Bishop Toal of Motherwell Must Sack LGBT-Supporting Cambuslang Priest…editor
A Cambuslang priest’s message that the Catholic Church must redress the harm it has done to gay people has gone viral. Click here to read more
Another priest of the same Diocese of Motherwell remains suspended for his decision to publish a book on the problem of homosexuality within the Catholic Church in Scotland.
There was promise, at the time, of an investigation into the claims made by Fr Despard in his book, but nothing has been done. And now we have a brother priest in the same Diocese openly “welcoming” LGBT people to his parish – without any reference to Catholic moral teaching on the need to repent of such behaviour, but instead, nicely timed, whether by accident or design, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in England, with all the news coverage this anniversary affords.
It’s not so long sinceFr Morton was under police investigation for sex allegations of which he was eventually cleared. We are emphatically NOT taking the “no smoke without fire” line – but one would think, would one not, that he would avoid having his name repeatedly associated with sexual matters in the tabloid press… Just a thought.
A priest who makes an announcement that LGBT people have been harmed by the Church in the past and are now welcome, unrepentant, at his Masses, is saying that there is nothing immoral about homosexual activity, that the Church has got it wrong. Click here to read about homosexual activity and decide for yourself if the Church has gotten it wrong… But, what to do about it? Well, for one thing, I’d be hot-footing it out of that parish, never to return. Instead, apparently, the parishioners are behind their PP, which is all the more reason why the Bishop, Joseph Toal, MUST act. The people have been malformed to the point where they really do not know whether they are on foot or on horseback, no idea what it means to be a Catholic; they have not been taught essential truths, such as the nature of the moral law – which comes NOT from “the Church” i.e. not from any churchmen, but from God.
Fr Morton MUST be sacked because he is effectively denying the right and duty of the Church to execute its role as Guardian of the Moral Order. Faith and Morals go hand in hand. For him to arrogantly assert that the Church is wrong on such a fundamental question as human sexuality, male and female, reveals his own lack of divine and Catholic Faith, for, when the Faith goes, the Morals quickly follow. No-one can be a fully believing Catholic while rejecting basic morality. A dozen analogies spring to mind but this comment piece is already too long. Essentially, we want Fr Morton to resign from parish ministry. He is openly inviting public sinners to commit sacrilege, and so the Bishop MUST remove him from ministry. After all, if Fr Despard had to resign for highlighting the very problem which Fr Morton confirms, why should Fr Morton be permitted to continue as Parish Priest, now cast in his new role as the darling of the LGBT “community”?
Please email the Diocese of Motherwell to express your concerns, and to call for the removal of Fr Morton from ministry at ‘email@example.com’
St Peter Damian, pray for us!
What’s interesting is that Bishop Toal released this statement yesterday. A statement which, I think, we can welcome.
STATEMENT FROM BISHOP TOAL: Bishop Toal has shared the following message regarding the pastoral care offered to who experience same-sex attraction.
“Some clergy have asked me in recent times about the pastoral care we offer to people who experience same-sex attraction and I have had a number of discussions about possible approaches. One such approach commended to me is to make available the “Courage” ministry/programme – this encourages those who live with same-sex attraction to live a chaste life – which is also expected of all heterosexual Catholics who are not married – supported by the sacramental and prayer life of the Church. Many scoff at this option as unrealistic in today’s societies in which intimate same-sex relationships are condoned and have been afforded the status of marriage in some countries, but that is the way of life proposed in the Church’s tradition and the Church invites her children to abide by it. Whatever situation one finds oneself in in life the Church wishes us to remain close to Our Lord and constantly invites us to seek a life of true fulfilment. Our saints are our models in this journey of faith and life and it is good to be lead by the example of their commitment to fulfilling God’s will rather than our own particular desires. As Catholics we pray always for the wisdom to make wise choices and to be guided by Christ rather than the world around us.”
+ Joseph Toal
Bishop of Motherwell
Petrus, thank you for that statement; I didn’t know about it, but I agree with you that we must welcome it. It is clearly in line with Catholic teaching on sexual morality.
All the more reason, then, for Bishop Toal to remove Fr Morton from ministry.
I am pleased to read that statement. The Bishop will surely have to sack Fr Morton now, with that statement so recently released. Otherwise, he is guilty of hypocrisy and permitting double standards.
I agree that the bishop should sack Fr Morton but will he? I can’t imagine it, because the fall out would be huge, the media calling the bishop homophobic etc.
I do pray that the bishop will take courage and do the right thing, though.
I have a feeling that statement from Bishop Toal is too little too late. The cat is out of the bag. I think we’re seeing the start of the “outing” of more priests in Scotland. I hope I’m wrong, of course I do, but I won’t be surprised if we have more of the same coming from different parts of the country in the near future.
Father Paul Morton is encouraging actively homosexual Catholics to receive Holy Communion. I provide a transcript of his advice to a homosexual Catholic living with his partner.
James: Rev Morton I am gay and my boyfriend and I haven’t been to Mass for years. We live in Greenock and would like to attend Mass as a couple. Would we be welcome in your parish?
Father Morton: Hi James, thanks for your message. As I was trying to say everyone is welcome in God’s house. If a message has gone out that some are welcome & others are not, then that can’t be good. Hope that you are well.
James: Are we allowed to receive communion?
Father Morton: All Catholics are welcome to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.
I would encourage you to send that transcript to Bishop Toal, with a link to this discussion. He really cannot avoid acting in this matter. He has steadfastly refused to release Fr Despard from suspension – the support group is in fairly regular contact with me, and they will, I have no doubt, be furious if Fr Morton’s blatant attack on Catholic teaching on homosexuality is permitted to go unpunished, while a priest who merely wrote to expose the problem of homosexual clergy is unable to work as a priest. It’s double standards with bells on…
If this scandal proves anything, it proves that Fr Despard was right.
He should be restored to ministry now and receive a full apology from the Bishop.
Hear hear! Fr Despard should be returned to his parish right away. If anybody is being treated with prejudice and excluded, it’s him, not homosexuals.
I agree with those who say that Fr Morton is probably gay himself. That is the most likely scenario and proves, as you say, that Fr Despard was right all along.
There has to be a clear out in the Church in Scotland and I suggest the bishops begin in Motherwell.
I agree completely. Fr Despard obviously knew what he was talking about and now we are seeing the truth for ourselves. It’s shameful that he has been punished for speaking out, and yet Fr Morton will very likely be given, at most, a rap on the knuckles and left in situ. It’s a disgrace.
I completely agree that we cannot take the position “no smoke without fire” regarding the allegations against Fr Morton. However, you would think that Fr Morton of all people would be thankful that he’s been reinstated and steer clear of anything controversial!
Fr Morton has shared this story on his Facebook page, just 11 hours ago.
I posted the link to this discussion on the St Bride’s Facebook page. They’ve just been deleted and I’ve been blocked. So much for inclusion!
Yes, “so much for inclusion” right enough. I would say “inclusion, my foot”.
Obviously this is a priest with a problem in the area of sex and sexuality. I am not taking the line of “no smoke without fire” – I agree that that would be wrong – but I can’t help thinking that he must have a problem to be so preoccupied with sexual matters.
In the report about the investigation into allegations against him, it says he took a sabbatical at one point and was so beloved of the parishioners that they got up a petition to get him back. No wonder he’s popular if he’s telling them to sin and come to Communion anyway!
I absolutely agree that Bishop Toal should sack him. There’s no question about that, otherwise the Bishop is supporting the practice of sacrilegious Communions and wrong teaching on homosexuality.
That is by far the most ridiculous thing I have heard. You are no Catholic let alone Christian. Preoccupation with sexual matters?? You seemed to be the one without a clue Lady. Get a life!!
Fr Morton can’t have it both ways. He can’t get himself into the papers by shouting about how “inclusive” he is, and then delete comments from his Facebook that he disagrees with. That’s what is the most ridiculous thing, but if you are one of his groupies, you won’t see that!
You obviously can’t see the connection between that priest and sexual matters so let me spell it out for you – he’s was in the news (though not charged) with sexual allegations against him and now he’s in the news because of his statement in his church bulletin welcoming LGBT people, without explaining that they cannot receive Holy Communion. I’d say that I am entitled to comment on a priest like this, without being accused of being unChristian. You are being very judgmental about me but not bothered about Fr Morton’s rejection very publicly of Catholic teaching on reception of Holy Communion, as laid out in Canon Law (#915, I believe).
I notice you don’t give your opinion about Fr Morton’s public statements about LGBT people receiving Holy Communion, so I would like you to do so – that will help me to know where you are coming from, although I think I can guess, LOL!
Lets get one thing straight. I know more about this than you do. Trust me on that if nothing else. But your comments were ignorant. He is welcoming people to church with love.Plain and simple. I saw the posting at the time and smiled. How awesome was that. The church welcoming people. That’s something that happens more. But then there is you that seem to focus on the perverted. What??? That, and I am only allowed an opinion, seems perverted. So I suggest you get some education on the man and who he is before you…and obviously others say words that you think even make sense. The church is in desperate need of priest around the world but you all waste energy pulling the man down. Good job! 🙁 Not so much..But please keep quoting Canon law to me some more
Ohhh and one more thing….im not gay if that’s what your last sentence was alluding to. But wow yet another ignorant comment coming from you…no judgement
I didn’t take that from Josephine’s concluding words at all – I took it that she meant that you were one of those people who will take the popular line especially if it is to support your priest. It’s shallow thinking. Josephine can speak for herself, of course, but I certainly didn’t take it that she was suggesting that you were “gay”.
As for “judgement” – the only judgement I read here, comes from your good self.
There is no true love where a priest allows a sinner to remain in sin without calling for repentance. That call was absent from Fr Morton’s “welcome” to his parish.
When Our Lord forgave the woman caught in adultery, he prevented the crowds from stoning her but he dismissed her with the words “go and sin no more”
THAT is the crucial part of Fr Morton’s “welcome” to LGBT people – the part that would have shown that his love was rooted in Christ, was true charity – the part that was missing.
You all make me so sad. I called her out for her comment on Fr Morton supposed preoccupation with sexual matters as she puts it . That was not productive and just wrong . Are you telling me that you are without sin? Only to repeat it over and over you church going people? Do you still take holy communion? I would be fascinated to know I don’t judge anyone ever…its something very important to me. Because I know I have sinned. I guess this kind of thing is the reason I wont go to church. Because I don’t understand this lack of acceptance. What would your response be if the gay and lesbian community came to church without receiving the sacrament?
Anybody can go to Mass, that’s not the issue. The issue is that if we are committing mortal sins we cannot receive Holy Communion until we have gone to Confession and received absolution, after penance and a determination not to commit that sin again. Someone who is living with someone in a sexual relationship outside of traditional marriage between one man and one woman, is making that sin worse, it becomes a public sin and therefore it would be a sacrilege to receive Holy Communion.
I don’t understand when you say you don’t ever judge anyone. You judged Josephine!
Sigh! Again….it was not right to allude to some sexual preoccupation when that was not the intent whether you agree with it or not. I didn’t comment on everyone else that I didn’t agree with I just felt she went too far. That was not a judgement that was me saying really not cool. But I since realize that this publication appears more on one side of things and not about love and acceptance. What ever happened to Do not lest ye be judged? Or the whole we are all gods children? Don’t have to answer that. There is no answer that I would deem acceptable. Again I am also welcome to my opinion.
Every one can go to mass is fantasy. It is foolish to have said or think that is actually happening. And after all this babbling on, that’s what it comes down to. Who is and isn’t welcome in God’s house. I must be out of my damn mind to think everyone should be.
Before I reply in any detail to your posts, would you mind explaining what, precisely, you think it means to say that “everyone should be welcome in God’s house.”
What, exactly does that mean? Would you give some practical examples to help us understand what, precisely, you mean.
Anyone who wishes to be with good intentions,
I am very curious about what your rebuttal is about to be.
You have misunderstood my question.
I know that where I attend Mass, everyone is made welcome. If I (and I’m sure others) see someone new, we speak to them to welcome them and explain that there is tea and coffee available afterwards. We invite them to sit with us if they wish, although we do not pressure people in case they want to enjoy their cuppa in peace.
I would presume that the same is true of most if not all parishes, and so wonder why Fr Paul Morton felt the need to actually spell it out that people are welcome in his church.
I wouldn’t, of course, dream of asking people about their sexual behaviour – if two women attend or two men attend together I would presume they are related or friends and it wouldn’t cross my mind to think anything else.
So, what is it that you think it means to welcome newcomers. Is there something I’m missing? Actually saying “welcome” and “there’s tea afterwards, you are very welcome to come into the tearoom, and sit with us, if you wish” – is that not enough? What is it, that you actually mean and that you think (or know) that Fr Morton means, because I cannot see the problem. Have people been made to feel UN-welcome in St Brides’s or what – why did Fr Morton feel he had to make an announcement about it? I just don’t get it, Julie. Help me out, here.
I wrote this whole long reaction on this. And then erased it. Whats the point? i reacted to an out of line comment. I don’t tend to do that. But i do so dislike when people are treated unfair. But all i am left is just shaking my head. A man decided to welcome more people to his church. a group of people that have been out right told they are not welcome for ever. Nothing to do with holy communion though apparently now that’s the excuse. And then theres this mob mentality of FIRE HIM! Not lets sit down and listen to him or find out where he coming from.
Of course he had to say it like he did. keeping in mind it was not in the media, it was on St Brides FB page with only a couple hundred followers.
you all can keep those shall we say old school ways. This world is so full of negatively and this just seems to add to it.
Should i applaud you for welcoming people as long as they don’t tell you who they are?
Opps i guess my reaction got long again.
For someone who never judges anyone, I can see that you’re obviously pleased to make an exception of us!
You clearly don’t understand the issues, so I’m going to leave you to your MIS-judgments, both about myself and the other bloggers personally, and the Church – which is not a social club to make people feel that it’s OK to sin. That’s what Fr Morton appears to be saying and so he’s not only plain wrong, but also he is being very uncharitable – that is, very unloving – by misleading folks.
I’m guessing that you are not a Catholic, and so I’m taking the liberty of providing a link to a book entitled Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul.
I hope it helps clarify things for you. It’s important to understand that God wants us to live in a certain way, if we are to save our souls from Hell and spend eternity in Heaven.
Anyway, I hope you find the book helpful – you can read it online, at the link I’ve provided above. If you do read it through, I’d be interested to hear your verdict.
I have friends who live in Cambuslang, in that very parish. I don’t see them often and, to be honest, they are so modernist that they are likely to think nothing of this, but it brings it home to you when a priest comes out in support of the LGBT lifestyle, close to home, like this.
Sorry, but to me that means he’s gay himself. I know ordinary people can get carried along on the “anti-discrimination” bandwagon but a priest must know about the health risks, the moral law, why something is immoral so the only explanation, IMHO, is that he is that way inclined himself.
Add my name to the list calling for him to be sacked. He’s a danger to faith, that is for sure.
This email is doing the rounds right now, seemingly from a group in Edinburgh. Looks like the Archdiocese of Glasgow is looking for action.
Please see the following article which details a facebook post made by St Bride’s in Cambuslang and has been taken up by the mainstream media as support for homosexuality.
Of course, what Fr Murton says is correct in as far as the church is open to all sinners but he does not clearly say anything about repentance. This has led the media to present his ambiguous statement as support for people living the homosexual lifestyle.
Many have made their delight known on the facebook comments thread (including one of my depute head teachers!), clearly demonstrating that the average ‘Catholic’ has taken the same interpretation as the mainstream media- that the Catholic Church in Scotland is lightening up on homosexual sin. Comments include the idea of picking and choosing from the Catechism and a desire for the ‘inclusive’ approach to extend to the divorced and remarried. People have quoted ‘Who am I to judge?’
Please email the diocesan curia to register your concern at such an ambiguous statement spreading confusion among Catholics and the general population regarding this most pressing of issues.
Chancellor Mgr Paul Murray BSc PhB STL Email: Chancellor@rcag.org.uk
Whoever wrote that comment is mixed up because Fr Morton is in the Diocese of Motherwell, not the Archdiocese of Glasgow. Mgr Murray is the chancellor for Glasgow, but editor has given the email address for the chancellor of Motherwell firstname.lastname@example.org’. That’s who to write to, not Mgr Murray in Glasgow. .
No, this Email has been written by Monsignor Paul Murray. He is asking people to contact the Curia in Motherwell.
I’ve had an email from someone reading this blog, who tells me that the identity of the author of the email is likely to be a young teacher who sent it to the Edinburgh group you mention – she gave me the name of the teacher and it made sense; think of the mention of “one of my depute headteachers”, and think, too, of the likelihood of the chancellor of the archdiocese of Glasgow rediscovering his Confirmation graces in order to stir us all to action. Doesn’t wash.
The teacher whom I believe wrote the email is a convert and so may not realise that Cambuslang is in the Diocese of Motherwell, not Glasgow.
Still, if Mgr Murray gets a few emails about this scandal, that can only be a good thing… I was once told he wears pink socks, not that I’m reading anything into that, you understand 😀 If you’re reading this, only kidding, Monsignor! If you’re not reading this.. wonder if he does wear pink socks? Anyway, what’s wrong with pink socks? I love pink… 😀
Fr Morton… is openly inviting public sinners to commit sacrilege…
Yes, and in doing so he is simply following the example of Pope Francis, who has officially opened this Pandora’s box with pride and dictatorial glee. I am wondering: what is the position of the Diocese of Motherwell/Bishop Toal on AL? If Bishop Toal sacks this pathetic excuse for a priest, then he by inference is also “disobeying” a Pope who has openly issued the same invitation.
I hope Bishop Toal has the spine for unwavering fidelity to the Faith, and all its consequences.
Bishop Toal has not taken any public stand on AL – this was posted on the Motherwell website at the time of AL being let loose upon the world.
I can’t see anything since, at a quick tour just now.
Bishop Toal simply must dismiss Fr Morton. It’s scandalous to read this stuff in a daily newspaper, showing the disarray within the Church in Scotland.
Instead of thinking himself lucky that he was cleared in the police investigation, here he is courting publicity again and causing more scandal.
I wouldn’t attend any of his Masses for a pension. He’s a disgrace to the priesthood.
Father Morton is well out of order for making that statement of welcome without explaining that all sinners need to repent and confess before receiving Holy Communion. As we know, confession also means turning away from sin, especially grave, mortal sins, and being determined not to commit those sins again. If someone is living in a state of permanent public sin, such as adultery or sodomy, they cannot be absolved and so cannot go to Communion. It is sinful of Father Morton not to make that clear.
The original article to which you kindly provided a link says nothing controversial: everyone Saint or Sinner is welcome in Church, and to the any public Liturgy.
It is also true ANY Catholic is welcome to receive Holy Communion but The Church has also said they must be in a state of Grace, and in Full Communion with The Church. Not all Catholics are always in a state of Grace, and many are not actually in Full Communion with The Church. Are any people not in Full Communion with The Church receiving Holy Communion, I wonder?
Fr Morton left out the bit about being in a state of grace. Also, why say that the Church must “redress the harm it has done to gay people”? If that’s not controversial, then tell me what is.
Why single out the LGBT people at all? Why not just talk about “sinners” being welcome, firstly, welcome to come to Confession and to fulfil the conditions, which means, in the case of the LGBT people, end of homosexual activity
I don’t understand the end of your comment about “not in Full Communion with the Church” – you are either in communion with the Church or out of communion with the Church, there’s no grading up to “Full Communion” – LOL!
You may be not aware that those were previously in Full Communion who, for whatever reason, have ceased to be in Full Communion can be restored to that state, and likewise Christians who were not previously in Full Communion can, with a public declaration of Faith, enter into Full Communion. Therefore it is not necessarily a constant state, and one can gradually enter into Full Communion.
It is thee, I’m afraid, who are not aware of the fact that, as Fidelis pointed out, one is either in communion with the Church – that is, with Catholic Tradition (not a particular pope) – or not. Read this article – it’s very clear on this subject.
There’s no such thing as gradually entering into full communion with the Church. One either repents of one’s sins and confesses them or one remains in one’s sins and risks eternal death. Our Lord is always willing to receive the repentant sinner in Confession, no matter the gravity and number of past sins. He is not best pleased, however, by people who delay because they still have an attachment to their sinful ways and don’t want to amend until they feel ready. Remember Our Lord’s own words: “you are either for me, or against me”.
