Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Latest ‘Protest the Pope’ campaign held in London

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why is it not “Protest Against the Pope”?

    Very irritating that we seem to be adopting the Americanism of protesting things as opposed to protesting against things…

  2. Simon.Murphy 13 Aug 2010, 5:44pm

    It’s a bit early to say the meeting was a success.

    It will be a success when the pope NEVER wants to return to Britain and the government NEVER want to invite him again

  3. I’ll be there at the protest even though it has cost me a return rail ticket.
    Vile, homophobic man. Yuck.

  4. ‘Why is it not “Protest Against the Pope”?’
    Because ‘Protest the Pope’ is easier to say and more memorable – which is important in organising political campaigns. ‘Were you at the Protest the Pope demo’ sounds better than ‘Were you at the Protest Against the Pope’ demo. I think this is one occasion where strict grammar must give way to politics.

  5. As a gay Catholic woman, I just hope that people remember that it’s this particular pontiff’s views and comments that are offensive and bigoted and not paint that the whole Catholic faith as the same. I, and many Catholics, still respect the office of the Papacy even if the current holder of that office is behaving like a disgusting bigot.

  6. But the whole teaching of the Catholic faith is homophobic, and always has been. The church hierarchy – not just the pope but the rest of them as well – put forward reactionary and homophobic views. Individual Catholics may be tolerant, but only by totally ignoring what the church teaches. You shouldn’t support this institution – or be a member of it.

    The Church was a force necessary to the maintenance of civilisation during the Dark Ages and in the earlier Middle Ages when it was battling against the Empire in alliance with the Lombard cities. But from the early 14th century onwards it was increasingly an obstacle to progress and enlightenment. It has bequeathed an amazing legacy of art and sculpture and architecture and philosophy, but as an institution it is now thoroughly decrepit. At what point do you just cut your losses and leave?

    All religion is illogical. Before things could be explained properly it was perhaps natural to ascribe their origin to an intelligent force outside of nature; but, ever since Darwin, there has been very little excuse. You’ll find atheism so much better, believe me. You should read Lucretius – now there’s true civilisation, the very opposite of hateful Catholicism.

  7. Dr Robin Guthrie 14 Aug 2010, 12:53am

    You are born.

    Sprouted from a mother.

    No doubt said mother insulted and sent to the so called hell this vile catholic cult has made up.

    Do not even dare to be born out of Wedlock with this cult.

    Cast in Limbo, a place allegedly between Heaven, Hell and no doubt Disney world.

    You make of your life what you will. Good or bad.

    You die.

    All the intervening nonsense is Human made tripe.

    And Cait.

    When did God need an office.

    No.

    The perverted greedy men in GOLD BRAID who brainwashed you, said that GOD needed a GOLD PLATED CITY called Vatican.

    Not once.

    Ever was that ever mentioned in either the Old or New testaments.

    The opposite is actually true if you care to read your so called Good Book.

    And yes.

    I do blame the papacy and all its evil.

    Even now, my partner of 25 years having this vile cult stuffed down his throat since birth, and knowing that this cult hates him and calls him intrinsically evil still cares for it.

    That is serious brainwashing.

    Know doubt you are already suffering from it.

  8. Katie Murphy 14 Aug 2010, 6:11am

    The catholic church has been the curse of western civilization from nearly its beginning.

    It was behind the mass murder of 40-50 million muslims during the cr4usades 900-1400 AD. No ownder they hate the west – societies have long memories.

    the church combined with emperor Constantine about 400AD. Ushering in a 1000 years of zero social and economic progress.

    The church was behind the hatred of the Jews, jesus own people, because the Jews wouldn’t convert. And hitler leveraged that hatred to gain election, we know the rest.

    And hitler – a cahtolic, is still not excommunicated.

    The whole world is ignoring this monstrosity. church attendance in Europe is about 15%. Anbd every lst west european country except Italy (home of the church and fascism) and greece recognize gay couples.

    To the man whose partner cant break free of the church, his problem is buried anxieties from the church. Eg you will go to hell if you don’t do as you are told, and you will not die if you buy into their scam insurance policy.

    Which in the USA in a secular setting would be prosecuted via our Racketeering acts. NO slap on the hand There.

    Your partner needs to understand that the church’s brainwashing is basically creating a form of Obsessive compulsive disorder – anxiety problems, so deeply burried that people accept them as truth. Even though many are are absolute lies,

    Or to put it another way – the church follows the idea of Gobbels, who said “if you tell a lie often enough and outrageous enough, it will be seen as the truth. Gobbels got hitler elected, and himself was catholic.

    Its going to take your partner 10 yaars to break free of the churches brainwashing.

    But the struggle will be worth it.

  9. Sorry, but I feel the need to interject here — the whole teaching of the Catholic faith is not homophobic. Homophobia defined, in the dictionary, as “a hatred or fear of homosexual people”. Now, that is NOT the official Catholic teaching. The teaching of the church, defined in the Catechism of the Catholic church is that people with same-sex attractions “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    I accept that there are people who do not comply with this, and give the rest of us Catholics a bad name. But, you have to understand that this is mostly cultural and related to their upbringing – a lot of them, including the current Pope, are quite old and from a different time.

    I am a Catholic, loyal to Rome, with many friends from all different backgrounds. And no, we don’t agree – per say – with each other on everything, we tolerate each other. I find it a little upsetting to come here and see my religion being bashed and called things that it is just not. If you are going to bash the entire Catholic faith, at least do a little research into what it actually teaches, because unfortunately for a lot of Catholics, we’re only on the news for things the less savoury of our members have been doing or saying, that doesn’t fully reflect the beauty of our church.

    As for the comment about Hitler, the church does not excommunicate people. They excommunicate themselves and the church points it out if need be — if there is a question to whether or not excommunication has taken place. I think in the case of Hitler there can be little doubt.

  10. Rarie – the teachings are homophobic and that crap about love etc is lies

  11. George Broadhead, PTT 14 Aug 2010, 10:43am

    Comment by Rarie:

    “The teaching of the church, defined in the Catechism of the Catholic church is that people with same-sex attractions must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    This is an editing job worthy of Dr Goebbels.

    The same Catechism also states:

    “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

    As always, Catholicism starts by being lovey-dovey, then puts the boot in.

  12. “The teaching of the church, defined in the Catechism of the Catholic church is that people with same-sex attractions must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    Equality before the law will do just nicely, thank you very much. But you are free to extend your compassion and sensitivity to other groups currently condemned to hell. Those Muslims seem like a real challenge to me…

  13. Actually, that is not an editing job – that’s a direct quote from the Catechism – article 2358.

    And, you know, I disagree. Homophobia is defined as a “hatred or fear” (look it up in the dictionary) of homosexual people. The Catholic church does not teach a hatred or fear of homosexual people. And the Catechism is not calling homosexual people depraved or disordered, it is calling the sexual act between two men and two women dsordered because it can not result in pro-creation. In a similar way that it teaches that artificial birth control is evil because, in Catholic teaching, sexual relations are to be both unitive and pro-creative (or in the case of NFP users, at least open to the possibility of life).

    Now, you probably disagree – and that’s your right. But why, just because you disagree with a differing opinion, does it make that opinion homophobic? Because I’m not seeing anything there that promotes a hatred of fear of homosexual people. Just a disapproval of a sexual action.

    And as for “sticking the boot in”, no the Catholic church does not _accept_ the homosexual lifestyle, and I highly doubt that it ever will, but we, as Catholics, are called to show love, tolerance, and understanding to gay people – in fact, to all people, regardless of who they are.

    You know, I hear so much about peace, love, and tolerance from gay activists, but if you’re, you know, religious or have a different view-point.. in which case you’re a homophobic bigot (well, technically, not – because it seems people aren’t in the habit of reading up on dictionary definitions before spewing words at you…)

    Don’t you think that’s a tiny, incy bit hypocritical?

  14. The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law and morally wrong. Being gay is a kind of disability and homosexual persons are called to chastity. Although the Church states that homosexuals should be treated with ‘compassion’ (which rather makes me feel like a sick animal) I feel that, whilst this attitude persists, it is unlikely to actually foster compassion or diminish the violence and prejudice against gays.

    Incidentally, the above doctrine – that being gay is contrary to natural law and to be disapproved – is a ‘magisterial dogma’ of the Church, which means that if you disagree with it then you are officially in a state of heresy!

    Many Catholics have dissented from this position, but they are in fact rejecting the Church’s teachings. This is why I consider that such rejection is incompatible with membership of the Catholic Church. It is true that many nevertheless remain within the church from whose doctrines they dissent, but this is a quite inconsistent attitude.

    And it is not as though the stance of the current church or Pope were a blip in what is otherwise an unblemished record of liberalism and tolerance. On the contrary, this has been the normal moral teaching of the church. The same is true for such things as masturbation and the use of birth control. Its stance on the latter is particularly destructive of human life in AIDS-ravaged continents like Africa.

    The point is that I don’t think pro-gay Catholics are seriously confronting a deep conflict of loyalties here.

  15. *nods*

    I accept that there are a lot of people out there who are prejudice, and it makes me sad that there are so many in the church that I love, and as a result we all get tarred with the same homophobic brush. I have many friends of differing backgrounds, including gay friends, and love them all dearly. And I fully support gay rights under the equality laws and civil unions (in Catholicism, there’s a kind of grey area surrounding such).

    I hope that I wasn’t coming across as offensive or anything. :)

  16. No, Rarie, of course you weren’t coming across as offensive. It’s difficult to have a proper discussion about anything when you can’t talk to someone face to face. But I’ve learnt that perhaps I shouldn’t automatically use the term ‘homophobic’ to describe the official doctrine of the Catholic church. As a matter of fact, I notice that, if you read carefully, Tatchell doesn’t use the term in his statement.

  17. Rarie, I left the Catholic Church a few years ago because of the pope’s position on homosexuality amongst other things. Why would I call myself a Catholic if I was not prepared to accept the position of it’s leader? Surely a Catholic by definition accepts the views of the Pope?
    Since questioning my beliefs and reading the bible, I am now an atheist and am much happier for it.
    If you get the chance, I would urge you to search youtube for the Intelligence squared debate on the ‘Catholic Church is a force for good’ featuring Steven Fry. It might open your eyes

  18. Andy Armitage 14 Aug 2010, 12:50pm

    “[W]e, as Catholics, are called to show love, tolerance, and understanding to gay people,” remarked Rarie above. How utterly, utterly patronising of you. The best love you could show would be by shooting the Pope. Short of that, campaign within your evil organisation for that old fart to stop killing people and causing untold misery to others.

  19. George Broadhead, PTT 14 Aug 2010, 1:03pm

    Rarie is quite right of course in defining ‘homophobia’ as “hatred or fear” but it has obviously come to be used as general hostility to same sex relationship and rights. When one adds up all the hostile statements that have emerged from the Vatican over many years, there can be no doubt about the official stance of the Catholic Church, despite the dissent of more liberal Catholics. Perhaps the latter should make their views known by joining the Protest the Pope campaign.

  20. DC78, I accept the teachings of the church. Maybe I don’t fully agree or understand them, but I accept them. As for accepting the Pope’s position – you can disagree with the Pope, as an individual/as a man/as a sinner, likewise you can disagree with comments that he makes, as a flawed man, and still be considered Catholic. He could be, and I believe is, wrong on the equality law issues. I would like to see the church more tolerant, though, and I do believe it will happen eventually.

    I agree that there is some stigma attached to being openly gay in the church, but I do believe that a lot of it is down to cultural and the age of the members. The Pope is, after all, over 80 years old and from a different time entirely. I’m in my 20s, as are most of my friends in the church, and I like to think we’re a pretty tolerant, loving bunch – or at least I try to be as best I can.

    Andy, I’m sorry that you feel that I am being patronizing. It really was not my intention. I was just outlining the official teaching of the church and that is the teaching according to the Catechism. I’m aware that many Catholics tend to not be so in-line with that, and I’m sorry if you’ve had bad experiences in the past with some of the less than savoury members of the church.

    As this is a sensitive issue for a lot of you, out of respect, I shall not post anything further – but thank you for the conversation. :) And I will watch that video you recommended (I’m a big Stephen Fry fan) Have a good day! :)

  21. Thanks Rarie, I should have said to watch all parts of the debate, not just the Stephen Fry bits, so that you get both sides of the argument.

    “I accept the teachings of the church. Maybe I don’t fully agree or understand them” – Why on earth would you accept something that you don’t agree with or understand?? That’s crazy!

    The pope is wrong on equality issues? Papal infallibility? Isn’t the pope God’s representative on Earth?

    I’m sorry if I’m sounding harsh, but if you’re Catholic, fully commit to it with it’s doctrine and it’s papal dictations or why be a Catholic?

  22. Have a great day too Rarie

  23. DC78, because I believe in God and in his church, I realise there are some things that, with my limited human intellect, I do not understand, so I humble myself and submit – out of faith. I’d really encourage you to read up on the doctrine of papal infallibility (you know, for educational purposes!) – it’s one of the most misunderstood things about the Catholic faith. And thank you! :) *waves*

  24. The catholic church argues for keeping discriminatory policies against gay people. Here I am using ‘discrimination’ in the neutral sense; that is, the catholic church believes that gay relationships ought to be treated as significantly different, by the state, in various ways.

    Certainly, sometimes discrimination is morally justified or necessary (say, for example, between candidates for a job). But in those cases there are good reasons for discrimination.

    The catholic church doesn’t have good reasons for discrimination. What are its reasons? They are reaons that rest on factual claims.

    They claim that non-marital sexual acts are always harmful. This is not scientifically proven.

    They claim that every act has a purpose, and acting contrary to an act’s purpose is wrong (the purpose of sex being reproduction). This would make over-enthusiastic smiling wrong, which is absurd.

    I submit that from these two theses stems the whole of catholic dogma regarding hoosexuality. Since they are flawed these, I submit that the catholic church has no good reasons to discriminate against gay people.

    Were this a benign case of failing to have good reasons to discriminate (for example, giving someone at a meal more food than another person on the (false) basis that they have not had much food) there would be no problem. But the harms caused by the catholic church in this respect are much greater than a simple misinformed basis for discriminating two things.
    Given that the two theses above are so obviously flawed, why does the church believe them? One suggestion is that they hold them, irrationally and irrationaly, as articles of faith. But when someone does this, it makes one wonder about what could be motivating such behavior. Here, it seems to me, homophobia is a good hypothesis, if perhaps not the best.

    As such, the catholic church is homophobic, insofar as its dogma and leaders are homophobic.

  25. @DC78
    Thanks for putting me on to the Stephen Fry stuff – which I listened to with great interest. I also listened to the speakers on the other (pro-Catholic) side, but (frankly) I thought they suffered from obviously not being the intellectual equals of their opponents (and not being as good speakers).

    By the way, I discovered another YouTube clip – Stephen Fry on Humanism – which I would recommend. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything so beautiful. As a result of listening to it I’ve decided I should call myself a ‘humanist’ rather than an ‘atheist’ (though of course I still am an atheist). Atheism is about what you *don’t* believe. Humanism is about – as Fry says – the divine fire being in *humanity*.

  26. George Broadhead, PTT 14 Aug 2010, 2:27pm

    Since Stephen Fry has been mentioned in these exchanges and Rarie claims to be a big fan of his, I think it worth pointing out that Fry is a Humanist. He is both a distingusished supporter of the British Humanist Association (BHA)and a vice-president of the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA).

    On the BHA’s website he is quoted as saying:

    “At a time when the achievements of the enlightenment are questioned, ridiculed, misunderstood and traduced by those who would reverse the progress of mankind, it is essential to nail one’s colours to the mast as a humanist.

    For me, that is not a turning away from mystery or a cold rational dispute with the numinous and spiritual in life, it is an acceptance of the awesome and splendid responsibility we each have for our own destinies, ethics and morals.

    I repudiate the authority of churches, revealed texts and vain unsubstantiated assertions and embrace the shared glories of humanity’s intellectual and spiritual struggle to understand the universe into which we are born with honesty, openness and faith in our own natures.”

    For information about Humanism, click on my name.

  27. “with my limited human intellect, I do not understand, so I humble myself and submit – out of faith. ” This is the Catholic church in a nutshell and the antithesis of Humanism.

  28. I also understand that papal infallibility is a decree of something which is divinely inspired from the word of god to the pope. However, Catholics cannot deny that the word of the Pope is the closest thing they have to the direct word of god, since he is god’s representative on Earth. Why then can Catholics afford to dismiss anything that he says including his decree that homosexuality is an intrinsic moral evil?

  29. I know I’m unlikely to persuade but (just for fun) I wanted to say something about the comment “with my limited human intellect, I do not understand, so I humble myself and submit”.

    The Pope has a ‘limited human intellect’ as well, and is no better position to understand the answers to philosophical questions. The mistake is not to recognise your ignorance – we are all of us ignorant, as Socrates insisted – the point is not to place yourself under the intellectual authority of someone with such poor credentials. Indeed, since we are all in the same boat, the only thing we can do is use our reason to try to figure things out.

  30. RARIE – at 1134 is spouting garbage. that stuff is homophobic and endorses and promotes homophobia, you can’t split people from their sexuality and I bet it doesn’t condemn heteros

  31. Andy Armitage 14 Aug 2010, 4:20pm

    @Rarie: “I accept the teachings of the church. Maybe I don’t fully agree or understand them, but I accept them”; “there are some things that, with my limited human intellect, I do not understand, so I humble myself and submit . . .”

    This is nothing short of denying your status as a full human being, and I’m sure you’re worth more than that. And you do realise, don’t you, that faith is the willingness to believe in what cannot be proved? I realise there’s no point in arguing logically with people like you, because you’ll trundle out the old “faith” argument and there’s no getting past that. But it seems you seriously expect people to take you seriously when (a) you submit yourself to one of the most rotten, offensive, malicious, poisonous, rancorous, corrupt, pernicious, vicious, damnable, execrable, flagitious, harmful, hateful, heinous, repulsive, hideous, iniquitous, baneful, base, injurious, loathsome, low, destructive, maleficent, malignant, obscene, repugnant, revolting, spiteful, ugly, foul, unpleasant, vile, villainous, depraved, wicked, wrathful, malevolent and plain wrong organisations in this sector of the Milky Way and (b) you don’t know why you’re doing it. You can’t prove there’s even a god, let alone that the nutcases who make up the Catholic hierarchy know what he or she thinks.

    Anyone who truly believes in a god – or in God/Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh – would consider it the height of hubris to purport to know his/her/its mind. And what was it Jesus was supposed to have said in the Beatitudes about how the meek shall inherit the earth? Where is the meekness in the people who run your church? Can’t you just see that you’re being taken for a dupe? And we are entertaining them in this country in a £920-a-night hotel, according to the National Secular Society, and giving these crass cardinals £150 a day “allowance”. It’s utterly obscene. The Catholic Church is obscene. The people who run it are obscene. And you follow out of a sense of faith and submission? You should examine yourself. How anyone can maintain self-respect while believing that these wastes of space are anything but unalloyed evil is beyond me.

  32. Andy Armitage, wow, what a list of adjectives. You rival medieval popes in your vituperation. If there is to be an official state visit (and I’m not saying I necessarily approve) then the amounts of money we’re talking about are relatively trivial.

  33. Sorry this has been getting a bit off topic… no thanks to myself!

    Getting back to the pope visit… As a catholic, I was taught about the power of prayer. When 2 or more come in my name, I will move mountains and all that!!…

    Why can’t we get 2 Catholics to say a few prayers to protect the pope. Huge amount of security costs saved… throw away that pope mobile, the pope can walk… after all the pope has the protection of God !!?

  34. Oops, just been Googling and someone’s got in there before me… My favourite quote is now “Nothing says ‘I have faith in God’ like 3 inches of bullet proof glass” – The Popemobile!!

  35. God seems to be a bit selective when it comes to answering petitionary prayers these days. There’s a lot of “we’ll get back to you” and even more “we value your call, please hold the line until one of our trained staff can deal with your enquiry”

    (sorry, couldn’t help myself)

  36. Andy Armitage 14 Aug 2010, 5:22pm

    Johnny said, “there is to be an official state visit (and I’m not saying I necessarily approve) then the amounts of money we’re talking about are relatively trivial.” True, of course. You’re right. It’s trivial. But it’s the principle. Add that to all the other things the government (governments the world over, I guess) pays out in MPs’ unnecessary expenses (I don’t mean the genuine ones), the tens of billions to the banks, probably too many civil servants, the Olympic Games (we’re in straitened times, don’t forget), and a host of other bits of frippery and you have several hospitals, more nurses, better benefits for those in ill health and those trying hard to find work, better education, and so it goes on. Just about everything (except the billions to the banks) can be said to be a drop in the ocean, just as the royal family costs only 60-odd pence a day or whatever per person. But take that 60-odd pence per day per person and addit all back together and you have a lot of dosh that can be used for something far better than a bunch of parasites (notwithstanding some of the good they, which could be done with the money saved, and then some).

  37. Well, I love our gracious Queen, and am happy to pay my 60 pence.

  38. I don’t Johnny, so you’ll be happy to throw in my 60p per day? Appreciate it.

  39. It’s 60p a year, not a day.

  40. I was thinking that 60p a day is a bit much!! 60p a year too much still!

  41. An historic British institution which adds to the colour and gaiety of nations, and all for the price of a packet of fruit pastilles. What is the world coming to? But, um, I think we’re getting a bit off topic.

  42. or from another angle, The Queen and head of Church of England paid for by force from republican and atheist taxpayers…. Okay, you win, for my 60p per year it’s been worth Prince Phillip’s gaffs!! lol..

    I think we are getting off topic, but I think the cost is not the problem it’s the principle. If I don’t get some pope gaffs when he comes I will feel that I’ve been short changed.

  43. Re: royal gaffs. Now you’re getting it. Cost of monarchy? 60 pence. Prince Harry turning up at a party in an SS uniform? Priceless.

    (Sorry, couldn’t help myself again.)

  44. I will happily pay my share of the pope visit and the monarchy so long as when the pope and queen meet, they have a short televised debate on which of their churches is the one True(™) Christian Church. This will be then settled with a Jaffa Cake eating competition. The winner will be announced by Brian Blessed !

  45. Utter genius. Particularly as Brian Blessed is an historic national institution in himself, and probably comes under some government preservation order. Jaffa Cake competition? My money’s on Queenie. She can mop the floor with that Ratzinger guy anyday.

  46. You think so, with Ratzi’s cracker munching day in day out!!?

  47. I’m sorry, but with an issue as serious as this you need someone who’s been round the block a few times. Ratzi may have the mandables, but Queenie’s got the mileage. It’s simple math.

  48. From his cracker crunching, Herr Ratz, certainly has the mandables.. As for the Queen being ’round the block a few times’… The pope’s been chasing altar boys ‘around the basilica’ since Queenie was in her teens!

  49. Well, how do you know how many pageboys Queenie’s ‘done’ over the 58 odd years she’s been our universally beloved sovereign? You see? – sheer prejudice. And in any case crackers are simply not the same as Jaffa Cakes. You spread some cool creamy Philadelphia on a cracker – the perfect mid-morning snack. Try spreading Philadelphia on a Jaffa Cake – disaster!!

  50. You know, we are going to have to stop this at some point!

  51. Filth!! How has it come to this!!!

    The number of pageboys the queens pork’d compared to the altar boy’s the pope’s pop’d !!!

    Let’s shake and call it a draw (even though the pope’s porkd more)

  52. Fine by me (even though Queenie’s pork’d more)

  53. Let Brian Blessed pork them both and let him decide … “DIVE…”

  54. Brian Blessed ‘porking’ her Gracious Majesty?

    Right, that’s it. I’m not playing anymore. I’m taking my ball and going home.

  55. Dr Robin Guthrie 14 Aug 2010, 10:43pm

    Their lies a rub,

    Whenever I have been interviewed for a job, and felt threatened by the interviewers and their smugness , the thought of them wiping their @rse having had a dump brings things into perspective.

    Human just like the rest of us.

    PS: What is it with this CAPTCHA nonsense that they cannot CAPTCHA the religious nut jobs who infiltrate this forum , but force the rest of us having to RE-CAPTCHA due being unable to comprehend or even be able to read the unreadable CAPTCHA
    nonsense.

    Before clicking the “SAY IT” i have a CAPTCHA of (pDc) SiBless) to perform.

    Given the hoops us Gay folks have to go through to comment on gay subjects I assume this media outlet should purport a Religious Belief CAPTCHA system in order to keep these God oddities out.

    Having refreshed this CAPTCHA for the umpteenth time, in order to post a simple retort, I have now found an Umlaut. Sorry, but that is not on UK Keyboards.

    I’m now finding after more refreshes of this CAPTCHA, that few can be done on a UK keyboard.

    Perhaps in the order of:

    Leviticus: xYZ. Please state your bias before entering this forum.

    Pink News is becoming the Daily Mail for their own commercial benefit.

  56. The Twickenham visit is on the 18th!

  57. Andy Armitage 15 Aug 2010, 8:51am

    Ooh, I seem to have begun a whole conversation about the queen. Didn’t mean to do that. Interesting reading, though, folks!

  58. @Dave hayes: “The Twickenham visit is on the 18th!

    No. The 18th (Saturday) is Hyde Park. Twickenham (St. Mary’s University College, Waldegrave Road, Strawberry Hill, Twickenham TW1 4SX) is on the morning of Friday, 17th. — Who’s going to join us?

  59. RARIE.

    Just in case you have not jumped ship yet.

    I have protested (against…yes Quentin at #1; you are right) this Pope and every pope since Pius XII in whose reign I grew up.

    In the late 1950′s I was a mere kid, a seminarian in a Catholic religious order.
    I told my Father Superior that the new word that I had learnt, ‘H.O.M.O.S.E.X.U.A.L’ “seems to apply to me Father;I feel like that.”

    I was ushered out of that seminary quicker n’ a bullet out of a gun.
    I was told to get medical help and was given the address of a doctor who would put wires around my head and shock me into normality.

    How do I, have I, maintain/ed this protest?

    Quite simply by never placing my bum on a pew from the day I left the seminary; I did not fancy being fried by any doctor, thanks, so I left the advice to do so and the Church at the same time.
    Bums-not-on-pews is the way forward, friends, not any protests, vocal or otherwise, from the other side of 3″ of armour plating.

    Hit it ( the RCC) in the “MONEY IN” side of the bank account statement.

    The Sunday after I left the seminary on the Wednesday, I went to Mass as usual but half way thro’ it thought, “What the chuff am I doing here?”

    Got up off my knees.
    Walked out.
    Never went back.

    Went home.
    Rooted thro’ my bits and bobs.

    Found my Rosary beads and my Missale Romanum, some books on St. Therese of Lisieux some holy cards of this, that and the other saint and a bottle of Lourdes water and put the lot………in the bloody bin.
    End of.

    I have watched from the sidelines as fatso Roncalli, shortly after Pacelli’s smelly demise, started to dismantle centuries of tradition leading to untold gum-clucking from Marcel Lefebvre down and thro’ the decades.

    Then Montini, as camp as a Chrimbo tree, blinked his way thro’ his papacy like a startled hare in headlights, careful lest his ‘secret’ got out.
    Then we had the bumped-off one who knew too much, Albini.
    Then came the one who liked Clint Eastwood and dancing Indian women in his dotage.
    I bet that went down well with his successor, Schultz.
    Well it obviously was totally cringeworthy for Ratzi because he has done little else except try to mend the roof and restore a modicum of decorum ever since except that every time he steps off the ladder he puts his foot in the bucket of whitewash on the floor…the Jews…the Muslims….us lot…and that is not mention a generation – or 3- of fiddled-with choirboys from Albuquerque to Zanzibar.

    All the while telling me (and you) how ”intrinsically morally disordered” I/we are.

    Well no physical protest is worth dragging my ancient bones off to Holyrood, Brummidge-ham or anywhere else even tho’ the tickets are now at the B.O.G.O.F. stage; no bugger wants ‘em, Mr Nichols, Your Grace!…

    My arse is still averse to any pew in any church of any religion or denomination any bloody where.
    And that is the only protest that will be understood by these people.

    Keith.
    SALFORD

  60. Rarie: And the Catechism is not calling homosexual people depraved or disordered ..

    Yes it is. This is what it states:-

    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

  61. It’s an odd phrase, isn’t it? ‘Objectively disordered’. It does suggest that the passions of homosexuals are morally wrong or morally depraved; that it would be a lot better for them if they weren’t homosexual.

    I think the whole thing stems from the notion that properly oriented sexual passions should have a procreative function. It goes hand in hand with the church’s notion that sex purely for fun is somehow sinful. It all comes from Paul and St Augustine. Ironically, I think that that it is this very psychological attitude that is ‘objectively disordered’.

  62. Yes, JohnnyH.

    Have you read the work of the (silenced by the Vatican) nun Sr. Jeanine Gramick and Father Richard Nugent.?

    They ministered to homosexual persons in America in the 1980′s before they were silenced and banned from doing so and THAT was under this warped old queen, Ratzinger as Prefect of the … whatever gobful his department was called.

    They maintain that it would be a particularly sadistic God that we are supposed to believe in, who creates human beings, places the burden of “intrinsic moral disorder” (homosexuality)…a pre-disposition to serious sin….on to their shoulders and THEN threatens them with eternal-whatever-horrors should they transgress one iota.

    I don’t buy it.

    I am waiting for the Galileo moment.
    I am waiting for the scientists to find the gene.

    Then sit back, wait a few centuries and get an apology.

    I did, once, believe in all the guff.

    I never will again.

    I am what I am.

    I did not choose to be this way and I know no other way.

    In all my 70+ years I have never once had even the vaguest inkling to ‘go’ with a woman.

    But since I am 100% that way, I accept it; what else can I do?

    And those who don’t like it – and that includes Pope Sauerekraut- can simply lump it and take it up with the One who made me and the thousands like me on the ‘other side’….should indeed there be an ‘other side’.

    In the meantime, I suggest to His Bitterness that he take a long look at himself in the mirror and ask if indeed there is not the hint of a touch of the Brush of Dorothy about himself.

    Because in him, I very much see the camp old girl that I see in camp old me.

    I accept mine but he cannot accept his and rails against anyone who tries even to understand the question lest his secret falls out of the cabinet.
    It is the “protesteth-too-much” syndrome.

    Am I not right, Monsignor Ganswein..?

    You do enough public fannying around his person; straightening his cape; taking his cap off; then replacing it; like two lovers.

    What two ‘straight’ men pick and fanny about the other’s clothes, like that.!

    I am one and I know another when I see her and that Ratzinger is another.

    Keith.

    Yours “intrinsically morally disordered..”

    SALFORD.

  63. I think we should get up some T-shirts with the words “OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED” on them!

  64. Too long-winded JohnnyH
    Latin.
    Too many letters.
    Too many syllables (7).
    Too costly.

    “FERK OFF”
    Anglo-Saxon.
    Fewer letters.
    2 syllables, one for each of 2 fingers
    Cheaper.

    K.

  65. douglas in canada 16 Aug 2010, 5:09am

    1) Any church that says the ordination of women is just as perverse as child-abuse is simply corrupt.

    2) The church has the right to tell it’s followers what to do. It does NOT have the right to demand that non-members follow it’s teachings.

    3) My last encounter with a christian clergy? If that were my only contact with christianity, I would not only choose hell in an instant, but I would promote hell as the preferred alternative. [I know some wonderful christians - but they are wonderful because they are wonderful, not because they are christians. If they had been born into another faith group, or into no faith group at all, they would still be wonderful people.]

    4) The pope is going to Britain as a state visit. If you consider all the atrocities commited in the name of the church, I imagine that if Hitler were still alive, he would be welcomed just as easily.

    5) The pope can’t really believe that god will protect him; the presence of the popemobile is proof of that.

    6) The amount of money spent on such state and political affairs is becomong obscene. Whatever happened to a catholic cleric’s vow of poverty?

    7) Fortunately for all of us, the church as we know it will be dead or at least vastly different in the next 5 or 10 years.

    *** *** haha. for my Captcha, I got the word “fairy”! How appropriate! *** ***

  66. Maybe I’m missing something but I think the protest the pope event could be better publicized. It’s on the ‘protest the pope’ website (sat 18th Sept at 1pm).

    But I don’t remember seeing it in the national press or even pink news.

  67. Rarie, your religious leader believes and preaches that equality for gay people is dangerous for society. He has provided no evidence, not even empirical evidence to back up his claim. He believes in discrimination against gay people, against gay people entering into civil marriage which has NO relevance to religion, opposes the protection of children of gay couples when he states that it is wrong to raise children without a father and mother (he never condemns widows and widowers with children or accuses them of being unfit parents because they are single through no fault of their own), but he denigrates gay families nonetheless. He’d rather see a child placed in an abusive heterosexual foster home than in a loving gay home where a child can flourish in an environment of love. He forbids the distribution of condoms in Africa and elsewhere and said that condoms cause HIV/AIDS, a statement that was met with a huge backlash from the medical community and the World Health Organization for which he makes no apology. His resistance to condom distribution results in millions of deaths and for that, he should be held accountable for crimes against humanity. I see no protest by the faithful to tell him how morally wrong he is. Further, your cult has absolutely NO moral authority to pass judgement on gay people given its long tradition of oppression, misogyny, sexual abuse of women, girls and boys, absolutely NONE! I’m not saying all catholics think that way, but when they don’t rise up and tell him that he’s wrong, then one can only deduce that their silence and inaction gives consent.

  68. Peter Gregory 16 Aug 2010, 3:03pm

    I just hope taxpayers are not expected to pay for his small boys, particularly as he refuses to use condoms.

  69. Perhaps we should let off a thousand Pink Balloons during his Mass in Birmingham; Cardinal Newman would be amused no doubt(!)

  70. #70 Mike.

    As in………Newman-Ambrose…….Ratzinger-Gaenswein..?

    I wouldn’t be at ALL surprised.

    When Ratzi pops his Pradas, that will be one more-than-inconsolable heap of prelate…..!

  71. westcoastkid (USA) 19 Aug 2010, 8:58pm

    Cait said … ” I, and many Catholics, still respect the office of the Papacy even if the current holder of that office is behaving like a disgusting bigot.”

    Hmmmm. At what time was there was a pope worth anyone’s respect … just another arm of the maffia, only this affiliation chooses to dress in black robes instead of pin stripe suites.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all