When is a Hate Crime NOT a Hate Crime? When it’s Anti-Catholic Hate!
LANARKSHIRE, Scotland, May 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Scottish Catholics are shocked and worried after a recent bout of vandalism in and near the city of Glasgow.
On Saturday, April 27, anti-Catholic graffiti was found spray-painted on a bus shelter outside Holy Family Catholic Church in Mossend.
[Ed: Motherwell Diocese – Bishop Toal].
On Monday, April 29, vandals entered St. Simon Catholic Church in Glasgow
and attacked the sanctuary, overturning candles and a shrine to Our Lady of Częstochowa, and breaking a statue.
[Ed: Archdiocese of Glasgow – Archbishop Tartaglia]
The anti-Catholic graffiti included the timeworn sentiment “F*** the Pope.” The local police said they would meet with the local Catholic diocese.
“Enquiries are ongoing into offensive graffiti painted on boarding near to a Catholic church in Mossend, Lanarkshire (…) ,” the Lanarkshire Police Division tweeted.
“The local policing team in Bellshill will meeting with local representatives from the Diocese of Motherwell with regard to this incident.”
Police in Glasgow stated that there is no evidence the attack on St. Simon’s, the principal place of worship for the city’s Polish community, was either motivated by sectarianism or a hate crime… [emphasis added – for obvious reasons!]
Click here to read the above report in full
Comment:
Catholic churches vandalised, anti-Catholic graffiti found, including the standard “F*** the Pope”, statue broken, candles overturned … but move along, no hate crime here, nothing to see…
You just could not make this stuff up. If this had been the place of worship of any other religious group in Scotland, it would have been headline news for days, and it would most certainly have been categorised as manifest hate crime.
Since the Scottish State effectively sanctions hate crimes against Catholics by permitting the annual Orange Parade marches – not to mention dismissing attacks on Catholic churches like those reported above as NOT being hate crimes – it seems that there is really nothing to be done about these manifestations of anti-Catholic hatred. So, should we simply accept them in humble submission as part of our cross, something to offer up? Or does that come under the heading of “false charity”? Should the bishops continue to accept that we are a soft target – or should they toughen up and demand justice – not least since they have a duty to protect the Blessed Sacrament; a broken statue is one thing but desecration of Tabernacles is quite another. Share your ideas on possible ways to resolve Scotland’s anti-Catholic culture, since, clearly ecumenism is not working.
Comments (99)
Although I saw the reports of this vandalism locally, I’d decided not to bother posting a thread since such unpunished anti-Catholic bigotry is par for the course here in Scotland. However, when I found an email from blogger Margaret USA in my inbox this morning, all the way from America, kindly making sure I hadn’t missed the news, I decided that, really, we shouldn’t let the authorities – secular and religious – off the hook on this. The ongoing anti-Catholic hatred must be highlighted as the Breaking News which it really is not – if you get my drift. Remaining silent is not an option.
But, is there anything that can be done?
Well, here’s something which Catholic Truth is doing…
We are planning a video conversation with a couple of Protestant friends of Catholic Truth. We plan to have a conversation (and hopefully more than one) in which we discuss various teachings of the Church / Protestant beliefs. We aim to demonstrate that it’s possible to discuss, speak in forthright terms and do so without any animosity, without feeling or displaying any hatred of anyone. We will obviously seek to correct the position/beliefs of the other, but we will do so without recourse to ecumenical fudge or bitter animosity. So, watch this space.
That’s one idea which we are currently arranging. Do you have any other ideas? Spill! 😀
As I replied to Fidelis, hound your MPs!!! If it’s hate crimes are committed against non-Catholics they can be committed against Catholics too.
If Parliament is going to sit on its collective gluteus Maximus and do nothing, then tell them either to get rid of the hate crimes laws (which they won’t do I guarantee you) or prosecute these perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.
P.S. Otherwise, vote them out!
Margaret USA,
It makes no difference, writing to MPs or MSPs – they pay lip service by writing polite letters but they don’t do anything.
Then they should be voted out.
The problem is, Margaret, that in the UK the majority of people are happy to go along with the socialist perversion. They may have some private reservations, but when it comes to the ballot box they care only about their bank balance. It’s not that easy to “vote them out”.
“Hate Crime” is definitely confined to certain PC groups – Catholics are not included.
Sadly, you’re right. I still can’t believe that this kind of thing happens in *Scotland* of all places!
Seriously, if I lived over there, I’d be hopping mad and giving my MP .05 £ worth of my mind.
This is SACRILEGE and Scottish Catholics shouldn’t stand for it!!!
Margaret USA,
You are right – we shouldn’t stand for it – and here’s something else for which we should not stand… And just when I was working up the courage to return to some kind of swimming programme, in the interests of my poor knees… This news has put me right off… If you’d ever seen me in a swim-suit, you’d understand 😀
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/men-allowed-into-female-spaces-in-glasgow-leisure-centres/?e030519
I suppose if one visits Glasgow, one is relegated to dressing/undressing in one’s room at home or the hotel.
Don’t feel bad – I haven’t worn a swimsuit in 30+ years. (You probably look better than I would anyway.)
Here’s my visual response to the link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=aaugh&client=ms-android-att-us&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYnvHbvoDiAhWmmeAKHetZC6YQ_AUoAXoECA0QAQ&biw=360&bih=517#imgrc=SxlELMzpe1i5hM
Margaret,
To choose one picture from that lot, you then need to click on the picture you want, keep clicking until you have that picture on a page on its own and then copy THAT link. If the URL ends in jpg or png (or sometimes gif)* it will copy straight onto the page here as a single image.
* gif images don’t always copy straight onto the page, but sometimes do. Sometimes, too, they are animated images. Can be fun!
I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever that there is a double standard in how these events are reported and dealt with. However in the specific case of Saint Simon’s, this week’s SCO quotes the parish priest as saying he does not believe it was a hate crime:
“However, Canon Peter McBride, parish priest of St Simon’s Church and St Peter’s Church Partick, said he didn’t believe the attack was necessarily anti-Catholic in nature.
“There is no evidence to suggest that it was an act of sectarianism,” he said. “My own conclusion is that the church was open and someone who has mental health issues has came in and had a bit of a breakdown. Obviously it is unacceptable and the police are now dealing with the matter.”