A Christian of another denomination who becomes a Catholic enters into Full Communion, and indeed there is a specific Rite for that, and so, yes, people can be in Communion but NOT Full Communion. Every year, usually around Easter, thousands of such people do that.
Converts were never in any kind of “communion” with the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformers would turn in their graves at the very thought. People who are outside the Church, clearly cannot be in “communion” with her. Gerragrip!
And where are the “thousands” of converts these days – clearly not in Scotland. I’d be interested in a link to the latest statistics on conversions to the Church. Prior to Vatican II people WERE lining up to convert, just check out the writings of Michael Davies for those stats, but since then? I’d be surprised. Over to theee.
May I suggest you obtain, read, and study “The Rite of Reception Into Full Communion with The Catholic Church”. It is used in Catholic Churches throughout the world for the reception, into Full Communion, of Christians of other denominations, and I would say, worldwide, thousands enter Full Communion, using that Rite, every year. Clearly to enter to Full Communion the receiving Church needs to be in Full Communion.
There is no such thing as partial communion with the Church. Therefore, there is no such thing as non-Catholics moving from partial to full communion with the Church. I think you’re referencing a Modernist, Post-Vatican II document that is neither authoritative nor in line with the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. One is either a Catholic or a non-Catholic, no transition position. So says the infallible dogma.
Now you should know that we on this site adhere only to what has always been taught and handed down by the infallible magisterium. We do not alter the teaching in order to avoid upsetting heretics, schsmatics, pagans and those who, while Catholic by baptism, are living in a state of objective mortal sin. I think that should make things clear for you.
If confusion remains, however, then allow me to state clearly again that the consistent teaching of the magisterium throughout the centuries is that there exists only one true Christian Church, the Catholic Church. All other so-called denominations cannot save souls. Only the Catholic Church can save souls. Read up on the infallible dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and its complimentary teaching on invincible ignorance. No Council, Pope or series of Popes can change that teaching or present it in a way that obscures the truth, though some have, and are, trying very hard to do so in these relativist, faithless times.
Read it. Typical modernist stuff.
I couldn’t find a copy of the pre-Vatican II rite, but I emailed one of our American readers, sometime columnist who is something of an expert in the pre and post Vatican II rites – we’ve published his work on the Sacraments over the years.
Here’s his response to your “partial communion” / post-Vatican II rite for converts…
The term “partial communion” is an oxymoron. One is in communion with the Catholic Church or not.
Before Vatican II, a convert from a Protestant sect was “conditionally baptized” as was my father who converted from Pentecostal to Catholic in 1947. One cannot be re-baptized because the sacrament is permanent. When there are doubts about whether the person was baptized or if there are doubts about the form, matter, subject, minister, or intent then the canon prescribes conditional baptism. Canon 869.1
After Vatican II, clerics were more likely to accept a Protestant baptism without any doubts, but then most of the post-Vatican II clerics are protestant at heart and in their thinking and rituals.
Always, Martin, when you are citing or quoting from any post-Vatican II document, remember that Our Lady warned, as far back at the 17th century in Quito and again at Fatima in 1917ff of a crisis to come in the Church. You have to measure any changes, anything that is at odds with the teaching of the Church on the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation – against this “crisis” background; that way you won’t get caught out like this…
There is no such thing as partial communion with the Church, the suggestion is ridiculous. One is either a Catholic or not a Catholic. Those who convert to the true religion are not partial Catholics prior to their decision to enter the Church. Your false idea is based on the branch theory which proposes that Christians of other so-called denominations are in some sense or another still partially Catholic. Not true! Such a proposition is condemned as heresy by the teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries. That’s why the Church has an infallible dogma that says extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Besides that, the purpose of this thread is to discuss Catholics who live in an objective state of mortal sin and yet want access to Holy Communion, which some sacrilegious clerics are prepared to allow them. Never in the history of the Catholic religion has there been even the remotest suggestion of such a terrible crime against the Blessed Sacrament, only in this faithless age.
And by the way, there’s no partial absolution for those in objective mortal sin, no half way between sin and grace. One is either repentant and confesses with purpose of amendment or one remains attached to sin and sinful situations. Again, the Church’s bimillenial consistently teaches this.
Are you for real? Did you actually read the report provided at the top? If so, you must have missed this section:
““We must do everything we can to redress the harm that has been done in the past by the negative stance we seem to have taken up.
“In God’s house all are welcome and are the blessed and loved children of God. There should be no place in our language or our attitude which allows for prejudice or exclusion. We must join with others who are seeking to build a more inclusive society.”
What’s all that saying if not that the Church needs to change her teaching on sodomy?
No I did not miss the sentence you quote.
Nowhere in that sentence does it mention receiving Holy Communion. Therefore anyone, in a state of Grace or not, who has NOT been made to feel welcome in Church may indeed have felt excluded: The Divorced, Unmarried Mothers etc, and the list would be quite long, and so to make clear they are welcome to The House of God in no way conflicts with any Church Teaching, or discipline.
However, as I said in my original post, questions about admission to Holy Communion are a wholly different question. Until reconciled formally those not in a State of Grace, or not in Full Communion, should not receive Holy Communion, but they should be still welcome in Church.
Did you miss Fr Morton telling the active homosexual that he and his partner could receive Holy Communion?
I commented on the article to which The Editor provided the link which was the basis of this tread.
I have also reaffirmed Church teaching on the reception of Holy Communion which is at variance with the fb comment you highlight.
Dishonest again. That’s not what Petrus asked you. He asked if you had “missed Fr Morton telling the active homosexual that he and his partner could receive Holy Communion?”
The question that Petrus refers to was in a reference to a dialogue on facebook, and NOT in the article you provided a link to.
I did not, as I have alluded to in the post you are replying to, missed the fact the fb dialogue had been raised but that is NOT in the article you provided a link to.
In response to “Concerned Parishioner”, who you are calling “Petrus” I wrote “I have also reaffirmed Church teaching on the reception of Holy Communion which is at variance with the fb comment you highlight.” In other words the comment of fb is wrong.
Are you aware (with all due respect) of how ridiculous you seem?
The blog introduction and any linked articles therein, are simply to kick start the discussion, which is NOT restricted to that introduction.
So, stop being an idiot and answer the question. No need to really since by playing this game of avoiding the answer, you actually GIVE the answer.
Judging by this avoidance, coupled with your support for Fr Morton’s statement, it is clear that you have no objection to the homosexual “couple” receiving Communion. No silly comments saying “but I didn’t SAY that… You are putting words into my MOUTH” blah blah will wash. Either you say in plain English that you do NOT approve or continue to remain silent on the subject, which silence speaks volumes.
As for your final paragraph, I thought Petrus asked the question, but if it’s Concerned Parishioner, my apologies to both Petrus and CP. I’m not (always) infallible, you know…
Here’s that sentence again….
“In God’s house all are welcome and are the blessed and loved children of God. There should be no place in our language or our attitude which allows for prejudice or exclusion. We must join with others who are seeking to build a more inclusive society.”
What does it mean?
It means Saint and Sinner are welcome in The House of God, and anyone can approach him there. Holy Communion is NOT mentioned in that sentence, nor I think in the article linked to.
A sound priest would make clear what he means; I’ve attended funerals in the SSPX chapel where the priest welcomes everyone to the Mass and explains that this Mass is in Latin etc and then goes on to explain that only practising Catholics may receive Communion, and that, kneeling (unless disabled) and on the tongue. He doesn’t just gush about this being God’s house and everyone is welcome; doesn’t even mention “saints and sinners” – simply outlines the “rules” and leaves it at that.
I remember on one occasion the priest clarified “practising” by pointing out that if it is a while since someone has attended Mass, or if they have missed Mass without having been ill or duty such as care of infants etc., and not yet been to Confession, “better not to come to Communion today”. Very tactful, but doing all he can to minimise the risk of sacrilegious Communions.
If he’d gushed about “saints and sinners” alike being welcome, this is God’s house, blah blah, there wouldn’t be a darn thing he could do about it if a bunch of “transgenders” presented themselves for Holy Communion, now would there?
Priests are also teachers and there’s nothing worse than a teacher who cannot explain stuff clearly, to the point where he causes confusion. That puts such priests in the category of “bad teachers” or “poor teachers” or “unskilled teachers” etc etc. You’ll get my drift.
It means practicing homosexuals, people living in unmarried unions or divorced and remarried, and fine well you know it!
We all know the Church is full of sinners, we’re part of that, but there are sinners and there are sinners. There are the ones who recognise their sinful state, confess their sins and beg God for the grace to sin no more, and there are those who like the comfort of religion but have no intention of giving up their sins anytime soon. These are superficial Christians, not real ones. Remember the words of Our Lord to sinners He forgave in the Gospels: “Go and sin no more”. If they don’t have the disposition to hear and determine to obey those words then they are fake Christians, not sinners on their way to God. We need to be clear about the different types of sinners. A true sorrowful Christian must be on their knees in the confessional at the earliest opportunity or he fools himself that he is a Christian.
The clergy who push the idea that certain types of people have been made to feel unwelcome in the Church is generally a fallacy. They created that myth in order to admit those who are at variance with the Commandments of God and the Church to receive Holy Communion.
They don’t say as much, but that’s what they’re all about. Hence, we have to discount every utterance from Pope Francis and other liberal clergy that is ambiguous. Our Lord spoke plainly on the Commandments, as have the Popes from Peter down to Benedict XVI. Francis doesn’t like direct speech when it comes to moral subjects that may be unpopular to the relativist world so he speaks and writes with a dangerous lack of clarity. Any cleric who imitates that method has to be considered a potential danger to souls and their advice ignored.
We have the clear infallible moral teaching of the Church to live by and it must at all times be stated clearly and fearlessly. There’s no room for liberal cowards in the service of God and His Church, they’re the only ones who really should consider themselves frowned upon.
I would be very rich if I was paid for every divorced, or unmarried parent, I have met who for years, and even decades, didn’t go to Church because they thought they were unwelcome, or more specifically say some people made them feel unwelcome.
That is not a fallacy.
There’s no end of excuses that people make for missing Mass. I’ve learned THAT over decades. As long as those who are living in sin do not approach for Holy Communion, nobody would think ill of them or say a word. Most wouldn’t know anything about them. And that excuse gets ever thinner when you remember that anyone can attend Mass in any parish, no need to go where they are known.
