Thursday, June 17, 2021


 “We respect the dignity of every human being.” Oh really? What about the unborn? When the sin of pride in the form of an ideology singles out some for respecting their human dignity but denies it to the most innocent. 


Anonymous said...

"Pride" as it is being redefined for us (just like the word "gay" was) seems to indicate affirming, perhaps even celebrating one's sexual attractions, even to the point of boasting.

I'll leave it to the good Father to deal with the aspect of pride as a sin.

As a heterosexual male, I have, at times in my life, been so madly attracted to some females that my body physically responded, regardless of what I said or did. I only say this, because IT IS NOT SOMETHING I AM PROUD OF. In fact, I often went to great pains to conceal certain attractions. I believe this preserved my dignity far more than mouthing off to anyone who would listen about how heterosexual I am or having a parade celebrating my attraction to women. I never wanted a bumper sticker to inform strangers about my attractions.

What in heaven's name has happened to us?

Tom Marcus said...

The display of the rainbow flag is perceived as virtue signaling.

How clueless we are! It is actually a form of vice singaling.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The LGBTQ+++++ ideology is as amoral as it gets. There is no defining morality for this ideological group except some vague definition of love and self-fulfillment (the deadly sin of pride of course).
Of course every Catholic parish worthy of the name invites all sinners and saints to attend Mass, even non Catholics, non baptized. Why? For the salvation of their souls in pray of well being and salvation.

The notorious Fr. James Martin, the mirror image of Fr. Altman, but imbued with the same ideologies but in the opposite spectrum, touts "pride" month as love. He needs to read Pope Benedict's marvelous encyclical on love. For this poor Jesuit who had no superior to straighten him out, unlike Fr. Altman's superior, the bishop, needs rehab very badly.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. In heaven there are only saints and no sinners and certainly no sinning.

Anonymous said...

I think some of the PRIDE being expressed and, yes, celebrated, by our LGBTQ Brothers and Sisters is the fact that, despite centuries of being hunted like animals, persecuted like criminals, shunned like Biblical lepers, falsely accused like Cardinal Pell, taunted, bullied, beaten up by law enforcement officers, and disowned by their families, they have managed to survive, to thrive, and to be contributing members to a society that has treated them so unchartiably.

That's worth recognizing, even if you don't care to celebrate it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Let me see, the cancel culture would do the same to those who disagree with them, like promoting Catholic sexual morality and then being arrested for hate speech, thrown into prison and the like. The LGBTQ++++ ideology is amoral. Please address that. The legal and immoral aspects of what happens to people when they are on the other side of things is another question and yes is related to hating the sinner as well as the sin.

You don't need to celebrate Pride month to celebrate loving sinners and hating the sin unless you think sin is what defines us in the eyes of God and not redemption and being made a new Creation as God intended before the fall of Adam and Eve.

So which is it? Does your sin define you or God's redeeming Grace?

Anonymous said...

The "Cancel Culture"...

Are you talking about the attempts by the right-wing "Christians" to cancel the Harry Potter Series, or Dungeons and Dragons, or Colin Kaepernick, of whom the right-wing demi-god Donald J. Trump, a former US government employee, said, "they should throw that son of a bitch off the field right now."?

Your "Cancel Culture" hypocrisy is showing.

You can worry about being thrown into prison, I can't waste my time.

Do your homework. Read again what I said some of our Brothers and Sisters, YOUR Brothers and Sisters, in the LGBTQ community might be celebrating, and get back to us.

Tom Marcus said...

PRIDE month?

Yeesh! I'm a Catholic. I celebrate June as Sacred Heart month.

Pierre said...

And the Biden administration is all into this insidious ideology. Catholic? LOL

Self-Important Social Critic said...

There was a psychologist, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who lived through a hurricane of public rebuke, indignation and censoring in the pre-cancel days, because he treated homosexuality as a disorder.

However, until 1973, the bible of diagnosis for psychiatrists, the DSM II, listed homosexuality as a disorder (keep in mind, the Catechism recognizes it as a disorder as well). The change in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) occurred largely because of intense political pressure and even threats made at the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association. This can be verified in several place, including here:

I don't remember everything Dr. Nicolosi said about homosexuality, but I DO remember that, in men, at least, he believed it came from a father wound. Boys who grow up without fathers or have emotionally distant fathers tend to sublimate their desire for male approval and acceptance, which manifests itself in an attraction to males. Is this scientific? I don't purport to know. However, I CAN say, with confidence that, having known many homosexual men in my lifetime, most of them came from fatherless childhoods or, in two cases I especially remember, fathers who were so emotionally distant that they might as well have been gone.

Why do I bring this up?
In my lifetime divorce rates have more than tripled. Most marriages today end in divorce and it has been so for many years. In the majority of divorces, the children end up with the mother and, anyone with a pulse can see that our society is falling apart from an absence of fathering (by "fathering" I do not mean men committing procreation. I mean RAISING sons).

Now, that said, I have seen some boys, who have emotionally available fathers, who seem to show homosexual characteristics at a very early age--although it isn't often.

So is homosexuality a sin? I still believe practicing it is. Being an alcoholic isn't a sin, but it is a disordered appetite and giving in to it is a sin.

Is homosexuality nature or nurture? It really makes no difference. WE ARE ALL BROKEN AND WE ALL HAVE WEAKNESSES THAT WE MUST STRUGGLE WITH. God loves us all. But God's love is not a "do whatever you feel like" license.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

@9:20, again, and this shows who you are, you can't answer the question about what they are celebrating. It is one thing to celebrate living life as one pleases within the parameters of both civil and religious law and quite another to celebrate one's life as if there are no civil or religious consequences in this life or the life to come.

So I ask you, are those celebrating Pride month in favor of canceling the Catholic Church over her gender teachings, which by the way, are revealed by God and even to criminalize those who speak the truth about gender and Holy Matrimony and what constitutes sins against chastity and modesty? If so, that is hypocrisy.

And I have yet to hear you answer anything about the amorality of those in the LGBTQ++++ ideological community and what they wish to celebrate in the most public way to include nudity and outrageous costumes of hyper sexualization best suited to the now decriminalized bedroom for any perverted acts they wish to accomplish in the privacy of such quarters?

Anonymous said...

Blog Owner - I very clearly stated what your Bothers and Sisters in the LGBTQ community may be celebrating in my 8:39 post.

So, I ask you, why did you not do your homework as you were instructed in my 9:20 post?

And the next time you attend a motorcycle rally in Sturgis or some other location, note the grotesque displays of public nudity, licentiousness, and hypersexualization on display in the heterosexual community... Or the next time you attend or, rather, ahem, see news reports of heterosexual Spring Breakers "partying" on the beaches, note the same behavior.

You can delve a little deeper here: "Same Same but Different: A Clinical Characterization
of Men with Hypersexual Disorder in the Sex@Brain Study" in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, 219, 8, 157.

Social Pariah said...

I dislike the cancel culture practice as much as anyone, but I think we need to examine the terminology.

Americans have always had the option of boycotting when we believe a company or person acts in a way we don't approve of, or represents values that we repudiate. But is forbidding your children to be influenced by something you don't like "cancelling"? Maybe, maybe not. O.J. Simpson is probably not too popular with some segments of society after all the controversy he has been through. Has he been cancelled? Or is he just being shunned?

I will admit, I am no fan of someone like Joy Reid. However, if I owned a restaurant, I would serve her and be polite. I might encourage people not to watch her show or buy her books or even write NBC to complain about her, but she IS a human being. When Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service in a restaurant, I think that was a bit over-the-top. Merely disagreeing with someone's political opinions should not be a basis for some sanctimonious display of slamming a door in someone's face. If we love the sinner and hate the sin, we should probably try to practice common courtesy.

I still remember a story about Rush Limbaugh being in a restaurant where Bill Clinton was dining. Bill Clinton approached Limbaugh in a courteous friendly manner and Limbaugh reciprocated. TWO MEN WHO OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT FOND OF EACH OTHER AND CRITICIZED THE OTHER PUBLICLY. Or Chief Justice Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They couldn't have been more opposite--yet they never ditched their humanity and remained friends even though they almost never agreed on any legal opinions.

