| LGBT ludicrousness: Marxism with a more colourful flag |
California is to pass a law requiring 'gay rights and history' to be taught in schools. In another story, a gay couple have gone to the press to complain about their 'outrage' having been asked to leave the John Snow pub in London after a bar room snog. In another, children as young as 12 are to be given 'puberty blockers' if they feel like they are a different gender and may require a sex change.
As it happens, I met a straight couple last year who were evicted from a gay bar for having a snog on the dancefloor. They didn't go to the press about it, even though they felt personally injured that their love wasn't celebrated, tolerated or accepted in Brighton's Revenge bar. Perhaps someone could make the suggestion that the affronted gay couple take their public displays of affection to a bar where their love is promoted, like, er, a gay bar, instead of putting more traditionally minded land ladies in an awkward situation. It's a nice pub, the John Snow, if I recall.
Regarding the other two stories. Aside from the surreal directions that the West is taking, isn't it a little sinister that the LGBT lobby is so interested in targeting, indoctrinating and grooming the young? Let's face it, the gay 'community' has to make new 'recruits' because, being a proportionally small percentage of the populations of the World, as well as not being able to actually breed, the 'community' relies on converts.
The NHS research project to interfere with the biological clock of youngsters is horrifying. It is worth noting that...
'To take part, they will have to meet strict eligibility criteria including having full support from their parents, the existence of long-standing gender identity issues, an ability by the child to give formal consent and an absence of other mental health problems.'
Gosh. Isn't that just so generous of the NHS to actually obtain the full support, consent and knowledge of parents before such a bizarre 'Brave New World' of medical procedures are enacted upon teenies with growing pains? Of course, that is the case...at the start. How long before getting a 'window' through puberty blockers to be followed by routine genital mutiliation is as easy for a teenager in 5 years time as it is for a teenager now to obtain abortiofacients and surgical abortions without any consent from their parents, as part of a comprehensive 'confidential service' provided by the State with the help of the Brook Advisory Service?
Wikipedia has an LBGT history timeline which you can read here. Gosh. Fascinating stuff. Well, that's gay history well and truly covered. No doubt the same education policy will eventually be promoted here. Perhaps LGBT studies will eventually be like RE, where children just become less and less interested in it over time because it is being taught in school and school is boring. RE is, incidently, on its way out of schools, so there will be a time slot rather conveniently created for 'LGBT studies' in the curriculum when David Cameron and Nick Clegg give Stonewall yet more gratification.
In fairness to the gay couple, it would perhaps have been more charitable if the offended landlady had simply asked if they could please not do that in her pub, but sympathy ebbs away when you discover that a gay "kiss-in" is now taking place in 'outraged' protest at the landlady's actions, deliberately doing exactly the very thing she didn't like, in her pub. How terribly vulgar, rude and childish. The gay community are kind of evangelical, aren't they?
54 comments:
Sorry, but not everything has to be said, especially if it's crude.
What an abysmally intolerant and sniping article. You do shame to the quote from St Francis. 100 years ago you’d probably have written in a similar vein against black people Jewish people and dare I say Roman Catholics in this country. 1000 years ago you’d probably be saying the same thing about lepers and ‘do gooder’ children of the rich who insult their parents in order to follow Christ.
Gay rights and history being taught is just a case of teaching minority rights, and presumably with the purpose of ending some of the vicious homophobia that plagues schools and blights the lives of many men: homophobia is of course a problem for men and women per se and ought to be challenged.
The issue of the kiss is two-fold. Being told that a “gay” kiss is obscene in a central London pub, and being asked to leave, seems unreasonable. If this were a quaint pub in Tunbridge Wells I might sympathize, but Soho? As for Revenge, we might question why such a straight couple would choose to spend their evening in Brighton’s most famous gay bar. One reason we might venture why gay venues tend not to tolerate heterosexual displays of affection is because often gay men and women will contend that they have experienced homophobia with “straight couples” in gay venues. This is altogether a difficult area and I don't take a particular side.
The accusation that the gay community relies upon “targeting, indoctrinating, and grooming” the young is a really, really uncharitable and unsubstantiated claim. For non-Catholics reading this blog it gives a poor witness; even the single quotation marks around “Community” suggests a sneering contempt. If there’s an argument to be made we should make it, but we can do better than this.
God bless Laurence.
Umblepie
Have amended.
http://contemplativecatholicuk.blogspot.com/
I'd urge readers to look at Contemplative Catholic's blog to see where the writer is coming from...and its not just Liverpool.
One in twenty, five percent.
95 in every 100 people in the population are heterosexual.
Of these 95 a minute number are Catholics.
The keyboard time on this subject is out of all proportion.
Please God the assessment of the value of blogging taking place soon will point to the obsessive return to certain subjects as something to be avoided.
The colorful local culture of Brighton UK or simlar enclaves in the US are interesting abberations but not of real interest to the average men and women in the pews.
Apart from this, "The Bones" is often worth coming back to.
Laurence,
I had a look at 'Comtemptable Cafolick's' website - revolting!
He is neither contemplative nor Catholic. He is an opinionated bore whose theological ignorance is only matched by his arogance. Liverpool Archdiocese (in which I have the misfortune to be living)is replete with such characters - no doubt he will soon be ordained deacon (Liverpool has deacons than people in the pews).
Your blog is always worth reading, however. Keep it up!
A fascinating post, Laurence. Quite barking, as you say.
Having looked at Contemplative Catholic's blog, I am led to suggest that he become an Episcopalian; I am sure he would be far happier in that milieu.
As to the snogging, both hetero and homo, I am old enough to remember when such Public Displays of Affection (PDA for short) were verboten for the simple reason that they were considered to be in poor taste. PDA was commonly greeted laughingly with the admonition to "get a room." And that was usually sufficient to to restrain the abashed couple from future displays, at least for the time being.....
The proposed California legislation is most egregious for two reasons. First, as Republican state Senator Doug La Malfa who opposed the bill said, "I'm deeply troubled kids would have to contemplate at a very, very early age, when many of us are teaching abstinence ... what is sexuality." And second, it will be seen to endorse a lifestyle which even LGBTs acknowledge is more fraught with severely detrimental health consequences than a heterosexual or abstinent lifestyle [ per none other than the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association's "Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider, "http://www.glma.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Top%20Ten%20Gay%20Men.pdf ] We have proposals to tax obesity, and yet we would promote an equally unhealthy lifestyle. Barking, as you said!
I'm not too sorry that RE is on the way out in state schools, as it is generally taught in a way that promotes atheism; many of the teachers are atheist humanities teachers doing it as a timetable filler(at KS3); the RC element is taught abominably and incorrectly; and the only part of the syllabus to be taught absolutely uncritically and with kid gloves is Islam. I know this from personal experience.
On the other issue, I often meet up with friends of both sexes, and varying sexuality, in west-end pubs, and we do the whole middle-class mwah mwah thing on both cheeks, without being summarily ejected. Refraining from massaging each others tonsils is something most people over the age of 16 of any sexual orientation do - simply because they have good manners and know how to conduct themselves in public.
Your words are most charitable Aaron with respect to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and Transgendered brothers and sisters. As you rightly say, it does not do the Roman Church as favours, especially in light of the ever present sexual abuse scandal that continues to rock the very foundations of Roman Catholicism.
To single out innocent gender dysphoric children to rant about in a blog of all things is utterly shameful,you obviously know nothing of their desparate plight to live lives free from vicious taunts and outrageous criticism such as this.
Maybe you could use this Holy Week to relect on the words, "there but for the grace of God go I." I wish you a holy and happy Triduum.
Serious omission, Laurence. You left out the assisted suicide video produced for schools.
We are, it seems, reduced to the sum of our sexual parts, to be helped on our way when they are no longer functioning.
Only the human race could devise such an all-encompassing programme of self-extinction.
What on earth is the United Ecumenical Catholic Church? Should we call you 'Mother'? You appear to be dressed up like a priest.
Proof, if it was needed, that there are some Protestant denominations teeming with cross dressers.
RE: Rev Sr Maria Renate
Lo and behold, out of the indifferentist miasma comes some mountebank claiming to be 'Reverend' and 'Sr' when in fact she is neither. This charlatan is heavily plugged by our old syncretist chum 'Contemplative Catholic' on his awful blog.
They deserve each other!
Laurence.
Some of us are doing our best to get you to Rome.
The inclusion of Maria Renate's comment needed a more nuanced response.
You are more than capable of reasoned debate. Sarcasm just kills the subject prematurely.
I am Mark, creator of the neologism "Technotrad".
That last comment ("...teeming with cross-dressers") has probably wrecked everything.
I can say no more.
I notice that Sr Maria Renate describes herself as an Ecumenical Catholic Woman Priest of the United Ecumenical Catholic Church. So not a Catholic, then. But I wonder why she is so critical of clerical abuse within the “Roman Church” when its says on her website that “no-one is ever excluded from His House” and there’s no mention of any requirement to be repentant.
As for the other criticisms of your article, Laurence, they illustrate that modern notion that not only must you show approval for living a homosexual lifestyle but you must not in anyway whatsoever offer any kind of criticism of anything which such people might do or say. And that also applies to anybody who promotes their way of life.
I've never heard of the UECC either, Laurence, but they are obviously (a)not Catholic and (b) mad as a box of frogs.
I find it increasingly unsettling that the "LGBT" lobby are no longer content with merely being tolerated but now demand actual approval of everything thet are and do.
Re: "Soup Runs" piece. BBC SUNDAY (today).
First:
I have to agree with Mark TechnoTrad.
We are all entitled to constructive criticism in support of our firmly held beliefs but the approach matters . Sarcasm and uniformed comment in unnecessary.
There is a chance that the Soup Run situation in Brighton might be covered by the BBC, a piece to which Laurence could have made a valuable contribution.
I doubt that will happen now.
I have had a look at Contemplative Catholic Blog and read a few posts. I shan't be returning though.
Mystified how he could have written 'the lyricism of the present translation and its flowing prayerful character,' but perhaps he is in a different country? There must be other Liverpools perhaps? He seems to like the word 'inclusive' which rather put me off as well. Can't stand that modern jargon word! As a woman I have never felt excluded in the Church and definitely never thought that women should be able to become Priests. We all have our individual roles to play.
Dear 'Mark'
I am God, true creator of the neologism "Technotrad".
That last comment ("...teeming with cross-dressers") has probably wrecked nothing.
I can say no less.
I have also had a look at the blog of the 'Rev Sr' - relieved to see that she has no comments on her posts apart from one saying 'well done' from the Contemplative Catholic. And lots of jargon words used here too! They do seem confused up in Liverpool. Am curious to know who 'ordained' this lady.
Georgem seems to read the same blogs as myself! - pleased to tell him that pictures have returned to my parish blog on my computer. It shut itself down (without my permission)then when it started up again all was well. I was afraid to do anything in case I lost the lot but grateful for his tips.
Having had a peek at the 'Official website of the Theologically-Challenged' (aka Contemptible Cafolick)I realise that the satire of the wonderful Francis Wagstaff (Mar Francis II) is not really satire at all!
Mad as a badger!
As to "Who ordained this lady" - I did, and I am proud of that fact.
This whole revolting string of diatribe does nothing but underline the bigotry of those who have arrogated to themselves the word "catholic". It does not mean, and has never meant exclusively those who bow to Rome.
there are many hundreds of thousands of good catholic people across the globe who find the distasteful hate rants of romans such as those on this blog the very reason why they want nothing to do with a church that excludes, condemns (and now it seems mocks and preaches hatred towards) those who are different in any way.
Reflect during this Holy Week on the sufferings of Christ, who came to call all mankind into the love of God and to die for all, not just Roman Catholics.
+Terry
Presiding Bishop
United Ecumenical Catholic Church
If only there were a charitable way of saying this...
You are no Bishop and the lady is no Priest.
It is not arrogant to say that Ordination is something conferred by the Successors of the Apostles chosen by the Lord. It it more arrogant to assume to oneself those titles that can only be given by Divine decree, with the authority of Almighty God, given to those who confer the Sacraments.
You are no Bishop. She is no Priest. You are only dressing up.
And by the way, the only people excluded from the Catholic Church are those who exclude themselves.
In that, Laurence, you are mistaken my orders were conferred by four truly catholic bishops, three of whom trace their lineage, unquestionably, to Paul VI, Bishop of Rome.
Rome may say I am irregular - their terminology - but they would indeed support the validity of my consecration without hesitation.
If you wish to keep your mind closed that is up to you, but please, not your heart as well - allow God the right to call those he wishes to call not just those that men wish to allow him to.
+Terry
And by the way yourself - I only referred to those excluded from the ROMAN Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church, none are excluded from that except those who - as you say - wish to be excluded.
+Terry
I see. What were the names of these four Catholic Bishops?
Archbishop Emanuel Millingo of Kampala Uganda (Consecrated by Paul VI) in 2001 Consecrated Timothy Paul Baymon and David BillingsIII. These in turn Consecrated Bruce John Simpson and the three, along with Archbishop John Paul James
consecrated me in September 2001.
These are historically verifiable facts.
I am off to take this to prayer - I suggest others do the same.
The situation which you describe is more frightful, if it is true, since having been ordained validly, you have severed yourself from the vine, unless, that is, your 'church' is in full communion with the Successor of St Peter, as is, for example, the Ukranian Catholic Church.
The declaration of the Holy See ("By this public act, both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordinands have incurred the latae sententiae excommunication that is indicated in Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law") instead indicated that, since Milingo's action was a public act, anyone could see that he had incurred automatic excommunication, with the equally automatic consequences indicated in canon 1331 §1. It also stated that "the Church does not recognize and does not intend in the future to recognize these ordinations or any ordinations derived from them, and she holds that the canonical state of the four alleged bishops is the same as it was prior to the ordination".
That sounds pretty unequivocal.
I think that means that you are dressing up.
No, it means only that YOU, Laurence, accept man's ability to limit God's munificence.
Thirty four years ago today I celebrated mass as a young priest (roman I have to add!)in the Church of Dominus Flevit on the Mount of Olives.
I now know why Jesus wept!
I shall comment no more here, except to refer to Luke 9, 49-50 - I wish God's abundant blessing to all, and may His light reach the darkened heart and soul that is closed to love.
Question: Why do people hostile to the Catholic Church read Catholic blogs?
"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."
Not my words, but those of Our Saviour. I'm sure you don't need the biblical citation for those words, said by Our Blessed Lord to St Peter, the Successor of whom is Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning.
Out of fraternal LOVE, I urge you sincerely to repent of your schismatic activity, you who were called to be in God's One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and be reconciled to Christ and His Bride, the Church.
To answer a question with another - Why do people who do not understand the word catholic use it so freely? I presume the majority of you on this blog are Roman Catholics and I respect your right to follow that branch of the one CATHOLIC path.Can you not respect others' right to choose to follow the path God has set before them?
I came to this blog in response to an attack on two hard working ministers of our small section of the Lord's vineyard, I do not like such public lack of charity and would not let it pass unchallenged.
This appears, sadly, to be a bigoted blog not a catholic one; so I take my leave and shall pray for you all at Mass this evening - call that Mass a "sham" if you will, God knows my heart and my priestly status - you do not and cannot due to your own hearts being closed.
As you enjoy your great ceremonies this week, with all their pomp and splendour, remember that the church you belong to started out just like the UECC - gathered in the homes of believers to share in the awesome love of God and in fear of persecution by the establishment. - Which of those is your role believer or persecutor?
Exits, to the sound of dust being shaken from sandals.
It is neither licit nor proper for a 'Bishop' to wear sandals to 'Mass'.
If you're going to dress up, dress properly!
The Roman Catholic Church is not a branch of but IS the One True Church. I remember many years ago being told by someone that the Catholic Church is the only church which can trace itself right back to Christ. It set me thinking. I was not Catholic at the time but realised later that it is indeed the only Church which goes back to Christ. 'Thou art Peter....'
Whatever the faults of some members of the Church over the years we must stay with her and obey her precepts to the best of our ability.
I am so relieved to see that not all intolerance and theological ignorance is contained within the boundaries of the United States. Like it or not, +Terry is in valid Apostolic Succession and those who he ordains are valid as well. May I suggest you read Rome's view of the Old Catholic Church? (Cannon law) You may limit who and what God wills, but I say to you, you do not even begin to understand the mind of God let alone have the audacity to pass judgment on His will.
May the blessings + of Easter be upon you all!
+Bruce John Simpson
Principle Consecrator of
+Terry
John...
'Simpson was ordained a priest in 1996 after completing theological studies and was awarded an STL by his ordaining church, the REFORMED CATHOLIC CHURCH. Simpson was then called to serve as a Catholic bishop and was consecrated on January 30, 1999. Simpson currently is the Archbishop Protector of the Benedictine Order of St. John the Beloved, the oldest Old Catholic Benedictine Order in the United States and the parishes under his protection and supervision. Archbishop Simpson wrote THE GAY FACE OF GOD and is a published author and has appeared on radio and television numerous times regarding the church and the LGBT community. Bruce and his partner Jack have been together for 30 years in March of 2005.'
The ordinations are not valid when Rome does not recognise them. Who ordained you? The excommunicated and laicised Archbishop Milingo?! I hope to God for your sake that you are not ordained because of your scandalous ministry.
'You may limit who and what God wills, but I say to you, you do not even begin to understand the mind of God let alone have the audacity to pass judgment on His will.'
And you, Bruce, do you really believe you know what God wills? I'll admit I can't even make up my mind what to do during the day, but do you know the mind of God?!
It was His will, was it, that led you into schism and emnity with the Church, the Bride of Christ?! That was God's will, was it?! Your 'Reformed Catholic Church', that is the fruit of Christ's torturous Death upon the Cross, of His Resurrection and His building the Church upon the Apostles? Schism is God's will?!
I doubt that very much. I also doubt very much that a Bishop writing about the 'Gay Face of God' is doing God's will either. I don't know how many Souls you are leading into error, falsehood and perdition, but I pray for your sake and for theirs that their number is few.
Laurence,
I thought that you had decided that any comments hostile to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would not be published on your website anymore?
I had, but schismatic 'Bishops', I thought, was something of a turn up and they were, at least, polite.
I think I may have gone a little OTT.
I think someone may be playing a leedle joke.
They can-not be serious.
"...shake the dust from your sandals".
Ref: Matthew 10:14
That's the same as putting someone on your ignore list.
I have only one question before comments on this issue dry up...
That guy on the photo is a straight model. Can anyone get me his email address. I'm smitten.
Laurence,
Crikey! When I described this lot as "mad as box of frogs" I was doing them a disservice.
For "mad as a box of frogs" read "barmy as a bus-load of badgers".
Terry - the very fact that you describe the liturgies of Holy Week as "your great ceremonies this week, with all their pomp and splendour" shows just how lttle you know and understand the real Catholic faith.
LGBT? Sounds like a sandwich - what's in it?
I discovered that our local hospital ( a major teaching hospital)had produced a draft Equalities Scheme for the NHS Trust which was intended to be fully comprehensive. But there wasn't a single mention of autism - in fact there wasn't a single mention of children! However, there was quite a bit of specific content devoted to trangender issues and to gay issues.
After I had alerted them that they had forgotten children and autism they hastily put in a few mentions basically to say they would be looking into it, but there is still nothing specific about autism or children in the final document which was approved by the Trust Board.
"YOU, Laurence, accept man's ability to limit God's munificence."
No, Terry, it was you who asserted that "Rome … would indeed support the validity of my consecration without hesitation."
Laurence then quoted the very specific edict of Rome which shows unequivocally that Rome does, and will do, nothing of the sort. It's no use you adducing Rome in support of your claim if you then rubbish Rome's right to judge in such matters when the judgement goes against you.
The problem here is not "man … limit[ing] God’s munificence" but rather man, or certain specific men, arrogating to themselves graces and spiritual powers to which they have no proper claim.
Where I live (the English south coast), we are sadly overrun with play-church types such as yourself and your friend Bruce, who are fond of querulously asserting "But Rome recognises my orders!" Really? Then presumably you have a letter from the relevant Roman dicastery to that effect. If not, then in maintaining that pretence you are deluding yourselves, and have made yourselves a stumbling-block to Christ's flock.
Post a Comment