So that excuse is indeed a fallacy – a false argument if ever I heard/read one.
I think you’ll find that most stay away for conscience reasons, they still have sufficient honesty to know that their lifestyle is not compatible with the teaching of the Church, which is the teaching of Our Lord Himself. Others still attend Mass but would never consider going to Holy Communion because they recognise that they are not in a state of grace. There’s hope for people like that because they still maintain a sense of the faith and of the gravity of mortal sin.
The ones who remain in their sins and want access to Holy Communion, blaming the Church and other parishioners for their tragic situation, have lost their honesty and their sense of sin. These are in very grave danger of being lost for all eternity because they refuse to take responsibility for their sinful actions. Everyone and everything is blame but them.
With respect I based my comment on actual conversations with real people nad not on what I think their situation is (in the head or conscience), but on waht they believed. Further, I can say with certainty I have helped a number of such people back into “the fold” through such conversations, and by accomapnying them. Please do not tell me you know what I actually know, with certainty, is incorrect or that you know the judgement made by every other human on the planet.
Yes, I do know what you are all about because I have come across your type for many, many years on various forums. The giveaway is when you ignore scandals against the faith and start banging on instead about accuracy in matters that are neither here nor there. In other words, you strain on a gnat and swallow a camel.
You are evidently not a person who cares much about the integrity of the Catholic Faith. Your Catholicism, from what I’ve read thus far, is misguided and misinformed at best, and superficial at worst. I’ll leave to your conscience which of the two it is.
Now just to put you to the test: Would you say that a cleric or prelate who states or insinuates that the Holy Catholic Church has been guilty in the past by her moral teaching of harming active homosexuals, the divorced and remarried and others living in objective mortal sin, should be severely censured for heresy. A yes or no answer will suffice for transparency.
One last point. Unlike you, we do not go by what “real people” tells us, whatever that means, but rather by what the Church has consistently taught throghout the centuries. Inother words, our Catholic Faith is not based on opinion and popular demand, it’s based on divine revelation. Keeps us free from pride and the trickery of the devil, who loves dialogue!
I don’t think the Priest in question has said any of what you. He, and I think The Pope, have apologised for hurts caused by insensitive dealings with people in pastoral situations that are not regular.
You will recall The Pope told one unmarried if her Priest refused to baptise her child he will do it. A real concrete situation.
In every post I have upheld Church Teaching and Discipline on receiving Holy Communion. I have not queried, criticised or condemned that teaching. I am hardly a woolly minded liberal myself.
I have, as I said, met people in similar situations to which The Pope has responded to.
Thank you for confirming what I suggested. I rather thought a yes or no answer would be too straight forward for you. Please do not in future insult our intelligence by suggesting that the Pope and other liberal clerics at this time are intending anything other than to obscure, or otherwise undermine, the moral teaching of the Church. The Internet is awash with Pope Francis’ ambiguous and dangerous statments on moral issues. We all know what he and the cleric in question in this thread are insinuating.
Our Lord said “let your yes be yes and your no, no”. In other words speak plainly and be clear about what you’re saying. Obscure, double-meaning comments are spoken only by those who intend to deceive.
You are, I’m afraid, defending the indefensible. You know fine well that this was an attack on Catholic teaching. What the priest DIDNT say spoke volumes. So spare us this baloney!
By the way, have you seen what Fr Morton told an active homosexual? Have you seen the links he’s posted on supporting Transexuals?
“After all, if Fr Despard had to resign for highlighting the very problem which Fr Morton confirms, why should Fr Morton be permitted to continue as Parish Priest, now cast in his new role as the darling of the LGBT “community”?”
Hear, hear! Fr Despard has been cast out into the darkness just for raising the alarm about the fact of homosexual priests in the diocese and in Scotland at large, and yet this Cambuslang priest is being allowed to run loose in a parish where he is making a virtue out of grave sin, all in the name of doing away with “prejudice”.
Father Morton should be dismissed and Fr Despard reinstated. I believe he was exonerated by Rome, anyway, so what’s the delay about?
You are correct – Fr Despard WAS exonerated by the authorities in Rome, and yet we have not been told that, officially, by the Diocese of Motherwell. What (as the guy says in the PPI advert) is going on?
Father Paul Morton has been in Cambuslang for over fifteen years (barring the time he was helping police with their enquiries). His predecessor, if I’m not mistaken, was the notorious homosexual apologist and paedophile campaigner Father John Breslinz. So, the people of Cambuslang have now been “ministered” to by pro-homosexuals for successive generations. The bishop must act!
That is correct – Fr John Breslin of “Paedophile Information Exchange” infamy is a priest of the Diocese of Motherwell, put into retirement after his involvement, I believe, in a “gay” march down south, but – as far as I know – he still does supply work in parishes, incredibly.
Reminds me of the piece in the newsletter some years ago where I pointed out that, at one point in time, St Augustine’s parish in Milton, Glasgow was being served by two actively “gay” priests – and I kinda enjoyed pointing out the difficulty for those parishioners of keeping on the straight and narrow path.. 😀 (Get it? “straight”?)
Oh editor, I can hardly keep a straight face!
Fr. Breslin is now in his 90s, is suffering from dementia and has been in a nursing home for some years. He is not still supplying in parishes. Fr. Morton’s immediate predecessor in Cambuslang was Fr. Millar, not Fr. Breslin. Not too hot on accuracy on this site, are we?
I have never claimed to be “hot” on the clergy changes in every diocese in the country, nor do I check up on their health status. Nope. Have never done that.
I did, however, have quite a lengthy conversation with Fr John Breslin not that many years ago when he was supplying in a parish during the priest’s absence on holiday, and he certainly didn’t look remotely near 90 years of age. Interesting that you would know that.
I didn’t claim that Fr John Breslin was Fr Morton’s predecessor, and Petrus merely speculated that he may have been, writing “if I’m not mistaken” (Fr Breslin was Fr Morton’s predecessor). So stop acting like a silly schoolboy barracking during a disagreement because he knows he’s lost the argument anyway.
In any event, this a discussion forum, not a court of law. We correct one another, as and when, since in conversation it is normal to speculate or pull possible information from a “dodgy” memory, but you will never find any inaccuracies in our reporting, unlike many other blogs. In the body of the discussion, perhaps, but, as you can see from the fact that your comment has been released from the blacklist queue, where there is a need to correct, we correct.
If only YOU were half as sincere, you wouldn’t be in the outer darkness, sitting unread until I have the time (or remember!) to check out if you are there and what nonsense you are spouting now.
Maybe I’ve forgotten or it’s not registered, but I am struggling to remember what you think on the topic – did Fr Morton do the right thing by making that unqualified “welcome” statement to the LGBT folks?
Before you reply, reflect on the fact that when Bishop Toal returns from holiday, Fr Morton may well be toast… One has one’s sources…
We may not be fully accurate at all times on this site, but at least we’re honest Catholics who speak the truth in accordance with the teaching of the Church. It’s quite obvious to me from your many posts to date that you are far from an honest Catholic with this intention. I don’t know exactly what your motives are in posting here but I’m glad you came because you demonstrate the hypocrisy of the liberal Modernist to all of our unseen, objective readers. Your objections and arguments thus far have been childish, and shown to be so. The teaching of the Church is always there to show you up.
Regular bloggers outside of Scotland may not be aware of how the town got its name – ‘Motherwell’.
An ancient well in the area, just a few miles south-east of Glasgow, was dedicated to the Blessed Mother. Hence, the town that sprang up around there (once famous for its bustling iron & steel industries) became known as Mother Well.
Our Lady must be crying a well of tears at what is going on in the Diocese and throughout the Church, for that matter.
This is how to console Her:
Soon, the only nation NOT to be consecrated will be Russia! What’ll they do then! Priceless.
Hilarious Editor, but you are right. They would publicly consecrate Saudi Arabia, before Russia!
As this thread concerns the Church in Scotland, here is the latest example of a priest “making the papers” from today’s headlines:
Parish priest of St Maria Goretti in Glasgow – Fr John Sweeny (41) – arrested following alleged trysts with a 17 yr old girl and allegations of a sectarian slur. He has been suspended from his role currently.
The article has an error I think, it seems to think Fr Sweeney was ordained in Dublin but I think he was ordained in 2010 in St Marys Glasgow, while St Andrews Cathedral was being renovated.
The Scottish Bishops were recently braying about ordinations this year being at a 20 year high, (12 men – including 5 for Motherwell alone), I can only hope none of those men make negative headlines.
Thank you for that alert – and bang on the right thread, too, because (as I was just saying to a friend) at the rate scandals are coming these days, I could post a new thread every hour on the hour. It helps to have like-reports together on one thread, and as you all know, I’m no fan of the General Discussion thread because, more often than not, it is merely a list of links and no discussion.
Anyway, that is shocking about Fr Sweeney, and perhaps part of the shock comes from the fact that this allegation involves a member of the opposite sex. What next!
Seriously, it is very sad to be living through such decadence in the Church. Dreadful.
That is terrible news. How much longer can we suffer priests who are so completely off the wall that they are running around with teenagers. Imagine him, at 41, having “trysts” with a teenage girl. What was he thinking about?
Also, what was he thinking about going to the altar to say Mass after one of these “trysts”? Have these priests got no shame?
IMHO, any priest playing around like this should be dismissed from the priesthood no discussion about it. Yes, they can go to Confession etc. but they should still have to stop working as priests, to me, that’s very basic. I would want nothing to do with a priest who behaves like Fr Sweeney seems to have been behaving – allowing that in his case, this is still at the allegation stage, but if found to be true, then he should no longer be allowed to work as a priest.
As horrifying as this is, we can’t forget that the pervasive presence of these utterly corrupt, depraved clergy is God’s worst possible chastisement….upon us. So while we can certainly resist and expose these wolves, we can’t forget that the Church is infested with them because, and only because, God is mightily displeased with us.
He is surely entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty?
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read newspaper reports or heard it said in documentaries, that Dr Harold Shipman, convicted of murdering lots of his patients (200 or so) before committing suicide, probably killed many more.
Now, we all know fine well that he is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty – nobody has pronounced him guilty and added a list of names to his victims, when he was never tried for those deaths, but, well, folks kinda talk loosely at times – often when there is little to no doubt in the matter of said guilt. Wrong, of course, even naughty, but, hey we’re all human. Even moi. No! I insist.