I think we have a right to boycott. In extreme cases, we might even have a case for shunning. But cancelling? I can't bring myself to do it.

Anonymous said...

I once lived in a city that had an annual Gay Pride Parade. Through a bizarre, unpredictable set of circumstances, I found myself about two blocks away from the parade zone one year. I walked closer and observed the parade for about 20 minutes.

It was sad.

The "floats" were not really floats like in other parades that represented achievements or civic advancement. There were scores of different "special groups" who indulged in simulating sex acts or doing uninhibited dances that they seemed to think was "arousing" or "sexy".

It was sad.

The mayor, police chief and several city council members were there to "show their solidarity" (which likely meant that their advisors told them there would be a price to pay if they didn't show up). They led the parade from the front.

Again, it was sad.

There is nothing "gay" about the whole LGBT enterprise. If these people were really at peace with themselves and with God, they wouldn't need to make a public display of themselves in such a crude, pushy manner. It's just plain sad.

rcg said...

Sexually disordered people were treat like lepers. Humanity has advanced in understanding of disorders but they are still disorders and celebrating them is foolish.

Anonymous said...

Some clarification: The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina "broke up" maybe a decade ago over sexuality issues, so that Port Royal Church is probably part of the "stay" crowd (staying with the US Episcopal Church) while a lot of parishes in the old diocese joined some sort of Anglican offshoot under Bishop Mark Lawrence. The old Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina covered basically the Low Country of that state, below Columbia (the upper part of South Carolina is in the appropriately named "Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina). Low-country Episcopalians have had more of a "Low-Church", evangelical tradition, at least somewhat conservative on social issues but not very liturgical (i,e., not observing the Eucharist every Sunday or the wearing of eucharistic vestments).

As Catholic, well yes, we should respect the dignity of individuals, but do we really need to brag about it or single-out any groups? I have never been to a Catholic parish where the celebrant has said "if you are gay, then you better leave the sanctuary right now!"

I guess the Episcopal Church has never bothered to ask if there is any correlation between the denomination's left-wing turn over the last 50 years and the massive loss of membership? Back around 2000, their bishops embraced a goal of 4 million members by about 2020---care to guess how far off they were when 2020 came? Well, about 60 percent below!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Heterodox at 10:19 AM, please do you homework on Catholic teaching and what Pope Francis has said about being colonized by various ideologies today. In addition,please read the point of my post meaning that the Episcopal Church for which the ad was placed "respects the dignity of every human being" while using the gay colors of their ideological movement. My point wasn't that they respected gays, which we know they do and their ideologies as well, but that they are pro-choice and thus negate their premise "respects the dignity of every human being." In your eagerness to thwart the point of the post and your disordered desire to promote gay ideology diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. Shame!

Anonymous said...

Blog Owner - Now you're getting hysterical. Just ask Monica.

You can't make LGBTQ "Pride" what you want it to be. And not being an Episcopalian, you cen't tell the Episcopalians what they can or can't put on their signboards.

I pointed out the tragic history of the dis-respect shown to LGBTQ people through the centuries. Where was the outrage when people, for being LGBT or Q, were ostracized, humiliated, castrated, imprisoned, tortured, and/or disowned by "Christians" who hear or read regularly Scriptural passages about the dignity of all human beings.

Get your homework done - there will be a test tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

I normally don't get personal, but this anonymous, "Heterodox" as you call him isn't worth dealing with father. He won't practice the minimal courtesy to address you as "Father", but instead as "Blog Owner" and he is so full of himself, he demands that you do as he "instructs"!

You don't need this Father. Cancel him? Not worth the bother. Ignore him? You have my support. The foolishness of whiners is all the more apparent when they practice to an empty room.

Tom Marcus said...


Good luck with that Father. We've raised 3 generations of children now incapable of feeling shame.

We were afraid we might hurt their itty-bitty feewings.

The result? Just watch the news.

Tom Makin said...

Amen Fr McDonald...AMEN!!The hypocrisy and "convenient" leaving out of the unborn in self-serving statements like this makes the entity offering the statement completely lacking in credibility. If St Mark's clarified (which I sincerely doubt they would) and said this includes the unborn then YAY! That said, I see these non-Catholic denominations constantly virtue signaling on this particular issue and have to laugh out loud. It's kind of "Black Lives Matter"....but not necessarily unborn black lives. Zero credibility on the issue of "life".