The full article is here:
http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/58103/anti-catholic-discrimination-is-a-scourge-on-society-and-must-be-eradicated-first-minister-says/
Chris,
Well, if there is one person in Scotland who is not surprised to read that quote from Canon McBride, it is my unworthy self.
You can bet your last penny that if this had happened to a mosque or Sikh temple near St Simon’s the same Canon McBride would have been appalled and would have utterly deplored such disgraceful behaviour. Blah blah.
What was the name of that book that keeps coming to my mind… let’s see… something about Mice & Men…
He and his ilk deserve all the contempt they are getting from vandals and Orangemen alike – not to mention the Editor of Catholic Truth, which is sure to keep him awake at night – NOT!
Chris McLaughlin,
That’s a ridiculous statement from Canon McBride, linking that vandalism to mental health breakdown. Is he really serious?
This is just Par for the course in Muslim Luvin. Homosexual Luvin Catholic Hating Scotland. Just move onto another subject. You’ll definitely not hear that wee Catholic Bigot Green Patrick Harvie bring this up in the Deviant Scottish Parliament. Were it done to The Religion of Peace it would be Headline News in Outer Mongolia . We of any age on here know that Especially in the West of Scotland at Job interviews ” What School did you go to ” is still alive and well . As for the Showwaddywaddy Mob they blame everything on the Hangers on . I used to live in Clarkston Airdrie and one of the Positives of the so called Walking Season which more or less lasted from the Middle of May until the End of September was that One didn’t need to set an Alarm Clock to be woken up in the Morning. And whilst we’re on this subject why does wee Nic not say about the Harm they do to the Environment with Four Story Bonfires full of Old Tyres. It’s that bad that the International Space Station has to re routed in case It Melts on the 11th Of July. There’s more pollution put into the Atmosphere on that night than what Escapes from Mount Etna during an Eruption.
FOOF,
On the button, as ever! You certainly know how to make us smile 😀
FOOF
I am an Airdrieonian myself. Clarkston – tell me about it! Airdrie’s answer to the Shankill Road.
I know this is not about Football but I have to Share this with you Pat .
I never went to or watched an Orange Walk on purpose. But on the Day that Joe Miller scored against Rangers in The Scottish Cup Final which was a Saturday and the Sun Was Shining Brightly the Airdrie Mob decided to have a walk . I was actually working that day in Cambuslang but finished Early to watch their Homecoming which was also of course to be a Victory Parade against us Horrible Tims . I think I was the Last Man standing as the Victory Parade which now more or Less resembled a New Orleans Funeral March barely made it to the Lodge. Their Flutes were dry and their Drums were Numb . To say that it was one of my most memorable days is an understatement. Of course One had to act as downbeat and crestfallen as the Walkers and Onlookers and am sure had Oscars been given out on such a Grand Day even Stephen Spielberg would have been proud of me . It was many a year in coming that I could stand and at least from the inside Mock The Mob .
All Good things Come to Those Who Wait . God Bless and I hope you have all of your Earplugs in stock for the coming months.
I decided to look up “define hate crime in the UK,” and this page came up: https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime-matters
The very first sentence gives it away: “There is no specific offence of “hate crime,” but many different offences…can become one.” In other words, as I wrote in an article for CT last year, hate crime is thought crime, since it punishes the motivation behind the crime, in addition to the crime itself.
And as we all know, thought crime is a hallmark of the police state. The entire explanation on the above site, furthermore, is pure subjectivism, and amounts to this: anyone can use you of a hate crime for any reason whatsoever, especially including their personal animus towards you, and the burden is placed on you to prove that no crime has taken place. That is, if you are given a chance to refute the charge, rather than being automatically locked up in the slammer.
Also note on this site (still Crown Prosecution Service) that there is no listing in the right column for “anti-Catholic” hate crime: https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime
That’s because there’s no such thing as an anti-Catholic hate crime. Why? Because hate crime is one of the most important means to silence Christian belief, which is antithetical to the Satanic creed of the New World Order.
You Scots and UK Catholics had better wake up: you’re being done to death by bureaucratic tyranny posing as justice (not to mention the other poses of compassion, inclusion, tolerance and the rest of the benevolent-sounding totalitarian lexicon). And your Judas bishops are helping to put the noose around your neck.
RCA Victor,
The whole hate crime baloney is just that, baloney. As I demonstrated during the abortion referendum campaign in Ireland. I’ll return to this later but right now, I have something else to post and I need to search out a photo to include in my post about baloney hate crime legislation.
Back soon!
Editor,
You mean, something like this?
https://www.mastgeneralstore.com/prodimages/30653-DEFAULT-l.jpg
RCA Victor,
That made me smile, but the photo which prompted my hate crime complaint was in a different category altogether and I’ve been trying hard to find it both on my computer and via Google, without success.
Perhaps Wendy Walker will recall sending me the photo of two females on a pro-choice demo outside a hospital in Nottingham, holding up a sign which read: If Mary had had an abortion, we wouldn’t be in this mess.” In the background, two policemen stood chatting. The photo was crystal clear. The two women were easily identifiable. When I tried to find the picture online, I did find one with two females holding up that sign but they had their faces disguised so not sure if they were the same people – anyway there were no policemen in the background so not even sure if it is a photo taken elsewhere. Definitely the same shocking sign, though. Here’s the photo I found, but not the one I sent to the police (see below) because that one has disappeared:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_707sVmeQrZ0/TUEEKFk8KSI/AAAAAAAAASQ/v6o4n-FrBoY/s1600/DSC00655.jpg
Now, this was just before a group of CT people left to leaflet over in Dublin, just prior to the abortion referendum over there.
I decided that I would lodge a hate crime complaint to see what happened. Here’s what happened.
The form struck me as being ridiculous. I had to outline what happened that was causing me to complain and whether it was race-related, religion etc. I identified “religion”.
Then I had to give the details – clearly, the words on the sign speak for themselves.
I then had to further detail how that particular sign was offensive and hateful.
I wrote that if I stood in public with a sign which read “If Muhammed’s mother* had had an abortion, we wouldn’t have all this terrorism” I think I would be accused of a hate crime.
Submitted my complaint, and awaited the promised telephone call from the police.
Eventually police rang. Very friendly. Asked if I could email through the photo of the females holding up the sign. I did that (which is why it’s so frustrating that I can’t find it now on my computer.)
I repeated – several times – my belief that if I had stood in public holding a sign which said that Muhammed’s mother should have had an abortion to avoid all this terrorism, I would be in trouble, big time.
Police officer, of course, very careful not to agree but to commiserate. The old “I hear what you’re saying” and sympathetic murmurs galore.
Then, while I was leafleting on the streets of Dublin, I had another call from the same police officer telling me – wait for this – that they had been unable to identify the two females in the photo.
Now, you can bet your last half-penny that if those two females had been wanted for theft or any other crime, they’d have been identified and incarcerated before you could say “pro-choice”.
I expressed my astonishment. They were part of a well known pro-abortion group, pictured outside a well known hospital in Nottingham, with two policemen in the background who, more likely than not, had chatted to them at some point. I had emphasised at the outset that I wasn’t including the policemen in my complaint but I did ask how likely it would be that, had I been holding up my “Muhammed’s mother” poster, the same coppers would have suggested that I lose it quietly or they’d have to arrest me. Again, sympathetic murmurings.
The rest of the conversation was clearly the policeman ticking boxes; was I happy with the way my complaint had been handled? Did I receive an acknowledgement within the specified time, and was I happy with the feedback from the officer handling my case, blah blah.
I got the message, thanked him but said I wanted to make clear that I was appalled that such a blatant blasphemy, an insult to Christians, was allowed to go unpunished whereas there is no question that my “Muhammed’s mother” poster would have seen me searching for the nearest lawyer.
More sympathetic murmurings.
I went back to my leafleting and being told to blankety blank get back to Scotland or those ever so friendly Dubliners would put my wee Scottish flag to some imaginative use.
You really do have to laugh because there’s just no level playing field here. If you’re looking to commit a hate crime, folks, avoid Catholics – we just don’t count; it’s not a crime to hate us 😀
* in my original post here, I typed “Muhammed’s wife, Khadija” instead of “Muhammed’s mother” – another example of typing too fast. Apologies.
Editor,
Though my beard grew several inches by the time I got to the end of your post, I did find the same photo you’ve posted – on several sites. Nothing about Nottingham though.
Your experience is not surprising, really. Pardon my 20-20 hindsight, but I wonder what Mr. Very Nice Policeman would have said if you had asked “If you could have identified the two women, would they have been prosecuted for a hate crime?”
I imagine his reply would have begun with “mum” and ended with “ble.”
Editor,
I remember only too well the sheer hatred on our trip to Dublin. I really sensed a demonic presence on those streets.
Petrus,
“Demonic” is the word. Utterly shocking.
RCA Victor
No, there would be no mention of Nottingham in the photo – I just mentioned that to give the location/context of the photo. Note, also, that I have corrected an error in my post above, because I typed “Khadija, Muhammed’s wife” instead of “Muhammed’s mother” – silly me.
And I think we can take it as read that there was, frankly, no intention of “identifying” the two women let alone prosecuting them. It’s not a PC cause, discriminating against Catholics or anyone else preaching about Christ. Look at the Protestant preacher who was prosecuted, albeit later found not guilty, for doing just that, in the seaside town of Ayr in Scotland.
Where on earth did you get that? 😱 I wish I knew how to post pictures – I’d post one of my own.
Margaret USA
To post a picture, here’s what to do:
1) Go to your search engine.
2) Type in whatever you are looking for – e.g .jokes about baloney
3) Click on IMAGES on your screen
4) Select the image you want to use. Click on it.
5) Click on it again until you have the picture on a page on its own.
6) In the URL space, you right click and select copy to copy the link (best if it ends in jpg or png)
7) Return here and click paste
8) Voila! As our Lionel (Paris) would say – your picture should appear in the box.
I found this online. Not keen on the use of “Roman Catholic” but I found the article itself extremely moving.
WHEN LUTHERAN PASTORS ATTENDED SSPX’s IGNATIAN RETREAT
From April 20 until April 25, 2008 Rev. Fr. Karl Stehlin, district superior of the SSPX for Eastern Europe, preached a retreat in Latvia. The German district of the SSPX Website reported about this event on May 17, 2008.
Seven laymen participated, but also eleven Protestant clergymen and even the head of the Lutheran Protestant community of Latvia, the regional Archbishop of the Lutheran Diocese of Riga, participated.
In his sermons during the Ignatian Retreat, Fr. Stehlin preached about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, about the Mother of God, about divine grace, about the seven sacraments and the one Church which is alone sanctifying.
During the retreat different themes of faith and religious life came to be spoken about.
The Lutheran Pastors declared that they had asked a Traditionalist, because ecumenical meetings with official Catholic church representatives often consisted out of nice words, nice-talkers without any content and substance in their words.
Many said they had been given the impression, that Catholics these days are rather willing to imitate the Protestants.
In the meanwhile one of the Pastors said: “We are searching for Truth, for clarification about many ambiguities and contradictions within our own Protestant faith.”
They wanted to learn the authentic doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. But this doctrine would only be clearly preached today by traditionalist clergymen:
“These are not ecumenical-nice-talkers without a spine, but they clearly preach the authentic Catholic deposit of faith.“ – one of the Lutheran pastors said.
According to the website the gratitude of the participants was immense: “The pastors said they particularly loved the the method of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, which opened accession to Sacred Scripture to them.”
The Lutheran Protestant pastors and archbishop were also touched by the Mariology preached by Fr. Stehlin: “With great intensity and piety, they also witnessed the Catholic rite of Mass [Tridentine Rite].”
The ardent desire for the fullness of Truth was clearly present among all of them, Fr. Stehlin declared.
After the Ignatian Retreat Fr. Stehlin received the notification that already one of the participants had converted to the Roman Catholic Church.
The Lutheran Regional Archbishop of Riga, leader of the Lutheran community of entire Latvia, asked Father Stehlin to come back soon and preach his Ignatian retreats to a larger group of Latvian Catholic and Protestant faithful and Lutheran Pastors.
The Retreat in Riga (Latvia at the Baltic Sea) has a history before it. Already in November 2006 Father Stehlin had preached Ignatian retreats for Lutheran Protestant pastors in northern, neighbouring Estonia.
One of the pastors present in November 2006 was from Lativa. He was particularly touched by Mariology and at the end declared: “I found my Mother!”
After that the contact and communication with him was lost, but a few months ago, Fr. Stehlin received an invitation from him, to come to Latvia and preach his retreats to a larger group of Lutheran pastors.
Source: http://www.rosarychurch.net/comment/sspx_lutherans.html
***
Petrus,
Yes, very interesting and moving – personally, I always omit the “Roman” from “RC” when I copy something because, as we know, it’s not the name of the Church, but that said, a very insightful commentary from the Lutheran.
Yes, editor, that is good practice. I couldn’t do that on this occasion because I was using my mobile phone, but I thought it better to post the article rather than wait and risk forgetting about it.
Editor and Petrus
I think we should wear the title “Roman Catholic” as a badge of honour, not dismiss it as though the Protestant Reformers invented it.
The title “Holy Roman Church” has been used throughout the centuries, long before the Reformation, to describe the true Church and religion, so it is actually an error to dismiss it because the Protestants of the XVI century manufactured their silly branch theory.
Pope Pius XII, as recently as 1950, used the title in its proper context in Humanum Genus, writing: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”
Personally, I am pleased when Protestants refer to me as Roman Catholic because “where Peter is, there is the Church”. So effectively they merely confirm that I belong to the Mystical Body of Christ. But aside from all that, if the title was good enough for the saintly Pius XII it’s good enough for me.
Athanasius,
A lot of people think that it’s a badge of honour but I see it a very poor grammatically – if you were choosing a name for anything else you wouldn’t put something as an adjective that contradicted it! “Catholic” means “Universal” – the Universal Church. You can’t be a Roman Universal! LOL!
Pope Pius XII – a very recent pope – used it once in one encyclical, and an encyclical which has been well criticised for opening the door to giving credibility to evolutionary theory, so that’s not much of a reference, IMHO, whereas the Fathers of the Council of Trent avoided using it altogether.
It’s really not an argument to say “where Peter is there is the Church” because Peter has authority over the whole Church and not just the “Roman branch” which is why the Protestants did invent it. There are Anglo-Catholics – you have to acknowledge them as part of the Universal Church if you want to be logical.
I remember you arguing this before so I am not expecting to change your mind – I know you generally stick to your position once you have decided (it’s actually this subject plus the canonisations that stick in my mind) so I am not trying to change your mind, just want to make the point that I am definitely not a “Roman Catholic” – I’m a member of the Catholic Church, a Catholic. I’ve only recently been to Rome and I didn’t like it!
I meant to add something to answer your comment about the “Holy Roman Church”. I am quoting from the article on the CT website to show the difference between that and “Roman Catholic” Church.
” There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father’s home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
I took Petrus to task for making fun of you
and will do the same for Athanasius. 😢
Thank you, Michaela. 😊 We count too!
Michaela
“Holy Roman Church” is the ancient and established title for the Church. If anything “Catholic” is the adjective because it merely describes the Church as universal, which we already know. “Roman” is essential because it firmly declares our union with the Petrine See.
Athanasius,
I’m afraid you are wrong. “Holy Roman Church” is not the “ancient name of the Church”. It was actually first used in 1208 in a letter to the Diocese of Rome.
The most ancient name for the Church is simply the “Catholic Church” which was first used in 110AD.
Petrus,
I found this on a website about the Council of Trent but I forgot to copy the link.
“The earliest document we have in which “Catholic” is used to label the Church is a letter from Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around A.D. 107, while being taken to Rome for execution. For all we know, the term was used well before that time—which is to say, in the time of the apostles.”
There’s also this interesting link (I remembered to copy it, LOL!) which is interesting because it’s not Catholic but a “Christian” link and they are well up on the history of the name of the Church. It makes the distinction because “Roman Church” and “Catholic Church”.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/25331/why-catholic-church-is-called-the-roman-catholic-church
Sorry, I meant the distinction between (not because) Roman Church and Catholic Church.
Petrus
I don’t know about that, 1208AD is pretty ancient.
Hey, watch yourself! Isn’t that the year editor was born? the
Petrus
I didn’t want to remind her. But now that you mention it!
Petrus,
If I was you, I’d duck, LOL!
Hey, watch yourself! Isn’t that the year editor was born? the
Petrus
I agree that “Catholic Church” is the oldest description of common use, which is absolutely fine by me. But I would add that as time passed and some wanted to emphasise more the primacy of Rome, the word “Roman” was included on occasion. There is nothing wrong with that at all. The main problem arises for most people with the Protestant Reformer misapplication of the term to bolster their branch theory. But even they didn’t use the word “Roman” in the beginning, they used “Romish” or “papist” to refer to Catholics faithful to Rome.
At any rate, Roman Catholic Church is, for me at least, a stronger statement of affiliation with the Petrine See than mere Catholic Church, so I will always use it despite the Protestant twist on the true meaning.
Athanasius,
The point is, it wasn’t the Catholics who added Roman it was the Protestant Reformers! That’s a historical fact.
However, as you say, over time some Catholics have come to accept it and that is fine if that is what they choose. I’ll never call myself RC. I am a Scots Catholic not a Scots Roman Catholic, LOL!
Michaela
To say you’re a Scots Catholic is the same as the Anglican’s saying they are English Catholics. You see the problem? The Reformers did not add Roman to the Catholic Church, for as I have pointed out with various quotes, the Church herself has referred to herself as Roman in so many different ways.
You know, horrible as it is, I would rather outright sectarianism than the ecumenism. Of course it would be preferable that we didn’t have either evil but in terms of honesty, at least we know where we stand with outright bigots and it strengthens the Catholic Faith in persecuted souls. Ecumenism on the other hand weakens the Catholic Faith in souls by its insidious pretence that belief in God is sufficient for salvation, regardless of “denomination”. No, I’ll take the persecution any day to that demonic lie.
Athanasius,
On this, I agree with you, absolutely.
Michaela
But I demand agreement on everything I say or I’m not playing anymore!
Athanasius,
I disagree. Historically speaking, “Holy Roman Church” referred to the Church of Rome, ie. the Diocese of Rome. It was never really used to denote the Universal ie. Catholic Church.
We see it used in Quo Primum by St Pius V:
“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”
In this context, St Pius V was absolutely referring to the Church of the Diocese of Rome, specifically it’s Rite of Mass. I can’t come across many sources indicating that this was a popular term used to describe the Church universal.
Yes, you are right to say Pope Pius XII used it “Roman Catholic Church” but I think he was wrong to do so. He wasn’t a perfect pope after all – he didn’t follow Our Lady’s commands at Fatima and he started to tinker with the liturgy, introducing novelties like the Saturday vigil Mass.
Petrus
Pius XII was a very learned and experienced diplomat as well as a saintly Pope. Therefore it is unlikely that he included an erroneous term for the Church in his Encyclical Letter, especially since it addressed religious error. No, we have to assume that Pius XII, so very orthodox in every other way, knew exactly what he was writing.
As for “Holy Roman Church”, The Catholic Church usually distinguishes itself from other so-called churches by the word “Catholic”. However, it has also used the description “Roman Catholic”.
In view of the central position it attributes to the See of Rome, the Church has not infrequently adopted the adjective “Roman” for the whole church, Eastern as well as Western, as in the papal encyclicals Divini illius Magistri and Humani generis. Another example is its self-description as “the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” found in the 24 April 1870 Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith of the First Vatican Council.
Ultimately it is one of those debates that will only be properly settled when the Church returns to health. Since it is not a matter that generally impacts on faith and salvation, I would merely suggest that we let others use the term as they will without public correction, since it is at present merely a matter of opinion. There are many bigger fish to fry right now against which this issue is pedantic.
Athanasius,
I groaned when I saw this subject re-opened. I am only going to point out that your repeated references to the use of “Roman” – as in “the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” is totally different from “Roman Catholic” juxtaposed. That is, simply, NOT the name of the Church. Elsewhere you bemoan bigotry but to be blunt, speaking generally, not intending to accuse you except in the sense of “if the shoe fits…” 😀 but, on more than one occasion, I have found that those who are most keen to call themselves “Roman Catholics” do is in that spirit.
Look, as I said last time this subject was disputed, if someone wants to call the Church by the wrong name, including all those bishops who have it emblazoned across their websites, let them go, let them tarry. Me? I’m sticking to the name of the Church found in the earliest Christian literature. And that’s because…
In Catholicism, as St Vincent Lerins taught, the litmus test of the Catholic Faith is what has been believed throughout Christendom from the earliest times. And – as all the letters and literature available confirm – the name of the Church from the start has always been the Catholic Church. That is the fact of the matter. A fact which I note you acknowledge. That, really, should settle the argument.
Personally, it settles it for me; I refuse to accept the Protestant-inspired RC – but you must feel free to embrace it if you wish, since right now we have bigger fish to fry and even the Glasgow priest who thanked me for correcting RC some years ago (in our newsletter) has since said that he’s given up the ghost. He’s taken the same attitude that I am adopting here. If people are OK with this particular error, since it’s not the end of the world, leave them to it.
As an aside, Pope Pius XII might have been the most learned man in the world but, like the rest of us, he didn’t know everything and he clearly did not know the history of the Church’s name – either that, or whoever was shadowing his writing was responsible for the use of RC. Nor does being a saint make one immune from error or the appearance of error. Many people have expressed disquiet that Sister Lucia of Fatima attended the new Mass. All sorts of circumstances come into play in such situations and it could well be that Pius XII lost that argument and decided, like you, that it wasn’t worth the battle.
I have made it plain that I would like the “Roman” to be dropped from “Roman Catholic” on this blog, so, while you are obviously free to use the term whenever you like, I hope you will respect my wish not to have it in use here, where it is possible to eradicate it – quotes are an obvious exception. For, just as you see some significance in its use by Pius XII, the significance of the Fathers of Trent for refusing to allow its use is far more pertinent because they were much closer in time (right there!) to the introduction of this novel name for the Church and more acutely attuned to its implications than was Pius XII, saintly or not.
Hopefully, now, we can leave it there, while I go to find some meaningful vengeance to take a crack at both Petrus and your [good?!] self for having a dig at my age above…
Editor,
As before, we’ll agree to disagree. I side with Pius XII’s use of the term and you side with lay opinion in the matter. Had it been a post-Vatican II Pope then I might have been inclined to doubt its use in an Encyclical Lettter, but not when it’s the great Pius XII. At the end of the day it’s one of those unimportant subjects that comes down to opinion. Since it has no bearing on faith I agree that we should leave it there.
By the way, I would not consider having a dig at your age. I have never been on an archaelogical dig and I don’t intend to start now. I do, however, have a carbon dating kit if your interested.
Now he runs for the hills!!
Athanasius,
I would hardly call the Fathers of the Council of Trent “lay opinion”, nor the saints who wrote of the Catholic Church in the first century.
👏👏👏👏👏
Editor
You’re havering, wummin!
It was not the Fathers of Trent or the 1st century saints I was referring to as lay opinion, since they did not express any particular view in the matter. Rather, It was lay opinion drawn on inferences from what these holy sources did not say that I was referring to.
To demonstrate how this inference-based opinion is erroneous, I quote again from Pius XI and Pius XII:
From the Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri of Pope Pius XI: “This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians.”
From the Encyclical Letter Humani Generis of Pius XII: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”
In fine, those who argue against the use of “Roman Catholic” do so on the basis of personal opinion and preference while I base my defence of the term on Papal declarations.
In other words, I win and I get the chocolate!
Athanasius,
In the same Encyclical of Pius XI we read:
“O Catholic Church, true Mother of Christians! Not only doest thou preach to us, as is meet, how purely and chastely we are to worship God Himself, Whom to possess is life most blessed; thou does moreover so cherish neighborly love and charity, that all the infirmities to which sinful souls are subject, find their most potent remedy in thee.
And the quote you give, including “Holy” may well indicate that the oft-used “holy, Catholic and Roman Church” has not been fully translated. I don’t know. What I DO know is that there was no such term as RC until the Middle Ages, Reformation period. Pius XI encyclical was in 1929 and Vatican I took place in the 19th century.
Find a source PRIOR to the Reformation and I’ll concede the argument. NOT, remember, “holy and Roman” or any other “and” combination – has to be Roman Catholic.
There was good reason why the Fathers of the Council of Trent insisted that the new coined name RC was not used in any of the documents – and not even to be found in the documents of Vatican II, amazingly.
I’m genuinely puzzled as to why you are so desperate to be called a Roman Catholic instead of a Catholic, as great saints of the first and second centuries, like St Ignatius of Antioch, were known.
It’s not about having a “view” – it’s the simple fact (which you have already acknowledged) that the earliest name given to the Church by the first Christians WAS/IS “Catholic”. It’s a simple historical fact that it was the Protestant Reformers who introduced RC into the language. Facts really speak for themselves.
I am perfectly happy for you to call yourself a RC – just never call ME one. I am a Catholic. Same as St Ignatius, albeit without his virtue… (yet…) !
Petrus
If “other churches” are subordinate to the Holy Roman Church and its teaching, particularly its rite of Mass, then it is not unreasonable to state that they are Roman Catholic churches, which is to say churches subordinate to Roman authority. That’s why the Old Catholics, for example, won’t use the term at all because they don’t recognise the Primacy of the See of Rome.
Athanasius,
First of all, I hope you had a Happy Patronal Feast Day. 2 May is also the anniversary of my First Holy Communion. It’s been 40+ years since then and I still try to commemorate it every year.
On another note, the particular Churches which make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are true Churches.
To illustrate: If a letter arrives for me, it usually says “Miss Margaret K______”; if a letter arrives for Mom it may state “Mrs. K_____”; if something arrives for both of us it will say “The K_______ Family”.
My mother and I live together but we are different persons.
In the same manner, the term “Catholic” is our family name while each particular Church has its own patrimony as well as the common patrimony of the Catholic Church.
As I’ve said on other occasions, Orientalium Ecclesiarium was the only good thing to come out of VII. And I’ll bet that if you ask the average Catholic in the pew about Orientalium Ecclesiarium they will have no idea of what you’re talking about.
Finally, please be kind to Madame Editor! Unless a miracle happens, CT won’t be around much longer, so let’s try to be charitable.
Wishing you a blessed Paschal season.
In Christ the King,
Margaret
Margaret USA,
That’s a very good explanation with excellent analogy, of the name of the Church covering all the different “particular” churches, so thank you for it.
Just the fact that “Roman Catholic” dates from the Reformation period (Middle Ages) is enough to prove that it’s not the proper name of the Church not to mention that it’s not the name used in the Creed. Of all things, they would definitely get the name of the Church right in the Creed, if nowhere else!
I said it only this morning: “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church” – “Roman” isn’t in the Creed, at all.
Being a Catholic doesn’t change our allegiance to the papacy. I really don’t see the issue.
Excellent point re the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. We said it this morning too!
Margaret Mary
The fact that it is not mentioned in the Creed does not mean it is a wrong term for Catholics to use. In fact two Popes have used it, as has Vatican I.
Two RECENT popes have used it (post-medieval period) + 19th century Council. That only serves to underline that the error had spread to the extent that – as with bishops today – even those popes fell into using it at least once (allowing for a wrong translation).
But to dismiss the Creed is really telling. THAT is where the name of the Church is to be found accurately translated, above all other sources. I’m incredulous that you would dismiss that evidence so readily.
Editor
I have not dismissed the Creed, I have merely pointed out that not using the formula “Roman Catholic” does not mean that the Fathers of the Church had any particular issue with it. You and others infer this, I do not.
I have provided two pre-Vatican II Papal references where the term is clearly used, thereby providing facts against your inferences and opinion. I have even shown by such terms as “Holy Roman Apostolic Church”, used in the context of the universal Church, that Vatican I supports the term.
It is entirely up to you if you wish to continue in your own opinion in the matter, declaring both Pius XI & Pius XII, who nullify it, to have been in error. Personally, I wouldn’t carry opinion that far. I always bow to superior authority, provided it is otherwise proven to be trustworthy, as in the case of the two Popes cited. I never trust my own conclusions.
But, as we have already agreed, the matter is insignificant in comparison with the real issues presently going on in the Church. I would only caution against future corrections of those who use the term “Roman Catholic” as I feel it detracts from those more important issues.
Athanasius,
You ignore the key points made merely to repeat your mantra about two popes – you cannot dismiss the fact that the Church was NEVER called Roman Catholic until the Protestant Reformers introduced it in the 16th century.
There is NO “superior authority” which dictates that RC is the name of the Church. NONE. That two recent popes used the term, against the entire history of the Church, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, authoritative. I can see how it would encourage someone, like yourself, to see it as a justification to use the 16th century name, but that’s quite separate from being a “superior authority”.
Our purpose here at Catholic Truth is educative so while I thank you for your concern about “future corrections” regarding the use of RC being distracting – that would be wrong. A true educator seeks to correct when necessary. Once the information is given, of course, and the person (as you do yourself) chooses to continue to use the term, that’s up to them, but when I judge it necessary, I will always highlight the fact that until the Protestant schism of the 16th century, the Church was always referred to by popes, saints and Councils as “the Catholic Church.” Those who choose to take their lead from the Protestant Reformers/revolutionaries, are, of course, free to do so and it certainly suits the Modernist/Ecumenical agenda so to do.
I – who believe in the one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed – will never do so.
Now, there’s a Brexit thread awaiting your input – and I think that therein, we may just agree 😀 !
For now, I’m off pubbing and clubbing, so don’t wait up for me 😀
Editor
I would be careful about dismissing those two Popes in their use of “Roman Catholic”, because once the precedent of dismissing pre-Vatican II Popes is set it can be thrown straight back at you when you quote them against the heresies of Modernists. For if they were in error in this matter then it can be argued that they were in error in other matters also. It’s a can or worms your opening.
Athanasius,
I refer you to the point you made about Faith and Morals. If it is OK to ignore the entire history of the Church until the Reformation with regards to the name of the Church then it is a can of worms YOU are opening with regards to having THAT thrown back in your face when you cite Tradition in defence of error and heresy.
Margaret USA
Always nice to exchange comments with such a kind person. I had a very nice Patronal Feast, thank you, although my actual Patron Saint is St. Martin de Porres. I have to say though that I have the undesered honour of having a first class relic of St. Athanasius at home, sent to me from the U.S. by the late Fr. Le Blanc (R.I.P).
As regards your analogy, I regret that it could also be used by Anglicans to defend their branch theory, so it is not water tight. Can you see that?