Sadly, that is now the situation with the clergy… So many scandals, they really can’t be too surprised if people tend to think the worst. Of course, there are always charitable souls like yourself – although your charity, historically, tends to leave you when you come on to this blog, but are we complaining? Nope…
Obviously, Fr Sweeney cannot be found guilty until charged, tried and convicted – I even spoke to one of our team members this morning who knows Fr Sweeney personally and said she will be amazed if he IS guilty -but, sadly, that is the way things are these days. There have been so many such cases that it becomes par for the course. If he’s tried and found not guilty or innocent, I think it is fair to say that most people will be (pleasantly) surprised.I’m just being honest,Eileenanne, don’t get mad at me, ony jes sayin’…
You see, we have silly bishops who are routinely placing young and middle-aged priests into situations of temptation, dangerous occasions of sin.
Have you ever been present, for example, when the school chaplain, young and handsome, appears in a school yard or classroom, teenage girls crowding round him (suddenly religion is their favourite subject). Nurses / hospital chaplain? Teenagers at World Youth Day and so on and so forth.
We’re living in permissive times, to put it as mildly as possible, with priests who live secular lifestyles, watching the same rubbish soaps and dramas as the rest of their flock, all to be “relevant” you see, with very little in the way of spiritual resources to help them deal with the filth (as Pope Benedict described it) both within and outside the Church. The new Mass is about as spiritual as a visit to the local humanist meeting and they’re more likely to recite the Koran than the Rosary.
So, yes, of course, Fr Sweeney is innocent until proven guilty, but don’t be too surprised if some folk tend to think he’s well, guilty, because too many priests (and I hope he’s not one) have left themselves open to gossip in one way or another. The use of the term “trysts” in the reporting gives a clue. He may simply have been lending a friendly/fatherly ear to a teenager with her imagined problems, and too many priests appear never to have heard of the danger of “giving scandal”, so let’s hope that this scandal turns out to be nothing more than that – the appearance of scandal. In which case, he’s still guilty – of causing scandal.
Hope this Epistle from the Catholic Truth Office, clears up that little misunderstanding for you.
If true this would be a scandal, a priest and a 17-year old girl. But I can’t understand why he would have been arrested, she’s over the legal age. Something not right about that story, me thinks.
I wondered about that, too, but it would be the “professional” thing, taking advantage of a young girl due to his professional position and the possibility that the “trysts” began when she was younger.
I do agree that priests are far too careless about this sort of thing these days.
It is an offence for someone in a position of trust to have a sexual relationship with one of their ‘charges’, for example a teacher and pupil, even if the pupil is over the age of consent. I guess a priest and a teenager or vulnerable person would come into that category.That is the only part of this, as far as we know, that would concern the law.
I am surprised, Editor, that you who are so precise and exacting about so many things would not instantly delete any post that even hinted that a person was guilty of something for which he is still being investigated. Many other forums would do so unhesitatingly.
I am also a little taken aback that you think I have been uncharitable hereabouts. I wonder what I said…
I don’t know what other blogs you are referring to, which delete comments about someone under investigation because that’s not my experience. I was on the Herald Scotland site yesterday when they were discussing this case and there are some very seedy comments up there. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/15441688.Glasgow_priest_investigated_over_claims_he_had_sexual_relationship_with_teenager/
There’s only a handful of comments on that site but nearly all anti-Catholic, very seedy, as you say. Nobody would get away with calling a priest as “perv” on this site, of that we can all be sure.
This comment is directed to Martin, since there is no more room for replies above.
In every post I have upheld Church Teaching and Discipline on receiving Holy Communion. I have not queried, criticised or condemned that teaching. I am hardly a woolly minded liberal myself.
I’m sorry to say, Martin, that by citing Pope Francis’ scandalous actions, and defending this priest, you have demonstrated exactly the opposite of your claim: you, like Francis and this scandalous priest, have undermined Church teaching and discipline on receiving Holy Communion..
There is no such thing as a “pastoral situation that is not regular” and which is not subject to objective truth and objective moral law. That, in fact, is the meaning of “objective truth”: it applies to all things human, under all circumstances. To deny that is nothing more than the old Modernist trick of “situation ethics,” of which Francis is the tyrannical and depraved enforcer. This is the same situation ethics condemned by Pius XII in an instruction of Feb. 2, 1956 published by the Holy Office. Some excerpts from that instruction follow:
The authors who defend this system [Situation Ethics] affirm that the decisive and final rule of action does not belong to an objective order determined by natural law, which makes one know the rule of action with certainty. Rather, it is a certain inner judgment and interior personal light within each individual that makes him know what he should do at the moment he faces a concrete situation [translation: every individual can discern for himself, rather than following the law of the Church, what is the correct moral action in a given situation].
…According to these [Modernist] authors, the traditional concept of human nature does not suffice; one must have recourse to an existential concept of human nature that, regarding many things, does not have objective absolute value, but only a relative value, and, therefore, can change…
..According to their … doctrine, many things present as absolute postulates of natural law are based on existential concepts and, consequently, are relative and mutable and can always be adapted to any situation.
…Once men … apply these principles, they would supposedly be … liberated… from many otherwise insoluble ethical conflicts. They could do this by judging what to do in each particular situation by following their personal interior light that comes from intuition, each one according to his conscience and not primarily by following objective laws.
That’s a perfect summary of the key issues; just shows, though, that a bad pope and badly formed clergy show us how shallow the faith is in too many Catholics. People do what Martin has done, all the time – they think because a pope says something, even if it’s obviously contradicting God’s law, that it must be right.
Your quote from Pius XII nails the lie that we can all decide for ourselves what is right, so thanks for that one.
So The Church is wrong to baptise an illegitimate child? That is the only example of the actions, or words, of The Pope I have cited.
On the contrary, there are situations that are irregular.
The fact is for decades many people who have been divorced, or had a child out of wedlock, have felt unwelcome in Church. That is a completely different situation to them being able to receive Holy Communion.
If you conflate the two issues it is you, not I that are wrong.
Further being made unwelcome or made to feel welcome has nothing whatsoever to do with situational ethics.Nothing whatsoever.
How can people encounter Christ, and his Church, if they feel unable to cross the doors of The Church. If they do not come how can anyone assist them in regularising the situation?
If people who have sinned feel unable to enter a Church building, or approach a priest, in what place, and by what means, will they have the possibility of reconciliation?
I have not defending either The Pope, or the Priest, but commented solely on one sentence:
“In God’s house all are welcome and are the blessed and loved children of God. There should be no place in our language or our attitude which allows for prejudice or exclusion. We must join with others who are seeking to build a more inclusive society.”
Perhaps you can explain what exactly you can possibly object to in that sentence.
(I apologise for the delay in replying. Until a few minutes ago I did not know you had addressed a comment to me.)
Who goes to Church to be made to “feel welcome”? What tosh.
This business of feeling “welcome” in Church is a new fashion. Previously, the Catholic “community” meant the worldwide – universal – community. It didn’t mean the local parish. Often parishioners – especially working people – would go into a city centre church for Confession or daily Mass, for example, and they would feel every bit at home there, as in their local parish church, and that without speaking to a single soul. The Church is not a club for the psychologically impoverished, or the shy among us. If they need to “feel” good about themselves or feel part of a local “community” they should try the local gym or join a reading group.
And the key thing is this: the obligation is to attend Mass. On Sundays/Holy days. Wherever. There is NO obligation to run around welcoming everyone and their granny. Personally, I do my best to speak to newcomers at our church, but if I thought for a minute that their attendance depended on it, I’d tell them to sling their hook, go look for another crutch. Worshipping God is what church is for. Not for making friends. I hate the silly saying “get a life” but it has just come to mind so I’m throwing it in for good measure.
You ask RCA Victor to explain what is wrong in the following sentence – allow me…
“In God’s house all are welcome and are the blessed and loved children of God. There should be no place in our language or our attitude which allows for prejudice or exclusion. We must join with others who are seeking to build a more inclusive society.””
1) “In God’s house all are welcome and are the blessed and loved children of God…”
What’s wrong with it is what is omitted: Note –
All are welcome to be present. Yes. All are blessed and loved by God Yes. But God does not approve of sin. Not even divorced and “remarried” sin; not even LGBT sin. God loves us, yes. But the sinner – especially by living in public unrepented sin, does not in fact love God. THAT is the problem. So, Fr Morton misleads his readers by omitting that key fact.
2) “There should be no place in our language or our attitude which allows for prejudice or exclusion.”
So, if the people we are welcoming, mention that they are living in a state of public, unrepented sin, whether divorced and “remarried” or in a same-sex partnership, we keep smiling and show no surprise, no concern? Say nothing?
Remember, we didn’t ask, they volunteer the information and we are Confirmed Soldiers of Christ, so we have certain duties to spread and defend the Faith and Morals. So, we say nothing? Show no concern?
Well, in that case, I think YOU need to explain to US what you think that part of the sentence means. It seems to me to be saying “say nothing”. Same as saying “Leave these lovely people in their sinful state, which is displeasing to God, because the main thing is to make them FEEL welcome (by us – God’s law doesn’t matter.)
That part of the sentence, with the use of “exclusion” and “prejudice” seems to presume that Catholic teaching on morals is prejudiced (?) and that it “excludes” sinners, which is manifestly not true. Anyone can walk through the church door and be welcomed, if being welcomed is so important to them. Pity it wasn’t more important when they entered into their life of public sin. The fact is, anyone can enter a Catholic church and be greeted as friends. No problem. What they cannot do is then presume to have their sins absolved by anyone, priest included, except under the usual conditions.
3) “We must join with others who are seeking to build a more inclusive society.”
Who are these “others” who are seeking to build “a more inclusive society”? Is this “society” the Church, or is it a reference to wider social society where divorce and “remarriage” is permitted, LGBT “rights” are enforced (and I do mean enforced – as any baker or B & B owner in the land) – what is he talking about?
If, as I suspect, Fr Morton means we need to move “with the times” and accept what was previously regarded as public sin, then why doesn’t he say that in words of one syllable, instead of hiding behind the kind of liberal double-speak we hear and read every day in the secular world?
I think it’s clear that there is plenty wrong with the sentence you singled out for comment. Objection? You bet. That sentence is riddled with rejection of the moral law. God’s moral law. Amazes me that anyone would fail to see that.
I didn’t say people have to run around welcoming people. However, by their attitude can they make people feel unwelcome.
In every Parish I have ever lived I opposed the notion we can have a Rota of Welcomer’s. We should all, metaphorically rather than literally, welcome the stranger in our midst.
I would repeat I have spoken to people hurt by the lack of welcome in a Parish. That is a fact.
Even if the welcome is after Mass, in a Hall,there still needs to be a welcome.
I’ve never met anyone who said they felt unwelcome in a church. I think it’s on the same line as feeling “rejected” by the Church. What it means is they want the Church to say it doesn’t matter about their sin, we all welcome you anyway.
Why would anybody who is living in a state of objective sin, want to go to church in the first place? I can’t understand that. If it means so much to them, did they not realise when they set up their home for an adulterous affair (because that is all it is, can’t be “marriage”), that they wouldn’t feel comfortable at church any more, didn’t they think of that?
Nobody spells out what they mean by “welcome”. If I “metaphorically” welcome someone, would they feel that I’d welcomed them? It’s all very unclear.
The fact you have never met such a person as I speak of may say more about you, than them, and me. They exist!
I would say on any given day, in any given Church, there may be at least one person in a state of object sin (albeit it may be briefly). If you are saying they are not welcome in Church you are not expressing the mind of The Church. Full stop!
Imagine, a person who woke up one morning and tentatively came to the conclusion that their life must change drastically, and then to turn up in at an outfit founded by a person “who welcomed sinners”, and they got a rebuff in the first instance. Is that really living The Gospel Message?
How do people reach the Confessional if YOU say they are not welcome?
Is conversion of heart usually a Road to Damascus experience or the beginning of a tentative journey?
“Welcome”, means just that. Jesus said come to me all you are tired and overburdened and I will give you rest. That invitation could apply to sin as any other aspect of our lives.
I assume you know Jesus said, “Let he that is without sin cast the first stone”? I am not sure I would qualify for a place on that Rota if that were the criteria, would you?
You really are a very mixed up person, but note, were I speaking about the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, I would use a capital “P” and I wouldn’t refer to the Church which He founded as “an outfit”.
Now stop talking balderdash. If your pals have felt unwelcome at any particular church, away you go there and complain where it counts.
I am anything but mixed up: I couldn’t say to pro-abortionists, who say it is a woman’s right to choose, they are wrong, and then say to parents, ignoring expert advice, you are in charge of this voiceless child, who may think differently.
” would repeat I have spoken to people hurt by the lack of welcome in a Parish. That is a fact.”
Who cares? Tell them to get over themselves.
Thank You for proving this is a lot of fuss about something important. The lack of Charity on the part of some.
I don’t get this latest from you but then your comments are hard to follow, so full of generalisations and attacks on Christ’s Church at one level of another – right now the needle is stuck on “unwelcoming….”
I’ve been to two funerals recently, both in Protestant churches. Apart from the family of the deceased, nobody else spoke to me. I didn’t even notice it until reading your posts about making everyone and their granny feel “welcome” in Catholic churches, which I now take to be a step on the road to Confession.
Ach well, can’t blame the Protestants after all, then, can I, since they don’t have Confessionals anyway!
I am pretty confident I have not, in any post, attacked The Church.
By supporting Fr Morton’s subversive attack on the Church, you have implicitly attacked the Church. That’s number 1. Numbers 2 through to 100… By referring to Christ’s Church as “an outfit”, one would suspect a tad less respectful attitude towards Christ’s Church that is befitting even a modern Catholic.
Your confidence, therefore, is misplaced.
I was parodying the thoughts of someone who felt excluded and yet want to get back in to the mix.
I think if you check any post where I write in the First Person I am duly deferential.
With regards Fr Morton, then based on the article you actually provided a link to, and on which I commented, I do not think he is implicitly attacking The Church, but some members of it. As Theresa May might say, “Remind YOU of anyone?”.
(However, I readily concede, some later comments that others later published, and on which I have not chosen to comment, contradict Church Teaching 100%. However, in every post in which I have mentioned Holy Communion, and I mean every post, I have upheld Church Teaching and discipline.)
You keep splitting hairs, blaming others for your own dishonesty.
You know perfectly well what Fr Morton was up to, and if you don’t, you really should avoid grown up discussions.
If somebody is desperate to attend church for whatever reason, they should go along. As long as they don’t approach for Holy Communion no problem. If they are upset at the lack of a “welcome” from other parishioners they need to put it down to fallen human nature.
Stop making a mountain out of a hill that any mole worth its salt could dig.
Fr Richard Geoghegan aka Fr Shirley Bassey was on RTE last Sunday night.
Sometimes I get the feeling that I am living in a parallel universe. A drag priest? Come on, it has to be a spoof or the church in Ireland is in even more dire straits than I believed. My goodness, have these priests no shepherds? What are the bishops even thinking? Do ordinary Catholics over there not even ask themselves questions? Beyond belief.
Hang on, Helen, Fr Richard Geoghegan is a priest in good standing, in the Diocese of Waterford & Lismore in the Irish Republic (Bishop Phonsie Cullinan)
At least he’s not one of those “schismatic” types, you know the SSPX sort, and I am certain that if any of his parishioners asked if it is OK to attend SSPX Masses, he would be the best of shepherds and tell them: “No! Your soul would be in danger… ”
So, watch it, there, Helen. Don’t go slagging off priests in good standing. What WERE you thinking?
Correction: Fr Richard Geoghegan is NOT a priest in good standing.
I had a call from an Irish priest this morning assuring me that this priest is anything but popular with his bishop and that he is not “in good standing”. I’ve tried to find a report of his being suspended, but there doesn’t seem to be anything online – having said that, I fall into the statistics of those who seldom go beyond the first page on Google, time being of the essence, so someone else might be able to locate a report.
Fr Geoghegan seems to be listed as a parish priest on the website of his Diocese:
(I presume that’s what the PP stands for, below).
Very Rev Fr. Richard Geoghegan PP
Address: Ballyneale, Carrick-on-Suir, Co. Tipperary
Right enough, the website could be out of date.
I have emailed the diocese via the website to ask for confirmation that Fr Geoghegan has been removed from active ministry. I suspect the website is simply out of date – most seem to be so, but no harm in receiving official confirmation.
I have today received a reply from the diocese of Waterford and Lismore. I asked, specifically, if he remains a priest in good standing despite his career as a “drag” artist (words to that effect) or were his details still on the website because it had not been updated. Incredibly, the unsigned reply reads:
The priest in question is on compassionate leave.
To which I replied that, therefore, he IS still a “priest in good standing” while the SSPX clergy are in an “irregular” situation. Truly, you could not make this stuff up! End of my cheeky reply.
Truly, TRULY, you could not make this stuff up. And, for the record, I have informed the Irish priest who insisted that Fr G was no longer “a priest in good standing” that, amazingly, he is, too, at all, at all…
I suppose the “compassion” is for his parishioners, LOL!
And to boot: why isn’t Fr Morton got rid of? Who needs priests like him? Is his bishop a weakling or as badly tainted as him? Grrrrrr!
I think we’ll wait for the outcome of the investigation before “getting rid of him” – as we all know, and as a brain much superior to mine has already said today up above, one is innocent until one is proven guilty…
Editor – is there now an investigation into St Brides, or are you referring to St Maria Goretti?
(With so much scandal and rubbish going around, its hard to keep up).
No, the investigation to which I referred is the Fr Sweeney police investigation. There is no investigation into St Bride’s although I am reliably informed that the Bishop will be dealing with the Fr Morton scandal on his return from holiday.
Following on from this, St Brides facebook is now linking to an SCO article promoting arch-heretic Fr James Martin’s waffle regarding “LGBT” Catholics.
And both the Facebook page and the Daily Record confirm that the local MP – a “gay Catholic” – and his “husband” have visited the parish to show “solidarity”.
Its depressing reading the Facebook comments, many of them highlight a total lack of even the basics of Catholicism. Lots of “times are changing” and “love is love” type comments. Such posters are not Catholic in any meaningful way and so you wonder what genuine worth Fr Morton and the Diocese see in all this?
Although the parish facebook page does encourage people to visit confession (a positive) at no point is homosexual behaviour highlighted as being sinful. And so ultimately people are being encouraged to live in mortal sin and to compound matters by making sacrilegious communions.
I wonder if St Bride’s will issue a similar message to adulterers?
Making them feel very welcome, but at no point mentioning adultery is wrong?
If not, how can Fr Morton justify this disgraceful discrimination against adulterers?
“disgraceful discrimination against adulterers” – LOL!
I think what Fr Morton wrote in his statement will cover adulterers as well, as he’s really basing his statement on the AL footnote, I think that’s sure to be the case.
What will be a hoot to witness will be when we get a good pope who anathematizes everything that Pope Francis has advocated or allowed, and then watch the dissenters like Fr Morton jump into line. That’ll really show them up for the duplicitous cowards they are.
I forgot to say, there is a woman on the St Brides facebook page asking (at least twice) why Fr Morton hasn’t issued a statement saying protestants are welcome to come along and take part too.
That must surely be the “shark jump” moment of St Brides Parish!
What about paedophiles and beastophiles ? Father cannot discriminate!
I think this article from the Remnant site is very important, showing a new stage in the Church under Pope Francis – “gay Church comes out”. Totally shocking. Made me think of the Fr Morton announcement and I don’t think he will be the last to do this, not by a long chalk.
My attention has been drawn to a homily delivered by Bishop Toal at a youth meeting on 1st August. I’ve copied it in full from their website, because it is given in Word document form. I will be interested in bloggers’ views on it – remember the Bishop has delivered this homily in full knowledge of Fr Morton’s statement:
Homily at Mass for Eurocampo – Carfin, 1st August 2017
The Congregation for Divine Worship wrote a letter to all bishops recently on behalf of Pope Francis reminding us about the need to ensure the required integrity of the elements used in the celebration of the Eucharist. This basically means that the bread is identifiable as bread and the wine as wine and it laid down the basic requirements for this to be so. This instruction was issued to guard against the possibility of alternatives being used which would therefore compromise the validity of the Mass being celebrated.