Anonymous said...

The Social Justice folk and that church forget the pupose of the church is union with God, and such union is IMPOSSIBLE when living in defiance of direct wishes of the supposed beloved.


Except, nobody there can do that, so they do not say that, and it is a total failure as a church. Along with the majority of others.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

@12:43, shame! Please give us the sources for the statistics you quote and the number so tragically tested as well as the number guilty of these crimes against homosexuals. As you are doing this homework, please look up the statistics of the # of children murdered by abortion just in the USA since 1973. As well please look up the Church’s consistent life ethic and teachings on sin, fornication and the various philias that gay pride encourages and makes into idols.

Social Pariah said...

Dear Obnoxiousbot:

Father isn't telling anyone what they can put in their bulletin. Such an accusation attempts to re-direct the discussion (actually, I doubt you ever discuss anything, so I'll use a word that befits your personality: argument).

Father McDonald is simply calling out the hypocrisy of the Church's stand.

As regards the "sins" of all of our terrible, mean, intolerant, hate-filled ancestors who mercilessly persecuted and tortured those with SSA...STRAW MAN. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is objectively disordered (just like overeating, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, pornography addiction and every other human weakness) and actively giving in to the temptations of such a disorder or praising and telling everyone how wonderful they are for that disorder is never excusable and does no one any favors.

Homosexuality, like pornography and every other sexual deviancy, is a terrible sin because it takes the most sacred capacity we have as humans--the capacity to reproduce, bear children and raise families--and distorts it for selfish, personal pleasure--and calling it "love" doesn't change the reality.

The Blessed Mother warned Lucia dos Santos that more people went to hell for unrepentant sins of the flesh than any other sin. The family is under attack like at no time in history. You sir (or ma'am, or transgendered whatever) are not on the side of the angels. May God bless you and have mercy on you.

Social Pariah said...


I meant to say the hypocrisy of the EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S stand.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Blog Onwer - No statistics were cited in my 12:43 post. Your hysteria is getting worse - you're seeing what isn't there. Ask your doctor, maybe Nuplazid is right for you.

As for statistics, I'll give you just one.

One gay man, Matthew Shepard, was beaten, tortured, and left to die near Laramie on the night of October 6, 1998. His assailants tied him to a barbed wire fence and left.

Maybe the LGBTQ crowd is proud of the fact that, despite such inexcusable violence, live on today.

Anonymous said...

After looking at our contentious little friend's accusations and Father's reply, it's becoming clearer and increasingly obvious: People looking for excuses to behave badly always cite unfair treatment or persecution as their justification --actually excuse.

No one denies that there is a history of racism in America (and few people know that racism in America is a JOKE compared to most other country's--but that isn't useful for the victimhood narrative). So we get a bunch of angry, unfathered, ungrounded, too-ignorant-to-feel-ashamed fools destroying property, reversing racism, venting their self-hatred by transferring it to the police and generally, trying to force all of us to cower and bow down to them. The overwhelming, unreported and unacknowledged truth is that the vast majority of Americans today who are not black are pretty open to everyone as human beings. But if we go there, we have no justification for acting like entitled idiots and destroying everything in the name of "justice". No, you MUST acknowledge your "unfair privilege" and confess your sins of racism--which by the way are never forgiven or forgotten.

The same tactic is used by the LGBTQLMNOP "victim class". They have their martyrs and it's all our straight faults.

It's almost laughable that this person accuses YOU of hysteria, Father. He wears his on his shirtsleeve.

Anonymous said...

The most "inexcusable violence" that ever took place in human history was the brutal crucifixion of the Son of God at the hands of God's own chosen people.

And as inexcusable as this violence was, the Victim had this to say:

"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

I'd say our LGBT enthusiast could benefit greatly by meditating on that reality. It's the one reality that will endure, long after all the Gay Pride silliness is over.

Anonymous said...

If what the self-important social critic said from Nicolosi is true, we have created a culture that breeds and multiplies homosexuality by virtue of divorce, broken families and illegitimacy.

I guess if we actually faced the cause of the problem, it would require admitting that something is wrong and we are responsible. I guess that's about as likely as hoping the popes and bishops will finally admit that their "new springtime" never happened and the "new Church" is a disastrous blunder.

Anonymous said...

The truth about Matthew Shepherd:

It pays to do your homework.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Wow! I did not know that and one of his killers was a promiscuous homosexual too. It was about drugs and drug crazed perpetrators. Yes not doing one's homework and a turning drug addiction tragedy into a meme for LGBTQ++++so-call victimization is sad for one commeter here. Sad and shameful indeed.

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

The evening “news” is essentially leftwing propaganda, totally agenda driven. That’s how the Shepherd like stories come to be. I have not watched the “nutworks” in years

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I have stopped watching (for the most part) the endless politicized "news and commentary" from both Fox (Republican) and CNN (Democrat). I have never watched MSNBC.

I do watch the half hour evening newscast of NBC which I find better than what CBS calls their evening news. NBC does seem to report the news in the 30 minutes they have.

My peace of mind is restored by jettison cable news altogether!

Anonymous said...

Pariah - What The Blessed Mother warned anyone about, if not consistent with Divine Revelation or the Church's official Magisterium, is not the Church's teaching. Can you show me in Divine Revelation or the Magisterium where it is taught that "more people (go) to hell for unrepentant sins of the flesh than any other sin."

Fr. Blog Owner is chiding the Episcopalians and anyone who read this blog and saying them that their sign is hypocritical. I doubt that he supports what they have written. Do you think that he supports them?

My comments about the suffering of our Brothers and Sisters who are LGBTQ and how they have managed to continue to live in the midst of societies where they are persecuted, often to the point of death, is not a Straw Man. Their "lifestyle" does not change the fact that they have been hunted, tortured, exiled, disowned, etc., by many who claim to be Christian.

So much for "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Is this your private revelation spewed forth without reliable data?

Their "lifestyle" does not change the fact that they have been hunted, tortured, exiled, disowned, etc., by many who claim to be Christian.

Please prove this with historical facts and figures, otherwise your fanciful pontificating of wishful ideological thinking is dismissed outright.

Anonymous said...

Like I said Father, why bother with this miserable wretch? His last post borders on incoherent.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes indeed it does.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Blog Owner:

"Between 5,000 and 15,000 gay men were interned in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. These prisoners were marked by pink triangle badges and, according to many survivor accounts, were among the most abused groups in the camps." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

"Russia: New Anti-Gay Crackdown in Chechnya - Police Detain, Torture Men in Grozny" Human Rights Watch May 8, 2019

"LGBT persecution on the rise in Cameroon" Reuters April 14, 2021


Alan "Turing was later convinced by the advice of his brother and his own solicitor, and he entered a plea of guilty. The case, Regina v. Turing and Murray, was brought to trial on 31 March 1952. Turing was convicted and given a choice between imprisonment and probation. His probation would be conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal physical changes designed to reduce libido. He accepted the option of injections of what was then called stilboestrol (now known as diethylstilbestrol or DES), a synthetic oestrogen; this feminization of his body was continued for the course of one year. The treatment rendered Turing impotent and caused breast tissue to form, fulfilling in the literal sense Turing's prediction that "no doubt I shall emerge from it all a different man, but quite who I've not found out."

Turing, as you know, is, "...widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence." "Turing played a crucial role in cracking intercepted coded messages that enabled the Allies to defeat the Nazis in many crucial engagements, including the Battle of the Atlantic. Due to the problems of counterfactual history, it is hard to estimate the precise effect Ultra intelligence had on the war. However, Professor Jack Copeland has estimated that this work shortened the war in Europe by more than two years and saved over 14 million lives." Wikipedia

The sources are multiple...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

6 million Jews! 6 million Christian gypsies. I don’t think either of these groups today have ideological Gypsy pride or Jewish pride. Stop your feeble attempts to justify immorality and amorality. How about unborn pride?

Anonymous said...

Well, well...should we be surprised? The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church opposed today's US Supreme Court ruling concerning Catholic Social Services being excluded by Philadelphia from providing foster parents because CSS would not allow adoptions from same-sex couples. While the media says it was a narrowly-tailored ruling, the liberals are concerned about it. Curry is just another example of a presiding bishop presiding over an ever-smaller church---"the more liberal we get, the more empty our churches become." Curry opposed legislation in North Carolina to ban same-sex marriage way back in the mid 2000s (at one time, he was bishop of the middle part of North Carolina, basically the Piedmont region from Charlotte to Raleigh). And I have never heard him speak a word in favor of pro-life legislation. The last time Episcopalians had a conservative presiding bishop was between 1974 and 1986, when John Allin, former bishop of Mississippi, presided, He was the last presiding bishop in the Episcopal Church to oppose abortion and ordination of women priests.

Anonymous said...

So, following up from earlier, the Episcopal Church statement on the CSS v Philly ruling:

"House of Deputies President, the Rev. Gay Clark Jennings (bloggers note---House of Deputies is part of Episcopal Church governance---representing clergy below the episcopate and laity---along with House of Bishops), also expressed dismay at the ruling. (Presiding Bishop) Curry and Jennings both previously joined briefs filed by religious leaders opposing CSS' argument. (Jennings said) "...But disguising homophobia as religious freedom, as the plaintiffs have done, is not only a dangerous legal precedent, it is a gross distortion of the teachings of Jesus...It breaks my heart that this campaign of exclusion and discrimination is being waged by my fellow Christians."

WHAT? When did our Lord embrace same-sex marriage, "Rev." Jennings? Scripture, please?

A coincidence? The churches which have embraced conservative views on morality (the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc.) either have grown or have had a lower percentage of membership losses than the denominations which have become "anything goes" (Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, United Church of Christ, United Methodist and so on)?

Anonymous said...

So, following up from earlier, the Episcopal Church statement on the CSS v Philly ruling:

"House of Deputies President, the Rev. Gay Clark Jennings (bloggers note---House of Deputies is part of Episcopal Church governance---representing clergy below the episcopate and laity---along with House of Bishops), also expressed dismay at the ruling. (Presiding Bishop) Curry and Jennings both previously joined briefs filed by religious leaders opposing CSS' argument. (Jennings said) "...But disguising homophobia as religious freedom, as the plaintiffs have done, is not only a dangerous legal precedent, it is a gross distortion of the teachings of Jesus...It breaks my heart that this campaign of exclusion and discrimination is being waged by my fellow Christians."

WHAT? When did our Lord embrace same-sex marriage, "Rev." Jennings? Scripture, please?

A coincidence? The churches which have embraced conservative views on morality (the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc.) either have grown or have had a lower percentage of membership losses than the denominations which have become "anything goes" (Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, United Church of Christ, United Methodist and so on)?

Tom Marcus said...

It's all disingenuous bunk--every bit as misleading and irrelevant as when Pete Buttigieg's missive at Mike Pence a few years ago about, "Your quarrel is with my creator".

Human compassion is not license. It is not our Creator's fault that we are born with original sin or carry the burden of concupiscence. Our first parents put us in that position and it is up to us to follow the Son's escape plan of repentance. But then again, like most Protestant sects, the Episcopalians have long abandoned the cross.

John Nolan said...

Someone above has mentioned Alan Turing. Turing's male lover was 19 and therefore a minor. Had Turing not been an eminent mathematician he would certainly have received a custodial sentence, and his probation terms were lenient according to the standards of the day. From his own perspective the worst consequence of his criminal conviction was that he was barred from visiting the USA.

His family did not accept that his death was suicide; indeed he had been reportedly in good spirits. However, the coroner was prejudiced against homosexuals and entered a verdict of suicide rather than an open verdict which would have allowed for accidental death.

Turing's offence would still have been criminal until 1994 when the age of consent for homosexual acts was reduced from 21 to 18. The age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969 but this did not apply to the 1967 law permitting (male) homosexual relations between consenting adults in private.

Turing's contribution to Ultra intelligence which certainly shortened the War to the extent that it can be regarded as Britain's greatest achievement in the defeat of Nazi Germany was not dependent on his sexual proclivities.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:52 PM

Your "expertise" on the Church's magisterium and Divine Revelation overlooks a significant point: Church-approved apparitions are only approved when the Church is satisfied that nothing revealed in the alleged apparition runs contrary to the Church's body of teachings. Fatima is an approved apparition.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Almost everywhere this question of identity and "dignity" is treated so superficially that I am embarrassed for those who persist in being vacuous.

What, exactly, is the "dignity" we are talking about? Obviously not the fundamental human dignity of every single person; the use of the rainbow flag makes that clear: this is about a specific notion of "dignity" pertaining to a particular "community" (is it a community? I think it's a grab-bag; in what sense are the groups identified with each letter or symbol even a community individually, let alone, collectively?). And the reason I use quotes is simply because the actual meaning these terms are supposed to convey is unknown.

Taken for granted is the idea that sexual attraction or interest pertains to "identity." Why must this be taken as true? Once that premise is granted, there can be no (principled) end to the letters and symbols added after LGBTQQIA+. (Oh, and by the way: why isn't there a letter for those who are attracted to the opposite sex? Don't they have dignity too?)

And how can anyone who professes to believe in God and eternity not address the question of how acting on ones sexual "identity" relates to ones eternal destiny. In other words, are we to assume that God approves of every sexual identity that jumps on the train? Why would we assume that?

If you believe in God, and that God acts in Creation, then it would follow, would it not, that how we live our lives here is preparatory for eternity? Either we conform ourselves to God's plan and become suited for union with God forever, or we don't, and we are on the outside, forever?

How do all the possible permutations of sexual congress serve to prepare us for heaven? I'm asking a serious question, because if you believe, as seems to be the thesis of rainbow understanding of the human person, that "it's all good," then you really have to answer that question.

Do "Rainbow" Christians believe in Original Sin? Do they believe people need conversion? It would seem so, as they refer to various phobias as sins. So what constitutes "sexual sin" in Rainbow Christianity?

The only question of morality that those flying the rainbow flag seem to agree on is that Natural Law-derived, Bible-derived, and Apostolic Tradition-derived sexual morality is wrong, wrong, wrong and must be cast aside utterly. But what replaces it?


It sure seems to me that the only real replacement is a morality that rests solely on consent: if any number of consenting persons give consent, then whatever sexual activity they carry out -- in accord, we are told, with their "identity," which strongly suggests such behavior not only may, but must be given expression -- is moral.

And if I were jettisoning many thousands of years of accumulated wisdom, I would want to think long and hard about what was taking it's place.

Can someone point me to someone, anyone, waving the rainbow flag, who has proposed some alternative?

Hint: I think "Rainbow Christianity" ultimately must be some flavor of Gnosticism. Feel free to rebut this.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:40 - That nothing Our Lady of Fatima said is opposed to Church doctrine does not mean that it is to be believed or, for that matter, given a second thought.

Fr. William Most writes at EWTN: "The most the Church can do on a private revelation is: 1) say it does not clash with public revelation. If it did, that part of it would be out. 2) Say it seems to deserve human acceptance--that is in contrast to something accepted on the divine virtue of faith, which comes into play only in the area of public revelation."

The Catechism: "67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church."

At Catholic Straight Answers, "Fourth, even if the Church does give an official approval to a private revelation, the faithful are not obliged to believe in the private revelation. A faithful Catholic is called to give the assent of faith to the deposit of faith found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

Our Lady's words cannot be accepted as Divine Revelation - they are not. They cannot be presented as accurately reflecting what the Church DOES teach about sin and punishment. Mary's notion about what sins lead the most people to hell can be disregarded unless and until the Church's Magisterium teaches otherwise.

John Nolan said...

'Identity politics' like 'gender politics' is part of a post-modern agenda given emphasis by so-called social media. There are signs of a push back against it, and PF has condemned it, unfortunately without clearly defining what it is he condemns.

Sad, since at one time the Jesuits were renowned for their intellectual rigour, which has nothing to do with the 'rigidity' with which PF seems to be obsessed.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, I was expecting the old "you're not obligated to believe it" objection.

Indeed, we are not. I am not. You are not.

However--and this is just my opinion--sometimes we do so at our own peril.

My criteria is evidence. 70,000 people witnessing a celestial miracle is certainly one thing to consider. The fact that every prediction uttered by Sister Lucia regarding events in her lifetime came to pass (especially WWII) is considerable. Fatima doesn't fit tightly either into the category of private or public revelation. If anything, one could say it is "quasi-public". But I would never dream of insisting you have to believe it

I do not think Lucia dos Santos or Francisco and Jacinta Marto were liars or hallucinatories. They stood nothing to gain by what they shared of their visions and messages and they paid a terrible price for doing so.

But even all of that doesn't matter. I never claimed that Mary's warning about sins of the flesh were Divine Revelation. The Church has always held that sodomy and fornication are sins and I don't need an apparition to confirm it. My point is that the Church's longstanding approval of the apparitions--inasmuch as it merely says that nothing revealed contradicts the deposit of faith--doesn't fit your assertion that it is not consistent with Church teaching. If it was not, the approval would not have been given.

I think we need to call out the whole LGBTABCDEFGHIJK.... agenda for what it is: In the 60's, it was all about the right not to be persecuted. In the 70's and 80's it was all about adding more "rights". By the 1990's, it was about adoption and by the early 2000's it was about redefining marriage. No matter how many "gains" this sad group makes, it's never enough. What they really want and what they childishly demand is fawning approval of their sexual appetites and indulgences and anyone who gives an ounce less than that is a "hate filled bigot" who needs to suffer and die. You know it. I know it. The readers know it. No one has the guts to admit it or expose it.

Feel free to indulge your fleshly pleasures as much as you like and mock and scoff to your heart's content. I feel far more peace taking the risk that the "alleged" messages of Fatima are true. You are welcome to take whatever risks you please.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:09 - Not you didn't say Mary's warnings were Divine Revelation. But you certainly presented it as if it were some kind of certain, undeniable truth: "The Blessed Mother warned Lucia dos Santos that more people went to hell for unrepentant sins of the flesh than any other sin."

You conveniently switch from "more people go to hell for sins of the flesh" to "The Church has always held that sodomy and fornication are sins..." No kidding. But that's not what your post about Mary's warning was, now is it?

No, her warning is NOT consistent with the Church's teaching. The "warning" makes a claim - that more people go to hell for sins of the flesh and any other sin - that the Church DOES NOT make in Her teaching.

And I don't need your permission or "welcome" to understand what the Church teaches - and what it does NOT teach - clearly. I would suggest you would do well to understand that difference.

Anonymous said...

Wow! You really told me!

Seriously, the Church does not SPECIFICALLY say a lot of things, but to assert them doesn't contradict Church teaching. I find nothing in the Catechism that tells me that more men end up in Purgatory than women. But I will admit that if, after the witness of the miracles of Fatima, Lucia had told us that Our Lady had so spoken, I would be inclined to believe it. There is nothing in the Catechism or Bible that specific states that copulating with baboons is a grave sin, but it certainly doesn't contradict Church teaching either.

I wouldn't dream of giving you "permission" to do anything, as I can see not being told what to do or how to think (and making sure everybody knows it) is VERY important to you. My apologies.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:54 - Yes, I told you since you needed to be told.

You can be "inclined" to believe, you are welcome to believe, anything you want, but that does not and cannot make it Church teaching.

"It does not contradict Church teaching" is not equivalent in any way to "Is taught by the Church."

Anonymous said...

Again, I never said it did. Although I always DO appreciate a good attempt at the old mind-read.

It's so reassuring that we have someone like you who knows what we need to be told!

Anonymous said...

Hey, anonymous 9:58

Forget about El Snarko. Blogs always attract people with personality disorders. Don't waste your keyboard strength.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:58 - You've had people who know what you (not "we," you) need to be told all your life.

They're called "teachers." They go by other names as well, such as "parent," "good friend," "boss," "co-worker."

In my own life I am taught by Epictetus every day: "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”

William said...

Reading time for this combox is drastically and profitably reduced by omitting all the "Anonymous" posts and picking up the thread in those remaining. Guys, give yourselves a handle, even if it's "Elmer Fudd".

Elmer Fudd said...

Good suggestion!