Reader comments · Bishop to speak out on Catholic Church’s stance on gay issues · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Bishop to speak out on Catholic Church’s stance on gay issues

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The Catholic Church doesn’t like gay people.

    And this is news?

  2. Rob Alexander 18 Aug 2008, 5:58pm

    Not sure what this is saying – will he condemn or support the usual homophobic utteraances of the Caholic Church? My advice to anyone woul dbe to ask a clergyman to put his statements in writing – and then ask his boss’s opinion. If anyone gets such a statement in writing, that’s what I call a miracle.

  3. The bishop says “we need passionate and courageous public statements that dare to speak the full truth in love”. Now why is that worrying? Haven’t we heard it before, usually to condemn “in love”?

  4. The contradiction in the Church of England is that the clergy celebrate marriages such as their own and have children presumably by the joy of sexual intercourse…but gays must be denied this – they are condemned by God to live lonely and celebate lives without that God-given joy of sexual congress and they cannot be accorded the Church’s blessing for long,faithful and loving relationships,even with regualr church attendance – such a blessing is illegal in a Church of England church.Young heterosexual couples in contrast can enjoy the full panoply of a church wedding with fulsome celebration of the church’s blessing despite having lived together unmarried with a full sexual relationship,attending church only to hear the reading of the Banns and take part in the ceremony and never to cross the threshold of the church again or at least only until they need a child to be christened.

    Humbug….empty words on discrimination and harassment – the message is that gays are evil and the anti-Christ.That is what children in Roman catholic schools through the UK hear and their homophobia induced and blessed.

  5. Love the sinner – Hate the sin – but Punish the sinner.Enjoy!

  6. I don’t understand how gay people, and people who support gay relationships can be (or at least act) so stupid! Haven’t they taken biology 101. Don’t they know ANYTHING about human reproductive physiology? If they did, they would know that the physical acts of homosexual sex are not only unhealthy, but profoundly insignificant. Two men are no more sexually compatible than a man and a tree. Or a Woman and a vegetable. The Catholic Chruch doesn’t condemn people who have any sort of sinful tendancy, we all have them. The fact is, she rightly states that acts that are both contrary to nature and harmful to the human relationship because they are based on a narcissistic lust for pleasure regardless of it’s form, are to be condemned for what they are. Unnatural, selfish pleasure seeking, without regard for the actual reason for our sexual reproductive organs. Hey, next we will have groups claiming the Church hates them because she condemns people swallowing gasoline. People can really be stupid when it comes to them seeking selfish pleasure…..

  7. Steve Hope 18 Aug 2008, 7:03pm

    The state of play so far (not much different from what I first remember hearing in the ’70s):
    1 – Gay Catholics are full members of the Church and no-one should be nasty to them or discriminate against them, only condemn and devalue their sexual relationships. But –
    2 – You can discriminate against them if you decide they are a threat to somebody. Why? Well, because they are gay, of course. If you are a gay man you cannot be admitted to the priesthood unless it is at least 3 years since you did anything below the belt (this last is fairly new).
    3 – It is not a sin to fancy your own sex, only to have sex with them. But –
    4 – The desire is nonetheless ‘intrinsically disordered’. You are a nut who needs therapy (a Vatican position not challenged by diocesan prelates in public to my knowledge).
    5 – You cannot have sex with someone of your own sex because you cannot reproduce this way. The Catholic Church, however, blesses the rumpy-pumpy of the elderly and the biologically sterile, as long as they are married. If you are gay you cannot get married because – well, you can’t. Once upon a time you couldn’t if you were a slave, and could if you were a priest, but the Catholic Church, a beacon of ‘unchanging truths’, has sort of forgotten about it. She certainly wants us to.
    6 – You also can’t have sex with someone of your own sex because the Bible says so. It also says slavery is morally acceptable, the lending of money at interest is not, and, among many other things, that you should sell all your goods and give the proceeds to the poor. Catholics (and Christians in general)are now embarrassed by the first two and very little inclined to the third.
    7 – Church tradition doesn’t like it either, just like it used not to like trading with Muslims or men cutting their beards, and used positively to like burning theological dissidents, calling the faithful to the Crusades (killing Muslims), and forcing conversion on the Jews. It is hot especially on Thomas Aquinas, who said homosexuality must be wrong because animals didn’t do it. They certainly DO do it; but after citing them as authority against it, TA then said that they were morally and intellectually inferior to people in any case. So which is it?

    You may discern evidence in this incoherent morass of Church precepts that Catholic and other forms of Christianity can and do change (they wouldn’t survive if they didn’t). But don’t hold your breath. Sensible people certainly don’t. And if general Christian postures to lgbt people change while anyone reading this is still alive, expect a lot of them to act as though it was never any different. Radical Amnesia is the first requirement of Unchanging Truth.


  8. Robert, ex-pat Brit 18 Aug 2008, 7:06pm

    Doorman, I suppose then that since many heterosexual choose not to procreate, the sole purpose of marriage in the eyes of your church, then you should be demanding that they too be banned from marrying. You state that homosexual sex is unhealthy? So what do you say to the millions of heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse, even married ones? So do you think having unprotected sex in African countries where AIDS and other STDS are endemic is healthy? Your church forbids condom distribution while millions of people die unnecessarly. Just saying no is hardly reality. In light of the recent and centuries old molestation scandal (that is still continuing as of this post) in the RC church you and your bigoted cult of a church are hardly in a position to judge others let alone act as the moral compass on anything to do with human sexuality. What does a catholic priest, bishop, cardinal or pope know about human relationships or sex for that matter? NOTHING! If anything, celibacy is unhealthy and unnatural.

  9. Doorman appears to have forgotten that Pope JP2 more strongly condemned homosexuality than paedophilia. Whilst the former was ‘intrinsically evil’ were were told to show forgiveness and understanding towards priests who abused their charges. JP2 also, we should not forget, promoted the beautification of a known paedophile – a decision that has been rightly reversed by his sucessor, Benedict.

    I suggest Doorman reads John Finnis if he wishes to understand Catholic nuances in instrumental reproduction and marriage. Taking his argument to its logical conclusion would preclude heterosexual marriage where one partner is infertile, a position avoided by Finnis.

  10. Doorman – can’t say i’ve ever considered swallowing gasoline for pleasure. As for the biology 101 jibe, that’s rich coming from a representative of a church that traditionally has opposed all evidence for evolution and assumes that we’re all inbred from Adam and Eve (incidentally, I wasn’t aware of Adam or Eve having a daughter, therefore it follows that either Cain or Abel must be a mo-fo!)
    As for unnatural, there are many documented examples of gay sex in nature from amoebas to Bonobo chimps, taking in sheep and penguins and dogs on the way. Not all sex is done with babies in mind, and that goes for straight sex too. Get over it. If you want to know why not, watch Monty Python’s Meaning of Life, specifically “Every Sperm is Sacred”. This planet needs is a population explosion like it needs a neighbouring supernova.
    At least I can personally vouch gay men and gay intercourse exist. I’d like to see what “evidence” you put forward that your religion is the one true way amongst many alternatives in a crowded god-market. And that’s after you prove to me that there is a god who gives a monkeys what I do anyhow (and yes, monkeys do it too).

  11. Doorman – I’m afraid my biology is not as good as yours as I attended a Catholic school in my youth; and as you can appreciate they, the good Dominican nuns, were reluctant to teach anything beyond the very basics. Drawing upon arguments from nature is profoundly stupid as any student of natural studies can see – homosexual behaviour is found amongst many species; but most importantly human beings are born homosexual (so that cannot be contrary to nature). It isn’t taught or acquired – it is a gift given by God (a gift that allows gay men and women to experience what it’s like to be truly discriminated against and excluded and so help others in the same position). Celibacy on the other hand is a lifestyle choice – one that is enforced upon Catholic clergy. This, in my view, is ultimately an act contrary to the reproductive call of nature if ever this was one. If reproduction is so great then why doesn’t the Pope allow his priests to marry and have children – or is celibacy preferable to drinking gasoline in this instance? Doorman, like other Catholics, is scared of admitting the Pope and his club of cronies is wrong on this and other issues – but what we need is reform in the Church to save the best and eliminate the worst of ignorance and fear.

  12. Thanks flapjack, you just made me laugh out loud with the mo-fo comment. One of them must have been!

  13. This comment might appear to be nothing to pinknews readers, but I was raised in the RCC, and anyone who knows anything about their vacuous pronouncements, and also about the Bishop of Lancaster, will know that this is pretty big stuff.

    Of all the bishops in this country O’Donoghue is the most progressive, and likely the most determined to see church attitude to gays change.

    Rather than cynically spouting ‘Haven’t we heard it before, usually to condemn “in love”?’, we should be welcoming the fact that one bishop is concerned enough to speak out against the usual rubbish that people like Joseph Devine come out with.

    Well done to the bishop :D

  14. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Aug 2008, 1:29pm

    Steve, Flapjack, I appreciate your comments, well said. As for the Adam & Eve fable, I too never read that they had a daughter. So fundamentalists who believe in that garbage must conclude that if they were the first parents of the human race, then their three sons must have had incestual relations with their mother to people the earth, enough said!

    Since the RC cult and others claim that marriage is solely for procreation, then lets call for a ban on marriage for the infertile and those who choose not to reproduce.

    As for banning gay males from the seminary, what is the Vatican’s criterion for banning straight males who commit paedophilia or philander, or have children on the side, as some have done in Latin America? The double standard and hypocrisy are typical of this evil cult called the one true church. How arrogant does it get?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.