Perhaps this may sound a bit technical for yourselves, whose very presence at this week’s gathering indicates your belief in the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist and your great love for the celebration of the Mass and the adoration of Our Eucharistic Lord both in the tabernacle and when exposed upon the altar. The word integrity in regard to the Eucharist extends beyond the essential elements used in its liturgical celebration and I would like to express some thoughts about this.
First of all considering the priest celebrant – although the reality of what is celebrated and the saving effects of its grace do not depend on the worthiness of the priest, all priests (and bishops) are aware that they are indeed the “earthenware vessels” as described by St Paul. We are unworthy in ourselves but are the recipients of the grace of Christ through ordination so that we can celebrate the sacred mysteries in his person for the benefit of his people. Allowing for personal flaws of character the faithful though have a right to expect that there is true integrity in the person of the priest and that he is truly striving to be a faithful minister, living a holy life in accord with the promises made at his ordination. This is not always the case and unfortunately scandal is caused if this comes to light. It can be a struggle for the priest to live up to all that he has promised and accepted in his priestly commitments, thus the need for his own deep relationship with the Lord and the support of the prayers of the faithful. At this Mass therefore and at every Mass I ask your prayers for the priest celebrating the Mass and for all priests that there may always be within them a truthfulness, and an integrity between the great mysteries they celebrate and the holiness and wholesomeness of their own lives.
We can think of integrity also in regard to all the faithful who come to Mass and participate as fully as they can in its celebration. Like the priest you bring your own awareness of sin and weakness and your need to be saved by Christ and receive the blessings of his grace, especially in the reception of Holy Communion. The Church teaches us that in order to receive the Lord in the best way possible and to benefit from the grace of the sacrament we should strive to live in a manner worthy of our Christian calling. In order to do this there needs to be a desire to change whatever is sinful in our lives and make the effort necessary with the Lord’s help to do this. If people are living estranged from the Lord and his Body, the Church, because of the choices they have made and the life-style they are following it is necessary to confess one’s sins before coming to receive the Lord in Holy Communion. Freed from sin we are ready then to receive the Lord with pure hearts and can then hope to live the virtuous lives he expects of us. In our present world when we can sometimes presume too easily our own worthiness it is necessary to have a proper awareness of our need for repentance and renewal in order to be open to the grace the Lord offers us in the Eucharist. Integrity in the lives of each of us is a necessary condition therefore for receiving the Lord worthily in Holy Communion and in carrying its fruitfulness into our daily lives.
Another point worth considering in regard to the integrity of the celebration of Mass is that the whole of the Mass is important, from the Sign of the Cross at the beginning until the final blessing and dismissal at the end. People should not come late for Mass nor leave early. Each part of the Mass, the prayers said and gestures made, have their own significance and we need to concentrate throughout the whole of Mass and participate as best we can in the words and actions and in our interior stillness and openness to the Lord’s loving presence. Its celebration opens for us the Word of God along with the prayers and tradition which have come down to us from the apostles and the early Church. It is not something made up in the recent past but something which has always been the most precious part of the Church’s life and worship. We celebrate Mass in the many languages of the peoples across the world but wherever we go and in whatever language Mass is celebrated we use the same prayers, listen to the same scripture passages, and repeat the same actions as we have been instructed to do so by Our Lord at the Last Supper. However grand or modest the setting in which the Mass is celebrated it is always the same Eucharist, in which the saving passion, death and resurrection of Our Lord are renewed for us and we participate in its grace and blessing. It is such a precious action that we should never wish to miss one moment of the celebration we are so privileged to participate in.
Going back to the integrity of the elements used at Mass, the bread and the wine, I think it is important to emphasise how great a privilege it is to receive the Body and the Blood of Christ. When communion under both kinds is offered to the faithful in Holy Communion the people should reach out in the same way for the Precious Blood of Christ as they do for his Body. In doing so we are acknowledging and benefit from the fulness of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, his Body broken and Blood outpoured. To accept the cup of the Lord’s suffering, with its promise of sharing the new wine at the eternal banquet enriches our understanding of the wonder of what we receive in Holy Communion and heightens our desire to thank the Lord for his goodness to us.
It is wonderful that you, the participants at Eurocampo 2017, have gathered here in Scotland to reflect on the gift of the Holy Eucharist in the life and worship of the Church. I am sure such a time of prayer and reflection with and before the Lord in the Holy Eucharist will bring great blessings to yourselves and to all whom you bring to the Lord. May the fruits of this blessed time remain with you always and may we all, and especially the Church here in Scotland, benefit from your prayers and from your love for and devotion towards the Holy Eucharist.
+ Joseph Toal
Source – website of Diocese of Motherwell
and select: Homily for Eurocamp Group – July 2017
Talk about mixed signals! The Congregation for Divine Worship wrote a letter to all bishops recently on behalf of Pope Francis reminding us about the need to ensure the required integrity of the elements used in the celebration of the Eucharist. Since when is this Pontificate concerned about the integrity of any aspect of Catholic and Church life???
I’m also puzzled about “Eurocamp,” which appears to be a vacation booking website: http://www.eurocamp.co.uk/
That said, this letter seems to be modeled on the Paul VI model of “discipline” of wayward clergy and theologians: that is, make indirect reference to and indirect criticism of their errors in a speech, but take no actual disciplinary action whatsoever, as if the mere speech would correct the problem.
Hence the paragraph on “considering the priest celebrant.” Moreover, the paragraph on the faithful could be taken as being in direct opposition to AL, since it speaks of confession, repentance and conversion before presenting oneself for Holy Communion. Good for him!
But if this is all he is going to do about Fr. Morton, then Bishop Toal needs to get out of his comfy Toal-booth and apply his foot directly to Fr. Morton’s derriere….
As ever, you are much too kind. Much MUCH too kind. I say that because, regarding the faithful and sin and Holy Communion, I don’t really think the bishop is as clear as he ought to be. He says this:
” If people are living estranged from the Lord and his Body, the Church, because of the choices they have made and the life-style they are following it is necessary to confess one’s sins before coming to receive the Lord in Holy Communion. Freed from sin we are ready then to receive the Lord with pure hearts and can then hope to live the virtuous lives he expects of us.
Now, there’s no mention of confessing one’s sins in the Sacrament of Penance… with the attendant conditions (a firm purpose of amendment, that is, a determination not to return to that sin, which determination demonstrates the genuine sorrow) and so, arguably, cohabitees, homosexuals, the lot, might read that as urging them to confess their sins to God in their contrite hearts and once they’ve said “sorry, Lord”, get up and join the queue for Communion. I mean, will you give me that? Could I be right about that, RCA Victor, she said, with shades of a long-gone but never forgotten hero Columbo?
One has to ask, does one not, why Bishop Toal failed to exhort those youngsters and all the sinners to whom he is reaching out (see, I’ve got the lingo) …why does he not exhort them to seek God’s forgiveness and absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, say it right out, and live with the consequences? What IS the problem, one asks, because one has to wonder, one really does…
Well, RCA Victor – do I hear a touch of “On second thoughts…” across the Pond?
You have me over a barrel on that point, I must admit, because you speak the language of the Church before the revolution (i.e. clear, precise, straightforward, no wiggle-room), whereas Bishop T. speaks the conciliar language of surrender to the world, flavored with a few remains of actual Catholic language.
However, I will desperately cling to my other point, which is that His Excellency has rejected, with this letter, the perversion of Church doctrine found in That’s Amoris. That is, unless he is promoting it somewhere else on his diocesan website, and/or unless you have another pin up your sleeve with which to burst my second bubble!
Er… well… Is THIS a bubble-buster?
…Send not for whom the bell Toals,
It Toals for me! (and my naivete)
A summary by Fr. James Martin, no less! Oy vay!
You are very naughty – I just knew the Bishop’s name would ring a bell with you 😀
And I thought that the mention of Fr James Martin would tell you all you need to know about Motherwell’s response to AL. Unbelievable.
Radio Scotland, the Kaye Adams Show, is to discuss Fr Morton’s statement on this morning’s show.
Please ring in with your comments – number is 08085 92 95 00
The show is on from 9.a.m. until noon, but I’m afraid I don’t know what time this topic is scheduled to be discussed. You can listen live here
As I type this, I’m listening to the segment of the Radio Scotland show dealing with this issue. On the panel, three non-Catholics – two Protestants and one Muslim, discussing whether or not religion and homosexuality can be “compatible”. Apparently, there’s now the first ever “gay mosque” ! Talk about a downward spiral.
Fr Paul Morton’s statement was read out in full and he was briefly interviewed to reinforce his dual role as darling of the LGBT lobby and classic “useful idiot” being used to savage the Church.
I left my telephone number for Radio Scotland to call me to contribute but it’s clear that that’s not going to happen – it is now 11.50.am – and there was notice given of a further issue to be covered before the programme ends at noon. So, yet again, a stitch up to promote the LGBT agenda, aided and abetted by a Catholic priest.
He must be feeling very pleased with himself, having the “negative” message of the Church (God’s law) brought out into the open and attacked on all sides.
To think Fr Morton rang me some years ago to chide me for my letter published in the Herald, arguing that Catholic schools do not teach the Faith, and, acknowledging that the schools were deficient, nevertheless thought that my negativity could only do harm to the Church.
Things are now farcical in Scotland. To say the least.
I heard that show on Radio Scotland this morning and the discussion on religion and gays was definitely a stitch up. It’s not just that they didn’t allow you to contribute – nobody at all contributed by phone. It was just the panel talking to themselves, and all we got was a string of soundbites.
That’s laughable that Fr Morton thought you were harming the Church by pointing out that Catholic schools don’t teach the faith. LOL!
Correct. There was no phone-in. Very dishonestly, though, the person who took my call asked me for my views on the matter and sprinkled a few “brilliants” and “excellents” around as I spoke. Then, as she was thanking me for my call and about to hang up, having said they would ring me back if they were going to put me on air, I asked if, in that case, it might be useful to have my phone number? Oops! Caught. Clearly there was no intention of allowing “views” like mine on air, but why pretend? If she’d said that there was only going to be a short segment of the show given over to this, and they had three panel members, an Anglican, a Protestant of another denomination (can’t recall which one) and a Muslim, so there would be no time for phone calls, I’d have said OK. No problem. I’m going out anyway…
Which brings me to some Breaking News…
I had an appointment in Cambuslang today, not far from St Bride’s church , following on from another appointment, in the same place, yesterday…
Yesterday, I was too early for said appointment, so moseyed on up to St Bride’s to have a look at the church. Long story cut short, a woman engaged me in conversation outside the church for a few minutes until Fr Morton appeared, driving in, exiting his car, headed for us. I said I’d popped up because I’d been reading about him all week which brought an “Ahhhhh”. I then explained that the lady here to my left was first in the queue, as she had come especially to meet with him on, I presume, a personal matter. I did not identify myself at that time. Thus, I escaped unharmed…
I then paid a visit to the church and almost wept. It’s horrendous. I walked round and round looking for the Tabernacle (thinking of St Mary Magdalene’s cry: “Where have they put my Lord?”). I discovered the Tabernacle on my way out, situated in a little corridor-type room off the main church. The “sanctuary” of the main body of the church is chillingly cold and I don’t mean because the heating was off. Bare. More like a conference hall than some of the conference halls we visited prior to booking for our …er…. well… various conferences.
Today, I decided to return to the scene of the crime to see if I could have a word with Fr Morton, as I had had what amounts to a brainwave (for me) and I wanted to put my idea/proposal to him, but I had just missed him, or so the lovely assistant priest informed me. He invited me to leave my contact details which I did, but I doubt if I’ll hear from Fr Morton, who must, at least now, if he didn’t before, believe that old Catholic “myth” about Guardian Angels; his Guardian Angel has been working overtime, this past two days, to protect him from moi. He’s safe now for the foreseeable future as I’m all done with appointments in Cambuslang for a good while… I’m sure he’s grateful for small mercies…
I think the bishops of Scotland should institute a new feast day in your honor: the Feast of the Unwanted Visitation!
Here’s an update on Bishop Toal/Fr. Morton:
That statement from Bishop Toal is not good enough. Here’s a couple of bits of news from the Diocese of Motherwell, where, despite the name, all is definitely NOT “well”.
Firstly, I’m reliably informed today (11th August) that the Bishop has issued a letter to the clergy and laity of the Diocese about the case of Father Matthew Despard, who was suspended following the publication of his book about homosexuality within the Church in Scotland. I’ve checked the diocesan website and there is no copy of it up there yet, but I’ll be receiving a hard copy tomorrow and will report back, if it’s not online by then. Essentially, after outlining the case against Fr Despard and updating us on the “legal” situation, the letter concludes with a statement to the effect that Fr Despard wishes to be reinstated in order to continue his priestly ministry. To facilitate this, Fr Despard must fulfil certain “requirements”. Those in the know presume that – more likely than not – an apology to his brother priests will be a “requirement.” No requirement for Fr Morton to apologise for his scandalous statement about homosexuals and his attack on the Church (for past harm done to these poor victims). Nope. But I’m way ahead of myself… hang on…
Secondly, I had the following email a few days ago from a gentleman whose name I will withhold to spare him any embarrassment…
Further to your blog and Father Paul Morton, you have not updated your Blog with His Lordship’s Bishop Joseph Toal’s reply to the laity so I ask that you go to the Facebook pages of Motherwell Diocese and read His Lordship’s reply where he states it [is] wrong for all to have sex outwith marriage and his new Diocesan initiative for the people in same sex relationship’s as it is all on the diocesan Facebook pages dated 28th July [Ed: 26th July, actually, but who’s counting?]
Turns out the statement from the Bishop is the same one which Petrus posted right at the top of this thread. I re-publish it here for ease of reference.
STATEMENT FROM BISHOP TOAL: Bishop Toal has shared the following message regarding the pastoral care offered to who experience same-sex attraction.
“Some clergy have asked me in recent times about the pastoral care we offer to people who experience same-sex attraction and I have had a number of discussions about possible approaches. One such approach commended to me is to make available the “Courage” ministry/programme – this encourages those who live with same-sex attraction… END.
Now, for the life of me, I cannot see any mention of Fr Morton in there – can you? Yet, the very LEAST we may expect of a bishop dealing with a rogue priest who is publicly preaching false doctrine and insulting Christ’s Church which he alleges has done harm in the past to LGBT etc people… the very LEAST we expect is that the bishop publicly corrects that priest. All that statement does, is repeat Catholic teaching on marriage/sex outside marriage. No public correction of the false doctrine peddled by Fr Morton. That is a shocking dereliction of episcopal duty.
Yet, not only has this priest led his congregation astray, but his Facebook statement attacking the Church and welcoming, without qualification, public sinners to Holy Communion has been viewed by over 61,000 people and the local MP is quoted in a newspaper report as follows:
“[Fr Morton’s statement] was particularly welcomed by MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West Gerard Killen.
A gay Catholic and campaigner for LGBT equality, Mr Killen said: “This unambiguously warm welcome from Father Morton and St Bride’s Church is a very refreshing step in the right direction, particularly for LGBTI people of faith and their families in the local community.
“My husband and I will be heading along this weekend to show our support and solidarity for St Bride’s and I hope many other LGBTI people will feel encouraged to do the same.”
Seems to me that there’s an inequality (pun deliberate) between the two priests; Fr Despard suspended and put through the mill for writing a book, we must assume in good faith, in a conscientious effort to bring out scandals which the Bishop of the day had refused to address, last resort, so to speak. Then we have Fr Morton who upped and attacked the Church for its teaching on homosexual activity, and the withholding of Holy Communion from public sinners, in accordance with Canon 915 of Canon Law. He suffers NO public consequences and, undoubtedly, received nothing more than a friendly, nod nod, wink wink slap on the pretend wrist from his complicit bishop.
To record just a taste of the confused people who are afflicted with these bad priests, and affected by them, here is one woman writing on the Diocese of Motherwell Facebook page in response to Bishop Toal’s very weak correction of Fr Morton. Note: there are some commentators who are faithfully expounding the teaching of the Church on sex and marriage in reply to Janice Toner, but I’m only publishing her comments here, since this post from me is already far too lengthy: it is possible to deduce what her critics are saying by her responses, and I provide the link to the Facebook page at the end, for those who wish to read the entire exchange.
Janice Toner Bit sad about this, but the problem isn’t that he’s asking gay unmarried people to be chaste, the problem is that straight folk can be married and not chaste, and the same is not granted to gay people. The Catholic church has always been against sex without marriage across the board. This is one of the issues that really shakes my faith.
Janice Toner Funny, my priest tells me that it’s healthy to question and to disagree, and that you shouldn’t “shun the club because you don’t agree with all the rules”, so to call me less of a Catholic when this is stuff I discuss with my parish priest is a bit insulting. I’ll take his opinion of my catholicism over yours. The church may have been supernaturally founded, but men have been involved since day one, translating and editing all the way. There is always room for man’s mistakes on earth.
Janice Toner So… You’re saying my priest is wrong in his advice, then? Wow. Again, I’d rather take his advice, as a dedicated learned man of God, over a random voice on Facebook, thanks. When I need answers, I look to the experts. Click here to reach the Facebook page of the Diocese of Motherwell
To which I can only reply – never mind the experts, find yourself a penny catechism, dopey! And, WOW! Would I LOVE to know the name of your priest. If ever a priest deserved “outing”, he does. Not that it would do him any harm with his bishop, but the more intelligent and informed laity would know which parish to avoid like the plague…
This situation reminds me of the “Persecuted Priests” page on the Les Femmes website: http://www.lesfemmes-thetruth.org/index.htm
That’s a very interesting link – thank you for posting it. Seems the Bishops are very selective in the matter of which priests they choose to “discipline”.
I’ve now come into possession of a copy of the letter issued by the Bishop of Motherwell, addressed to the clergy and lay faithful of the diocese, headed: Update On The Case of Fr Matthew Despard. I can’t see it anywhere on the diocesan website or on their Facebook page.
In the light of the latest clergy scandal in Motherwell – Fr Paul Morton – (there have been plenty more, sadly), the pertinent paragraph reads as follows:
“Fr Despard has requested that he now be allowed to return to public priestly ministry by being given a new pastoral assignment in the Diocese of Motherwell. Conscious of my canonical obligation to ensure that a person nominated to an ecclesiastical office possesses the required suitability for that office, and having consulted the Motherwell Diocesan Consulters, I have asked Fr Despard to fulfil certain requirements. I await his response indicating his willingness to accept and carry out to my satisfaction these requirements.”
So, let’s recap, briefly. Fr Paul Morton is considered to have the “required suitability” for the office of Parish Priest despite having publicly contradicted the teaching of the Church (and insulted the Church, accusing her of doing “harm” to homosexuals in the past) by issuing an invitation to practising homosexuals/transgenders to come along to his church and fully participate in the Mass, which invitation the local male MP and his “husband” took up, while Fr Despard is considered NOT to have the “required suitability” for the office of PP because of his expressed concerns in a book, now withdrawn from sale, about homosexuality among priests within the Church in Scotland (which aforementioned Fr Morton has now affirmed)…
Does this make sense to you? Not to me, it doesn’t.
Fr Despard is not a traditional, or even a traditional leaning priest. He is not a natural friend of Catholic Truth nor are we his “natural friends” in that sense, but we do not like to see duplicity at work, and this seems to be a clear case of injustice.
At worst, Fr Despard has been guilty of a lack of prudence in publishing his book, but Fr Morton is guilty of attacking Christ’s Church for upholding the moral law and the Eucharistic discipline set out in Canon Law deriving from the moral law.
I’ve asked Fr Despard’s support group to keep us informed about this case. In the meantime, let’s oblige the Bishop’s concluding sentence in his letter: “I ask your continued prayer for Fr Despard, myself, and the Diocese of Motherwell.”
Amen, to that.
I’m catholic and I’m embarrassed about this blog
Don’t visit us then. Problem solved, Sugar Plum.
That’s probably because you’re catholic with a small “c”. We’re Traditional Catholic on this blog. But as Editor said, if you don’t like what we have to say then don’t visit here.
It’s what’s going on in the Catholic Church today that should be embarrassing you.
Oh and I forgot to say to Mark, that I hope he is impressed with (or at least not embarrassed by) my gender-neutral form of address: I use “Sugar Plum” for both male and female – and it can even work for “Other”…
Let’s hope that doesn’t embarrass Mark-cum-Sugar Plum. 😀
Comments are closed.