I can express my own opinion, it is my opinion, I also love to hear other’s opinions too, I may not agree with their opinion but I respect it.
It seems that today the Gay and lesbian rights movement want to steal my right to my opinion.
If I say anything negative on the subject of Homosexuality then I will be described a homophobic, not someone who has a different opinion.
This is quite intolerant on the gay and lesbian community to jump on someone and brand them homophobic just because they have a valid different opinion.
Perhaps the gay and Lesbian community have a phobia of homophobic.
This word homophobic, what does it mean???
I don’t like spiders , If I saw one I would be scared , You could say I have arachnophobia. If I see a homosexual , I would have no problem talking to him , Many have great and loving personalities , I would even give a gay a hug if we were friends, But I still disagree with the lifestyle, Am I a homophobic.?
We all have a right to our opinion and the gay rights are abusing her right.
If i am a homophobic then i can’t help it as it is a phobia like the fear of spiders, I should be shown love because i can’t help my fears, Perhaps i can get help on the national health
Allow me to explain what homophobic means. It is not that you disagree with “the lifestyle”, it’s the fact that you repeat the myth that human sexuality is a choice and then use that myth to discriminate against me. You are welcome to your opinion, but when gay and lesbians are refused a job, not taken on as a tenant, beaten up, called names on a daily basis in the playground, chemically castrated, paid less then their colleagues for equal work, put in prison, accused of bringing down house prices when they move next door, refused equal immigration rights, marriage in their places of worship and had their burial places or places of worship desecrated, or been passed over for promotion then that’s homophobia. All predicated on your assumption that I can just wake up and be straight…
Very nice that you would give me a hug, but what I actually need is for you to keep your false and ignorant opinion about me making a choice around who I love and just accept me as equal and as human as you.
Do you have a coherent reason to have any opinions about the private lives of others that do not concern you, and do not harm you, Paul? Are you asking for freedom of expression, which you are entitled to, or immunity from criticism of your opinions, (which you are not)? people come before opinions in a civilised society, paul.
Paul, you dont seem that discriminatory to me. Hug a gay; sounds like your a good guy. i am not sure that you are homophobic compared to some real wankers. Remember though that there are some nasty people out there who are against any expression of sexuality and thats what gay rights are mainly concerned about those people and the real harm they cause.Peter Tatchell, a major gay rights speaker, would encorage debate and your right to disagree.
some homphobes though start getting a victim attitude. oh poor me i cant express my opinion. what happened to free speech. well nobody can stop them talking bollocks. look at the Jan Moir article. She talked bollocks but still managed to speak freely. i would have liked to have been at this free speech fest with Fry et al. would have been interesting watching Widdecombe squirm. im frightened of heights but i dont think its natural!By the way you can get help with phobias. Its called cognitive behavioural therapy and is available on the NHS
Paul….you disagree with the gay lifestyle but if you are not gay what the hell has it to do with you, the church or for that matter the government? Nothing that’s what!!
I don’t care what straight people get up to in their bedrooms, it’s not my business and if I’m going to go to hell simply for the way that god (if he exists) made me then so be it…..because to go to heaven and be surrounded by people like Ann Widdecombe and the pope hell is much preferable!!
I think you are raising an important point.
I think a more accurate word to replace the term homophobia would be “Sexual Prejudice”, I suggest this because empirical studies into homophobic attitudes reveal that negative attitudes to homosexuals are not usually pathological.
Fine . . . but there is a problem
Heterosexuals continue to use the term homophobia as a legal defence, often to reduce murder to manslaughter; or in the case of assault to claim a lighter sentence.
I am referring to the “Gay Panic defence” where heterosexuals are allowed to claim temporary insanity due to an extreme phobia of homosexuals. There are plethora of cases in which this defence has been invoked, the most famous being the Mathew Sheppard murder.
Why do you Heterosexuals hold on to the idea of homophobia, continue to insist on its existence in the form of the “Gay Panic defence”; despite their being no empirical evidence that your negative attitudes towards homosexuals are based on a mental illness or transient insanity.
You cannot have your cake and eat it!!!. . . so to speak
Can someone please enlighten me about the meaning of the phrase “gay lifestyle”?
But I think I already know the answer. Not one lgbt person leads the same life, so I’m assuming you actually disapprove of the sex thing. Correct?
Well, sir, you’re a bigot. Of the worst variety: the hypocritical one. You’d shake my hand and detest me at the same time. Thanks, but I’d choose a fundie over you any day.
Regarding the article, I could watch clergymen being blasted with reason-based arguments any day. :)
Hitchens is on terrific form, and it is a pleasure to read the robustness of his criticism of the Catholic Church.
Would anyone dare, though, to hold a debate as to whether Islam is a force for good? Clearly they wouldn’t, although clearly it isn’t (making people terrified to stand up for free speech is one reason; at least the Vatican can’t be accused of that). I’m sure that the Hitch would be brave enough to take part in such a debate if it were held, but I don’t know who would have the guts to second him.
No 1: Paul: “This is quite intolerant on the gay and lesbian community to jump on someone and brand them homophobic just because they have a valid different opinion.”
But you are avoiding 1 huge truth. People who disagree with homosexuality or the gay ‘lifestyle’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). These people do not have VALID different opinions. They invalidate their differing opinions by trying to impose their own personal interpretation of morality on the world.
When the catholic church says that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered then while I may disagree fundamentally with that view, I can accept their right to hold that opinion. The catholic church doesn’t leave it at that though. They also campaign against decriminalisation of homosexuality; they campaign against marriage equality; they demand opt outs from equality legislation that other clubs (like a golf club for example) are not allowed to make.
If the church opposes marriage equality for gays or abortion rights for women then that is entirely their own business and opinion. They can choose not to marry someone of the same sex, or decide not to have an abortion or to use condoms.
The sinister, negative element of catholicism (along with every other religion) is that they can’t leave their opposition at that. They try to pervert the societies they are present in to impose their set of rules and morality on everyone, regardless of whether everyone accepts their version of truth or not.
That is what makes religion so incredibly dangerous in my view.
“Gay Life style” . . . its a euphamism
Used mainly by the religous right wing
It doesn’t take champions of the esteemed calibre of Messrs. Fry and Hitchens to argue this one. Refuting the claim that “the catholic church is a force for good in the world” is something that five year olds could barely cut their teeth on. Still, I love nothing more than watching ignorant religious bigots squirm in front of the inescapable light of reason. I am looking forward to this tremendously.
Still, one thing remains to be said about the pathetic argument the catholics make with regard to condoms in Africa. Their claim is generally that condoms encourage promiscuity, and hence people have more sex and diseases such as HIV are passed on more often. The thing is, though, that condoms, if used properly, are something like 98% effective at stopping the transmission of HIV. As a result, they would have to make people have 50 times more sex than they otherwise would in order to have a net negative effect. In other words, if people were having sex once a fortnight without condoms, they would have to have sex pretty much four times a day with them in order to cause problems. The idea that this is so is utterly laughable.
Catholicism on trial? It is open and shut as a Police investigator might conclude! This article by Adrian Tippetts is a very good and acurate story of Catholic crimes across the years and that includes their substantial stupidity. They cannot be, or remain oblivious of the monstrous inhumanities created in the name of Catholicism. The Catholic Church certainly has a past. It is the only way by which Catholicism should be Judged. And, there is nothing in the world so wrong as the denial of Love between Lovers. To recognize it would be the ultimate achievement of wisdom>
Lucius, I totally agree. Since when is “lifestyle” applied to someone of the heterosexual orientation? We never hear it. Ours are “lives” first and foremost.
Paul, have you ever asked yourself why gays never exhibit let alone verbalise forms of heterophobia (a fear of straights) let alone support legislation to discriminate against them? Have you ever asked yourself why? Its something you straights do with abandon when it comes to us. Nobody chooses to be gay or straight, its who we are. Nobody comes into this world religious, all learned behavior and hardly immutable. Our lives and our natural orientation most definitely are.
Clive: Hitch has subjected Islam to a similar attack as part of a debate on freedom of speech, when the canadians were going to introduce a law on religious hatred. It’s somewhere on youtube.
(My apologies by the way for a few typos in the current text. It’s being sorted…. I should be whipped for this!)
Johann Hari isn’t backward when it comes to criticising islam either.
“Gay Life style” . . . its a euphemism – Used mainly by the religious right wing
I guess that parallels equally with “Gay Community” an oxymoron frequently used by the rabid left.
And don’t give me bollocks about gay lifestyles; We may not choose our sexuality, but we certainly choose how we live it, and one might consider it to be a stereotype, but stereotypes are based on the norm. Gay men are certainly promiscuous which is not a typical characteristic of straight people.
Paul Calvert: I think the term ‘homophobia’ was a rather strained title given by someone as ‘homoism’ just sounded wrong. However, it is more accurate. Homophobia isn’t the fear of homosexuals, it is their personal prejudices of them. Everyone has a right to an opinion, sure, but that doesn’t always extend to voicing that opinion if it upsets others. There are many gay people I dislike, however that doesn’t make me homophobic because my dislike is not about what they get up to in bed, but merely their personality.
Actually, gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people. It’s just that gay men generally have far more opportunity to express promiscuity. It is an undeniable biological fact that the male sex drive in humans is much higher than that of the female, on average, and that men are more likely to be promiscuous than women. It makes sense when one considers the investment sex requires of each gender in the majority of cases – women get pregnant, men do not. Ergo it makes reproductive sense to have as much sex as possible when you’re male, but not when you’re female, and this is the underlying psychological instinct that evolutionary selection pressure has led to. Cultural archetypes have reinforced this instinct markedly too.
Now, straight men want to have sex with women, who are not programmed to be promiscuous either instinctively or culturally. Ergo their natural desires are stifled somewhat. Gay men, on the other hand, have no such barriers, as our partners are male also.
Nevertheless, this does not mean we all sleep around. There are vast numbers of gay men living entirely non-scene lifestyles, conforming to none of the stereotypes, doing none of the things gay people are “supposed” to do. In fact they vastly outnumber the small minority who do conform – who are a small urban clique and nothing more. They are a largely invisible majority however, because they do not seek attention and in no way stand out from the crowd. So saying that the lifestyle of the promiscuous, club-going, drug-taking young urban homosexual is in any way the “norm” is going way beyond the pale.
Thou art a blessed fellow to think as every man thinks.
Never a man’s thought in the world keeps the road-way better
(Shakespeare for thee John.)
Funny how these christians whine about their rights when they’re so busy trying to destroy ours.
@RobN (16): ‘Gay men are certainly promiscuous which is not a typical characteristic of straight people.’
Are you promiscuous, RobN?
Many gay men are not promiscuous, and many straight men are. Personally I think promiscuity is neither a gay male thing nor a bad thing.
Stereotypes are “Heurisitc devices” or mental short cuts, these allow people to make sense of reality when there is limited information to make an accurate judgment. . . stereotypes do not represent normality, they represent a selective view of reality.
Brian you are so right . . . we need a little Shakespeare.
“. . . and me thinks there is nothing more vexing than a certain fellow threadster.”
Lets try and pull this thread back to the orginal topic – apologise from me for straying
Catholicism on trail!!!
. . . about time too
21st Century Roman Catholicism – The evidence
1. Doctrine of Death
The pope sentences millions of people to HIV infection and an early death in African and developing countries with his refusal to allow the promotion of condom use.
2. Doctrine of Homophobic hatred
The pope continues to incite homophobic hatred by refusing to with draw his statement that LGBT people are an intrinsically disordered and moral evil.
3. Doctrine of Misogyny
The pope continues to perpetuate sexism and gender a partite by refusing to allow women to ascend to the priesthood.
4. Doctrine of Child Abuse
The pope continues to sanction the sexual abuse of children by refusing to challenge organised paedophile rings in the priesthood
Vincent, No 17: you say:
“Nevertheless, this does not mean we all sleep around. There are vast numbers of gay men living entirely non-scene lifestyles, conforming to none of the stereotypes, doing none of the things gay people are “supposed” to do. In fact they vastly outnumber the small minority who do conform – who are a small urban clique and nothing more. They are a largely invisible majority however.”
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you – I have no idea whether what you are saying is true. Neither do you however. For you to make claims that the majority of gay men – the ‘silent majority’ in fact – is as quantifiable as claims that gay men are promiscuous. At best it’s a guess.
Anecdotal evidence certainly suggests that gay men have more sex partners than straight men however.
I can see it will be difficult to say on topic, so I just cannot help throwing the isssue of Heterosexual Male Polygamy into the debate. . . and expecially polygamy which is legally and spirtually sanctioned in some countries.
Its not gay males that are promiscuous, its MALES….that’s why it makes sense when you see that statistics show gay men are more sexually active…
In a straight relationship, the MALE is usually the one with the sex drive, the one who most of the times incites the female to have sex. In a gay relationship, there are two males who share the same sex drive, and because of this, there is most of the times more sex involved in a gay relationship. Its not because they are gay, its because they are both MALES.
And saying that straight males are not promiscuous is a JOKE. I could personally say that at least 80% of my straight male friends are more sexually active and with many more partners than me, and I am gay. And it’s not because I don’t get men, I HAVE had a lot of offers, but we just have different interests, they (my heterosexual friends)are most of the times looking for sexy girls they can do, I am looking for a man who I can be in a long, stable relationship with.
@comment no.1 – Please inform me of what the gay “lifestyle” is? I live in a well-to-do area, no pet cats by the way, work in a public sector job from 9am-5pm Monday to Friday, play footie twice a week with other gay friends (plus a couple of straight people). I enjoy my rock music, play the piano, flute & guitar. I like to go to the cinema on occasion and eat out from time to time.
So…is this sounding much like a gay “lifestyle”? If so then I’d better tell my straight friends who have a similar lifestyle that this might mean they are in fact…gay! Yes, because if its a gay lifestyle then there are a lot of straight people leading it as well.
P.S: As much as I’d love to be promiscuous, I’m a little more picky about my sexual partners than a romp in the park every night with strangers.
The catholic church has been the monstrosity of the western world for well over a thousand years. Hitler was a catholic who used the church’s hatred of Jesus own people, the Jews, to gain power.
The church was behind all the witch burnings, and getting the condemned to implicate others for a lighter punishment – to only be chocked to death rather then being burned alive. For the church got the property of the condemned.
And the church was thekey driver in the Crusades that killed 50 million Muslims during the middle ages. Poisoning their society, and they never forgot, which we all have learned in the recent decades.
And their love of children includes raping these children, to establish the power structure between the priests and the kids. Just as is done in prisons.
And condoned by the hierarchy who hid these crimes for decades.
I think Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens were absolutely smashing, SMASHING!
The only valid point Widdiecombie made was about the billions of pounds sent to the Third World yearly. Yet there is no change in the Third World except the presence of more weapons and more limousines. So where am I suppose to believe these countless millions of dollars are going?
As for the archbishop, he could probably feed an entire village in the heart of Africa by selling his vestments and gold ornememnts.
It’s becoming more and more obvious that ridiculous theatrical garbs are no longer intimidation anyone, and it’s high time.
The bottom line is that every human being deserves civil rights. If the LGBT community does not fight fot our civil rights, who is going to fight for us?
BTW, I completely agree with JohnK’s post 22, and it seems clear to me that post 1 has disrupted this thread from the word go. Nothing Paul Clavert says is remotely connected to the topic of the thread…nothing…not a word.
There have been some highly intellectual and ingenious responses to post 1, but because so few of us have been raised in the RCC, I’m afraid most of us have misunderstood the importance of this rare public confrontation between gays and representives of the vatican.
Here in Canada, for example, it is easier to get get blood from a turnip than an answer from the RCC bishops on the questions of gay rights, let alone civil rights.
This interview is nothing short of a ‘tour de force’, and I applaud Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.
Give you a PinkRose,Jean-Paul Bentham.
If sommeone likes to call “Gay LifeStyle”, I will refer the use of “RC Priest LifeStyle”. And I also hope the judges call him by “RC Priest…” instead of “Mr…” in the court room.
Paul – try replacing, say, skin colour or race for gay in each of your sentences. For example, if you said “if I’m racist then I can’t help it…I should be shown love” or “I have a right to my racist opinions” because they’re just “different” and still “valid”. That’s how outdated, ridiculous and offensive your viewpoint is, or should be. And being gay is as much a choice as choosing the colour of your skin is. “Lifestyles” ARE choices, made by gay and straight people alike. If you’re just disagreeing with the idea of sexual promiscuity, I can sort of understand, but know that that’s a stereotype and you can’t brand all gays with that any more than you could straight people with marriage, 2.4 kids and a white picket fence.
I know that a lot of people are taught homophobia from a very young age (note: not born with) by their parents and society in general, and it can be difficult to change your view when it’s so seemingly ingrained. But the first step is to realise that it’s just wrong.
(By the way, great debate by the sounds of things!)
Vo Dong Cung:
Gros merci, you are very kind.
I would like to know you better.
If you go to my.pinknews.co.uk, you can sign in as a member, free of charge, and have access to a meeting place where many topics are discussed and where many friends meet. You don’t have to, but I believe it would be a good experience for all of us.
Let me know if you have problems signing in, OK.
Of course the vast majority of gay men do not lead the kind of stereotypical gay-scene lifestyles we are presented with in the media. Why not? Because there are far more gay men out there than could possibly lead such lifestyles. One does not need figures to know that the vast majority of gay men lead exactly the same lifestyles as their heterosexual counterparts, because the very idea that they do not would require massive and highly obvious evidence to sustain. 6% of the population makes one hell of an impression when they all, or even most of them, do something the rest of the population does not.
One would also have to posit a specific mechanism that would make most gay men do such things – almost certainly a biological mechanism, because there is no such thing as a universal gay culture and certainly not one which overrides the other cultures and interests that the whole wide diversity of gay men have. What is referred to as “gay culture” in the media is nothing but the shallow expression of a tiny number of urban cliques in very specific places. It may be present in places like London and Manchester and Brighton, but it has nothing to do with gay men living in most parts of the country. How would such a thing have any impact at all on the gay men living in Somerset or Cumbria or Pembrokeshire?
No, the idea that one can even begin to classify the cultural and lifestyle preferences of people on the basis of their sexuality is highly patronising and simplistic. Nobody would ever dream of saying that straight people have a specific lifestyle due to their sexuality, so why does anyone think we are any different?
BTW, guys, Paul Calvert = MC. Read my lips.
Put Islam on trial as well and see what comes out. They and the Roman Catholics are friends thanks to Ratzinger. Both believe, encourage and practice pedophilia, antisemitism and homophobia.
Unless you grasp the idea that the tangible objective of Islam is to implement Sharia Law throughout the world, using any means including cold-blooded and ruthless murder (9/11), you can’t possibly begin to understand practicing Muslims.
To see the homophobic RCC siding with homophobic Muslim countries in the UN to prevent the development of universal human rights makes me retch.
But I actually vomit when I hear a “Miss Bo-Peep” like Paul Calvert(1) say:
“It seems that today the Gay and lesbian rights movement want to steal my right to my opinion.”
Does it really “seem” that way to you, dearie?
What else “seems” to be the problem?
How else do we “seem” to be oppressing you?
Are you beginning to see that this story does not “seem” to be about you, bonehead?
“This word homophobic, what does it mean???”
‘Can somebody tell me what homophobia means because I don’t know how to find the meaning of words.
I’m a damsel in distress so would you help me to discover the truth about homophobia because I’m just a little girl and I’m not allowed to use my computer for anything else than to disrupt the threads.
But you guys are so big, and strong and intelligent, and little ole me, well, I’m so helpless and vulnerable, and the silly queers are stealing my right to express my opinion.
Can somebody buy me another pint, pretty please?
Can somebody tell me what “disrupt” means?….
Better yet, why do I have this compulsion to make fun of all you freaks instead of going about my business and baking cookies like a good Girl Guide?’
Paul Calvert…good one. Next time try Caligula.
Charlie (20): I didn’t come out until I was 31, and I had had a fair share of girls before then, but I slept with more men in the first few months than I had girls in my entire life. One statistic I remember, was the average number of sexual partners a straight man had averaged at between 15 and 20 in an entire lifetime. I know gay men that have more than that in a month. I don’t deny that ALL men are promiscuous, but if you are heterosexual, you just don’t get the opportunity. However, that does not change the fact that gay men DO have the opportunity, and make every chance they can.
That’s not a gay thing, it’s just being human.
It *SO* f_cks me off that gays get so damn precious about being wanted to be treated as equals, yet simultaneously artificially mince about, act effeminately and shag like rabbits. That is a self-imposed gay lifestyle. I have no problem with people wanting to be like that, but stop trying to deny it at the same time.
We are different, accept it. But equally, we are all people. We should be regarded as no lesser or greater importance than anyone else.
Critics use the term ‘gay lifestyle’ as an indirect reference to buggery. In reality most of them as fascinated by it.
Life is not for the faint hearted.
Critics use the term ‘gay lifestyle’ as an indirect reference to buggery. In reality most of them are fascinated by it.
No 32: Vincent: you say: “Of course the vast majority of gay men do not lead the kind of stereotypical gay-scene lifestyles we are presented with in the media. Why not? Because there are far more gay men out there than could possibly lead such lifestyles. One does not need figures to know that the vast majority of gay men lead exactly the same lifestyles as their heterosexual counterparts”
Again I will ask that refrain from making unsubstantiated and unquantifiable claims.
Again I will repeat that I neither agree nor disagree with you. Neither of us knows the truth on this.
However for you to make the unfounded claim that gay men lead the exact same lifestyles (without any proof) is merely the flipside of the (unquantifiable, unproveable) claim that gay men are filthy whores.
Oh joy! WELL DONE TO BOTH GUYS! This should be on main stream tv, not tucked away on BBC World and episode 2 should be about Islam! There simply is no defence around the issues of condoms, homophobia and child abuse! Ms Widdyweb (gods bless her?) is a convert and therefore more catholic than any “born into it catholic and as for an African Bishop, they condemn themselves each time they speak on the subject as backward evil homophobes. The only decent clergyman is Archbishop Tutu who speaks of love and acceptance, the exact opposite of His Nastyness the Arch Homophobe of Rome who has done nothing but attack us even before he got His Papal Tiara! Don’t forget the ban the pope petition on the number 10 website!
Voilà! It takes someone raised in te RCC to appreciate the importance of a public confrontation between gays and representatives of the vatican.
JP . . . I think what you say is important, and I hope we start to appreciate the importance of this public confrontation with the Vatican. As LGBT people we have been silenced, marginalised and pathologised for too long by the Vaticans ultra-conservative inner circle.
Now is the time to turn the tables
I think Ratazinger’s universal unpopularity in the Catholic Communion is facilitating such hitherto unthinkable dialogues
Long regin Ratzinger
Bring on the New Reformation! Quiet frankly its about time to appoint archbishop Tutu as leader of the Liberal Christians of the World and cast the outdated RC church into the abyss(to be chained for a 1,000 years?) Whoops I am not getting carried away into the Book of Revelations (AND what was St John ON!!!???!) and His Dark Materials!
Mike . . . bring on the “Book of Revelations”
. . . and let justice work out its own course
So Robn, are you that naive to think that straights aren’t as typically promiscuous? How do you explain the soaring straight divorce rate, one in two marriages failing overwhelmingly as a result of adultery (promiscuity)?
How do you explain female prostitution and the straight men who frequently use their services at all levels of society as well as the call girl rings and the sex traffickers who import women from eastern Europe and the far east? What about wife swapping? Not typically promiscuous? I think YES! We pale comparatively.
“gays get so damn precious about being wanted to be treated as equals, yet simultaneously artificially mince about, act effeminately and shag like rabbits.”
Mother of god, talk about masculinity issues. Rob, get a grip on yourself, for f***s sake! So what, a few gay men mince. Big deal. That’s hardly a reason to think they are less equal or deserve less tolerance. There are as many variation of gay man as there are straight man. You claim to be intelligent, so please demonstrate some of that with less of of the naive and bitter pigeon-holing of the rest of us, and more of an objective rationale.
Why is it always the guys that come out late seem to have the baggage of an airline carrier?
Is it because people are gay, are men, or because they are have a history of repressing their sexuality? and because they have denied themselves the opportunity to find and learn about what love when everyone else does, in their teens and early twenties?
People who miss out on that end up unable to form relaitonships, unable to talk about what’s on their mind. If you cannot do that you cannot know about relationships. It sound to me a more plausible explanation why some gay people have a problem with monogamy, needing more sex than others. Just a hypothesis of course. I can’t comment for all on sundry. But we must consider all possible explanations. and ‘gay’ is only one.
Hopefully with gay people coming out earlier, these problems will be a thing of the past. we’ll see…
“Is it because people are gay, are men, or because they are have a history of repressing their sexuality?”
Adrian, I have always believed its caused by a delayed reaction in experiencing sexuality that most heterosexuals work through in their teens. I think you’re right on the years of practised repression, though.
From my own observations of friends that came out late, and by late I mean 30 onwards, they seemed to go through the entire teenage years in the space of a year:- naive expectation about love, thinking gay people and the gay scene is all great, sex is a novelty, and (unfortunately) every one night stand will lead somewhere.
Some of them became very bitter towards gay men and the gay scene, because it was “shallow”. But the reality was its not shallow, it was the rest of the planet simply wasn’t in the euphoric “coming out” phase they were and didn’t always share the “we’re all gay so we’re all lovely” frame of mind. Some of them still harbour some bitterness, but most moved through that accelerated teenage phase of learning in their mid-thirties about relationships and sex, and eventually came to a more stable keel and a more realistic expectation of strangers who happen to be gay. But in comparison, some of my kid brothers friends (early twenties) who are gay and came out in their teens, seem to have a more healthy and objective view of gay men and the scene. They also have very little concept of repressing their sexuality. A different generation, of course, but I do think there is sometime in the age one comes out at and the baggage/anger the tend to carry. But this is simply an observation, of course, not a fact.
Robert ex-British: It’s true that that terms such as “dogging” have become prevalent in recent years, whereas the gay equivalent of cruising has been around since time immemorial. The majority of straight men still toe the line, but gay men are young, free and single. By NO WAY do we pale. I have never met a single straight guy that isn’t either a) loaded or b)famous get anywhere near as much sex as your average gay man. Like I said, this isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s just they can’t *get* it.
Will: “So what, a few gay men mince. Big deal. That’s hardly a reason to think they are less equal or deserve less tolerance.”
Sorry, is there a f_cking echo in the room?
I stated “I have no problem with people wanting to be like that, but stop trying to deny it at the same time.
Which is precisely what you are doing.
I might quote stereotypes, but like I said, these are usually based on real-life models, but like any stereotype, there are exceptions to the rule, plus the raving queen walking down Old Compton Street is going to get noticed far more than the quiet ‘bachelor’ couple living in Tottering-by-Gently, so it probably is biased; nevertheless, one cannot deny that the model doesn’t exist, and fits a great many people.
Besides the audience results cited in the article – 1862 against, 268 for – Intelligence Squared also released the results of the online pole which reads:
1.6% don’t know.
The motion being debated was:
“The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.”
These results will perhaps weigh heavily on the pontiff’s expectations to be welcomed in the UK in the not too distant future.
Wouldn’t it be an historical event if the papal visit to the UK went unnoticed?
“I have no problem with people wanting to be like that, but stop trying to deny it at the same time.”
Echo? No, just contradictions. Who is denying it? you? Do you even know what you’re saying half the time, or are you drunk?
“Some of them still harbour some bitterness, but most moved through that accelerated teenage phase of learning in their mid-thirties about relationships and sex, and eventually came to a more stable keel and a more realistic expectation of strangers who happen to be gay.”
Adrian, I’ll clarify this. Not everyone gets to this place, some fall by the wayside. Look what happened to RobN in the end:- a right wing sexual recluse with raging anger issues towards all gay men.
Some are strong. Some are not.
Mirror, mirror on the wall…
I think you will find that this thread is about “Catholicism on Trail”
. . . It is definitely not about the two Gentlemen in threads 1 or 50
Since the “two Gentlemen” in question seems to be straying off topic so far from Rome as to be locating themselves in “Verona”
. . . I will be asked them to catch a train to the Papal City immediately before they miss all the action.
:) Quite right John, apologies for straying.
Yes, this thread is supposed to be about ‘Rome’.
I would say it’s more like ‘Vienna’ – as the concerns of the two gentlemen in posts one and 50 mean nothing to me…..
(you have to be over 35 to get that)
“you have to be over 35 to get that”
I’m sure it’ll be remixed as a cover by the Pussycat Dolls soon enough :)
Sorry, I’m straying again….
Now any more deviations Will and you’ll be locked in the cold air… :-)
Yea, no more deviations.
Now where were we? Oh yea, Will was saying:
“Adrian, I’ll clarify this. Not everyone gets to this place, some fall by the wayside. Look what happened to RobN in the end:- a right wing sexual recluse with raging anger issues towards all gay men.”
Très intéressant, mes pottes.
This is where JohnK goes: Si-i-i-i-gh, and drops his shoulders.
lol – what more can I say but, we better let it run its course . . . or we will never here the end of it.
This is the kind of thing I always liked Christopher Hitchens for! Good for him!
Catholicism is on trial because, being such a world-wide Religious organisation, It is impossible to cover up their crimes against Children. Nuns do not escape the net either, they were some of the most cruel orphanage overseeers ever to take up ‘care’ in Childrens homes etc. Back in 1988, a Nun was brought to the UK fron Brazil to have the Baby she was pregnant with. Afterwards the Nun was returned to Brazil minus the Baby. Are you all putting this Info into your little black books?
Brian . . . the Nun story is certainly one for the book or should I say books of “Revelation
Do you know why you always see two Nuns together? It’s to see that the Nun your with dosn’t get nun!!!
Nun? How would I know? I’m a right wing sexual recluse with raging anger issues. (Not really. I just think Will is a cu_nt.)
Please can someone record it and put it on YouTube? I would love to watch it but I doubt the “BBC America” will ever show it!
Kmac – no doubt it will be on YouTube (thought the Beeb is more vigilant against copyright breeches, it may get pulled).
Otherwise, the organisers, Intelligence Squared may soon release a DVD of it. Keep checking their website at:
One reason I’m hoping we can stay on topic is because I’m keen to hear opinions from LGBT Christians about this event. What did you think of the event, and the debaters?
Get over to Richarddawkins.net for more on this topic and other abuses of gay/human rights by the worlds churches.
And by the way Paul, are you seriously claiming that you are being discriminated against for not being allowed to discriminate?
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion of gay people and we are entitled to form an opinion of you for holding those opinions. If I was to say that I didnt like black people purely because they were black I would rightly be called a racist. I cannot make it any simpler for you than that. If you havent learned to live and let live by now, you probably never will my dear.
Get over to Richarddawkins.net for more on this topic and other abuses of gay/human rights by the worlds churches.
And by the way Paul, are you seriously claiming that you are being discriminated against for not being allowed to discriminate?
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion of gay people and we are entitled to form an opinion of you for holding those opinions. If I was to say that I didnt like black people purely because they were black I would rightly be called a racist. I cannot make it any simpler for you than that. If you havent learned to live and let live by now, you probably never will.
At first, when I just read the headlines, I was confused.
It was only when I read that the debate was organized by Intelligence Squared that I started to give the story some credibility.
Then I pitied (yup, pitied) the two who were chosen to defend the RCC. In fact, I am most interested in knowing who picked those two and how it was done. No member of the hierarchy in his right mind would confront Fry and Hitchens in a public debate.
Then to see an African archbishop, of all things, and a convert..and in the UK…it would have been nothing short of a miracle had the results weighed in favour of the RCC.
Finally, the only reason I can see why this debate was permitted by the Vatican is because the papacy got wind of the petition circulating the country to promote the UK’s refusal to receive his hallowness…I mean sillyness…I mean…oh never mind.
It now occurs to me that we may soon hear that the trip has been called off due to one thing or another. But don’t put your condoms and helium gas away yet!!
“Not really. I just think Will is a cu_nt.”
Considering your sublime decorum and avant-garde cultivation, Rob, I’ll take that as a complement, being not what you are. Thank you.
I do not care about majority or minority, but “WE TOGETHER FIGHTING FOR THE TRUE”. The true is we are human being. The true is the human right of somebody can’t be decided by popular opinion. The true is by this way Jesus been killed, Galilee been killed, Alan turing suicided, teenagers suicided….around the world recently.
The true is on Sept 2008, Benedict said he must change the law in Italy, French and Germany. The true is Vatican want to “retake europe”….
The true is right this time on the Guardian, Benedict is taking advangtage of Anglicans’ internal problems to tear them aparts by welcome Anglicans jointning Roman Catholic.
And right now, I think, we at the PinkNews.co.uk, need to raise the voice warning Anglicans. Vatican accept them but will not treating them as Vatican priests but as step sons. The Vatican doctrime is “ordering” not “listening”. So Anglicans will not be able to talk but to obey and work.
I agree that cradle-Anglicans, brought up in such a way as to express themselves honestly and clearly, approach the Vatican in the worse possible way.
It had not occured to me that the Vatican, forever embroiled in its struggle for power, was indeed encouraging the demise of the Church of England by inviting its right wing thinkers and scholars into the RCC fold.
In the first place, it makes me wonder who attended the Intelligence Squared Debate and voted, and also what type of English-person did cast a vote, for or against the motion, online.
While I believe many members of the Church of England are as informed, if not nmore so, than the average Catholic, I am inclined to think that any Anglican would gravitate to the RCC’s center-left position where free thinking is encouraged, e.g., the most notable Catholic theologian living today, Hans Küng, whose “Global Ethics” would have led the RCC fearlessly into the 21st century as planned by the Oecumenical Council of Vatican II, but who was in fact silenced by Rome before Ratzinger began to wear the shoes of the fisherman.
At the risk of oversimplification, there are also a group of “Old Catholics”, representing those who refused to accept the “dogma of infallibility” as formulated by Vatican Council I during the latter half of the 19th century, who would, in my mimd, be more appealing to cradle-Anglicans than the present papacy.
For example, England’s Tony Blair, who, having been persuaded to convert to the RCC by his lovely wife, herself a cradle-Catholic, took it upon himself to publicly express his critical thinking concerning Vatican politics, stood diplomatically corrected and staring into space in no time.
Then again, it may well be that the RCC is so unpopular in the UK at the moment for the very same reason it had a falling out with the British Monarchy in the first place: a question of power, not of faith. In that sense, this debate has simply brought to the surface the age-old and consistant distrust of the Church of England vis-à-vis Rome’s attempts to grasp and hold onto absolute authority over the entire world.
Finally, since every imaginable segment of the RCC has found light and exemplary love in the writings and the life of John Cardinal Newman, the focal point of the forthcoming papal visit, the old boy must be the center of attention today wherever he is, attention which he always did his utmost to avoid for very personal reasons.
I truly find it abhorrent that a Homophobe like Ratzy says he is so dedicated to Cardinal Newman; they are poles apart in their views on life! Newman, if not actually gay, would never have condemned people for being gay in the way Ratzy has; he was more of the Archbishop Tutu school of love and reconciliation!
Stood standing here dressed in shocking pink and drinking a pink lady….Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!
Yes, without being an expert on him and his work, Newman was more like Tutu than Tutu himself.
But his writings are referred to by right-wingers often enough because Newman had such a clear, logical and simple way of expressing sublime ideas.
I always felt that Newman would run away from any ceremony trying to beatify him…that was the last thing he wanted…official recognition from….oh, never mind
I this an attempt to differenitate between RC and CofE Christmas Navitiy scenes
How I wish Newman were alive to reply to Christopher and Stephen. Yes, it is true that Newman has been hijacked by the nastiest rightists in the Catholic church — this seems to be the price to be paid for being canonized as a Saint. At least the wily man kept the rightists from getting their hands on his bones!
I presumed it to be common knowledge that a child born of Roman Catholic parents, baptized as an infant and nurtured in the faith wears her/his catholicity like an old pair of loafers, often called “laid-back” Catholics.
On the other hand, a person whose spiritual journey had brought her/him to the baptismal font of the RCC rather later in life has usually had a totally different type of religious experience, often becoming “more Catholic than the pope”.
By extension, I presumed that a similar phenomenon happens in the Anglican church.
Which brings me around to wonder how the CoE would stand up to a debate with Hitchens and Fry. How popular is the CoE in the UK today?
Are you a Roman Catholic, then?
Also, in AdrianT’s words in his post 69:
“One reason I’m hoping we can stay on topic is because I’m keen to hear opinions from LGBT Christians about this event. What did you think of the event, and the debaters?”
Vatican 2 was a brave move by Pope Paul to modernise the Church (and how!) allowing nuns to get out of the habit(sorry) of wimples and long gowns, bringing in Mass in your native language so you could actually understand what you were saying to your god(!) and other liberalisms. However, Pope John Paul 1 was going to go for more reform and thats why (if you are a sceptic) he was bumped off and replaced with a more conservative (John Paul 2) and now we have Ratzy trying to drag us back pre vatican 2! As the world becomes more liberal the church is becoming more intolerant and backward!
It will probably fare a lot better once the wannabe papists have gone off to kiss Pope Benedict the Evil’s mangy butt-hole, leaving the CoE to reform and modernise itself into the 21st century.
Yes Newman would have been refreshing had he been around…
A marvellous moment from Hitchens here – hilarious!
The first part of a more realistic take on the Hitchens/Fry business can be found here: http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/
I.e. The first part in an exercise of saying, ‘never mind about the child rape, the torture of intellectuals, centuries of ignoring science, lying about and demonising contraception, pouring millions into banning gay marriage, 2000 years of anti semitism, siding with Islamic extremist regimes in the UN to prevent any resolution on decriminalising homosexuality, driving rabid anti-gay legislation through in Lithuania! the church gave us lots of nice buildings, funded by indulgences’.
Wow, I’m bowled over.
Christopher Hitchens Watch Watch. We read through the white noise and the nonsense, so you don’t have to.
“…this ‘seems’ to be the price to be paid for being canonized as a Saint.”
This statement is ambigious to me. Could you elaborate about the ‘price to be paid’ for being canonized a saint?
I didn’t undertand something you said and I need to ask for an explanation, that’s all. The notion that a dead person pays to be canonized a saint baffles me, frankly.
Also, the expression ‘rightist’ is quite foreign to the Catholic vocabulary. Is it the opposite of a ‘wrongist’?
In fact, your comment sounds a bit like monkey business to me.
Now please don’t take that the wrong way.
Good one. Thanks.
For all the Saints, who from their labours rest….Cannonized Saints is a Holy state and Saints tend to be much Loved.
Jean-Paul, I think the Lady meand if you are cannonized, any organisation can put claim to you.
Well. you misrepresent the article – it doesn’t say or suggest “never mind” – not least because it comes from the only side interested in repenting for anything.
ASs to your other charges – 2000 years of anti-Semitism – nonsense (the papla state were frequently the only safe place for Jews in periods of Eurpean history – and Popes repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism (se e.g. Pius XI’s encyclical conemning Nazism far sooner than many western leaders). As to your other charges relating to homosexual issues – a) the Church condemns attacks on and behavour which demeans the dignity of others no mantter who they are. True, homsexual sex is condemned as morally wrong – but that’s a huge argument about the meaning and worth of sexual activity and its ability to express love and respect for another. It’s not an argument hat’s solved by demonisation of those who don’t think that homosexual sex is obviously good.
“True, homsexual sex is condemned as morally wrong – but that’s a huge argument about the meaning and worth of sexual activity and its ability to express love and respect for another. It’s not an argument hat’s solved by demonisation of those who don’t think that homosexual sex is obviously good.”
So what do you see as the process of allowing LGBT people to be inlcuded in the Roman Catholic Church . . .
Lots of homosexual people are already in the Church and are proud to be so. The Church says that sex outside marriage (traditionally understood) is wrong – whether hetero or homo sexual. That can be hard for anyone to live up to. But being virtuous/chaste is not easy. Nevertheless, those seeking to live up to these ideals believe, with the Church, that the best way to love others is according to these precepts, and that sex outside marriage is actually damaging to us in terms of what ought to be our loving relations with them. People fail in this all the time (heterosexual and homosexual), but that is not a reason not to try. And the RC Church is packed full of sinners. It’s whether we want to try that is important.
Thanks for your interpretation. However, I would still like to hear from Miss or Monsieur Jean, aka MC, regarding his ambigious comment.
Am I to understand that you are defending the RCC? That would be an honorablre thing to do, after the fact.
Regarding papal documents, they have taught me one thing primarily: a scolar can turn a topic any way he likes to conform to the present postion of the papacy. However, reality will have its way.
For example, the year “Humanae Vitae” was written to remove birth control from John XXIII’s agenda for Vatican II, countless thousands of young and not so young Catholics had a vesectomy; Catholic women started taking birth control pills, and standing in line to buy lubricated condoms.
Regardless of what papal documents say, if they are not declared infallible by the papacy and the college of bishops, the Catholic
Doctrine of Receptivity kicks in, e.g., a law or teaching has to be accepted by the Catholic faithful in order for it to become established.
As for the dignity and worth of homosexual sex, there are excellent conferences on YouTube given by Rev. Daniel Helminiak, as well as four highly professional books bt John McNeill, s.j., to name only two, which may shed light on your medieval understanding of human sexuality.
Another argument that points to the general apathy of lay Catholics regarding papal declarations is the very fact that you mentioned: Pius XI’s encyclical warning the world of the threat of Nazism went completely unnoticed and is used today by right-wing Catholics to tell the world: “See, I told you so”.
It is also a fact, and you know it very well, that the Easter liturgy of Catholic Massas included a condemnation of the Jewish people who were held responsible for the crucifixtion of Jesus Christ. Vatican II’s attempt to remove this part of the Liturgy in the spirit of Oecumenism, and to shed a positive light on the Jewish people as the chosen people, is now undergoing revision by the present papacy who would like to bring back the traditional anti-Semiticism to the Easter Liturgy of the RCC.
Lkewise, whatever encyclical would be published by the papacy regarding the need to stop the sexual abuse of children by paedophile clergy would in fact be ineffectual.
The bottom line is that the RCC, by rejecting John XXII’s prophetic vision, has lost its relevance to the 21st century, and debates such as this one, if carried out in any country in the world, with the possible exception of Africa, would have similar results.
Yours is the voice of the prophet shouting in the desert; the die is cast, and we have the recent papacies to thank for that. The church pews are more empty than ever; parishes are closing all over the world, and one diocese after another has declared bankruptcy becaue of the exhorbitant sums os parisheners’ money that has been paid to settle legal cases of priestly paedophilia.
The RCC is presently on the road to extinction primarily because the the autorities turned their backs on the mentality and teachings o Vatican II, and also because they have silenced the best theologians in the history of the RCC in order to more or less join the intergrist dissent of Mgsr Lefebvre. We are presently witnessing the most outstanding blunder the RCC has ever committed, and you know it.
There is no argument about homosexuality. Science answered that decades ago.
Mind you, as the church has shown for centuries, it’s traditionally slow on the uptake – taking 250 years to realise Galileo was right, and only 140 years to accept the facts about evolution.
In which century will the Catholic church realise its stupidity about homosexuality?
Do you have a rational reason for believing being gay is ‘morally wrong’ (you will understand, that as a gay man, I don’t see sexual expression as an ‘act’. It’s an expression of love)?
When the fanatics that run your church come out with nonsense like gay people being evil and disordered, you must expect mockery and ridicule. You are free to your beliefs, but if you attack people in their deepest integrity, face the consequences and stop moaning and whining about being demonised, while pouring nearly half a million dollars into funding the campaign to deny gay couples the right to marriage in Maine, and millions into Prop8. Never enough to keep your beliefs inside the church, but poison society with them too.
While ever your church interferes in people’s personal lives, you must expect contempt. I’ll answer the rest later….
Response to JW – thread 93
“Lots of homosexual people are already in the Church and are proud to be so.”
Why would LGBT people want to support a church that refers to their sexuality as an intrinsically disordered and a moral evil . . .? Why would any one want to stay in a church to collude with the pathologising, demonising and vicious naming calling of LGBT people?
“The Church says that sex outside marriage (traditionally understood) is wrong – whether hetero or homo sexual. “
Traditions change and are not set in stone. LGB people are beginning to be allowed to marry and have their relationships recognised in law. Why should you privilege heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage . . . Theological speaking marriage is not even a biblical concept in the strictest sense but a tradition. Just as heterosexual marriage developed as a tradition, so gay marriage is now becoming a tradition.
“That can be hard for anyone to live up to. But being virtuous/chaste is not easy.”
Being chaste may be an expression of profound spiritual conviction . . . but it may also be a psychological defence against developing intimate relationships, and instead be indicative of psychological, emotional as well as arrested spiritually development. Not everything that appears to shine like a diamond is actually a diamond.
“Nevertheless, those seeking to live up to these ideals believe, with the Church, that the best way to love others is according to these precepts, and that sex outside marriage is actually damaging to us in terms of what ought to be our loving relations with them. “
You appear to be expressing double standards, contradictions and a partial view of catholic teachings.
It is telling that you pick and mix your theology. It is interesting that you promote theological extremism at the expense and neglect of your Liberation theologians, and particularly those who embrace the inclusion of LGBT people with the same status and equality of heterosexuals.
“People fail in this all the time (heterosexual and homosexual), but that is not a reason not to try. And the RC Church is packed full of sinners. It’s whether we want to try that is important.”
The RC church certainly does seem to be packed full of sinners, and I say to you when are you and your church going to repent.
When are you and your church going to repent of the following implicit and evil doctrines that damage, divide and cause great suffering in the world
Doctrine of Death
The pope sentences millions of people to HIV infection and an early death in African and developing countries with his refusal to allow the promotion of condom use.
Doctrine of Homophobic hatred
The pope continues to incite homophobic hatred by refusing to with draw his statement that LGBT people are an intrinsically disordered and moral evil.
Doctrine of Misogyny
The pope continues to perpetuate sexism and gender a partite by refusing to allow women to ascend to the priesthood.
Doctrine of Child Abuse
The pope continues to sanction the sexual abuse of children by refusing to challenge organised paedophile rings in the priesthood
JW, it is not only disturbing that you and your church continue to “Sin” in this way, but what is more disturbing is that not only do you not recognise you actions; you also seem not to be concerned about the suffering you and your church creates . . . I put it to you
. . . How morally disordered and an intrinsically evil is that!!!
As to other nonsense “Receptivity” is an entirly made up concept and you are not basing it in ANY Church teachng (if you were right the Church’s strictures on lying, for exampe, would have had to have been repudiated). Re. hatred etc. – the Church constantly teaches the separation of people from their tendencies to wrongdoing – always has always will. If you insist on IDENTIFYING yourself with certain acticities you engage in that is your problem. No one forces you to do so and you do yourself an injustice by assuming that that is what you ARE (just as any adulterer would).
Gay community is really intolerant and lastly even with violence. Why some people have not the right to think that this kind of sex is a perversion? You must know that most of the sex abuse problems inside the Catholic church was because of homosexuals inside the church
@JW – thread 97
“As to other nonsense “Receptivity” is an entirly made up concept and you are not basing it in ANY Church teachng (if you were right the Church’s strictures on lying, for exampe, would have had to have been repudiated). “
You seem to be babbling . . . and making no coherent sense . . . it is telling that you are incapable of responding to my last thread.
“Re. hatred etc. – the Church constantly teaches the separation of people from their tendencies to wrongdoing – always has always will.
I am glad to hear the church teaches separation from tendencies to wrong doing . . . When will it start teaching that Homophobic hatred, misogyny and child abuse are wrong. When will the church start teaching that if you do not wear a condom you put your self at risk from HIV infection and possible death.
“If you insist on IDENTIFYING yourself with certain acticities you engage in that is your problem.
No one forces you to do so and you do yourself an injustice by assuming that that is what you ARE (just as any adulterer would).”
When the church practices homophobia, misogyny and condones paedophilia . . . we will see the following
Hatred of LGBT people
Hatred of women
When is the church going to repent of these sins?
@javier – thread 98
“Gay community is really intolerant and lastly even with violence”.
I understand that you do not want to hear about how your church promotes homophobic hatred, misogyny and child abuse . . . if you were to acknowledge it you would have to accept that it is a violent place. It is sad that you have to project this on to gay people. . . You do this because you are a sick person.
“Why some people have not the right to think that this kind of sex is a perversion?”
You can think what ever you like. However if you break the law by inciting homophobic hatred you will be punished by the law.
“You must know that most of the sex abuse problems inside the Catholic church was because of homosexuals inside the church”
What you do not seem to understand is that paedophilias are heterosexually as well as homosexually orientated. Because statistics show that about 90% of people are heterosexual, therefore 90% of case of child abuse in the church will most likely be committed be heterosexual men.
JohnK – the word we should be using is child rape. Institutionalised child rape, not ‘abuse’, which could mean a slap on the wrists. The Catholic church hierarchy knew it was rife, from Ireland to Australia. Ratzinger when he was head of the Congregation for the Inquisition ordered priests and bishops not to cooperate with the authorities about this under pain of excommunication. The man is a criminal and should stand trial in Den Haag, not languishing Vatican.
No apology for that, no apology for hiding a wanted criminal Bernard Law. The fact that the wishful thinking and false promises it makes about the afterlife gives meaning to people is meaningless. National Socialism and Radical Islam give its followers meaning.
As for the argument on homosexuality, thanks for the links that bully gay people into leading loveless, sexless, lonely, emotionally starved lives – just keep it inside your ridiculous, opulent marble and gold churches.
Javier – you’re welcome to think what you like. but it doesn’t count for anything. Why not focus on your own damn family instead of interfering in other people’s lives? you will be ridiculed, mocked, condemned for your stupidity if you provide no evidence for your beliefs. Other people’s private affairs are none of your business, when they harm no-one.
AdrianT . . . I think you are right – child abuse does not fully address the nature of the problem, where as the term “institutionalised child rape” does.
Thanks for clarifying that
Hold on. The catholic church is too easy a target! It’s ok for homosexuals to stand back and critisise catholics because you guys have no ‘rulebook’ but catholics do and being gay is against their rules (set down by GOD by the way) ! If you want to continue to laugh and point at the catholics for following their religion than you are no better than your mobs own long line of persecutors! If you don’t agree with the catholic church than just stay the hell away from it! They really can’t change their belief system to accomodate political correctness. Muslims wouldn’t and you wouldn’t expect them to because they are a coloured minority but when it comes to publicly degrading catholics it’s game on! Double standards and hypocrisy!!!
To Jean-Paul Bentham (31):
I’m sorry on replying to you so late and very thanks for your invitation, I will later. But I feel so shameful about my little English. Most of my time is reading news and learning from all friends’ pinions here and then inform to my tiny LGBT community.
To JW, Gus,
“Lots of homosexual people are already in the Church and are proud to be so.”….. It’s right !
Going to the church is not a really bad thing. Because they go to church by good things caused from their mind. They go there with opened mind, with peace to all parishers by the smile on their face, never against anyone. They only look for the true inside and the acceptance themself. They are deserved the right to be proud themself as homosexual people.
But, sticking to the church is the other thing. Most of Christian don’t have the chance to read or think about other moralities beside what the priest said so from Christian Bible. And then the idear “Holly Bible never wrong” spread out. I would like to go to the fundmentals of “The Ten Commandments” to see the “never wrong” really are.
Please read these commands number 6 & 9 and 7 & 10 careful. I don’t know why “Perfect God” have to spend too many words and create as many as 4 commands for only one thing. The “never wrong” should be clearly stated, no more no less, but included all things related. I, myself, used to say to my family members this only one simple sentence: “Do not want to take any that not belong to you”.
All Chritian friends here please give me an excuse by disturbing yours.
Aren’t paedophile priests predominantly homosexual? Which ‘camp’ should shoulder the blame here? I think if lines are being drawn then the gay community and the catholic church should share the shame of paedophilia equally!
Gus cannot see the difference between race and religion in that unlettered, incoherent screed.
If the catholic church kept their nonsense within their church then fine. But because they want to interfere in the private lives of others and spend millions financing anti gay legislation, calling for criminalisation of homosexuality in African countries, lying about condoms, and covering up the rape of children, and all the other charges mentioned, we have no option but to intervene.
So, not only is Gus intolerant of gay people, he is intolerant of criticism. Are you asking for special protection for your beliefs? why should I respect them, when tey are based on nonsense and no evidence? Can’t you take the heat, or provide any coherent answers to them when called to account? aaah….
You need to do your homework on the Doctrine of Receptivity. I am not here to educate narrow-minded zombies like right-wing catholics who believe that Jesus is some mystical reality only available to those who spend their lives in self-flagellation and in ruining their health by eating rotten, black potatoes and drinking toxic home-made wine while their wives sleep in separate bedrooms.
The point that Easter Vigil Liturgy has been anti-Semetic for 2,000 years in undeniable so you have avoided addressing that little incitement to the extermination of countless Jewish men, women and children, not to mention homosexuals and gypsies, in the ovens of the Nazi concentration camps.
In the same way, the RCC’s alignement with homophobic Islamic countries in the UN to prevent universal civil rights is now inciting violence of the most horrendous kind against homosexuals in Muslim countries, and you know it, but you just don’t care saying something STUPID like: “Well, they knew what they were getting into”, and now you think you have a pretty good idea of who you will be looking at in the everlasting flames of hell as your feast at the foot or your saviour, what’s-his-name, wearing your Knights of Columbus tuxedo, satin-lined cape, chrome sword and colored ostrich feathers in you riduculous headgear. It’s Chritmas in Heaven, let all the Angels sing…
The fact is, you are yourself just itching for a good blow job cause your wife, who no doubt has had the wisdom to get a tuba ligation without your knowledge, would not do anything to please you except lie flat on her back and smell the alcohol on your breath till it’s all over in 2 or 3 minutes, unless you have found the secrets of pleasuring yourself more satisfying.
Moreover, you know very well that a church that turns away from a Vatican Council which any idiot catholic knows is inspired by the Holy Spirit is an act of outright heresy, and that, JW, includes you and Ben16, so that you will be burning in hell, not us good-living and loving gays who know more about the realities Jesus spoke to than your self-taught “scolarship” will ever teach you simply because we live in the real world, while you spend hours praying for the stigmata so that people will fall over backwards when they see you coming.
In any case, the debate is over and the votes are in. The RCC is not now, and has never been popular in the UK, and we haven’t even broached the subject of what kind of use is made of the parish computers by the holy Catholic pastor in the wee hours of the night – and please spare me the “we are all sinners sh*t”.
You are sick, and too sick to seek help for yourself, but everybody around you, at work and even in church, and your confessor, knows you for what you are: a weirdo fundamentalist religious nutter bent on tormenting people anonymously with your ignorant religious gibberish.
But I’m not bitter. Please stick around. We do enjoy these controversial moments with homomphobes of all kinds, and we have already made it clear that we are willing to die to protect your right of free speech, cause we are the “good guys”, after all.
Just thank God you don’t get what you deserve because your cowardly anonymity (JW) prevents us from reporting you to your bishop who would waste no time in shutting you up..because unlike us, the RCC does not believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which would allow you free speech, eh buddy.
See you at the Bingo on Thursday night, and bring a mickey of good whiskey. Don’t run away now.
No ‘Mark’. Paedophilia and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other. That’s been discussed in detail by psychologists and psychiatrists in peer reviewed scientific journals. THough, telling someone from the church that is difficult, after all, it took them 350 years to accept the basic scientific findings of the Earth’s relationship to the sun! Should I laugh or cry at this stupidity…?
The Church has condemned everything you accuse it of not condemning. As this is suggestive of both your knowledge and commitment to truth there’s little point in continuing. Lust darkens the mind,
You would have to actually believe in the bible to understand Adrian. Religious belief is very important in a persons life. To mock and degrade someones religion because you don’t agree with it is now punishable by a prison term unless you mock catholics. That is the point I try to make.
Of course, you’re right, sweetie.
That’s exactly why Cardian Law was given a condo and a high-paying soft job in Vatican City instead of a private cell in an American prison.
Anything you say, javier. by the way, have you been given a mandate by your bishop to make a fool of yourself and the RCC in public?
Oh never mind the bishops and the RCC’s orderly way of doing things. Stick around; the more the merrier.
Are you suggesting the the bible and the RCC have a monopoly on truth?
But what about the anti-Semiticism inherent in Catholic liturgy? Isn’t that inherently evil?
You know everything: tell me that.
What? Leaving so soon? But we have hardly begun.
Do you have your bishop’s permission to visit a gay website?
I suppose you won’t stick around because you were just browsing for XXX gay porn, not confrontation. It’s perfectly OK for Catholics to browse for XXX gay porn sites; a number of Catholic pastors do it all the time…wow, look at the size of that….m-m-m
Baby, please don’t go. Shed your ever-lasting light on us, sugar.
Vo Dong Cung (104):
No need to apologize. I’m like you; I have a thousand things to do.
Whenever you can find the time, look for me at “my.pinknews.co.uk”.
I’d love to meet you, and I know we won’t take up too much of each other’s time.
I love your comments. Who cares about your English? Not me!
To Javier (98)
By your reply, I consider there are 2 communities: gay civilian community and gay priest community. I also see in all law suits, gay civilian are not defendents but only gay priest are.
Now, sexual orientation alway are the same in each community, so do in two gay communities. Do you see the difference between of convicted child sex abuse and not convicted is the difference character of civilian and priest. Come to here, I have in mind, the difference not only aply to gay but also to straight civilian and straight priest too. And other different thing, gay civilian been train by society, gay priest been train by the church. Do you see this point, which system create defendents in those law suits child sex abuse at the court room. Is the Church making gay to gay priest and then a crime?
Not in the UK, Gus – you can mock and ridicule superstitious opinion as much as you like, of any creed. It’s freedom of speech. Human rights come above beliefs, and there are protections for hurt feelings.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is nothign more wild and off the scale than claiming to intimately know the mind of god on trivilaities like sleeping arrangements.
As for JW – no, not enough. Hand over Bernard Law and stop scapegoating gay people for the problems in your church, and stop your clerics lying about condoms. No more evidence for your claims than a mormon’s who also claims to have the only path to ‘truth’.
Theology 101: there’s a big difference between believing in the bible and believing in God.
In fact, if you understood the bible, you would be the only living person to do so. Any accredited biblical scholar will tell you that the bible is a complilation of fairie tales written by countless story-tellers for people who spent too much time in the sun.
I should have said there are ‘no’ protections for hurt feelings. But I was being distracted :-) I really have to go now, and I leave it to you to imagine what we will be getting up to. Which of course is the obsession of the church: sex, sex, sex, sexualising relations, sexualising the deepest and most important of human feelings and writing them off as ‘lust’. And this by senile, sexless, sex starved, unloved, unlovable virgins who know nothing of relationships because they have never been allowed to experience what true love or intimacy is.
That’s how faith rots the mind.
Real time deadly sinning… just fantastic
The basic difference between a gay priest and a member of the gay community is a little thing called the vow of celibacy, Dah!
Dear me, look at the time; water’s boiling for me green tea. Ta!
I’ve no claims to a monopoly on truth. But it’s quite clear that there is little point in arguing with the likes of Adrian etc. As to sex obsesed – let’s check out Pink News and the Vatican website. Hmmm – which is obsessed by sex? And which gives a fig about the notion of human dignity in relations as opposed to err. acting out whatever desires one happens to have?
Response to Gus – Thread 103
“Hold on. The catholic church is too easy a target! It’s ok for homosexuals to stand back and critisise catholics because you guys have no ‘rulebook’ but catholics do and being gay is against their rules (set down by GOD by the way)”
Gays do have a “Rule book” . . . it is called English or Scots law . . . English Law is concerned with challenging: Homophobic hatred, Misogyny, the Sexual abuse of children, and many other crimes. The Catholic Rule book as dictated by “God” appears to promote these.
If you continue to break the law you will be prosecuted . . . which bit of British Law do you not understand
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“! If you want to continue to laugh and point at the catholics for following their religion than you are no better than your mobs own long line of persecutors! If you don’t agree with the catholic church than just stay the hell away from it! They really can’t change their belief system to accomodate political correctness.”
The abuse, murder and rape is not political correctness . . . it is called a crime. Crimes are punishable under British law. If you do not like the legal system in this country because it does not allow you to practice your “Catholic Rules” . . . you do have the option of leaving, no one is forcing you to stay here.
“Muslims wouldn’t and you wouldn’t expect them to because they are a coloured minority but when it comes to publicly degrading catholics it’s game on! Double standards and hypocrisy!!!”
Muslims are not exempt from British Law
Response to JW – thread 121
“I’ve no claims to a monopoly on truth.”
This is not true . . . you claim to hold a “Catholic Rule book” which trumps British law . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“But it’s quite clear that there is little point in arguing with the likes of Adrian etc.”
If you cannot engage with the debates which you stimulate by your threads, then why are you back posting more threads on this site?
“As to sex obsessed – let’s check out Pink News and the Vatican website. Hmmm – which is obsessed by sex?”
The Vatican is obsessed with sex:
Proscribing – Celibacy for Priests, nun’s monks
Sexual naming calling – Homosexuals are “An intrinsic disordered and moral evil
Paedophilia – Continuing to support the institutionalised rape of child
“And which gives a fig about the notion of human dignity in relations as opposed to err. acting out whatever desires one happens to have?”
LGBT people like other British citizens are required to up hold the law of the land (British Law), which is there to protect human dignity. We do not live under a delusion that we have an opt out clause as you seem to think you have by virtue of being a Catholic.
If you break the law . . . the law will prosecute you.
Almost always, it’s about relgious fanatics lke the occupants of the Vatican, making sex an issue, demonising it, banning it, when there is no need for it to be an issue.
And by the way: Quo Warranto? By what right do you say my love is ‘lust’? Go no further till you give a coherent answer to that question.
“Love as lust”
The Roman Catholic churches obsession with sexual prohibitions and its neglect of an intelligent and informed debate on adult sexuality . . . does not place it in any credible position of expertise or authority with regards the vicissitudes of sexuality.
Sexual love is not chaste when engaged in outside of its proper context – traditional marriage which involves self-giving love in a context of life-long commitment respectful of the deep unitive and procreative signifigance of the act and the unique dignty of the spouse who is respected by te act and its commitment of love. We all fail of course – but homosexual acts are simply inapt for expressing this no matter how much some may wish they weren’t).
Read Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibiity or an intelligent discussion of the meaning of sexuality (not to mention huge amounts of literature produced in Christendom). Prohibitions are there to protect and protect the extraordinary importance of sexual acts – they are not arbitrary.
As to the chap who appears to worship English law – well – do you only worship it when you agree with it? If so I trust you would have abided by it when the age of consent was higher for sodomy?Also, as you are so keen to talk about child abuse/rape – settle this one. A Church which categorically condemns it in all its teaching documents (and accepts its failures in regard of its members) contrasts with many gay activists who actively engage in sex with under 16s or campaign for a lowering of that age of consent (i.e. in statutory tersm are rapists or promoters of rape). Now I’d guess the scale of difference is massive – and of course the activists actively promote such activity – as opposed to those in the Church who disobey that CHurch’s rules and disgrace their offices.
Response to JW – Thread 127
“Sexual love is not chaste when engaged in outside of its proper context – traditional marriage which involves self-giving love in a context of life-long commitment respectful of the deep unitive and procreative signifigance of the act and the unique dignty of the spouse who is respected by te act and its commitment of love.” We all fail of course – but homosexual acts are simply inapt for expressing this no matter how much some may wish they weren’t).
All the major political parties in this country recognise civil marriages . . . LGBT people do not engage in “Acts” there is nothing staged about our sexual expression of love.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Read Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibiity or an intelligent discussion of the meaning of sexuality (not to mention huge amounts of literature produced in Christendom).”
By neglecting research from Gender, Psychology, Medicine and Modern Sexelological studies you limit your understand of human sexuality.
“Prohibitions are there to protect and protect the extraordinary importance of sexual acts – they are not arbitrary.”
Jesus said noting about sexuality it was not of extraordinary importance to him. Only the church talks about sexuality. Liberation theologians within the Roman Catholic Church acknowledge Jesus teachings of inclusiveness, tolerance and compassion.
It is interesting that not only have you silence these theologians, but in doing so neglect the heart of Christianity! . . . Why is that?
As to the chap who appears to worship English law – well – do you only worship it when you agree with it? If so I trust you would have abided by it when the age of consent was higher for sodomy?
The chap who appears to “worship English Law” is no different to any other man of women of this country. There is a difference between worshiping the law and abiding by the law. I think you will find that I am concerned with following the latter.
“Also, as you are so keen to talk about child abuse/rape – settle this one.
A Church which categorically condemns it in all its teaching documents (and accepts its failures in regard of its members) contrasts with many gay activists who actively engage in sex with under 16s or campaign for a lowering of that age of consent (i.e. in statutory tersm are rapists or promoters of rape).
Now I’d guess the scale of difference is massive – and of course the activists actively promote such activity – as opposed to those in the Church who disobey that CHurch’s rules and disgrace their offices.”
The Roman Catholic Church is being brought to justice, as legal cases are fought against its priests. Collectively, however your church appears to be in denial about its institutionalised rape of children. The fact that you cannot own this is testimony to this insidious denial that clouds your thinking.
As more cases are brought against your priests I am confident that reality will eventually prevail, as the children that have been violated by your church eventually find justice.
“but homosexual acts are simply inapt for expressing [love] no matter how much some may wish they weren’t”
Once again, quo warrranto? by what right, why what authority do you say this nonsense?
These interminable comments merely indicate that religious faith is a mental illness!
So true. Are you a Catholic homosexual?
And what gives you the right to speak in the name of all Catholic homosexuals who are “in” the Church? How do you know “they” are proud to be in the RCC? You don’t and you can’t possibly.
“These interminable comments merely indicate that religious faith is a mental illness!”
I think in the case of JW and Javier . . . you may have hit the nail on the head so to speak. . .
These people come here wanting a debate, starting from the premise that they hold the ultimate truth, that they know god’s opinion about sexual pleasure, and thay they have the right and ultimate authority to interfere and decide the definition of love.
If anyone wants to come on here and ‘debate’ homosexuality, let’s go through all those points first. The burden of proof is not on my shoulders. Thanks in advance.
“A Church which categorically condemns it (child abuse/rape) in all its teaching documents (and accepts its failures in regard of its members)…”
Do you realize what you’re saying?
You are basically pontificating (yes, you do pontificate, JW) that the papal declarations and encyclicals (which are written to bishops, by the way, not to uninformed lay Catholics like you who lack the formation and the authority to teach in the name of the RCC, and you know it)) are irrelevant because members of the RCC ignore them.
And they do ignore them. I know they do, and you certainly know it too.
I also know that members of the LGBT community who are stuck in the RCC for whatever reason are nowhere near proud of being Catholic when they are told they are intrinsically evil by the official catechism which is taught to children. Hello hate-mongering.
Angelo Roncalli is the deceased pope whose work you should be reading, not the works of the demented Ratzinger signed by John Paul II.
Also, if you really want to know how Catholic LGBT’s feel about being in the RCC, check our DignityUSA and follow the links to a world wide awakening of countless millions of discontented Catholics who have ceased to give even a penny to the Vatican.
We know that post-Vatican II popes have refused Church teachings to evolve and develop according to the latest scientific discoveries, as John Cardinal Newman, the moving force behind Vatican II, had recommended during his lifetime.
Instead, Catholic clergymen of the early and mid-20th century were made to swear an anti-modernist oath before being ordained.
And for what?
To deny the works of Einstein? ha! Hello Hiroshima.
To deny the tremendous discoveries of 20th century psychology?
To promote guilt and shame among the faithful in order to enrich the Vatican? Hello bankrupcy!
Call it a wild guess, if you want, but sometning tells me it’s because the Vatican needs the money of the right-wing Anglican Church that it is presently inviting its members to renounce their heresies and subject themselves to papal authority. And at the same time, to split the Anglican communion. The proverbial two birds with one stone. So clever.
Moreover fools like you, who believe they know more that the pope himself, are just blind pawns in the power sruggle who are trying to sanctify your lives by criticizing, condemning and complaining, like any fool can do.
In fact, very few Catholics I know – and I know quite a few, especially among those who are implied in grueling and voluntary committee work or employed (without being unionized) by the RCC – are anywhere near content.
Furthermore, if you, whether you are LGBT or not, are proud to be a member of the RCC, why don’t you use your real name and stand up for yourself, your pastor and your bishop by telling us who they are.
Because you’re a loud-mouth upstart coward, that’s why; and the parents of all gay Catholics in your parish, who know a thing or two about your own disfunctional family, would know how to shut you up instead of allowing you to give the RCC a worse reputation than it already has by your absolutely asinine comments on subjects about which you are ignorant.
Oh, and by the way, JW, the reason you avoid AdrianT is that you know a smart man when you see one, and there would be no-one around to mop you off the floor once AdrianT has succeeded in piercing, with a bit of common sense and a whole lot of scientific proof, the fallacies of your blockhead.
But I’m not bitter. Stick around. We won’t warn your bishop, worry pas.
Join us on an interminable journey my friend on the Christian Meltingpot Group. We will open doors for you, doors you never dreamed existed. You don’t have to be Christian, we have agnostics and non-belivers too. I’m Burty on the Group sites, i’m sure you will enjoy it…commone Neville give it a try!
Why bother with a debate about the Catholic Church being a force for good? The fact that it and other religions are not is as self evident as the sun rising each morning.
As a monk in the Orthodox Church – the original church until the Catholics decided to split away in 1054 – I cannot think of anywhere in the Gospels that Christ talked about sex, gay or otherwise. The only time he came near it was when he saved the adulterous woman from stoning.
There’s stuff in the Old Testament, which can be discounted because it is totally unrealistic and St Paul had a few highly critical things to say about gay sex. But he could be a funny bloke with some odd ideas at the best of times and he didn’t seem to like women, much either.
The message of Christ that has always come across to me is that of love. Yes, he had some hard things to say about a lot of things, but not about sex. What made him really angry was hypocrisy, cruelty, lack of love.
So I think Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens are absolutely right and I thank them for saying what they did.
I don’t mind what peope are, I only care if they are obey the laws of human nature, in what they do, and obey the laws of lands we all live in.
I am a Catholic and proud to be a practicing Catholic too.
If the church don’t do things wrong (I am not saying, what these people have done, shouldn’t be punished), but we would be perfect, and we are not. We are all inperfect, in some way.
That is why we are on this earth, to learn right from wrong.
People, get a life and live for helping other people.
And another thing – Christ in His teaching told us: “Judge not, lest ye be judged…” In other words, concentrate on our own individual failings and take no thought for anyone else’s. Put simply, other people’s “life styles” (isn’t that a horrible phrase!) are none of my business.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged…” , I agree these words but with only one condition if that not hurt me. Catholic Church take advantage in the name of their “Perfect God”, in the name of “natural”, attacks me, attacks all of us, the LGBT community world wide to cover up their wrong doings. Do people have any respect left to their activitie? to the Church and to the “Perfect God?
Without human beeing, without “Holly Bible” then without “Perfect God”. Did the human beeing create “Perfect God”?
J.W. and javier have left the building; gone to visit the greatest propoganda machine the world has ever seen: The Vatican Website.
Did you know the Vatican computers are named after the archangels?
Shudder, shudder, Holy laptops Batman, is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It’s an archangel. Vro-o-o-o-o-m-m-m-m-m.
I doubt J.W. and javier ever go antwhere near the Vatican website; Lamebrains Catholics go to Zenith dot com and read the headlines, then it’s back to XXX gay porn they go!
That ain’t no place to learn about the RCC’s Pastoral approach to the LGBT community, is it? Something about love and respect…and it certainly ain’t no place to learn the basic rules of civilized debate.
Following my post 135 where I said that the RCC would be killing two birds with one stone by persuading Anglicans to renounce their heresies and re-direct the flow of their monetary contributions to Rome, it has been brought to my attention that only the money would go to Rome, not the converted Anglicans.
The converted Anglicans, new Roman Catholics, would remain where there are at present, right here in the UK, thus strengthening the foothold of the right-wing RCC in England.
So, it would be three birds with one stone. Where have we seen that kind of strategy before? Berlin? Goodness no-o-o.
The point that is being missed in the debating on this thread is that the empty pews of all the churches in the Western world are of major concern to the leaders of those churches: Anglican, Orthodox and RCC, to name only the most well-known ones.
These religious institutions are now falling over themselves to scrap age-old differences and intergrate – as unheard of before- in order to unite against what they see as political correctness gone mad, e.g., the granting of the Laws of Do-as-You-Damn-Well-Please….
As much was said today on Radio 4′s Broadcasting House by some ‘Catholic’ priest who is well on his way to Rome and is against abortion rights/gay rights/divorce rights/your rights/ my rights and Old Mother Hubbard’s… and her husband’s bloody rights…
There is a new religious fanaticism in the air; the pendulum is swinging; a new Victorianism and Nazism is in the offing, and the Equality Bill…well what about the Equality Bill?
Gay rights will be repealed once a new ROMAN Catholic Church is established here and it will happen; it is already unfolding.
That, combined with Islam’s Jihad, here, in major cities like Birmingham/Manchester and – to a lesser extent – in Leeds and Bradford…and what do you get when that brew is stirred by the BNP?
The results of a debate on Intelligence Squared may well be impressive, but they are hardly going to prevent the back-room religious politics of the RCC to tighten its grip on the land of the Anglo-Saxons, and the RCC intends to do it by claiming the remains (?) of John Cardinal Newman and constructing a shrine to him where his failed Oxford Movement in the UK would be given a second chance to bring the English intelligentsia onto the path to Rome.
And who will be fighting for minority rights, innit.
From begining, we always defend from attacking of the Roman Catholic Church. But the best way to defend is attacking. The best way to bring the attack to success is attacking right at the center of headquarter. The headquarter center of RCC is their “Bible” with the story of “Invisible powerful God” created by hunam to brainwash human from the day of birth.
“A good man do not open the back door of his house to his friend’s wife”
Replace the word “dot” with a real dot and see if this works.
http://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=TjGkRFFBd0A
http://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=A_E0vfP79yE
http://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=pyXIeB1qI6w
Let me know, OK.
Completely violation copy right, let the world understand the true of “Greatest Holly Religion” !!!
“The results of a debate on Intelligence Squared may well be impressive, but they are hardly going to prevent the back-room religious politics of the RCC to tighten its grip on the land of the Anglo-Saxons, and the RCC intends to do it by claiming the remains (?) of John Cardinal Newman and constructing a shrine to him where his failed Oxford Movement in the UK would be given a second chance to bring the English intelligentsia onto the path to Rome.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In part I agree with what you are saying, but I am more optimistic.
When the ordination of women priest was finally instigated 15 years ago; the Anglo-catholic wing saw the first move of clergy to Rome. . . As I see it the “Oxford Movement” is not in danger, it will continue to flourish since more highly intelligent, creative and liberal women now have increasingly more space to join its ranks; which will ultimately make it a more inclusive movement.
My feeling is that Anglo-Catholicism will continue to live up to the spirit of its founder. The Pope can only dream of incorporating it into Rome. Unfortunately, he will not be able to have this Jewel in his Papal Crown since Newman will continue to reign supreme. . . The Oxford movement was not set up as a reparative overture to Rome; it was set up to restore the Catholic tradition within the Church of England.
At present it had been splendidly restored . . . if not at present undergoing a post-modern restoration in line with the free thinking spirit of Newman.
Wow! I thought I was the only person in the world to know something about the Oxford Movement. Turns out, I had it all upside down.
Yes, I did think the Oxford Movement was an effort to bring brilliant Englishmen back to the RCC.
“The Oxford movement was not set up as a reparative overture to Rome; it was set up to restore the Catholic tradition within the Church of England.”
Are you telling me that Newman founded the Anglo-Catholic Church?
How does this church fit in with the CoE then?
I know my stuff when it comes to Catholicism, but I was always too entralled with its theologies to delve into the CoE in any length.
The other day you surprised me too when you spoke briefly of Liberation Theology. So few people I know are aware of LT, and how successful it was in South America, not to mention its possibilities for all minority groups.
Of course, Ratzy condemned it, and set me in a tailspin from which I will never recover. In other words, I have turned my back to the RCC. Ain’t interested no mo’.
One is never too old to learn. Love it!
I thought Elizabeth 1st considered herself an anglo Catholic, therfore meaning that the term was almost born at the time of the reformation itself? certainly the Oxford Movement attempted to steer it back towards the Roman ideals; many High churches have statues, stations and alter lamps. The puritans under cromwell tried to destroy this belief, hence the vandalisation of many churches and cathedrals during and after the civil war. However, there was a bit of a fuss when the new St Pauls Cathedral (which to all intents and purposes is a catholic basillica by any other name) was proposed(!) BTW how dare ratzy try to undermine the Anglican Church with his soft promises and tempting offers!!!!
Sorry, I think I have confused things by mentioning Newman, Apologise.
The Anglo-catholic movement within the Church of England probably dates from around 1876 or slightly earlier with the advent of St Stephens House Oxford, one of the first Anglo-catholic theological training colleges for the ordination of priest within the Church of England. I think it is probably fair to say that the Tractarian movement who founded the college can be seen as standing for the catholic tradition within the Church of England.
I think if the conservative CoE forms an independent Church but keep friendly to all others, Vatican will take muds to cover their face. This is the only chance to teach Vatican leaders to be nice.
When I see a lay married Catholic with a PhD in psychotherapy wearing the shoes of the fisherman (Pope), that’s when I will believe the institution has a remote chance of surviving through the 21st century.
We have had over a 100 years of therapy . . . I wonder if things are getting better?
As Woody Allen famous said in the film the Sleepy . . . (something like this) – I have not seen my analyst in 200 years, he was a strict Freudian . . . I might have nearly been cured by now . . . lol.
Therapy and the Church . . . ummmmmm
Since we have had over a 100 years of therapy . . . I wonder if things are getting better?
As Woody Allen famously said in the film the Sleeper . . . (something like this) – I have not seen my analyst in 200 years, he was a strict Freudian . . . I might have nearly been cured by now . . . lol.
When two dysfunctional groups decide to trade blows then there will only be one outcome! Both are exposed for their prejudices and hypocrisy.
Gays are protected by the law and Catholics by God but what about the children? Who will protect them? Not the gays and not the Catholics because they are too busy scoring points.
You’re on your own kids! And so it shall ever be!
What do you mean by Gay Prejudices?
What do you mean by Gay Hypocrisy?
. . . or our you just shouting you mouth off!!!
PeterB, have you not been following the growing legal protection and rights of children which have been developing over the last 20 years?
Not therapy and the Church; therapy for the faithful.
The word “church” is so ambivalent as to have at least 7 different meanings.
Me, and millions of “cradle-Catholics” like me, are the ones who need therapy; and I for one dread to think what shape the world would be in if Freud and Jung and all the other giants whose tremendous discoveries have saved an untold number of lives has never existed.
Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but a person who has been refused the right to think for himself all his life…well, you know the rest, don’t you?
Well, I think the therapists would be in agreement with you there . . . especially since they will be the ones recieving a some what expotenial increase financially.
Two guys with the gift of gab versus: one convert and an African bishop (probably used to having his ass kissed 24/7 back home), representing an organisation with a murky past, present and future. Someone should have called the RSPCA, as this was shooting fish in a barrel!
Sign the petition to ban the popes visit to the UK next year
A ‘must watch’…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFTj9n40rNo (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-q8US0QRs4 (Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQRkfZzyfcU (Part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i391gBoEo58 (Part 5)
The catholic church has been the monstrosity of the western world, and the creators of so much hate it is unimaginable.
Why – because the whole thing is a farce. But it is all about power and money and control. Which is exactly what people like hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam are about – power, money and control, and to hell with anyone in their way.
The world needs a big big abortion – of the Vatican. Child molesters, hiders of child molesters for decades, the hatred of Jesus own people, the Jews, which hitler used to give us WWII.
the crusades against the Muslims. over 600 years, upwards of 5o million were murdered in the name of Jesus, but really to steal the riches of a vibrant society while europe wallowed in a thousand year dark ages. Where the church burned witches, reformest priests, and Jews at the stake.
Need I say more, except to pray to the God Vesuvius II, that he will re-appear directly under the vatican, and swallow up this monstrosity into the hellfires of the earths core.
And then God will truly have returned. I suspect he hasn’t because Jesus can’t stand the thought of what has been done in His Name by this church.