As I have pointed out elsewhere to Editor, towards whom I am always the essence of extreme kindness, though she treats me brutally at times (!), two Popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) wrote “Roman Catholic Church” into their Encyclical Letters. Hence, I have Church authority on my side. I am not aware of any Church authority that can be cited in opposition, so it really comes down to lay opinion Vs. what two Traditional Popes have written. I know whose authority I trust in the matter.
Anyway, God bless you and your mum.
Dear Athanasius,
If you look at the dogmatic definitions of the early councils (e.g. Nicea I), the documents usually state: “…these the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”
Also, could you please post a picture of the relic of St. Athanasius?
In Christ the King,
Margaret
Margaret USA
I will be happy to post a picture of the relic of St. Athanasius, but I don’t know how to do it on this WordPress platform, unless Editor can help.
As regards the other matter, I accept the point you make about the early Church documents, etc., but I equally accept the usage of Pius XI and Pius XII. I have no reason to believe that the former would have disagreed with the latter. Those who do are simply expressing a personal opinion. Anyway, I think enough has been said on that subject.
Athanasius,
The only way to post pictures here, as far as I know, is to find the image online, click on it through to a page where it is on its own, copy that URL and it should paste here. Doesn’t always work but that is the only way I know.
As far as this defence of “personal opinion” is concerned, I repeat, that for you to cite personal opinion as to the name of the Church is to ignore the entire history and Tradition of the Church. From the very first century, the Church was known as the Catholic Church. Only when the Protestant Reformers sought to further their branch theory and suggest there were OTHER “Catholic churches” did “Roman” come into usage. That two recent popes have used it does not nullify the entire history of the Church. And if you think that popes, whether prior to Vatican II or since, never make mistakes, I have a nice wee bridge over the River Clyde that I could sell you at a terrific discount.
It’s a non-sequitur to link the use of Roman Catholic to adherence to the papal office. I adhere entirely to the papal office but I am not a “Roman Catholic”, I am, as was St Ignatius, the twelve apostles and every other saint in the Church for the first 15 centuries, a Catholic. As is Margaret USA – check out this Vatican document where the Pope is emphasising, within the “Holy Catholic Church”, the unity of the Eastern churches. Let me know if you can find “Roman Catholic” anywhere in it – I couldn’t…
Athanasius,
Do you hear yourself?
You write, in response to Margaret USA: “As regards your analogy, I regret that it could also be used by Anglicans to defend their branch theory, so it is not water tight. Can you see that?”
Unbelievable.
One of the first points I made was that the very purpose of the coinage ‘Roman Catholic’ by the Protestant Reformers was to promote their branch theory – the idea that the followers of the Pope were but one branch (the Roman branch) of the universal Church , so of COURSE it can be used by Anglo-Catholics. Margaret USA was highlighting that by explaining that the particular churches which are part of the Catholic Church all have their own names as particular churches but are all part of the Catholic Church (not RC Church – that makes no sense).
And that is all the more reason why we stick with the original name of the Church, the name given in the Creed, “Catholic”. That way the Anglicans cannot defend their branch theory. Only if they can replace “Roman” with “Anglo” does that work.
Can you see THAT?
Don’t bother answering. I honestly feel this is a waste of time. You’ve acknowledged above somewhere that the Catholic Church is the oldest name and we go by “oldest” in Catholicism but, I don’t see you ever changing your mind or seeing what it was the Protestant Reformers were up to, way back in the 16th century when they dreamt up RC.
I really urge you to drop it because I won’t.
Thank you, Madame Editor. 😊
My pleasure, Margaret USA!
Editor
The point I was making is that the Anglicans, Old Catholic and other schismatics refuse to use the term “Roman Catholic”.
Now, whether they invented it or not is immaterial today as most people use the term without knowing the history. Hence anyone who objects to being called Roman Catholic is automatically assumed to be a schismatic.
That kind of confusion we can live without and that’s what I was trying to emphasise to Margaret Mary. We have to understand the poor education of these times and be careful in our statements.
Editor
No, we do not automatically “go by oldest” in Catholicism as that mindset can lead to the error of “Antiquarianism”. Let us not forget that the Modernists went back to a table for an altar precisely on that argument.
Athanasius,
You keep getting this entirely the wrong way round!
The Anglicans etc DO want to use the term Roman Catholic because that gives credibility to their branch theory. Without “Roman” in front of “Catholic” there is no scope to change it to “Anglo”. Only if there are “Roman Catholics” can there be “Anglo Catholics” etc.
Listen, I can see that you just don’t get it, so I’m off pubbing and clubbing. I need a very strong lemonade – with ice 😀
Athanasius,
That’s not what I meant and to make that distinction, I specifically named St Vincent Lerins, who taught that when in doubt about Christian belief, we had to ask what has been believed from the beginning, at all times, everywhere, by all – and we do know that from the beginning the Church was called “Catholic”.
And my point is that since this is not a matter of faith, Pius XI & XII were not in error when they wrote “Roman Catholic”. St. Vincent Lerins was referring to matters of faith and morals, not terms used to describe the Church.
As for the Anglican argument, we should be happy to bear the title they bestow on us, for we are Catholics in union with Rome and under Rome’s authority. That makes them schismatics from the true Church. They declare their own schism every time they call us Roman Catholics, emphasisng their own rejection of the Petrine See and the Roman Church as the “mother and mistress of all the churches.”
Athanasius,
To be “not in error” on this, those popes would have had to use the correct name of the Church – which they did not. They used the name coined by the Protestant Reformers.
Popes can be in error on lots of things. The guarantee of infallibility is very narrow and it doesn’t cover getting everything right including the name of the Church. Some people, like yourself, have accepted the rationale behind the introduction of “Roman Catholic” to make it mean what the Protestant Reformers DID mean – that it indicates adherence to the Roman Pontiff but … well… so does “Catholic”. When I introduce myself as a “Catholic” people know that I am what the Protestant Reformers (and current Orangemen) call a “papist”. What the addition of the adjective “Roman” did, was to allow the Protestant Reformers to suggest there were other “Catholic churches” – such as the Anglo-Catholic. That’s not them acknowledging that they are in schism, as you have suggested. It is precisely to suggest the opposite – that the Catholic Church is wider than the “Roman Catholic” – it seems very obvious to me, so I’m amazed that you don’t see that. During Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK, the BBC interviewed some people outside one of the venues, asking some young people if they were “Roman Catholics”. They replied, no, that they were “Anglo-Catholics” and thrilled to be here to see the Pope. They thought they were Catholics! Just from a different “branch” from the “Roman” branch.
I keep coming back to the same point which you have acknowledged. That, from the earliest times, all the literature from the first century confirms that the Church was called “The Catholic Church”.
You are free to adopt the Protestant name as did your two favourite popes. I will never do that.
Now, you can write as many more posts as you like repeating the same thing. I will be away from my computer for a few hours but when I return I will reply to every single one of your comments by repeating the same thing.
I advise you to move on – no matter how many popes, priests and bishops use the Protestant name for the Church, for whatever reason, the fact cannot change that that is NOT what the first Christians called the Church.
Margaret Mary,
And the marches have started already. They really are nauseating. I wonder how many of the marchers know anything at all about the Catholic Church, that’s what always comes to my mind. They live off the propaganda, which is very sad.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is an Orange March? We have the Orange Bowl over here in January. It’s one of the college football bowls.
(The Rose Bowl is the oldest, though, with the Rose Parade on New Year’s Day.) Mom is always torn between watching the Rose Parade in CA and the Mummer’s Parade in Philadelphia. (Of course, we usually end up watching the Mummers on the telly. 😉)
The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternity that marches through the streets of Glasgow. It’s a completely anti-Catholic and sectarian organisation.
Thank you – my Scottish history is extremely limited. 😊
On another note, please be kind to Madame Editor! She’s a sweetheart.
N O T I C E . . .
I have received the following email, which I’ll also post on the General Discussion thread…
Dear Sirs further to your excellent article
https://catholictruthblog.com/2014/05/28/the-hollie-greig-story-why-are-alarm-bells-ringing-in-scotland/
I write to tell you that sadly after a short illness with cancer Robert Green has died
Robert was always very pleased at the fairness of your article unlike the set up by David Leask of the Herald
At the time Robert suppressed the fact that the case had a very strong Satanic Religious Abuse SRA .
Again thank you for your fairness and keep doing Gods work…your blog stands head and shoulders above the rest.
HGJ END.
Please pray for the repose of the soul of Robert Green, and for whatever truth has still to be disclosed in the Hollie Greig case.General Discussion
Dear Madame Editor,
Thank you very much for posting the link to Orientalium Ecclesiarium on 6 May 10:27. You brightened my day.
Yours in Christ the King,
Margaret 🇺🇸
P.S. I asked Heloisa to reach out to you so she may post/email CT.
My pleasure.
And I look forward to hearing from Heloisa, in due course.
That’s very sad news about Robert Green, God rest him. I hope the truth does finally come out in the case of Hollie Greig.
Many thanks , Robert was delighted to have your article in his darkest hour.
There is no doubt that Scotland has double standards in how it responds to incidents like the St SImon’s vandalism.
Prominent Scottish Solicitor Aamer Anwar is a man who I have often criticised on various grounds and so it is only fair that I commend his unequivocal response to St Simon’s, which was to label it a disgrace and compare the muted reaction for civic society to the response we would have seen had if it had been a mosque or synagogue attacked.
Nicola Sturgeon took a while to respond and when she did, it only used the St Simon’s incident as vehicle to discuss hate crime more broadly, which jews and muslims quickly appearing as victims in her comments.
The Police response is woeful – rushing to play down or discount hate crime, even though it is not the job of the Police to class what is a hate crime. The classification comes from victim perception and evidence produced by investigation. So, near-immediate Police statements seeking to play down the likelihood of hate crime (before investigation) are of dubious worth and suggest a desire to influence the media and public – or what we would call “having an agenda”.
The only agenda of the Police should be to investigate. Had the attack been on a mosque, the Police early response would instead have been to grandstand about how islamophobia will not be tolerated etc. They would not rush to discount involvement of islamophobia, which would be seen as insensitive, disinterested and callous – not to mention groundless, given they have not investigated yet,
The problem is that anti-Catholicism is so “normal” and ingrained in Scotland and has been for generations.
Even the response of the Church was disappointing, as we see with the comments postulating someone with mental health issues had a “breakdown” – I do not think this incident is similar, but “mental health issues” is often the euphemism used to explain away violent rampages or threatening behaviour by individual muslims in European cities.
If all these news stories are to be believed, it would seem mental health is going to pot across the entire continent of Europe.
I dare say many will be accusing rugby star Israel Folau of ‘hate crime’. Nothing much has changed in 2000 years. Speak the truth – and you’ll get crucified!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48184011
Pat McKay,
Don’t you think it’s a bit stupid, asking for trouble, to say that “hell awaits gay people” when we know that only unrepented mortal sin takes someone to hell?
Margaret Mary,
I’m sure that’s what he implied.
But the mindset that’s been around for a long time is that ‘there’s no need for them to repent’ because they ‘just can’t help the way they are’ and they ‘are not sinning’. And when PF himself tells people ‘it’s ok to be ‘gay”, say no more….
Pat McKay,
I agree with you but I think Margaret Mary is right to say it’s stupid to make a blanket statement like that, when it is not actually good theology and is bound to cause a ruckus. It lets people say that Christians are bigoted, whereas the really Christian teaching is loving and compassionate because it is giving the hope of salvation to those who turn from sin. If he had to say what he did, he should have put it in the context of the teaching about sin and repentance.
I’ve just signed this petition about the restoration (?) of Notre Dame Cathedral which, predictably, Macron et al are trying to modernise. I urge everyone to sign.
http://www.returntoorder.org/petition/dont-disfigure-notre-dame-cathedral/?PKG=RTOE0675
A reader in England alerted me to some material on Bishop Keenan’s Facebook page – this comment from the Bishop jumped out at me…
A thougtful article by Chris McEleny appealing for respectful debate over name calling in the attempt to protect the rights of all consituents in civic society in the matter of gender.
‘It is important that any debate about Trans rights and women’s rights is discussed respectfully.
‘That’s not happening at the moment.
‘Perhaps it is because we live in a world that, instead of talking to each other, we demand a debate which must have a winner and a loser, but as history has taught us, when we make society more equal we all win https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17586053.chris-mceleny-stop-trying-to-silence-people-in-this-terf-war-on-trans-rights/
Can’t see any of the “mainstream” Catholics – ordained or lay – ever being charged with a “hate crime” – can you?