tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post6807778759088731483..comments2023-11-15T07:14:06.265+00:00Comments on Catholic Action UK: Anglican bishop condemned for refusing to employ dissident homosexual as youth workerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-32970689390947653562007-08-06T14:12:00.000+01:002007-08-06T14:12:00.000+01:00The infallibility of Ord Sac. was not affirmed in ...The infallibility of Ord Sac. was not affirmed in the most un-arguable way, for reasons (I think) of curial politics. There is no dispute about the anathemas of Trent or Vatican I or the ex Cathedra pronouncements of 1950 and so on. Some people dissent from them, of course, but at least we can all see they are dissenting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-79397485488529611282007-07-30T16:43:00.000+01:002007-07-30T16:43:00.000+01:00Dear Webmaster,I think you're too optimistic about...Dear Webmaster,<BR/><BR/>I think you're too optimistic about the power of the Magisterium's self-interpretation to settle arguments. For example, the CDF declared recently that Ordinatio sacerdotalis was infallible. But some, e.g. Jesuit Peter Burns, query whether its declaration was itself infallible: <A>http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/burns.htm</A><BR/><BR/>The fact is that in a fallen world there will always be difference of interpretation, and so I don't consider its presence a convincing argument against the Protestant position.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-46104446434040591662007-07-21T15:36:00.000+01:002007-07-21T15:36:00.000+01:00Mr Hill: 'infinite regress' of interpretation. (Be...Mr Hill: 'infinite regress' of interpretation. (Been reading Wittgenstein, eh?) It is true that Magisterial documents sometimes need interpretation, but that interpretation can, if necessary, be made by the Magisterium itself, and in real life the regress doesn't need to go very far before all reasonable people at least understand what is being claimed, if not agree with it. We can see from our own experience that this is not the case with the interpretation of Scripture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-82963765010279454092007-07-21T12:06:00.000+01:002007-07-21T12:06:00.000+01:00Dear webmaster:I think there are two important leg...Dear webmaster:<BR/><BR/>I think there are two important legal precedents set by the court's decision. <BR/><BR/>The first is that the imposition of the condition of being celibate or married is by definition indirect discrimination, the court says.<BR/><BR/>The second is that such posts as diocesan youth officer are exempt from the regulations here. This would go for Roman Catholics as much as for Anglicans.<BR/><BR/>In order to make use of the second point every religious organization covered by the exemptions needs to have a coherent policy and guidelines for procedure. The Bishop's case fell because he was adjudged not to have followed C-of-E guidelines correctly, in particular by not taking Reaney's assurance at face value. This would probably apply to every religious organization: the court says that one has to take on trust people's statements about their own sexual behaviour (unless, perhaps, one has strong reasons to the contrary).<BR/><BR/>PS Aren't you en route to an infinite regress if you insist that there needs to be an authoritative interpretation of Scripture?Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-46661242745146071172007-07-21T11:57:00.000+01:002007-07-21T11:57:00.000+01:00Dear John Kearney,I'm afraid that your post contai...Dear John Kearney,<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid that your post contains some errors: it's not true that 'the bishops of these [Reaney's former dioceses] saw nothing wrong' with Reaney's conduct. On the contrary, the Bishop of Chester told him to choose between his job and his then partner, and Reaney resigned his job and left church work.<BR/><BR/>It's also not true that 'homosexuality is accepted by the Church of England'. The Church of England states that homosexual practice is inconsistent with the presbyterate (aka 'priesthood'). The point here is that Reaney had promised not to undertake sexual practice while in the job and, essentially, the Bishop felt that he couldn't trust this promise.<BR/><BR/>Note that the court confirmed that it is OK to impose celibacy if the job falls within the exceptions given in the Regulations, as this one did, provided that correct procedure is followed. The fact is that the court judged that the bishop did not follow correct procedure, since he did not accept Reaney's promise at face value.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-36979143904274947642007-07-21T11:45:00.000+01:002007-07-21T11:45:00.000+01:00Dear onthesideoftheangels,I have quoted two Bible ...Dear onthesideoftheangels,<BR/><BR/>I have quoted two Bible passages that Anglicans take to condemn homosexual activity. Can you quote some Bible passages that condemn artificial contraception, please?<BR/><BR/>Your post so far consists of mere assertion with no Biblical proofs.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-70352719018941417412007-07-20T11:28:00.000+01:002007-07-20T11:28:00.000+01:00I don't agree. The question here is the precise qu...I don't agree. The question here is the precise question which is going to face many Catholic church or charity employers: can you exercise your judgement in order to protect children entrusted to your care? The court says 'no'.<BR/><BR/>Many, many active homosexuals are employed by Catholic institutions: <BR/><A HREF="http://catholicactionuk.blogspot.com/2007/02/cardinals-former-adviser-revealed.html" REL="nofollow">see here</A>. Does that mean that they have a ticket to go on working for the Church for life? This is a recipe for standards to be set by the most liberal institutions you can find.<BR/><BR/>Parliament and this court have made it abundantly clear that clarity of Church teaching on the subject of sexuality does not give immunity from anti-discrimination laws. From their point of view, how could it? From their point of view, we are a religion which requires us to break Natural Law - like people who engage in human sacrifice or forced marriages. We may be sincere in our beliefs, but for the sake of justice we must be broken of this habit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-75132189546796458212007-07-19T20:59:00.000+01:002007-07-19T20:59:00.000+01:00I am sorry to say it but I think this particular h...I am sorry to say it but I think this particular homsexual had a very good case. I feel sorry for Bishop Priddis for he was following his conscience bgut the fact is that there is no authority in the Anglican Church to back him. If he was employed in two other diocese and the bishops of these saw nothing wrong it is very had indeed for the bishop to make the case that he in denying the job to this applicant was following the standards laid down by his Church. Since also homosexuality is accepted by the Church of England the solicitor was correct in saying that the bishop would have been wrong to impose celibacy. I do not think this is a good test case for SOR`s against conscience. This is about the Church of England sorting itself out. But one will caome along shortly.John Kearneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13074138642860577242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-50084177931412884852007-07-19T15:48:00.000+01:002007-07-19T15:48:00.000+01:00Catholic moral teaching is unequivocal - human lov...Catholic moral teaching is unequivocal - human lovemaking consists of two aspects - the unitive and procreative[not merely generative but a respect to and opennes to the potential of Life] - where either aspect is denied there is moral disorder and when this is willed there is sin.<BR/><BR/>These unitive and procreative aspects are intrinsically inseparable from the moral teachings throughout the bible ; and for this reason anything which contravenes this principled rational law of God is axiomatically condemned by the bible. Just because protestants have equivocated and refused to acknowledge this does not make it any less true.<BR/><BR/>catholicism condemns homosexual acts because it contravenes the principles inherant within natural law and divine revelation [something upheld in an exemplary fashion within the bible] <BR/><BR/>protestantism fallaciously inversely induces principles from biblical passages - and thus they end with such irrational confusion.<BR/>The bible condemns sodomites and catamites for very specific reasons and it's not for their dress sense or taste in soft furnishings - but for what they do - and it's exactly the same as heterosexual couples who wilfully act contraceptively.<BR/><BR/>You cannot condemn homosexual acts without automatically condemning the use of artificial contraception amongst heterosexuals [an act which is fundamentally more grave as openness to life is being wilfully denied - homosexual acts have no openness to it].<BR/><BR/>As for the thirty nine articles ?<BR/>I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to discuss it save that protestants should spend a little more time loving the WORD rather than the words.On the side of the angelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558623489507006790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-82284243036420188872007-07-19T13:18:00.000+01:002007-07-19T13:18:00.000+01:00Thank you, Mr Hill.I don't think a Catholic need h...Thank you, Mr Hill.<BR/><BR/>I don't think a Catholic need have any problem with Article XXXIX. We need only point out that, without an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, itself guided by the Holy Spirit, there are going to be a lot of disagreements, and if disagreements, errors. Generations of Anglican theologians thought that the condemnation of contraception is to be 'read in Scripture', using just the kinds of arguments Catholics might use; the Anglican position only changed in 1936.<BR/><BR/>OTSOTA's point is that the moral principle implicit in the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality also rules out contraception. That's the standard Catholic view, and it seems pretty plausible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-10812897170476114152007-07-19T12:46:00.000+01:002007-07-19T12:46:00.000+01:00Dear onthesideoftheangels,You say:I'm sorry but I ...Dear onthesideoftheangels,<BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/>I'm sorry but I fail to see how anglicanism has the audacity to suggest there is anything wrong with the mutual masturbatory acts of same sex partners; when since the Lambeth conference where they permitted artificial contraception, it has permitted mutual masturbation amongst those heterosexuals who are open to the sharing graces of God's gift of Life.<BR/><BR/>The answer is simple: the Bible condemns homosexual activity (1 Corinthians 6:8-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-11), but it doesn't condemn contraception. And the Church of England's official position is enshrined in Article VI of the XXXIX Articles:<BR/>Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-25990245937820504662007-07-19T10:56:00.000+01:002007-07-19T10:56:00.000+01:00You have a point, OTSOTA, but Catholics' more cohe...You have a point, OTSOTA, but Catholics' more coherent moral teaching isn't going to be enough to fend off SORs-based lawsuits like this one. Check out the quotation from the solicitors just added to the post.<BR/><BR/>(And can you find a more delicate way of talking about sexual morality? And of referring to the Anglicans? Technically, they're not heretics because (most of the them) haven't fallen away from the Faith, they never had it.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32774679.post-35453340984287537392007-07-18T17:05:00.000+01:002007-07-18T17:05:00.000+01:00I'm sorry but I fail to see how anglicanism has th...I'm sorry but I fail to see how anglicanism has the audacity to suggest there is anything wrong with the mutual masturbatory acts of same sex partners; when since the Lambeth conference where they permitted artificial contraception, it has permitted mutual masturbation amongst those heterosexuals who are open to the sharing graces of God's gift of Life.<BR/><BR/>So having gay sex where it is intrinsically impossible to conceive is forbidden; but deliberately preventing conception is acceptable ???<BR/><BR/>catholics have perfectly valid rational reasons for condemning homosexual acts - but because anglicanism has eradicated its fundamental moral theology regarding human lovemaking they are left having to resort to 'questions of personal taste' or specious biblical passages to equivocate their antipathy to homosexual sexual acts. It' their own problem ; and leaves very little for us to worry about save the prolonged scandal against Christ by these foolish heretics - we have a coherent morality; something they most certainly haven't !!On the side of the angelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558623489507006790noreply@blogger.com