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)

  • 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: