It would be a start towards conversion, possibly. The issue of blood transfusion raises some interesting and very obvious questions for all those who like to parade their tolerant, liberal, “inclusivity” credentials.

    Just as an aside, a few years ago I enquired about giving blood. It was either England, or the US, or both, I’m not sure which, but I was told I was not eligible because I had spent time working there at a certain time, at least thirteen years previously. No ifs, buts, maybes, or screenings. Just a blanket policy of refusal.

    Surely, not a case of bigotry?

    November 23, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    • editor


      I completely agree with you that we should never forget about the first tactic employed by the homosexual lobby, which was to change the language. They knew that nobody would ever vote for “sodomite rights” or “queer rights” and so on, and that was one of the first issues they addressed, choosing the term “gay” to try to impose the idea that their activity is something good and beneficial to society – like being gay!

      The second thing they had to do was give the impression that there were a heck of a lot more of them than there really were, and they plucked the 10% figure out of the air, when the fact was that only 1% of the population – and not many more at the present time, if official statistics are any judge – identified as being homosexual.

      We should keep these facts before our minds and never miss an opportunity to point out the dishonesty inherent in these diabolical tactics – which did work, and fooled the unthinking majority (of numpties) into accepting as “normal” something that has for centuries been condemned and until very recently had been an imprisonable criminal offence.

      So, I have no problem with bloggers who wish to use whichever accurate terminology they choose (although I would object to nasty name-calling – there’s never any need for that in any context about any individual or group).

      There used to be a phrase commonly used in the “old” religious orders, where religious superiors might tell a subordinate to “follow his/her grace” in a particular matter for which there was no specific rule laid down. That’s what I say should happen here.

      Anyone who feels they ought to use accurate, now rather out-of-use (by design, I admit) terminology when addressing issues relating to homosexuality, feel free to do so. And those – like myself – who are too old, too set in our ways, too fuddy-duddy (albeit slim, glamorous etc) to go about the place changing our habits at this point in time, will continue to refer to “homosexuality” and to signal our disapproval of the way the term “gay” has been misappropriated by using inverted commas (and not using it at all, if possible.)

      As you say, Leo, we are all agreed on the evil of homosexuality, and we’re even all agreed on the cheek of the homosexual lobbyists to abuse the language, but, having said that, let’s not make a drama out of a dictionary 🙂

      November 23, 2013 at 8:57 pm
      • Leo


        We’ll leave the drama to others, but can anyone here tell me whether or not Pope Francis was using inverted commas during that notorious interview on the plane returning from Rio?

        November 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm
      • editor


        Very good point – no, I don’t believe he made inverted commas in the air when he used the term, so shame on him. But then, “shame on him” applies just about every time he speaks.

        I’m just wondering (because I’ve never noticed) how do you describe homosexuals yourself?

        November 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm
      • Leo


        I’ve used the words sodomites, homosexuals, and “those engaged in perversion”, in my previous posts.

        November 23, 2013 at 11:17 pm
      • editor

        Leo – thanks. That’s what I get for skimming.

        At various times, I’ve used “perversion” myself, including on live radio and TV. I described homosexuality as “an aberration” on live TV and was insulted by a co-contributor as a result – see if I care 🙂

        Well, I’ve got one more comment to post on another thread and then I’m off for my usual weekend stint of pubbing and clubbing…

        November 23, 2013 at 11:28 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        I remember that, you were on Sunday Morning Live, with an Anglican pretend bishop and a homosexualist activist. I’ve got to give it you hen, you’ve got guts. If you can cope with the abuse, your a better man than me. Although I’ve given my views on it in politics lectures and so you can imagine how that went down.


        November 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm
      • Leo


        It’s certainly very easy for me to post away on a blog. It must be a different game altogether at the sharp end, on live TV. The co-contributor who insulted you, was I’m sure, only trying to make up for gross deficiency in their capacity to debate, by resorting to personal attack. That individual, conceding defeat as they were, would have been well advised to return your good manners. A generation ago the word “aberration” would have been considered, by 99% of the population, as a very polite and charitable way of putting things.

        Your antagonist would have been foaming at the mouth, no doubt, if they read what some of Saints and Doctors of the Church have written.

        November 24, 2013 at 9:29 pm
      • editor


        I’m sure I tripped over my tongue, and that I meant to say “perversion” (aberration is not a word I use often in any context! I used “perversion” on local radio in the days when they used to invite me on!) so I fully agree with you. The homosexual journalist sitting beside me on the programme, who asked me (as an aside – not sure if the viewers would have heard him) if I really thought homosexuality is an “aberration” didn’t like my answer and responded by whispering that it was no wonder I was nominated for Stonewall’s Bigot of the Year award! The usual tolerance!

        Incidentally, it struck me after I posted my “let’s not make a drama out of a dictionary” remark that you may not have the same advertisements on TV over there in the Emerald Isle that we have (or used to have – not sure this one is still broadcast) – let me, better late than never, explain that one of the Insurance companies used to advertise their products by promising not to “make a drama out of a crisis”. So, every now and then I steal it and adapt it to my current blogging requirements!

        One more thing:

        Could I ask for prayers everyone for a man who has been emailing me this evening, very angry at the Church because, he tells me, he is one of the victims of priestly abuse. Please pray for him.

        November 24, 2013 at 11:13 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    I think an important distinction for Catholics to make is between ‘homosexualism’ and ‘same sex attraction’.

    November 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm
    • Petrus

      Could you elaborate, Miles? It’s an interesting point.

      November 23, 2013 at 9:22 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        ‘Same sex attraction’ refers to inclinations, which could be contained to the persons private emotional life. Sodomy refers to behaviour, and it needn’t be related to same sex attraction per se. ‘Homosexualism’ refers to identity, the contemporary construct promoted by secularists which is a whole social-political, moral-religious view. It is based on the premise that persons are born as part of a certain species of man and women. Originally it was held that there were two distinct types, homo and hereto. Now there are a couple more, for example we are now being told that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, one which is intrinsic to the persons nature, allegedly.

        November 23, 2013 at 10:35 pm
      • editor

        Miles Immaculatae,

        There’s a word I have never and never will use – “heterosexual”, because that, too, has been invented to normalise homosexual activity. In any discussion on homosexuality, I tend to refer to “homosexuals” and “ordinary people” pointing out (if any enquiry follows) the link between them and what is “natural” / “normal” or “the norm”.

        November 23, 2013 at 10:47 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        But even same sex attraction, whilst not sinful is an aberration, or a disorder. What you said is a language of Modernists. I met a liberal Priest who said ‘people are born gay, but their actions are sinful’. To which I said ‘well, if they are born that way, why can’t they enjoy their natural sexuality’? He couldn’t answer me. I do not believe that god would create a baby to be that way in it’s mother’s womb. Yes we are told that paedophilia is an orientation, and will be legal in due course. Is being a serial killer or a drug addict natural? No- it is evidence of the weakness and feculence inherent in human nature.

        November 24, 2013 at 2:19 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        To whom are you referring when you write:

        What you said is a language of Modernists.

        Are u replying to me, and if so, what language have I used that is “the language of Modernists.”

        It’s not clear from your comment at 2.19pm what you mean and who it is you are addressing, so some clarification would be appreciated.

        November 24, 2013 at 4:25 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        I was referring to Miles in his previous two comments on homosexuality.

        November 24, 2013 at 4:49 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        Miles was speaking objectively – he was not “using the language of modernists” as if they are his own views. He, like your good self, is a raving convert. He’s more Catholic than the Pope – actually, who isn’t these days 🙂

        November 24, 2013 at 6:01 pm
      • crofterlady

        Editor, that last sentence is hilarious!

        November 25, 2013 at 11:07 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Catholic Convert,

        Where in my post did I state that same sex attraction was not disordered and where did I affirm that homosexuals were ‘born that way’? Where did I state that I believed paedophilia was a sexual orientation?

        If you carefully re-read my last post, you will notice that in fact I give a summary of what secularists and modernist Catholics believe. At no point did I affirm these beliefs.

        This is the second incident you have been rash, Catholic Convert.

        Miles said:

        ‘Same sex attraction’ refers to inclinations, which could be contained to the persons private emotional life.

        If there is anything modernist about that, then someone please correct me. I cannot for the life of me understand how.

        Sodomy refers to behaviour, and it needn’t be related to same sex attraction per se.

        This is correct, because somebody who only experiences same sex attraction is not a sodomite based on that fact. To be a sodomite you have to commit the sin of Sodom, which is not merely an interior sin. Similarly, you cannot formally lose your virginity by thoughts. (Or at least that’s how I’ve always understood loosing virginity, perhaps I am a modernist?)

        ‘Homosexualism’ refers to identity, the contemporary construct promoted by secularists which is a whole social-political, moral-religious view.

        I assure you Catholic Convert, that modernists absolutely defiantly do not use the term ‘homosexualism’. Just because someone experiences SSA does not automatically make them support homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption, and it doesn’t mean they go on gay pride parades. It doesn’t even mean they identity as ‘gay’. It needn’t mean they believe they were born that way. To be a homosexualist you need to affirm the validity of the terms ‘gay’ and the idea that it is inherent to your nature.

        November 24, 2013 at 6:34 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        I wasn’t being rash at all (please tell me the first time I was rash). I was merely stating what I thought about your sentence as I saw it.

        When you said:

        ‘Same sex attraction’ refers to inclinations, which could be contained to the persons private emotional life’.

        ‘Sodomy refers to behaviour, and it needn’t be related to same sex attraction per se’.

        You didn’t say that the thoughts and attractions etc were disordered and you reminded me of my very modernist assistant PP. I am certain that you and I are in agreement, but it was, in my unworthy opinion, the way you said it.

        Sorry for any offence caused to your good self.

        However, what do you believe causes SSA exactly? I go with what Mgr Leonard, Abp Mechelen-Brussel point of view, that it is an abnormal psychological emotional blockage that developed during a child’s formative years.

        Uriah Heep!!!

        November 24, 2013 at 7:52 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        *Banging head against desk*

        November 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm
      • Petrus

        I don’t see anything wrong with what you said, Miles. Those with same sex attraction have a heavy cross to bear and for those of manage to contain it will no doubt be rewarded.

        November 24, 2013 at 8:23 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Careful you might do some damage.

        November 24, 2013 at 10:21 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae


        November 24, 2013 at 11:43 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        ‘It needn’t mean they believe they were born that way’. Have you ever met a person with SSA who said that? Instead of saying you are ‘banging your head against your desk’, you might at least give your views as to causes of SSA, as I have done.

        November 24, 2013 at 10:25 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Catholic Inquisitor Convert,

        I was at the wedding of one of my good Protestant friends recently, who most very definitely has experienced same sex attraction. He absolutely does not subscribe to the belief he was born that way. (He married a woman.) count 1.

        One of my close friends has experienced same sex attraction. Neither does he believe he was born that way. count 2.

        I know a man down south, the leader of CourageGB, a Catholic Apostolate. He has experienced same sex attraction. He is also married (to a woman) and he likewise does not believe he was born that way. count 3.

        I have another good Protestant friend, who has experienced same sex attraction. He has a girlfriend. He does not believe he was born that way. count 4.

        Such is the case with another two acquaintances. count 6.

        Total = 6 persons.

        I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet all these people. It means I now have an in-depth knowledge of the issues facing people with same sex attraction, so I will be better equipped to help them. Why don’t you do some research? At the moment you sound like one of the God-hates-fags brigade. Could you approach the subject with a bit more sensitivity? Here’s a good site.

        There is no obligation for me to state my views on the subject. That’s a complete non sequitur. In charity you should presume I hold an orthodox view on the subject. Your tone is accusatory. I have frequently stated my opinions on the epidemiology of same sex attraction on this blog before. If you really really must insist I repeat them, well I affirm the position of the National Association for the Research and Therapy for Homosexuality. Are you now satisfied with my response?

        I absolutely insist Catholic Convert that you tell us your opinion on the repeal of the Corn Laws. I think it was a good thing. Now, would you please tell us your view, as I have done.

        November 24, 2013 at 11:40 pm
      • crofterlady

        My, what a lot of friends you have!

        November 25, 2013 at 11:09 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        No not particularly, I met a couple of them through the first one at his wedding. They are part of this evangelical association.

        I met the leader of CourageGB by chance. He was the England and Wales Bishops’ conference liaison for London 2012, a very interesting man.

        November 25, 2013 at 7:08 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Never under any circumstance did I say that you were obliged to tell me or anyone else, I said ‘you might’. Big difference.

        Also- I do not despise these people, and I have on repeated occasions on this venerable blog and other circumstances where ‘gays’ should not be treated with hate or venom but respect and compassion, which are the basic ways in which I would treat any human being.

        And also, don’t compare me with Fred Phelps and his sick family as they support the death penalty for ‘faggots’ as they call them. In discussions about the subject at Uni, I have not said anything remotely similar to the WBC. I just repeat the Church teaching. What would I gain from hating ‘fags’?

        As for doing research, most of this is American, and several of these sites are listed by the SPLC as hate groups, as Holy Mother Church will be one day. I thought NARATH was one. Thanks for the link. The other US gay Catholic groups are actually supporting the gay lifestyle, DignityUSA being an example so….pick the bones out of that.

        I have never heard of people with SSA who don’t believe they were born that way. You’ve flown off the handle. The LGBT group at my Uni is in cahoots with Stonewall, and regularly holds collections for them. I won’t be successful in finding a balanced opinion on the matter there. You are lucky you have found such brave people, as it is easy to say one is born that way, but it would merely be interesting what your friends think caused SSA in them.

        I seriously don’t know where you get that I demanded your opinion.

        As for the Corn Laws, I have never studied this period of British/ Irish history, either at high school, sixth form or University. Most of the history I’ve studied at Uni was Russian, French, Italian and German- sadly no British. The last time I studied British history was at 6th form from the late 19th C. To 1965. It did encompass Irish Home Rule, the War of Independence and the Free State etc, but never went that far back. Prior 1870 I think they call that ‘early Modern’, I study ‘Modern’.

        November 25, 2013 at 11:52 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry for associating you with the Phelps family and other unsavoury people.

        November 25, 2013 at 7:14 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Thanks for that. I would be interested to know what the 6 people thought caused their SSA. My conscience is seriously niggling me, what did I say that sounded hatefilled towards homosexuals. I really didn’t intend it, and as I said, I just repeat church teaching whenever I’m asked. Why didn’t you pick on Editor for saying they were an ‘aberration’ or ‘perverse’, as that is language that the Phelps’s use- is Ed a member of the WBC?

        November 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm
  • domstemp

    Where can I access the online petition for Fr Despard?

    Editor: for some reason this went into moderation – can’t see any reason why. In any event, I don’t think the petition was an online petition, just word of mouth, paper edition. If online, we’d have known about it, I’m sure. It’s been handed in now anyway, to the Bishop, with one thousand signatures.

    November 24, 2013 at 6:25 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: