2 (faithful) homosexuals same as “heterosexuals” – New Cardinal

gay marriage

(Reuters) – The Vatican has appointed the archbishop of Berlin, seen by German media as part of a “new generation” of less dogmatic clergy, to take over the Cologne archdiocese, the largest and richest in Germany, it said on Friday.

The move makes Rainer Maria Woelki, who turns 58 next month, one of the most influential Catholic cardinals and is an indication of the type of person Pope Francis wants to see in prominent Church roles.

[I]n 2012, he said “If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they are loyal to each other over the long term, then one should see this in the same way as heterosexual relations.”  Read entire report here

Comment

There’s no point criticising the person who made this appointment – Pope Francis.  We know, absolutely and without doubt, that he is, as Bishop Fellay describes him, “an outright Modernist”. That’s a given and we’ve “done him to death” so to speak on the previous thread. No, what we need to do here is to make sure that we know all of the reasons why Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki is wrong. Why is it absolutely not true to say that “if two homosexuals… are loyal to each other… then one should see this in the same way as heterosexual relations” (note: we do not use the term “heterosexual” at Catholic Truth  – it is another trick to give the impression that there are sexuality options, so we only use it when quoting, as in this instance.  Generally, we speak of homosexuality Vs natural sexual behaviour, or traditional, marriage.)

So, how do we combat the false notion that homosexual behaviour “should be seen in the same way” as natural sexual behaviour / traditional marriage? 

126 responses

  1. Quite simply. homosexual relations are contrary to the law of God. Sexual acts within Marriage should bring forth new life. Homosexual acts can only bring destruction and damnation. Indeed, Scripture and Tradition have always condemned homosexual acts. We see this all the way through Scripture, Old Testament and New Testament. Leviticus Chapter 18 states, “”You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

    In the New Testament, St Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul goes on to say, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

    Then we have the words of Our Lord in the gospel according to St. Matthew. Our Lord makes it absolutely clear that marriage is between one man and one woman when He says, ” “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Sexual acts committed outside marriage are condemned repeatedly in Holy Scripture. In the letter to the Hebrews, St. Paul writes, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

    The quotes I have offered above are only some of the quotes which make it clear that God designed sexual acts to take place between a man and woman within Marriage. The physical make up of the human body displays this perfectly. In stark contrast, acts committed by homosexual men, using parts of the body not designed for sexual acts, perverts the laws of God and nature.

    The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages — or even more so. Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages. Sexual relationships between members of the same sex, however, expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.

    Men committing sexual acts with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sexual acts among men. human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to for this activity. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among active male homosexuals as a result of the sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance is really quite staggering:

    Anal Cancer
    Chlamydia trachomatis
    Cryptosporidium
    Giardia lamblia
    Herpes simplex virus
    Human immunodeficiency virus
    Human papilloma virus
    Isospora belli
    Microsporidia
    Gonorrhea
    Viral hepatitis types B & C
    Syphilis

    I read a report just a few days ago that all active gay men were being encouraged to take anti-HIV drugs to minimise the risk of infection. Surely all of this evidence is enough to show that the Cardinal is completely wrong, in fact, His Eminence’s words are truly diabolical. Homosexual acts are not at all similar to the act of procreation designed by God. In fact, they are a diabolical perversion of God’s design.

    • Petrus, just interested to know, if in your rather long winded post, you include homosexual priests including several Bishops as suffering from the list of disease ridden persons you seem to think homosexuals suffer from. You appear to have lifted the list straight off the internet and actually have no idea whether or not homosexual men actually are any more prelevant to contracting these diseases than heterosexual men who are more or less( usually more) just as promiscuous . One wonders if you even know or understand the meaning of the illnesses that these dreadful homosexuals are supposed to suffer from. Lifting chunks of information from the internet to prove a point shows ignorance bigotry and fear on your part. Please if you want to comment, at least have the decency and honesty to make the comments your own!!!!!. Don’t hide behind someone else’s excuse for bigotry, if you are a bigot stand up and be open about it on your own account. At least you are then being honest!

      • Domchas,

        Usually I would remove personal attacks such as accusing someone of being a “bigot” but since that’s par for the course (homosexuals and their supporters have to find some way of writing off critics and if accusing them of being “homophobic” doesn’t work, then “bigot” is the next best thing) and I know Petrus has sufficient thick skin to overlook your rudeness.

        Are you daft? You accuse Petrus of “lifting chunks of information from the internet [to prove that homosexuality is dangerous to the human body] as if that were somehow dishonest or “bigoted” – but what if we were discussing one of the other ways of damaging the human body, say smoking, citing the danger of lung cancer? Would it be “bigotry” to “lift chunks of information from the internet” to explain the dangers of smoking and its connection to lung cancer? Of course not. Gerragrip.

        But your post is highly interesting for this reason, Domchas/Chasdom. Because your modus operandi is to come on here and attack us for not being faithful Catholics, for criticising the Church hierarchy and clergy etc. Taking the high moral ground, you the faithful and obedient Catholic and we the schismatics. There’s never any factual information or attempts at such.

        Unless the subject is homosexuality. Then you come on here all guns blazing to support the “gay lifestyle”.

        Why is that?

        • Editor, my comments were posted to Petrus, who in your words is ‘thick skinned enough’ to cope. He is a big boy and doesn’t need some woman to speak up for him. When I want your opinion I will ask for it. Please do not comment unless I specifically request you to do so. Please and thank you!

          Editor: well, here’s a comment you didn’t ask for chum… oops, had to delete that – it broke the house rules 😯
          Still, top marks for your imaginative attempt to get out of answering my question. Petrus is not only “thick skinned enough” to deal with nasty comments, but he’s also intelligent enough to recognise a herring when he sees one – especially when it’s bright red 😀 Answer the question, Domchas, Answer the question… why is it that such a “faithful” Catholic, so “loyal” to the Magisterium, only ever comments here in order to complain when bloggers give hard hitting facts about homosexual activity – why, I repeat, is that?

          • Domchas

            There are exit orifices in the body and there are entrance ones.

            You don’t stick foreign objects into the exits without serious physical or moral damage.

            Personally, I’d feel safer entering the M6 in the exiting lanes.

            I trust you won’t object to me shoving my nose in.

            No, I don’t mean shoving it into an exit hole.

              • Exactly; but I could give an even more graphic example but not in a Catholic blog.

                Maybe in a modern day (c)atholic one though.

              • Petrus,

                A nasal tube can be inserted to feed someone and to sneeze, the oesophagus and mouth is used for both eating and vomiting, the anus is used sexually in heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones, the human body is amazing!

                • Louise,

                  All sorts of obscene behaviours can take place between opposite sex and same sex couples but in both cases, such behaviour as you describe is precisely that – obscene.

                  The difference is, same sex couples have no other way of pretending to be sexually intimate. That’s the difference. Two male bodies are not designed to fit together, as two female bodies are not designed to fit together in sexual activity.

                  That’s the biology of it all, and there’s just no way round that fact. One male, one female = God’s design. And I repeat, if one man and one female use their bodies abusively, as appears to be not uncommon these days, then that is unhealthy and sinful. It is not normal, just because performed by a male and female couple. Sick, is the word, I think I’m looking for. Yes, that’s it… sick.

                  • Editor, I have to disagree.

                    Without wanting to be graphic, there are plenty of ways that couples of whichever preference. can, and are, intimate in a sexual manner without penetration.

                    I’m assuming that you are aware that not all gay couples enjoy or partake in penetrative sex?

                    Whilst I am not someone that finds this act appealing I would question why your God made the human body in such a way that orgasm can be reached through anal sex (via stimulation of the prostrate gland) if it were anathema.

                    • Louise,

                      Again another false dichotomy. The prostate gland’s function is to provide seminal lubricants necessary for the transmission of sperm (I apologise for being so graphic, but since Louise seems to have some sort of perverse fascination with the intricacies of homosexual behaviour, I feel it is necessary) during the procreative act. This is it’s primary function.

                      The prostate gland can, apparently, be stimulated by pressure from various sources or from drug taking. Both these forms of stimulation are unnatural and do not in any way justify your argument.

                • Louise,

                  Your examples are false dichotomies. I wondered if anyone would be so obtuse as to cooing out that a tube can be inserted into the nostril for feeding purposes.

                  The use of nostrils in this way is highly unusual and only performed as a medical necessity. Coughing, sneezing and vomiting are natural, involuntary bodily reflexes. These examples cannot be used to justify sodomy.

                  The simple fact remains that sodomy is highly unhygienic and completely unhealthy. You cannot deny that the design of the receptive part of the body used in sodomy is completely unsuited to sexual behaviour.

                  You mention that “heterosexual” couples engage in this activity. Well, I don’t know how prevalent this practice is but if an opposite sex couple engage in this behaviour it is still perverse. This is a red herring argument.

                  • Petrus,

                    It is far more prevalent than maybe you think. A study for The Journal Of Sexual Medicine stated that, in the UK, 40% of women between the ages of 20-24 have experienced it. As I have mentioned elsewhere on here, it is not something that appeals to me and I would be concerned about injuries but I really don’t care if others find it enjoyable!

                    Is the Catholic church as opposed to oral sex as it is to anal sex?

                    • Louise,

                      The Catholic Church’s teaching is simple – all sexual acts should be open to the transmission of life.

                    • Thank you for the clarification.

                      I would hope that Pope Francis is promoting celibacy amongst Catholics now as our environment is unable to sustain the growth of our population and this would seem to be the only permitted way for Catholics to prevent the birth of even more children.

                    • There’s no “reply” button below. What makes you think the world’s population needs to be brought under control? Where do you get your evidence from? Even Communist China is relaxing its one child policy these days. Surely you aren’t naive enough to believe the old hippy brigade on population control??

                      By the way, it’s interesting how you lost the argument on perverse acts, so you start picking a fight on another subject. You are one troublemaker!

                    • Petrus,

                      Firstly, I do not believe I have ‘lost’ any argument. I was under the impression that I was free to my opinion as you are to yours. I do not believe anal sex is wrong, you do. Is that clear enough?

                      Secondly, my thoughts on the overpopulation of our planet comes from everyday observations. We are living longer, and having more children. This is not a fact made up by some ‘hippy brigade’ this is taken from UN projections.

                    • Louise,

                      I think it’s safe to say that anyone who is concerned about the risk of injury during sodomy, thereby a,acknowledging the unsafe nature of it, but does not believe it is wrong, clearly lacks logic and basic common sense.

                      As for your comments on the so-called over population of the world, I just don’t buy it. We have an ageing population and in general birth rates are falling. China acknowledges this and social security in the USA is at breaking point because of the fall in tax payers.

                      I think a more likely explanation for the so-called “overpopulation” is that the abortion and contraception industry is a real money spinner!

                    • Hmm, you know the same rule could be applied to childbirth; now that is a far riskier activity and one that almost always causes injury (I should know!). I wouldn’t class that as an unnatural act though.

                      The areas most at risk of overpopulation are underdeveloped countries which, and this is no coincidence, have the poorest healthcare, least access to contraception and are the most religious areas.

                    • Wow you are the Queen of False Dichotomies! The key difference is this – childbirth is a completely natural, physiological event. If injury occurs , and this is by no means certain, it is usually short term and the woman makes a full recovery.

                      The second mistake you make in your latest post is that the problems you list in developing countries are not caused by overpopulation, but rather corrupt economic policies. You seriously cannot blame the lack of health care etc in developing countries on Catholic teaching. If you are so concerned about the plight of the world’s poor, why waste your time reading and contributing to a blog you disagree with so fundamentally? Now do you see why I think you are a troublemaker?

                    • I would love to hear you inform all mothers of your opinion of injuries caused in childbirth! Childbirth leaves its mark, believe me! Maybe you are better off not knowing about this though…

                      I would agree that economic corruption is also a major factor to overpopulation, along with the other points I have made.

                      It is a fair question to ask me why I spend time reading the posts on here and occasionally contributing. However, I believe that in order to work towards solving problems you have to look at from whence they stem. I find this site to be full of very erudite contributors. I never pretend to be anything other than I am, I do not intend to cause trouble. I do enjoy debate (to which my friends would attest) and so enter into conversations on here. I was unaware that this wasn’t permitted.

                      Anyhow, I’m sure, given your last post, that you shall be relieved to hear that I shall be signing out for tonight. I need to sleep.

                      Good night to all.

                    • Louise,

                      Re the population growth question.The latest Eurostat population figures show that there were 392,600 more people in Britain in 2012 compared to the previous year, putting the total population of the UK at 63,888,000.

                      More than a third of the increase, 38 per cent or 148,700 people, was accounted for by immigration with the rest accounted for by “natural change”.

                      If it wasn’t for immigration the population in the EU would be in decline. Contraception has meant we have gaps in the age of the population, it’s like having generations missing, in a way.

                      None of the unnatural things being promoted by Godless governments today are helping the world at all. Everything from contraception to homosexuality is causing disease and a lack of young people. That cannot be good for society.

                    • Louise,

                      Thank you for your honest reply. I am sure you will understand that we have our fair share of troublemakers who tend to pop up when homosexuality is discussed. Glad to hear you aren’t one of them! 🙂

                      As a father of four children who was present at the four (very different) births, I don’t think there’s much you could tell me.

                    • Petrus,

                      Glad you see your latest post to Louise – I can vouch for the fact that she is not a troublemaker but a person of some honesty and integrity. She’s wrong on just about everything, of course (Louise – 😀 ) but she’ll get there in the end… I’m sure of it!
                      I like her, and God loves her – how can she go wrong?

                    • Editor,

                      Yes, that much is clear. I hope Louise will stick around and join in other threads too, not just discussions on homosexuality – we have enough that only pop up to discuss that perversion.

            • Frankier, from your reply you seem to have intimate and personal knowledge of what a homosexual person does! That begs a question which I am to polite to ask on here. It also shows the level of intelligence and thought which you and your ilk assume happens between two persons of the same sex. I can only make assumptions that your apparent knowledge of such matters is more imaginitve than reality. From the attitude of most of the bloggers on this subject, you do not know any homosexual persons nor would you in Christian charity associate with such persons so you actually are talking through one of the exit points which you mention!!!

              Ed: Domchas, check out any of the homosexual websites out there in cyberspace, if you have the stomach for it. They really provide a journey into unimaginable filth and depravity, but for someone needing to know the facts they just have to stomach the filth in order to be able to learn why, precisely, homosexual behaviour is unnatural and Godless. Notice, it’s never a topic of conversation on any TV or radio discussion about “gay rights” and that’s because no right thinking person would support the promotion of such unnatural and even obscene behaviour, e.g. in schools if they actually knew what actually constitutes “gay sex”. In fact, I first learned “what they do” myself through reading one of the Government sponsored pamphlets that were used in school sex education lessons. I suspect Frankier, being a male himself, may be able to make an educated guess as to the sort of pseudo-sexual activity engaged in by homosexuals, but I’ll leave him to answer for himself. Whatever, pity about this, but there you go – wrong again 😀

              • I am staunchly against pornography of any kind and have protested in the past about its acceptance in our society.

                However, you cannot use the pornography example to back up your views on homosexuality. If this were the case then heterosexuals would be viewed in a similar light; the pornography available for any sexual preference includes scenarios that repulse me personally (I still defend the right for consenting adults to do whatever they wish in private).

                Maybe the reason that gay sex doesn’t come up in conversation when discussing gay rights is because it is irrelevant? Would you expect a Polish person to be questioned about their sexual activities when discussing equal rights for ethnic minorities?

          • Editor, perhaps at this point in time you should be encouraging your bloggers/readers to be writing to their MP’s concerning the assisted suicide bill which is being debated in parliament on Friday. This would be a much better subject for CT to involve itself in than the usual bigoted vitriol on homosexuals. Or does CT. Not concern itself with real immorality which will affect everyone’s life. Or perhaps you and your fellow bigots would hope tha homosexuals will avail themselves of the new legislation in time and end their apparent blighted disease ridden lives………….get real Editor, be usefull, write fone email you MP today.

            Ed: well, at least now you are now openly supporting homosexuality – when we’ve asked you before to explain your ambiguous-through-to-confusing comments on the subject you’ve declined to do so. Now, however, you have said openly that you do not think homosexual behaviour is “real immorality” so we have it from your own lips that you are fine with it. Just how “fake immorality” you think homosexual behaviour is, you might perhaps explain, but I won’t hold my breath. Signed, Curious, Glasgow….

            Oh and thanks for the prompt about writing, emailing, phoning MPs about assisted suicide. Great idea. Go ahead folks…

            • So sorry Editor, but I haven’t made any such comment in my post as to the moral or immoral state of homosexual behaviour . I have suggested that you [and bloggers] actually stop arguing about something as unimportant as people’s sexual preferences [THAT is a clear statement that homosexual behaviour is not immoral. Think!] and actually fight to denounce the assisted suicide bill.

      • Wow very interesting that my post provoked such a ferocious response!

        I’m only going to answer your post very briefly because I’m not going to waste time.

        First of all, you ask if I include clergy. Of course I do. If priests, bishops, cardinals or whoever else are engaging in homosexual acts then it is, of course, abhorrent and dangerous.

        Secondly, you accuse me several times of being a bigot. I don’t see any bigoted comments in my post. I don’t see any hatred in my post. I do not hate homosexuals. In my day to day dealings with people it makes not the slightest bit of difference to me. You make the classic mistake of thinking that to oppose homosexuality in a theological sense is to hate homosexuals. This is unintelligent and quite simply abhorrent.

        You accuse me of lifting large chunks from the Internet. Well, the only thing copied and pasted directly was the list of ailments. The rest came from various sources and is usually called “research”. I don’t know if you have engaged in academic research, but it usually involves reading various sources and then putting it into your own words, sometimes adding a bit of commentary. I tell you this, there are thousands of solid sources detailing the health risks of homosexual acts.

        Let me repeat, for your sake and for the sake of Louise below, who once agains makes the classic mistake you have made. I oppose homosexual acts. To oppose homosexual acts is not bigoted and does not indicate a hatred of homosexuals. Is the penny dropping?

        • Hear, hear Petrus.

          In 1917 the Holy Mother of Christ told the Fatima Children that….’more souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason’…

          What is homosexuality about, if not ‘sins of the flesh’? The medical consequences of engaging in it are well-publicised, so it is criminally insane to promote or encourage it, or to condone the LGBT lifestyle (should that be DEATH-style) as a ‘normal, valid, harmless, alternative one’.

          It is out of concern for those struggling with addiction that we are duty-bound to speak out. We don’t want to see them lose their lives as well as their souls, yet we stand accused of ‘hate, intolerance, bigotry’ etc. just for sounding the warning. If we really ‘hated’ them, we would let them all go to hell in a hand-cart!

          • Pat,

            Well said. I sometimes bump into a reader of ours in Glasgow, who is a homosexual but who has struggled against the temptation for years. He actually turned up at one of our early meetings years ago, and stood up to “out” himself and to thank us for our upholding of Catholic morality on this, asking us to continue to do so. He even sent a letter for publication saying that. Courageous.

            When I meet him, we have a few words and his few words are always the same – “don’t weaken. Keep opposing this ‘lifestyle'” . It is worth noting, too, that he was unimpressed with his then Parish Priest who was notably sympathetic to the “gay rights” cause.

            This young man continues to suffer same sex attraction but knows that it is neither healthy nor moral, so he is always grateful for our prayers.

            • It’s interesting to note the comparison here.

              Drug addicts and alcoholics also struggle with their temptations and addictions. Most people, I am sure, would agree that it is no kindness to give a bottle of meths & cider to an alcoholic – or to give a shot of heroin to a drug addict. But when it comes to homosexuality, would you ever hear the same people say…’seek professional help to overcome your addiction’….No way, thanks to the perennial media brainwashing they are subjected to – and I would single out the London Evening Standard here for their very pro-‘gay’ prejudice.

              There have even been people arrested for daring to suggest that homosexuality is a ‘psychological and a moral problem, that can be overcome with therapy’.

              Some time ago I was privileged to attend a lecture by renowned psychotherapist Dr Gerard van den Aardweg. Dr Gerard advised that he has cured many of their ‘condition’ and that even the most effeminate of homosexuals has ‘all male instincts’….

      • Regarding bigotry, frequently misapplied these days to faithful Christians, G K Chesterton imparted the following little nuggets of wisdom:

        “In real life, people who are most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all…Bigotry may be roughly defined as the anger of men who have no opinions.”

        “And what applies to the family applies to the nation. A nation with a root religion will be tolerant. A nation with no religion will be bigoted.”

        “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.”

        “Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence.”

        And here are a few other handy quotes relevant to the present discussion:

        “Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”
        (Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990))

        “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next… It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth “thrown in”: aim at earth and you will get neither… In the same way, we shall never save civilisation as long as civilisation is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more.”
        (C. S. Lewis, “Hope,” Mere Christianity)

        “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others.”
        (C. S. Lewis, “Some Objections,” Mere Christianity)

        “There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan.”
        (C. S. Lewis (1898-1963): “Christianity and Culture”)

        “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
        (C. S. Lewis (1898-1963))

        “Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.”
        (Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence)

        “The most singular accomplishment of Western history was… the conviction that there are transcendent values beyond the power of the state to grant or to modify”
        (U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (1987))

        Yes, I unashamedly confess to having lifted these quotations directly from the Internet, they reveal so eloquently the blindness of this modern world. Here are the appropriate links.

        http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Power%20of%20Words%2009-10.htm
        http://www.chesterton.org/tolerance/

  2. That’s a really enlightening post Petrus, thank you so much for it. It motivated me to go to Google to see what I could find out and I found this:

    TEN THINGS GAY MEN SHOULD DISCUSS
    WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

    [Provided by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association

    a 501(c)3 non-profit organization working to end homophobia in health care.]
    “Clinicians providing health care to gay and bisexual men may not be aware of all of the things that should be discussed during the visit,” said GLMA President Christopher E. Harris, MD. “We are concerned that physicians and other health care providers who do not understand the health risks in the gay community cannot provide competent care. This is why we asked our members to help us define the health care concerns most relevant to MSM. Our purpose is to inform health providers and allow patients to be proactive in their relationship by knowing what questions to ask.”

    “Naturally, not everyone has the same set of risks,” said educator and medical journal editor Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH. “But after we look at gender (men in general are increased risk of heart disease, for example) age, family history, and other basic factors, we need to consider issues that relate to the culture or subculture. We know that gay men face greater discrimination than their heterosexual counterparts, for example. Family pressures, combined with social pressure, cause significant stress. It might be important to discuss depression or anxiety, and possibly substance use. If you know that someone is sexually active, it is important to talk about safe sex, the need for hepatitis immunization, or periodic tests for anal papiloma.”

    Both Harris and Silenzio stress that this list broadens previously held views about appropriate treatment for gay men. They indicated this doesn’t represent special treatment for gay or bisexual men, but appropriate treatment. Patients often don’t know what they should ask their health care provider. And worse, many providers don’t know what to look for. To effectively provide the best in health care, knowledge and honesty are essential.
    “Both the provider and the patient should be aware of these concerns and they should be addressed non-judgmentally as part of a patient’s regular health care program,” Harris said. “Certainly, there are other health concerns that gay men and MSM face,” he added. “And there are other cultural competence issues — gender identity, race, ethnicity, economic status, for example. But the “Ten Things” list is a way to get the discussions started. Every physician and every health care professional — gay or straight — should know these things. And they should provide an open, comfortable environment in which these issues can be discussed.

    Additional Commentary
    By Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH
    Board of Directors, GLMA
    Co-Editor, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
    Private Practice & Assistant Professor, Columbia University, New York1. HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex

    That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known, but the effectiveness of safe sex in reducing the rate of HIV infection is one of the gay community’s great success stories. However, the last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices. While effective HIV treatments may be on the horizon, there is no substitute for preventing infection. Safe sex is proven to reduce the risk of receiving or transmitting HIV. All health care professionals should be aware of how to counsel and support maintenance of safe sex practices.

    Substance Use

    Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate (“poppers”), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines. The long-term effects of many of these substances are unknown; however current wisdom suggests potentially serious consequences as we age.

    Depression/Anxiety

    Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of these conditions.

    Hepatitis Immunization

    Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis. These infections can be potentially fatal, and can lead to very serious long-term issues such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Fortunately, immunizations are available to prevent two of the three most serious viruses. Universal immunization for Hepatitis A Virus and Hepatitis B Virus is recommended for all men who have sex with men. Safe sex is effective at reducing the risk of viral hepatitis, and is currently the only means of prevention for the very serious Hepatitis C Virus.

    STDs

    Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which effective treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.). There is absolutely no doubt that safe sex reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and prevention of these infections through safe sex is key.

    Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer

    Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer. Screening for these cancers occurs at different times across the life cycle, and access to screening services may be negatively impacted because of issues and challenges in receiving culturally sensitive care for gay men. All gay men should undergo these screenings routinely as recommended for the general population.

    Alcohol

    Although more recent studies have improved our understanding of alcohol use in the gay community, it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men. One drink daily may not adversely affect health, however alcohol-related illnesses can occur with low levels of consumption. Culturally sensitive services targeted to gay men are important in successful prevention and treatment programs.

    Tobacco

    Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies. Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease and lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and a whole host of other serious problems. All gay men should be screened for and offered culturally sensitive prevention and cessation programs for tobacco use.

    Fitness (Diet and Exercise)

    Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa. While regular exercise is very good for cardiovascular health and in other areas, too much of a good thing can be harmful. The use of substances such as anabolic steroids and certain supplements can adversely affect health. At the opposite end of the spectrum, overweight and obesity are problems that also affect a large subset of the gay community. This can cause a number of health problems, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

    Anal Papilloma

    Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. Some health professionals now recommend routine screening with anal Pap Smears, similar to the test done for women to detect early cancers. Safe sex should be emphasized. Treatments for HPV do exist, but recurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high.

    GLMA, the recognized leader in LGBT health, represents the interests of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender physicians, medical students, and other health professionals as well as millions of LGBT patients throughout North America. The largest organization of its kind, GLMA was founded in 1981 to combat homophobia in medicine and promote quality health care for all LGBT people.

    For more information, contact GLMA
    Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
    459 Fulton Street, Suite 107,
    San Francisco, CA 94102

    If that’s not enough to prove how dangerous homosexuality is, I don’t know what is.

  3. that cardinal is a disgrace and he started out as a “conservative”. He must be a very weak character to have turned coat so quickly. The following from an online report confirms that homosexuality is not at all the same as natural sexual activity:

    “The World Health Organisation has announced for the first time that all men who have sex with men should take antiretroviral drugs, in a bid to try and contain the growing rates of HIV in gay communities around the world.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/world-health-organisation-recommends-that-all-gay-men-should-take-antiretroviral-medicine-to-halt-exploding-hiv-epidemic-9602688.html

  4. In the interests of accuracy it ought to be pointed out that Woelki actually said ‘in a similar (ähnlicher) way’.

    I’ve seen several attempts to spin this into something consistent with (vaguely) orthodox theology.

    For example, by claiming that Woelki is talking only about the caring aspect of the relationship. But the word ‘heterosexual’ gives the lie to that idea. If a man and woman are in a relationship in which they merely care for each other that’s a friendship, not a heterosexual relationship!

    No, I’m afraid the statement as it appears – if correctly reported (and I have seen claims that it isn’t) – is clearly about sexual relationships. The teaching of the Church on those is well-established and prelates do no-one,including homosexuals, any favours by trying to muddy the waters like this.

  5. The things some of these senior Churchmen will say and do to be loved and accepted by the world! Their conduct reminds me of the Parable of the unjust steward. What a betrayal of their Lord and Master!

  6. Never before have I come across a group of people so filled with hatred for others. You seem to place yourselves above reproach (I expect a lot of ‘But I…..” replies to this).
    You have been given your God’s representative on earth and believe yourselves above him. Have any of you the courage to let go of this rage and start questioning whether you were wrong about some things all along? It takes a far stronger person to stand back from his or her beliefs and to think about the foundation upon which they are based.

    Although, I suppose with all this in-fighting, it protects the rest of the world from your hatred of human beings that dare to be themselves.

    • Louise,

      Hello again. Quite a while since you’ve dropped by.

      As for “But I…” – nope. You haven’t produced any justification for your false allegation of “hatred”. How come it’s OK to argue against (relative) poverty, (imagined) injustice, “marginalisation” (whatever that means) and all the other “yawn yawn” politically correct causes of the day, without being accused of “hatred” but not homosexual activity? We can condemn the actions of people who lie, steal and murder without being accused of hating them, but not people who engage in unnatural sexual behaviour. Odd, thinkest thou not?

      And I would have thought that, having read the posts packed with factual date on this thread already, that you would start to question the manifestly unhealthy and dangerous “gay lifestyle”. That you appear not to have done so, suggests a mind closed to the truth. Our bloggers have, at least, studied the facts about the effects on human bodies of homosexual activity. And I notice than none of them, so far, has even mentioned or linked to some of the utterly shocking activities in which “gays” routinely engage. Activities which can only be described as “filth” – with bells on. Self-evidently dangerous filth. I won’t name any of these activities here, but I’m sure you will know exactly what I mean. And how do I know about these filthy activities? Ooops, almost forgot to say – they were exposed by a pro-life activist when, as a parent, he discovered that leaflets detailing these sick behaviours were being given out in schools, funded by Government. What was that about “responsible sex”?

      Oh and there’s no “in-fighting” in the Church. The Church is going through a major crisis, unheard of in its entire history, but at its most basic level, similar to the turmoil at the so called Reformation – in other words, there are people who do not believe the doctrine of the Church who are trying to change it. Only this time, the rot has spread and the would be “reformers” are trying to damage the Church from within. Some “useful idiots” have been infected with their false ideas and are (perhaps unwittingly but certainly negligently) helping them and so the crisis is worsening. The traditional Catholics – those who are now labelled “traditional” because they refuse to go along with the revolution – are left to defend the fort. So, it’s not really in-fighting, if you get my drift.

      Anyway, thanks for dropping by. Nice to hear from you…

      • When you class homosexuality as ‘unnatural behaviour’ do you have any evidence for this statement? As far as I know, it is yet unproven as to whether we are born with a preference for a certain sex or if we choose. Can I ask at what moment in your life you chose to be heterosexual?

        Homosexuality was, for a long time, punishable by imprisonment (and still is in parts of the world). It is no wonder that those in the gay community felt ashamed (see mental health figures) and behaved secretly so as to avoid condemnation. They were hardly able to access proper health care and so the rise of STIs was inevitable. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the discrimination against homosexual people is a factor in the prevalence of HIV (http://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/discrimination-homophobia.aspx).

        My comment about hatred comes from reading this blog. It seems so full of it. It’s the complete intolerance for anyone that doesn’t follow your God that I find so hateful. Your description of the activities of some gay men as “‘filth’- with bells on.” Is one example. There are laws to protect people from homophobia, it is a shame that, once again, religion has claimed exemption from this as it has from many other issues. My hope is that, one day, religion will be run under the same terms as any other business but I fear that is a long way off.

        Once again, I cannot help but find some regard for your strict adherence to, what I would class as dangerous and outdated, your beliefs and what must be a huge sacrifice in order to appease your God.

        From what I have read on here, it seems that Pope Francis, your religion’s representative of your God on this planet, is not popular. This has led to a split in the Catholic church which I termed as in-fighting. Apologies if you are offended by this, it really is how I view it.

        I haven’t commented for a while but I like to read the posts and comments every now and then. Life is pretty hectic!

        • Louise,

          It’s not correct to say that homosexuals are born that way. That’s not a fact at all. This article is very helpful because it gives homosexual sources which accept that “born that way” is not proven “by a long shot” as they say on the link.
          http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/14/are-people-really-born-gay/

          It’s not intolerance toward people or hatred to criticise what they do. That’s already been shown to be a fallacy. Nobody here hates homosexual people but if there are laws to stop us criticising what they do, why not laws to stop people criticising what other people do? We criticise cohabitation and Catholic people who divorce and remarry, but we don’t hate them so why can’t we express our views about homosexuals in the same way? why is what they do above criticism?

          Editor spoke about there being things the homosexuals do which are “filth” – I guess we need to know what those things are to know whether “filth” is the right word.

        • There’s no evidence to prove a person is born with a homosexual inclination. Even Peter Tatchell admits this.

          The natural design of the human body shows that homosexual acts are unnatural. Elementary biology, Louise and no amount of arguing and debating can change that.

          • Petrus,
            Without wanting to appear as if I am harassing you; could you please answer my question (or would someone, anyone on here?)?

            When did you decide to become heterosexual and what swayed it for you?

        • Louise

          If it is not `unnatural behaviour` why did Elton John and his wife/husband need to adopt a child?

          Surely in a `natural` act one or both of them could have given birth.

          • I would ask again: When did you choose to become a heterosexual? What swayed your decision?

            Thank goodness for people adopting children. Elton John and his husband David Furnish are the non biological parents of two boys as they are not able to have children biologically.
            My cousins are the non biological parents of their two children because they were not biologically able to have children either. They are a heterosexual couple.

            We, as a race, are reproducing at a rate that is detrimental to our environment. Anything that promotes the careful adoption of children that don’t have a family is a good thing in my book.

            It is my belief that humans (and animals) are not 100% gay or straight, they are all on a continuum for want of a better term.

            • Editor has already pointed out there is no such thing as a “heterosexual” – only normal and natural sexual appetites and behaviour.

              I don’t think there has been enough research yet into the effects of homosexual adoption. Children need a mother and a father, not two parents of the same sex, as the norm. This may be exceptional and OK (say a grandmother and mother due to separation or divorce) but not as a life choice. No child would sacrifice having a father and a mother if given the choice, surely.

              • Why would a child NEED a mother and a father? Why not two mothers or two fathers? What is it about your genitalia that leads you to provide something that someone with different genitalia cannot?

                I am a lone parent (my son’s father and I separated after he had 3 affairs and was emotionally and physically abusive towards me) and it is certainly very hard work indeed, i understand that two parents are better than one just from the amount of time and effort it takes to raise a conscientious, caring and healthy person but recent studies have proven that children do not suffer from having one parent alone (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-no-less-happy-in-singleparent-homes-study-finds-9278689.html).

                I do not buy into the idea that mothers and fathers act out different roles in parenting. Fathers can be just as caring and nurturing as mothers and mothers can do rough housing, practical things, play football etc. We do not need to conform to patriarchal stereotypes.

                • Louise, I was brought up by two wonderful women – my mother and grandmother – after my mother thankfully left my violent father, taking myself and my brother with her. As I was afraid of my father, I certainly did not ever miss him. I had the best mother anyone could wish for; she was a person of great integrity, very loving, and a faithful and fearless Catholic, and I thank God fasting that I had the benefit of her presence on earth for so long. However, it was not until quite late in my life that I realised how not having had a positive male role model in my life had affected my interactions with the opposite sex. I’m not by any stretch of the imagination saying that my life has been ruined, but it has been affected adversely, as has my brother’s. So yes, the ideal for all children is to have a mother and a father.

            • “I would ask again: When did you choose to become a heterosexual? What swayed your decision?”

              Your question is a nonsense one. The discussion here is not about choosing sexual orientation, it’s about keeping the supernatural law of God (written in the hearts of all men) and the natural law which is quite obvious to all but the willfully blind.

              Conscience is always there to tell us when we’re doing wrong, but sometimes, depending on the person and the sin, the associated guilt leads less to personal repentance than a public projection of rage against God. I think you would benefit from listening to Bishop Fulton Sheen on this subject. You’ll find videos on Youtube – they’re really illuminating.

              As for freedom of choice. Well of course we’re free to choose good or evil. God has given us free will to serve him or to serve our passions in whatever manifestation the passions demand gratification.

              If we choose God, then our freedom must necessarily have limits if it is to be true freedom. We abide by the divine and natural laws written for our own good.

              If we choose our passions over God, then all restrictions are removed and freedom becomes license. The end result of this choice is slavery to vice and great unhappiness of soul.

              In summation, those who rage against God, mocking His laws and His Church, are not fooling anyone with their pretended indignation and demands for exaggerated rights. The fact is their consciences are tormenting them and they are projecting that guilt onto everyone and everything but themselves.

              • Your question is a nonsense one. The discussion here is not about choosing sexual orientation, it’s about keeping the supernatural law of God (written in the hearts of all men) and the natural law which is quite obvious to all but the willfully blind.

                Conscience is always there to tell us when we’re doing wrong, but sometimes, depending on the person and the sin, the associated guilt leads less to personal repentance than a public projection of rage against God. I think you would benefit from listening to Bishop Fulton Sheen on this subject. You’ll find videos on Youtube – they’re really illuminating.

                As for freedom of choice. Well of course we’re free to choose good or evil. God has given us free will to serve him or to serve our passions in whatever manifestation the passions demand gratification.

                If we choose God, then our freedom must necessarily have limits if it is to be true freedom. We abide by the divine and natural laws written for our own good.

                If we choose our passions over God, then all restrictions are removed and freedom becomes license. The end result of this choice is slavery to vice and great unhappiness of soul.

                In summation, those who rage against God, mocking His laws and His Church, are not fooling anyone with their pretended indignation and demands for exaggerated rights. The fact is their consciences are tormenting them and they are projecting that guilt onto everyone and everything but themselves.

                Athansius,

                I believe in equal rights for all, I know, it’s a shocker!

                The fact that I rejected the notion of a god over 10 years ago has enriched my life. Far from being a slave to vice, I am a pretty nice human being (I don’t drink alcohol, don’t take drugs, don’t sleep around and am a pretty good mother, daughter, sister, and friend) and this is because of my own personal moral compass. I do not possess an unhappy soul either, I think I am about average on the scale of ups and downs that make up the emotional tapestry of our lives.

                It is because of my moral compass that I sometimes feel compelled to speak up about what I believe is right and wrong. I am under no impression that I am going to change minds here but I want to say that the vitriol spouted about homosexuals is pretty galling.

                I admit to instances of raging against religion whenever I see another life lost in the empty battle of my god is better than yours; another person tortured or bullied, another person that has had his or her human rights removed and all in the name of religion.

                You have chosen to believe in a certain God. This has been your choice, whether you think it or not. I know that a lot of people are brought up in a certain religion and so may not know anything else but ignorance is not a defence.

            • Louise Hersee

              Your idée fixe appears to be that homosexuals are born that way and that therefore we should all willingly accept their behaviour as normal and good for society.

              Now the position that homosexuals are born that way is far from proven but let’s suppose it is true.

              And now let’s suppose that I can prove that murderers are born that way.

              Would you then accept that murder is normal and good for society – and if not why not?

              • Confitebor Domino,

                Your idée fixe appears to be that homosexuals are born that way and that therefore we should all willingly accept their behaviour as normal and good for society.

                Now the position that homosexuals are born that way is far from proven but let’s suppose it is true.

                And now let’s suppose that I can prove that murderers are born that way.

                Would you then accept that murder is normal and good for society – and if not why not?

                Now, that is a wonderful example of a straw man argument.

                However, let’s follow that example.

                Sexuality- this is something that may be (as yet unproven but scientific studies are looking at the biological aspect of sexuality) innate in us and the rest of the animal kingdom. Whom does it affect? Our personal choice of whom we consider sexually attractive and wish to spend time with, have a relationship with and love is our choice alone. It has no ill effect on anyone, in fact, it makes the world a much nicer place to be when we see humans that are devoted to each other. I don’t know about you but when I see a couple holding hands or laughing together or doing any of the hundred things that couples do in public, I certainly don’t think it a bad thing, to the contrary, it is a pleasure. I certainly don’t automatically wonder what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. If you find yourselves worrying unnecessarily about the sex lives* of homosexuals then I would question why you are doing that as it seems odd!

                Murder- True, there may well be a psychological cause (see the make up of the sociopathic brain for example) and people may be born with a predisposition to kill. However, again, I ask, whom does this effect? I shan’t answer this as it’s pretty obvious and it is why there are laws to punish those that commit this crime.

                *My point about the sex lives of homosexuals is in reference to editor’s previous comment about ‘filth- with bells on’.

                • Louise Hersee

                  At first I was perplexed as to what straw man you thought I had set up and I was on the point of assuming that you don’t understand the term. But now I see that you think this because of an even more insidious error in your thinking.

                  You assert that a relationship between X and Y affects no-one but X and Y. This is so obviously false that I don’t propose to engage in any argument about it. A little reflection should help you see why it is wrong.

                  And to forestall the argument about what if X and Y are on a desert island I will point out that even there another Person is concerned. (If you can’t work out Who then why are you reading this blog?)

                  And as for your question as to why we are worrying about homosexuals’ sex lives – we’re not. It’s their immortal souls we are worried about.

                  • My apologies for not understanding. Really, I do not see how a loving relationship between two consenting adults; be they male and female, male and male, transexual and female etc can have any negative effect on anyone surrounding them.

                    My three year old son sometimes spends time with me and a gay couple that are friends of mine. Not once has he questioned their behaviour. They have never spoken about anything that any hetero couple has to him and I am sure he would be mightily confused as to why people would have any issue with it.

                    Perhaps I am fortunate in that I live in an inclusive community where people are judged by their behaviour towards others rather than choice of partner. I would hate to live somewhere where your sexual preference is a precursor to what you can do for a living.

                    • Louise

                      You say that not once has your 3 year old son questioned the behaviour of your “gay” friends.

                      So does this mean that you allow your son to watch them copulating? Otherwise, why would he need to question their behaviour?

                    • Um, I think that question is a bit odd to be honest. No, I have never let my 3 year old son view any couple having sex. He has, shock horror, been to a gay couple’s house and may have seen them hug and exchange a quick kiss hello or goodbye though. Is that okay?

            • Louise – for your info, homosexuals account for a mere 2% of the population.

              Just as not every ‘heterosexual’ is a child abuser, neither is every homosexual. Statistically, however, homosexuals do account for at least 20% of all child abuse convictions, not that you’re likely to read THAT in the Evening Standard. Now, if 2% of the population accounts for 20% of something as reprehensible as child abuse, the obvious conclusion is that there must be something desperately amiss with that ‘section of the community’. If you can’t see that, there must also be something desperately amiss with your reasoning.

              It is criminally insane to allow homosexual ‘couples’ (be they ‘celebrities’ or whatever) to adopt children. Very predictably, there have already been convictions of such ‘couples’ for abusing children placed in their ‘care’.

              • You do know that the study that reported those statistics has been debunked right?

                I would counter with a quote from your Pope in 2008-

                “I do not wish to talk about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is a different thing.”

                • Yes, any research that’s at odds with your unchangeable perspective will inevitably be decried – and the researchers will always get dismissed as ‘hateful, homophobic bigots’…

                  Well, so long as you have your head firmly ensconced in that insanitary part of your anatomy, I see no point in continuing this debate. Farewell – and good luck to your wit.

                  • But when even your Pope has stated they are not linked… I really do not understand Catholicism. I was under the impression that he was your God’s representative on earth. Is that only when his opinions match your own?

                    • Louise,

                      It doesn’t matter if thousand people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Numbers don’t decide what is right or wrong.

                      The pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, yes, but his duties require him to be faithful to the timeless teaching of the Church and safeguard them, he is not at liberty to improvise, change or add to these teachings. That is absolutely not part of his job description! No thinking Catholic can be asked to follow the Pope when he wanders off the path set by Christ.

            • Louise

              I had to laugh when I read about Elton John and HIS HUSBAND.

              Dear oh dear oh dear!

              Elton John and his husband. What, in the name of God, is the world coming to?

              It looks to me as if it will be a backs-to-the-wall struggle for those two poor young boys growing up with this “loving” couple.

              So maybe it is up to Elton to give birth in this relationship which is so natural to you..

              • Frankier,

                I am extremely saddened that you felt the need to make that homophobic comment about ‘backs to the wall’. Please tell me I have misinterpreted it and that you are not insinuating that Elton John and his husband are predatory paedophiles? For all this talk of how you condemn the ‘sin’ and not the ‘sinner’ this is beyond sickening.

                • Louise

                  I am not afraid of men or homosexuals, as you imply by your “homophobic” remark.

                  To be honest, I am more saddened that young children are growing up amongst people who talk about a man having a husband.

                  It`s not so long ago that your friend Elton was blaming all the recent popes for the cause of Aids spreading throughout Africa. Did you question this?

                  To answer your question: I am not insinuating anything,
                  Surely I am entitled to use a common phrase without someone with a filthy mind doing a bit of insinuating.

                  • Frankier,
                    Please, I do my best not to offend anyone on here, truly, I do. I know that I have made mistakes in the past (by not capitalising God and Catholicism) but I do try. I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to me. The comment about Elton John’s children growing up with their ‘backs to the wall’ is a very offensive remark.

                    I believe that Elton John (I never knew I would be talking about him on here! I’m not very knowledgable about him I’m afraid as his music isn’t to my taste) was opposing the Catholic church’s position on using contraception and, in particular, condoms and saying that that had a great impact on the spread of HIV (I assume you realise your mistake with using AIDS, you cannot ‘catch’ AIDS).

                    • Isn’t it ironic that Elton John should be so concerned about the AIDS pandemic when homosexual behaviour is one of the most common way the disease is transmitted? You would think instead of blaming the wholesome teaching of the Church, he and his fellow homosexuals would have the humility to recognise their part.

                    • Petrus,

                      No, I do not see the irony because I take a very different viewpoint on why HIV spread so widely throughout the gay community.

                      I reiterate my earlier comment:

                      Homosexuality was, for a long time, punishable by imprisonment (and still is in parts of the world). It is no wonder that those in the gay community felt ashamed (see mental health figures) and behaved secretly so as to avoid condemnation. They were hardly able to access proper health care and so the rise of STIs was inevitable. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the discrimination against homosexual people is a factor in the prevalence of HIV (http://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/discrimination-homophobia.aspx).

                    • Louise

                      Africa, as far as I know anyway, has a Catholic population of around 16%, the same as Scotland.

                      When it suits the agenda of most folks, especially in the media, we get told that very few Catholics listen to the Church anyway regarding birth control. This is one of the reasons they use to justify their argument that the Church should change its teaching.

                      Assuming that every Catholic in Africa refuses
                      to use condoms you still have 84% of the
                      population free to use them.

                      Since these 84% have no love or allegiance to the Catholic Church and with many having never ever having heard of a Pope, what makes Elton John think that they are following the Church`s teaching and therefore spreading AIDS throughout the continent?

                      If he is not thinking along these lines, then he is blaming 16% of a vast country`s population for its AIDS epidemic.

                      Then again, if we are to believe the media that claim that very few Catholics listen to the Church on these issues, that means that it may be only around 5% of the (Catholic) population that spreads the disease and that is assuming that every one of these Catholics has the AIDS virus.

                      I always thought his claims were ludicrous but nobody ever questioned him, except myself it seems.

                      Maybe you should be looking for an apology from Mrs John.

              • Frankier, your comment about ‘backs to the wall’ in relation to the children of Elton John and his husband David Furnish is indeed VERY HOMPHOBiC and insulting. I am actually very very taken aback that, no matter what you believe that you would print such an insulting and filthy comment. This shows just how sick your mind is in relation to the subject of same sex couples. Editor should have removed such a sick comment. The comment was entirely inappropriate and debases even further the tone of this blog. Be told Frankier and have the guts to apologise for an extremely sick and very unfunny comment!!

                Ed: you appear to have read a meaning into one of Frankier’s comments that escapes me. However, would everyone please take care not to write anything uncouth or with double meanings please and thank you.

                • Hello Chardom

                  Why the pleasant mood this morning?

                  Have you by any chance won the pools?

                  I`ll be kind and make no comment about what I think of your mind.

                  I will tell you though, that when I was a young man and everyone seemed to hate homosexuals I would be the one to chastise anyone who would make any filthy comments at or about them for the simple reason I couldn`t stand bullying cowards.

                  That was, and still is my mindset. I have no hatred for anyone, especially the unfortunate.

                  Would you stand up for them in a public place?

                  And please, please don’t take that as some hidden meaning

                • Good grief! Have you never heard of the idiom, “to have one’s back to/against the wall”?

                  Here is the dictionary definition of the idiom:

                  “to have very serious problems which limit the ways in which you can act”.
                  Examples of usage: With rising labour costs, industry has its back to the wall.
                  When his back was against the wall he became very aggressive.

  7. I may previously have posted something to this effect, but it’s well worth repeating….

    Whether we are talking about fish, reptiles, humans, insects, plants, animals, birds etc. – it is the MALE that produces the seed and the FEMALE that receives and nurtures it. Same-sex attraction is, therefore, contrary to the natural law and totally disordered.

    I have heard people who fancy themselves as ‘educated’ try to argue that because animals sometimes engage in homosexual acts, it must therefore be ok for humans too! My response is that animals don’t have the powers of reason human beings have (or, are supposed to have). So-called ‘gay penguins’ at least have some excuse.

    • Pat,

      I’m glad you added “or are supposed to have” – increasingly, I question the intelligence of human beings who appear unable to see that homosexual activity is un-natural and dangerous. I found myself in a room with two doctors and a nurse about a year ago (they were trying to chain me to a couch! Kidding!) and the subject came up because they asked me why I was to appear on a TV programme, so I explained. I then added that it puzzled me to death that medical professionals were not only not speaking out to warn of the health risks of abusing the human body in this way, but actually supporting it. What do you think happened? A battery of facts showing that homosexuality is NOT dangerous? Leaflets in my face arguing the case that homosexual activity is actually healthy? Nope. The reaction of those two doctors and one nurse was….

      Silence.

  8. The entire business of homosexuality is immersed in lies and deceit.

    For example, how many times do we hear activists (and various bleeding heart ‘socialists’) try to assure us there is ‘no link’ between homosexuality and paedophilia? In that case, I’d like to hear how they explain away the existence of ‘NAMBLA’ – that’s the North American Man-Boy Love Association. It’s motto is – wait for it – ‘sex before eight before it’s too late’! (Don’t take my word for this. ‘Google’ it.)

    We delude ourselves if we think this ‘surely couldn’t be on its way here’. Some of us knew this was the game-plan all along and what reducing the ‘age of consent’ was all about, some 20 years ago (Criminal Justice Bill). As per usual, anyone trying to oppose this new legislation got dismissed as a ‘hateful, homophobic bigot’.

    Among those who voted in favour of reducing the age of consent to homosexual acts back in 1994 were John (‘best prime Minister we never had’) Smith and Tony Blair. Incidentally, I wrote to Smith to ask what his views were on child adoption by same-sex ‘couples’. His reply was that of a typical politician – he completely body-swerved the issue, stating that he was ‘not aware of any proposed changes to the adoption laws’……

  9. ‘Homosexuals can’t help what they are.’ Homosexuals are born that way’. ‘Homosexuals didn’t choose their orientation any more so than their race, eye-colour or shoe-size’. More examples of lies and deceit, trumpeted by activist generals and their media lieutenants.

    As long ago as 1970, the University of Indiana’s Kinsey institute (a very pro-‘gay’ establishment) published the results of a study. The research found that, of 665 homosexuals:-

    84% admitted to having shifted or changed their sexual orientation at least once

    60% reported a second shift

    32% admitted a third change – and 13% at least FIVE changes.

    Now if a person is born a Hispanic, for example, that person doesn’t change into an Oriental or an Asian and then back to a Hispanic again every few months or so. It just doesn’t happen.

    So there we have it – game, set and match. The ‘born that way’ case is dismissed.

    ,

    • Editor; a study of 665 homosexuals in 1970, (were you born in 1970?), by any institute of any kind does not constitute a representative figure, even back then, of the nature of homosexuality, it’s effects or influence of the so called ‘gay lifestyle’! Perhaps instead of just reeling off the supposed ‘facts’ of what homosexuals ‘do’ U might be better informed by speaking to any homosexuals of your aqaintance about their imagined dreadful life style. What by the way is a heterosexual life style or don’t heterosexuals have a lifestyle? The gift of sexuality is God given, be aware that if you insist on criticsing such gifts you criticise God Himself. Do you dare do that! As with all the gifts given to us by God, we can use them for good or ill. The arguments on this thread are all about what homosexuals supposedly do!!!……… Not about sexuality, there is a huge difference in the two subjects. Think on dear lady, think on!

      • Domchas,

        Well, what about this survey, conducted by that national “gay” treasure, Stonewall? Seems the “gay lifestyle” is not exactly a recipe for happiness, is it? Not according to your own gurus at Stonewall. And there’s nothing “imagined” about the “gay lifestyle” – as already suggested, with grave misgivings, anyone who is in any doubt about the inherent unnatural behaviour that is termed “gay” ought to pay a (flying) visit to one of their websites – come out the minute you’ve defined “scatting”. Even the sanctimonious Childline is pushing “coming out” as LGBT for kids – aren’t they supposed to be protecting children from abuse? Check out that Stonewall survey again…

        As for “heterosexual lifestyle” – what the heck is a “heterosexual”? Do you mean people with normal sexual inclinations? As we’ve already said, anyone who abuses their bodies by engaging in unnatural behaviours is not only placing their physical health in danger, but is greatly offending God. Please don’t confuse those who engage in aberrant sexual behaviour with normal people who get married and engage in normal marital relations. They’re not “heterosexual” – they’re just regular guys and gals wearing wedding rings.

        As for your remarks about “the gift of sexuality” – this is another novel term of the post-Vatican II era. God has shared, with married couples, His power to create new human beings. That’s the wonderful gift (pro-creation) that married couples celebrate and that, as Catholics, we all value immensely. God did not create some vague “sexuality” to be used by A & S (All and Sundry).

        So, YOU think on, dear Dom. YOU think on…

  10. I always think that focusing in on natural is important. You hear all sorts of arguments, but you can’t ignore the fact that man and woman procreate and have families. Man plus man doesn’t work. Same with women. You have a dead end relationship. There is no procreation. You have nothing at the end. If we all decided to take up what some people call a perfectly natural (homosexual) rerlationship, then nature would very quickly find itself short of a human race.

    • Summa,

      Exactly right. In fact, it’s because it is unnatural that it is immoral. Faith and Reason go hand in hand. As do Faithlessness and Irrationality. Cousins, one and all!

  11. Sex outside of a valid marriage between a man and a woman is a mortal sin. Homosexual sex is therefore a mortal sin and is additionally, “intrinsically disordered”.

    The article quoted uses the term “less dogmatic” which is meaningless. One is either accepts the dogma of the Church or one does not.

    If Cardinal Woelki said,
    “If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they are loyal to each other over the long term, then one should see this in the same way as heterosexual relations.”
    and that has been questioned, then he is expressing a heretical idea and since he does so knowingly, and deliberately then he is Formally Heretical and therefore Excommunicate. As such he cannot hold any office in the Church, and is not Archbishop of Cologne.

    But I suppose we will have to see what he actually said.

    For a very good explanation of homosexuality, I would recommend the document written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in October 1986 when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    To summarise, the problem requires pastoral care, is an intrinsic disorder, a tendency towards a moral evil, is condemned clearly throughout the Bible, is traceable to Original Sin, and exists in the Church.

    Cardinal Ratzinger warned strongly against pressure groups within the Church trying to change Church teaching.

    • Jaocobi,

      Why do you say “I suppose we will have to see what he actually said”?

      He has had since 2012 to correct any mis-quotation so I think we can take it that he has been correctly quoted.

  12. @ Josephine
    I say it because this is a grave matter. We are not having an idle discussion about what football team is best. I supported Argentina by the way, and I am quite miffed.

    If he has said what he is said to have done, and he is allowed to continue in office, then the crisis in the Church moved a step further to open split, to something approaching another Reformation.
    So, as in a court of law, (I am not in any way legal by the way, God forbid) we have to be sure of our facts. That’s all.

    • Well, Jacobi, you will perhaps be pleased to read this rather superior blog author’s report on a “clarification” which was issued after the above reported words in 2012. And this is supposed to reassure us? This is an improvement? After castigating those of us who reported the new Cardinal’s comments, the author of the Te Deum blog remarks:

      So, it seems in 2012, secular media sources in the US, and Catholic bloggers – including professional journalists who blog, ran with the line that Cardinal Woelki gave a green light to active homosexual relationships. This despite the glaring conflict with Catholic teaching that should have had at least the Catholics checking the source, and the accuracy of the quote, even unto asking for a clarification from the diocese. Now it is getting recycled in 2014.

      Rod Dreher, writing at The American Conservative, was one such person using the quote in 2012 but he at least precedes it with, “if the report is accurate.” To his credit, he updated his post twice, including one with a statement from the Cardinal’s Press Secretary back in 2012, saying he was grateful to have the clarification (See “Update 2” here). He writes:

      UPDATE.2: A German-speaking reader, to whom I am grateful, translates Cardinal Woelki’s press secretary’s statement about the matter as follows: Press Secretary Stefan Förner explained that media reports had severely truncated [the Cardinal’s] words. It is the Cardinal’s desire that homosexuals are “not discriminated against.”

      The press secretary then explained [the Cardinal’s statements] word for word to KATH.NET: “Cardinal Woelki set long-term homosexual relationships in which two people have already made a life-long commitment to one another in relation to [certain] heterosexual relationships which indeed are not in any case “in [proper] Catholic order” (the unmarried, those lacking commitment, etc.). A comparison with sacramental marriage between man and wife was absolutely not the theme.”

      Press secretary Förner explained in concluding to KATH.NET: “Sacramental marriage between man and woman retains its special role. I see no cause for confusion.”

      No cause for confusion? Is this guy serious? The very fact that “updates” have to be posted with commentary on what the Cardinal MIGHT or COULD have meant, is cause for confusion in itself. Any statement from a Catholic at any level in the Church, let alone a member of the hierarchy, which does not condemn, without qualification, homosexual activity, is at odds with Catholic teaching.

      The simple fact is, there are so many neo-Catholic heads stuck in the sand that it’s a wonder there’s any left for the kids to play with on a hot summer’s day at a beach near you… Sand I mean. Not heads.

      For the record, we understood that the new Cardinal may have been referring to cohabitation, normal sexual activity outside marriage, not necessarily marriage, and this is reflected in blog commentary, including our closing remarks: “So, how do we combat the false notion that homosexual behaviour “should be seen in the same way” as natural sexual behaviour / traditional marriage?”

      Couples who are co-habiting (living in sin as we used to say, calling a spade a spade) engage in natural sexual behaviour, albeit illicit behaviour since all use of the marriage act outside of marriage is immoral.

      He’s wrong, either way. Whether referring to cohabitation OR marriage OR both – homosexual activity does not equate to normal sexual behaviour, no matter how “long term” the “relationship”. The new Cardinal should not have said what he said in 2012 and he should now come out and very clearly and strongly uphold Catholic teaching on the immorality and intrinsic disorder of homosexual activity. He might also apologise for his part in adding chaos to the already prevalent confusion within the Church, caused mostly by priests and prelates. That’s the quickest and simplest way to convince us all that he didn’t really mean to say what we are all interpreting his words to mean.

      Note: when I tried to post a comment to the above effect on the Te Deum blog, I was confronted with a notice that comments are not allowed. Impressed, NOT!

      • I’m not pleased at all because this clarification does not clarify.

        As the saying goes two wrongs, and in this case quite different wrongs that is, having a heterosexual bidie in, and a homosexual bidie in, don’t make a right.

        Its actually quite easy to say things simply and clearly but our leaders have become so obsessed with a quite false understanding of “pastoral” that they are are failing in their duty to “go and teach all nations”.

        Oh we do live in interesting and depressing times do we not. My team lost remember!

  13. “The press secretary then explained [the Cardinal’s statements] word for word to KATH.NET: “Cardinal Woelki set long-term homosexual relationships in which two people have already made a life-long commitment to one another in relation to [certain] heterosexual relationships which indeed are not in any case “in [proper] Catholic order” (the unmarried, those lacking commitment, etc.)”

    That’s what I already understood the cardinal to mean. If he thinks this makes the situation better, then I am just astonished. He’s worried about “discrimination” against homosexuals, and “sets” long term homosexual partnerships on a par with long term cohabiting opposite sex couples, and he thinks that’s OK?

  14. The truth is, this “prelate” could not care less. What he cares about is upsetting his cultural “catholic” peasantry who keep him in enormous wealth and give him prestige. He, like the majority of pornographer German “bishops” are in short Judas priests.

  15. According to a report in today’s Scotsman, Peter Tatchell & Co. are already complaining of “homophobia” ahead of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. I wish someone would tell him to give it a rest.

    I think it’s time these groups closed down. After all, who – in their right mind – would even think of “discriminating” against homosexuals these days? Someone should have whispered that in the ear of the new Cardinal before he made his shocking comment, giving the impression that “long-term” homosexual relationships are in the same category as long-term cohabitation, apparently on the grounds that he wants to prevent “discrimination” of homosexuals. Gimme strength.

    • Editor, let the pigs fly and the moon turn cartwheels, we agree on at least one thing; YES Editor. We do!!!!!! Peter Tatchell is a complete numpty. Why on earth or in heaven is he ever quoted as representing the ‘gays’ in any way shape or form is beyond most right thinking natural homosexual persons. He DOES NOT speak for or on behalf of the gay community or any other community. He is, somewhat like yourself a self appointed individual who thinks he speaks for every one. Believe me PT does not speak for the vast majority of anyone who is homosexual!!! Just like your good self he speaks a huge amount of total rubbish. Just as you do not represent the catholic faith, in any real way shape or form, PT does not do so for the ‘gay community’. To quote him on gay rights or events and news is similar to quoting you on catholic issues, complete and utter nonsense .

  16. Well I have just returned from the battlefield on this subject. It is not a case of looking up this fact or that fact there is an over-riding proof. Both the NHS and the American Health authority still ban homosexuals for being blood donors. So why is this whole Community banned and the bans were reinforced in 2013. This tells all. This ban goes back to 1971 with the outbreak of Aids in New York. The Gay Community was asked to show restraint in sexual activities but they ignored this and hundreds of young homosexual men died needlessly. This is simple straight forward fact. Why then should anyone be abus3d for stating it. I found myself the subject of my local newspaper when I stood for UKIP during the council elections. UKIP REFUSES TO DISCIPLINE CANDIDATE WHO INSULTED GAYS was the headline complete with a photograph of notorious me. Well I could have pointed out the facts but what was the point. There is a new fascism in Britain directed not against the Jews but against Catholics and Christians. I know I cannot even ask the questions I have outlined because they must not be heard never mind answered. No Christians persecute Gays., that is the ideology all open minded persons must adopt and there must be no questioning. Forbid me Editor if I say how brave you are to keep publishing the unwelcome truth. Perhaps you will join me in he pages of the pre

    • John,

      You are totally correct about the new fascism in the UK. We must not be bullied into silence, however, so you are to be commended for speaking out and taking the flak in the local paper.

      I am surprised, though, to read your statement about the NHS still refusing to take blood from homosexual donors. I thought that rule had been set aside after lobbying from homosexuals. Are you able to confirm that for us?

  17. Well now, folks, here’s something very interesting indeed, and from the Washington Post of all sources. Prepare to ask yourself why the whole world is turning itself upside down to conform to the wishes of this minority (as we’ve always known them to be, but now the Washington Post says it too …)

    Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population

    Less than 3 percent of the U.S. population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday in the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation.

    The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

    The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1 percent declined to answer, responded “I don’t know the answer” or said they were “something else.”

    The figures offered a slightly smaller assessment of the size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population than other surveys, which have pegged the overall proportion at closer to 3.5 or 4 percent. In particular, the estimate for bisexuals was lower than in some other surveys.

    The inclusion of the sexual-orientation question in an influential survey used to guide government funding and research decisions was viewed as a major victory for the gay community, which has struggled with a dearth of data about its special health needs. Read more

    I’m not sure whether their alleged pleasure at this data being included in the survey is a bluff or what, but it seems odd since the homosexual activists plucked the 10% figure out of the air to give credence to their claims of normality and to get to where they are now in societies across the western world – in charge!

  18. We allow ourselves to become over-obsessed with homosexuals and their opinions. As the reports suggest they are but a tiny percentage of the population. In my general circle of friends, and in the two quite large hobby groupings I mix in, I don’t know of any, although there are, I suspect, one or two at church. Many years ago during NS, we knew vaguely of about 2/3 in a regiment of 600. They were a bit of a joke, but left alone and never, ever, mistreated.

    The trouble is, as they have and demonstrated throughout history, they have a remarkable capacity for self recognition and for the formation of secretive self support groups. That’s fine, but when such groups become active in lobbying to change either the norms of society or the Church, we have a problem. As we have today.

    Then sadly, we have to speak out clearly about the Church’s position.

    But we must never forget those loyal homosexuals, who struggle in good faith to observe their Catholic principles against their unnatural tendency, the pressure of their non-Catholic fellow homosexuals, and the aggression of so many of their fellow Catholics

    • I agree with all except your final words. I cannot imagine any real Catholics showing aggression towards someone who is fighting their temptation to homosexual activity. By definition they are not truly Catholic.

  19. Reports of the death of common sense are apparently premature!

    Today, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the refusal to recognize “same-sex marriages” does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. 🙂 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/human-rights-court-europe-cannot-be-forced-to-redefine-marriage-24798/

    In other words, so called “same-sex marriage” is not a human rights issue, which is just what we’ve been saying all along. (How could it be since it is contra-natural?)

    Perhaps all those MPs who were duped into believing it is a HR issue will now hang their heads in shame and apologize? (Well, there’s no law against optimism – yet!)

    It’s a sad day when the ECHR shows more common sense than a prince of the Church.

  20. I must make a comment in relation to Domchas’ errant remark on the “gift of sexuality”. God does not create someone homosexual. This is illogical and since Faith and Reason go together, it should be quite obvious.

    Why is this illogical? Well, we are all created in the image and likeness of God. Holy Scripture and the Church tell us that homosexual acts are against God’s laws. It does not make sense for God to create a soul, in His divine image and likeness, but create them with an inclination towards a moral evil. It just doesn’t make sense.

    God gives us the gift of Free Will, but it is His desire that we choose to do good. If you believe that homosexuality is a “gift from God” you don’t truly believe in God.

    • Petrus, you are of course quite right!! All humankind is created in the image and likeness of God. Some He created heterosexual, some He created homosexual. Some He created male and some female. Each with individual gifts and talents. Give praise to God for His unique designs!!

      Editor: a bit like saying “some He created murderers, some robbers…” Gerragrip!

      • Domchas,

        If God really did create multiple sexualities and each one being equal, did He create paedophilia and beastiality? Do paedophiles, pederasts and beastophiles please God with their sexual behaviour? Can a newborn baby be born a paedophile, a pederasts or a beastophile?

        To a rational person the questions I’ve asked above are depraved. However, this is the logical conclusion of the myth that God creates different sexualities and sexual behaviours. Remember, there is no conflict between true faith and reason.

        • God creates as He wils, He endows each with certain gifts. He allows that we decide how to use those gifts. Some will use them for evil, sadly. The misuse of these gifts are sinful, we know that. Please refrain from blaming the evils of humankind on those who are homosexual. Heterosexuals misuse their gifts and talents also. The bigotry and homophobia often encountered on CT under the guise of charity to lead souls to Christ is but one of the many examples of such misuse on a blog that ought to know a great deal better. Intelligent self proclaimed practising Catholics lose all charity when faced with anything remotely suggestive of sex, especially homosexuality. It is a trigger for hate and abuse to be used against others who disagree. To disagree is absolutely fine. To justify hatred and abuse using Holy Scripture is the sin which cries out to god for vengeance . Of course you won’t agree, that is to be expected, but you will have to answer and justify such misuse to God Himself on the day of judgement: as you judge so shall you be judged.

          • “God creates as He wils, (sic)”

            No, he creates us in His divine image and likeness.

            “He endows each with certain gifts. He allows that we decide how to use those gifts”

            Yes, but He WANTS us to do good.

            ” The misuse of these gifts are sinful, we know that. Please refrain from blaming the evils of humankind on those who are homosexual. ”

            Nowhere have I blamed any evil on homosexuals.

            “The bigotry and homophobia often encountered on CT under the guise of charity to lead souls to Christ is but one of the many examples of such misuse on a blog that ought to know a great deal better.”

            Please quote examples of hatred and bigotry…..

            ” Intelligent self proclaimed practising Catholics lose all charity when faced with anything remotely suggestive of sex, especially homosexuality.”

            Sorry, I have no idea what you are babbling on about here.

            “To justify hatred and abuse using Holy Scripture is the sin which cries out to god for vengeance ”

            I don’t understand the context for this statement. There has been no hatred or abuse on this blog.

            ” Of course you won’t agree”

            Got it in one!

            ” but you will have to answer and justify such misuse to God Himself on the day of judgement: as you judge so shall you be judged.”

            Incoherent!

          • Domchas

            I take it you are a homosexual because as pointed out on this blog often, only homosexuals use the word “homophobia” especially since it’s obvious that it cannot be true to defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality being disordered. We don’t accuse people of having a “phobia” or being full of hate for defending other teachings. I have seen cohabitation condemned on this site but nobody said that showed the bloggers hate cohabitees.

            As I say, it’s only homosexuals who speak like that so I take it you are one of them?

              • I didn’t say what I believed, but I asked you a question. The fact that you didn’t answer it, does actually tell me what I wanted to know. As editor has said here many times, ask anybody that question if they’re not homosexual and they will instantly deny it, it is such a serious sin. It’s actually obvious from your posts anyway.

                • Michaela, I have never denied or affirmed my sexuality. You as you have implied have decided that you already know rightly or wrongly. Tell me, whatever you have decided about me, what right do you have to ask anyone about their sexuality. Why are you so interested in such a personal matter. I will assume that you would be quite insulted if I asked if you were a lesbian. I dont want to know and I am not assuming. It is a question which I dont have the right or the desire to ask you directly. Why do you think you have the right to ask such an intimate question of anyone??? do you have a unhealthy interest in others sexuality which needs some kind of counselling or are you just a pervert!!!!!!

                  • Domchas,

                    I don’t think it’s an insulting question at all, in this day and age, when people speak openly about being homosexual – it’s gone from being a criminal offence to being just about mandatory. It’s my own view that, since you are obviously highly sympathetic to the “gay rights” cause (to put it mildly) it seems likely that you are one of their number, especially now, in the face of your refusal to answer the (perfectly legitimate) question posed by Michaela.

                    I don’t know if Michaela would be insulted if you asked her the same question, I doubt it, but I certainly wouldn’t. In fact, I had a daft telephone call from one of our enemies at the time of our expose of homosexuality within the Church in Scotland some years ago, not simply asking me the question but telling me that there was a rumour around that I was, in fact, in such a relationship. I remember laughing into the phone and immediately said that this was not true but thanks for letting me know. I didn’t launch into a tirade demanding to know who made such a claim because I knew perfectly well that no such claim could possibly have been made, it was just some numpty trying to annoy me, perhaps worry me, when – sadly for them – all they succeeded in doing was to amuse me, big time!

                    So, I’ve already answered the question there about myself, but ask again if you wish. The answer is NOT “how dare you ask this…” but “no, Domchas, I’m not.”

                    Since your natural reaction is to insult the questioner, challenge her motives, but make no denial, I think readers will make up their own minds about your own “sexuality”.

                    On another subject, I decided to buy a ticket for a conference on re-incarnation. Cost £180 and I dithered a bit before purchasing. In the end I thought, “What the heck – you only live once” 😀

                    • Editor, why are you getting ‘hot under the collar’ on the subject of homosexuality? I have answered the question. You and those who have asked don’t want to accept it because it’s not the answer you want to hear. If you have already decided, which you indicate you have why ask the question in the first place! It’s pointless arguing with those who have already decided they know the answer

                      Editor: you have, indeed, answered the question. I think I have indicated that already, more than once. From all your submissions on the subject on this blog, it would appear clear that you are homosexual. You have not denied that. You have, thus, given us the answer. NOT, I hasten to add, the answer we would have liked. Would have preferred “no, I’m not homosexual”. The fact that you refuse to say that does, as I’ve already said, answer the question.

              • Petrus,

                I agree, and it’s noticeable that homosexuals jump to defend homosexuality and attack anyone who criticises it but they don’t defend any other teachings. They always criticise Catholic Truth and the bloggers when it’s other topics, but don’t say anything positive about the teachings, then all guns blazing when it’s homosexuality being discussed.

                  • Editor,

                    Whilst these last two comments made me smile, I don’t think it was an own goal. I don’t get hot under the collar about homosexuality. I think it’s wrong because Scripture and Tradition (not to mention Reason) tell me it is wrong – just like murder, stealing, adultery etc.

                    However, it has made me chuckle 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: