Irish Marriage ‘Equality’ Referendum – “Why I am voting ‘No’!”

By Brian Ó Caithnia

image_0044

Let me explain why I am voting No to the legal redefinition of marriage on May 22nd.

The correct title of this referendum should be “The Abolition of Marriage Bill”. This INSANE legislation is easily the most destructive piece of legislation ever to be proposed in the history of the [Irish] State.

Marriage is a permanent commitment between a man and woman to enter into a comprehensive relationship whose end is the creation and proper raising of children. Marriage is THE fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers.
Same-sex marriage legally abolishes all of the primary characteristics of marriage as they have existed nearly everywhere for all of human history. Marriage will no longer be the institution that regulates the expected norms of mothers and fathers towards their children. As the “Yes” side keep screaming in this debate, marriage for them has “Nothing to do with mothers, fathers and children”, it only has to do with “adult relationships” and their “emotional fulfilment.”

This referendum does not simply “let more people access the marriage contract,” it abolishes the marriage contract, and creates a void where the allocated responsibilities for the raising of children shall become unclear. By advocating a version of marriage that has been stripped bare of its richest and most important characteristics, same-sex marriage advocates are now incapable of explaining why marriage even exists, or why it should continue to exist, as a distinct legal status.

Below I list a number of sample reasons why this INSANE referendum must be rejected. Subsequently, I elaborate upon each point in greater depth:

Part I: The primary end of marriage is not the emotions of adults, but the best interests for children. This referendum abolishes this essential, universal characteristic of marriage.
Part II: A child benefits most from a marriage between their biological mother and father. This fact and ideal will be undermined in the law as children are removed from considerations in marriage contracts.
Part III: This referendum does violence to the rights of children by enabling the artificial creation of children without their biological mother and father.
Part IV: Marriage does not suit relationships between ‘two men’ and ‘two women’.
Part V: Marriage is not a “benefits package”.
Part VI: If marriages between “two men” and “two women” are permitted, there is no logical reason why this cannot be extended to “three men” or more, as has already occurred in Thailand.
Part VII: Changing the legal meaning of marriage shall distort the public understanding of marriage.

Now I elaborate on each of the above points:

Part I: The primary end of marriage is not the emotions of adults, but the best interests for children. This referendum abolishes this essential, universal characteristic of marriage.
Why does marriage even exist? The State generally does not regulate intimate relationships between people, and the more intimate they become the less the government regulates them. Why and how has the State come to regulate marriage? It is because all human beings enter the world through the sexual relationships between men and women and the fruit of these relationships, the babies that are created, are totally dependent on others to survive. Sexual relationships inevitably result in babies which are necessary for the continuation and future functioning of a society. The public institution of marriage was created to manage and order the babies that men and women create, and to ensure that these babies will be looked after and will become functioning and stable adults beneficial to society.
There is no contract to govern close friendships, neither is there one between brothers and sisters. Why has the marriage contract emerged between a man and a woman? It is clear that the relationships between men and women are special and distinct because they alone can create children. Marriage clearly came into existence not for the emotions of adults, but because of the evident needs of children. If there were no children, there would have been no need for the public institution of marriage.
To the libertarians reading this, even Justin Raimondo recently wrote that “Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being.”
One objection that is often raised against marriage being an institution designed from its inception for children is, what about couples that cannot have children? Well, ask yourself, if a football team loses a match, is it still a football team? The end goal of forming a team is to win a game, but if you lose, does that mean that you are not a team? Of course not! It just means that you were a team that did not achieve the end goal for which you were designed, but you are still a team! Similarly, as the end of marriage is children, even if for whatever reason you cannot have children, it does not mean you are not married.

Part II: A child benefits most from a marriage between their biological mother and father. This fact and ideal will be undermined in the law as adult emotions become the over-riding factor in marriage.
This Referendum is altering Article 41 that is entitled “The Family.” The whole point of family law is to protect the best interests of the child. There are literally tens of thousands of social science studies that demonstrate that the single best family environment for a child is to be raised by BOTH their BIOLOGICAL parents in a permanent low-conflict relationship. Children benefit best from the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. Furthermore, neither adopted parents, nor foster parents, nor single parents, nor orphanages, nor step-parents (which includes two-men or two-women unions where the child retains one natural parent) come close in their ability to replace the natural biological family.
Marriage law is built on the “end of marriage” being children. Since neither “two men” nor “two women” are biologically capable of having children, how can marriage any longer be about providing the best environment for the procreation and proper raising of children? Logically, the secondary goal of marriage, being the “unity and well-being of the spouses” shall henceforth be the primary goal of marriage.
The “emotional fulfilment of the adults” shall thus inexorably over-ride the “interests of children.” When marriage is only about emotional fulfilment, once the fleeting “warm fuzzy feeling” wears off, on what grounds can one enforce a marriage contract? This is exactly what has happened in countries like the United States, where marriage is now the only legal contract that society does not enforce; either partner can break the bond with impunity. Marriage cannot be built only upon emotions because then it cannot be accepted that there is any real permanency in marriage and no-fault divorce would inexorably follow.

Part III: This referendum does violence to the rights of children by enabling the artificial creation of children without their biological mother and father.
This referendum shall create a demand for artificial surrogacy to be provided by the State. This shall create a dystopian nightmare suitable for an Aldous Huxley novel. Children shall be bought and sold like cattle, ordered from catalogues to be without a father or a mother.
Ironically, although the end of marriage shall no longer be children, as is so often screamed by the “Yes” campaigners when they attack the “Mothers and Fathers Matter” posters, these “two men” or “two women” unions shall now have a right to found a family.
Article 41 that is being altered in this referendum is uniquely entitled “The Family” and declares “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” Since marriage, properly understood, is the foundation of the family, and since the state shall soon be subsidising and promoting the artificial creation of children through surrogacy and IVF, the logical consequence is that “two men” or “two women” will be capable of demanding that the State provide and enable for the artificial creation and surrogacy of children.
This is a already something that should be outlawed for heterosexual couples, because it involves the commodification of children, creating a whole industry of “made to order” designer babies, where babies are purchased in catalogues. Like from a dystopian book by Aldous Huxley, we already see a “market for sperm” and the “renting of wombs” that is repulsive to human dignity.
As it stands in Ireland as a result of the Children’s Rights Referendum, such IVF children shall not be legally allowed find who their real parents are until the age of eighteen. Dr. Joanna Rose was conceived by anonymous sperm donation in the UK in the 1970s and has stated that this new industry “violates international human rights” of children.
The law creates social norms and moulds public opinion. By legalising “two men” and “two women” marriages, this absurd and abhorrent practice of surrogacy shall gain in momentum as Dr. Joanna Rose stated, “The focus on adults’ “right” to a child, end up trampling the rights of children.”
Furthermore, an immediate consequence of redefining marriage to include “two men” and “two women” unions is that a “right” to children from adoption agencies shall be created. Adoption agencies are already inundated with demands by traditional mother and father marriages who for whatever reason cannot procreate. Oftentimes, Irish people have to go to East Asia to adopt because there is little likelihood of them being able to adopt in Ireland.
What this law shall do is it shall create a “right” for these “two men” and “two women” unions to be allocated children. When the ideal family of a married man and woman are already available, adoption agencies will be forced to allocate children to these “two men” and “two women” unions. This is what has already happened in the United Kingdom and North America.

Part IV: Marriage does not suit relationships between ‘two men’ and ‘two women’.
Relationships between “two men” and “two women” are vastly different to marital relationships between a man and a woman anyway. As one author wrote:
“Gay and lesbian relationships have not been as financially intertwined as marriage historically, which was traditionally structured on the basis that women were the property of men. For a lot of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people, being independent financially is an important part of who they are. To be told by the law that their financial relationship is now expected to mimic that of a married couple is unknown territory.”
In fact, there are some ironic cases of same-sex marriage campaigners in the United States. Having acquired the right to marry another man, they were shocked to discover the burdensome and potentially very expensive regulations that have developed in the contract called marriage, which brings me to my next point-

Part V: Marriage is not a “benefits package”.
There are few financial rewards that pertain to marriage. The main “privileges” arise simply because the law recognises your spouse as your closest next of kin, arising from the western religious legal tradition that a husband and wife become “one-flesh”. These privileges of kin can be acquired already without redefining marriage.
In fact, for many people, financially speaking, they are much better off if they do not get married, especially in the United States and now in Ireland with tax individualisation.
The main “privileges” acquires in marriage are really just those that marriage actually does by its essence, being that your spouse becomes your closest next of kin. Thus, you gain visiting rights when your spouse is in hospital, as would any kin.
Same-sex marriage campaigners who want to attain these few benefits of marriage can use alternative ways to acquire next of kin privileges without have to redefine society’s most fundamental institution.

Part VI: If marriages between “two men” and “two women” are permitted, there is no logical reason why this cannot be extended to “three men” or more, as has already occurred in Thailand.
Furthermore, if marriage is merely an emotional commitment to someone, how can you deny marriage to “parent-child” couples? Why do couples caring for each other have to be in a sexual relationship? What about single Moms with their adult sons, who arguably engage in more caretaking than some married folk? Why are best friends who are not sexually intimate excluded from marriage benefits?
There is no logical ground to reject any of the above once traditional marriage between a man and a woman whose end is the procreation and proper raising of children is rejected. Same-sex marriage will lead inevitably to expanding the definition of marriage to include these relationships.
In reality, the end result of this will be that marriage shall lose all its legal standing entirely, and instead of traditional marriages getting some benefits, nobody shall acquire any benefits because to do so shall invoke discrimination. Same-sex marriage shall bring about the abolition of marriage, as numerous leading same-sex marriage campaigners have openly proclaimed.

Part VII: Changing the legal meaning of marriage shall distort the public understanding of marriage
Marriage is not a factory for childbearing. Marriage existed to encourage men and women to create the next generation in the right context and simultaneously to discourage the creation of children in other contexts-out of wedlock in fatherless homes.
Laws do more than incentivize or punish. They educate directly and indirectly. They define the boundaries of organizations, institutions, and relationships in the public square. One of the most basic ways that the law of marriage helps regulate out-of-wedlock births, for example, is by defining a socially shared category of married births, without which the very idea of unmarried childbearing disappears.
The same-sex marriage advocates are shrewdly aware of the importance of the law is in forming the behaviour and opinions of the people. We often hear how these unions of “two men” or “two women” will never be fully accepted as being equal to marriage until the constitution recognises them as such, despite the fact that civil unions have already given them everything but the name “marriage”.
Same-sex marriage changes the public meaning of marriage. The idea that a mother and father is the norm for children must be made anathema to appease the new “two men” and “two women” unions. The leading same-sex advocates themselves and even some US courts have begun ruling in this manner. In order to make gay relationships fully equal, the state-through the courts-must repress from its own consciousness (and hopefully from their point of view eventually from the people of the state) the idea that the procreative potential of opposite-sex couples is worthy of special attention. To this end, fines and punishments shall be allotted upon dissenters as we have already seen in bakeries in Ireland and across the world.

In conclusion, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is simply INSANE and must be voted down. The principles of marriage as it has naturally existed for thousands of years are being undone in an unhinged and ignorant social experiment that does violence to the rights of children for whom marriage was created in the first place.
G.K. Chesterton once wrote “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”

Vote No!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Irish Marriage ‘Equality’ Referendum – “Why I am voting ‘No’!”

  1. kathleen says:

    Christ speaks against homosexuality to St. Catherine of Siena:

  2. toadspittle says:

    Jesus destroyed five cites for being “gay”? Didn’t know that.
    Which ones were they?
    Also interesting to know God suffers from “nausea” in Heaven.
    Are there other afflictions up there? Headaches?

  3. Tom Fisher says:

    Not sure what the cursed ‘sin against nature’ refers to specifically — is it the sin that W.H. Auden had no interest in? But he was still as gay as they come, so assumedly not.

  4. toadspittle says:

    I suspect Saint Catherine “imagined” all that.
    Don’t know, of course. Splendid and lurid, though.
    ….Where else but CP&S?

    However…
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=please+don%27t+call+protestants+christians+

    Did stumble on this, though. Poor old C.S. Lewis.
    Roasting in Hell this very minute.
    ….Apparently.
    Such a nice chap, too. Practically a Catholic, as well.
    Sad.

    (Is “Mormon” the plural of “Morman”? Why don’t they have Judaism on there, with a date?)

  5. toadspittle says:

    …How do we know Saint Catherine didn’t make all that up?

    However, I did find this – which is also a good laugh:

    If C.S. Lewis was alive, he’d be spinning in his grave.

  6. Tom Fisher says:

    I suspect Saint Catherine “imagined” all that.

    Clever of you to notice Toad! In my experience the half-baked nonsense that has been ascribed to Jesus over the centuries only serves to underscore the quality of the actual gospels. There’s no serious danger of confusing the voice of Jesus in the gospels with the various supposed “visionary pronouncements”

  7. toadspittle says:

    Too kind, Tom – but if Toad is “clever,” how come he makes so many dumb computer errors?
    Like the two “posts” on here? D’oh.

  8. Tom Fisher says:

    However, I did find this – which is also a good laugh:
    If C.S. Lewis was alive, he’d be spinning in his grave.

    Is a link missing, or are you just particularly proud of finding that one-liner?🙂

  9. GC says:

    Oh, so you don’t think that St Catherine is fit to be a Doctor of the Church, Mr Fisher, is that right? How about Patron of Europe? No way?

  10. GC says:

    Presumably then, Toad, St Catherine “imagined” all of her Dialogue. What about her hundreds of letters and prayers? All “made up” too and that’s it?

    Oh well, she was a Dominican, after all, just like Father Radcliffe?

  11. toadspittle says:

    “Presumably then, Toad, St Catherine “imagined” all of her Dialogue. What about her hundreds of letters and prayers? All “made up” too and that’s it?”
    Well, yes and no, GC:
    1: I have no idea whether St, Catherine imagined any, or all, of her Dialogue.
    In my opinion – which might be utterly and completely wrong – she imagined all of it. Maybe she only imagined some of it. I don’t know. Doesn’t matter.
    2: Letters and prayers are entirely different things to “visions.”. I don’t “imagine” any of my letters, (although they maybe, and are – full of lies, at times* ) ….And I say my own prayers.
    Made up? Yes, like anyone else’s prayers.

    Nothing wrong with making stuff up. Tolstoy, Voltaire, and Hemingway did it all the time.

    * I tell lies to make people laugh.
    Often on P&S. And it works.
    Lies are funny. At times.

    But what has all this to do with Pat and Mick getting married?
    I have to ask.

  12. toadspittle says:

    “Oh, (Tom) so you don’t think that St Catherine is fit to be a Doctor of the Church, “

    Fie, GC!
    Can’t speak for Tom, of course, but I think St. Cath is fit to be nothing else.
    There…. That will surely placate you.

  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom Fisher (12:40) suggests that “W.H. Auden had no interest in [homosexual sex]…[b]ut he was still as gay as they come.”

    I don’t know the details of Auden’s sex life, if there was one, but if he did not engage in homosexual sex, he most certainly was not as gay as they come. You really shouldn’t stereotype people, TF, especially being a person who eschews stereotypes.

    I would be prepared to argue that a person who does not engage in homosexual sex is not a homosexual, because homosexuality is all about sex and nothing else. This not to say that persons who are physically attracted to members of their own sex do not have some inborn characteristics that are less common amongst other people, but if he/she does not participate in same-sex activities, he/she cannot be defined as a homosexual or as a ‘gay’, because homosexuality is, in the final analysis, a chosen way of life, not birth.

  14. johnhenrycn says:

    …just like heterosexuality (including both conjugal chastity and adultery) is chosen, not forced upon us in the womb, which is why I think it is illogical to speak of celibate heterosexuals or celibate homosexuals. If a person is celibate, he/she is not defined by his/her sexuality.

  15. GC says:

    Very nice of you, Toad, not to speak for Mr Fisher. We shall await a possible response from North Island, then.

  16. toadspittle says:

    Very nice of you, Toad, not to speak for Mr Fisher.”
    Not a bit of it, GC.
    Tom is his own man. (as far as I know.)

    But ….Crikey! – what a mega-fuss about a few Irish gays!
    We’ll all be sorry when it’s over, won’t we?
    Big fun all round.
    Just as long as nobody takes any of it seriously.

  17. Tom Fisher says:

    Oh, so you don’t think that St Catherine is fit to be a Doctor of the Church, Mr Fisher, is that right? How about Patron of Europe? No way?

    Neither of those things are contingent on the lines in the video being a message from Jesus. Luckily.

  18. GC says:

    I’d have thought that for someone to be given the very rare title of Doctor of the Church that person must be someone whose doctrine is reliable without exception. We can think of Tertullian, for instance. Some of his doctrine is considered reliable but some isn’t. So no doctorate for him.

    St Catherine, on the other hand… Is it wholesome that someone you suggested spouted half-baked nonsense at variance with the voice of Jesus in the Gospels should be a Doctor of the Church? Seems unlikely, doesn’t it? Just like poor old Tertullian.

    Perhaps you could try to make your position a little clearer, Mr Fisher?

    http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning.html

  19. toadspittle says:

    “For Me this sin is so abominable that for it alone five cities were destroyed by virtue of the judgement of My divine justice….”

    … St. Catherine says, reporting on an interview with Jesus.
    What cities? When? Where? How? Someone knows, surely?

  20. toadspittle says:

    “I’d have thought that for someone to be given the very rare title of Doctor of the Church that person must be someone whose doctrine is reliable without exception. “

    Patient: “Doctor, I think I’m losing my memory.”
    Doctor: “How long has this been going on?”
    Patient: “How long has what been going on?”

  21. Tom Fisher says:

    GC,

    I’d have thought that for someone to be given the very rare title of Doctor of the Church that person must be someone whose doctrine is reliable without exception. We can think of Tertullian, for instance.

    Consider the Great St Augustine, Doctor of the Church. His statements with respect to doctrine are surely reliable. He wouldn’t have become a Doctor of the Church if he was a heretic. — But that doesn’t mean that everything he wrote was reliable. When he claimed to have personally met a population of men and women with no heads, just two big eyes in the centre of their chests we can regard it with healthy scepticism.
    The content in the video (nausea of Christ etc.) isn’t heretical, and vision literature isn’t necessarily deceitful. And so I don’t think that St Catherine being a Doctor necessarily means she got a direct quote from Jesus. Nor do I think that fact means she shouldn’t be a Doctor.

  22. Tom Fisher says:

    if he/she does not participate in same-sex activities, he/she cannot be defined as a homosexual or as a ‘gay’, because homosexuality is, in the final analysis, a chosen way of life, not birth.

    I don’t really disagree JH. — But as an interesting, and possibly complicating case, in NZ the current Attorney General is a (capital ‘C’) Catholic*, and celibate. The reason he is celibate is that he regards himself as homosexual, and therefore called to celibacy by his Faith. (He is often unfairly mocked). — So in this case it doesn’t quite fit with what you said above. — Not quarreling, just a point of interest.

    *Nicely enough there is a rather striking portrait of St More in his office

  23. toadspittle says:

    “*Nicely enough there is a rather striking portrait of St More in his office..”

    Very likely this one, Tom. The other Tom’s mates called him, “Mr. Sunshine.”

    http://collections.frick.org/view/objects/asitem/items$0040:100

  24. Tom Fisher says:

    Actually I think it’s a print of the study for the portrait (equally smiley):

  25. toadspittle says:

    Apparently, Holbein used to somehow project the image onto a screen to draw. Camera obscura.
    Which is why the images are so accurate.

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    When [St Augustine] claimed to have personally met a population of men and women with no heads, just two big eyes in the centre of their chests we can regard it with healthy scepticism.

    Funny how that ended up on this website dedicated to bogus quotes, eh ?

    http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.php

    I was already Bishop of Hippo, when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of Christ there to preach the Gospel. In this country we saw many men and women without heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts; and in countries still more southly, we saw people who had but one eye in their foreheads.
    TD. Roger Pearse gives the lie on this one:
    Wheless did not verify this for himself, but as he says copied it from Taylor and Doane. There are quite a number of collections of the sermons of Augustine. The correct reference is Pseudo-Augustine, Sermones Ad fratres in eremo, 37. This can be found in the Patrologia Latina 40, cols.1301-1304. The collection contains 76 sermons, cols.1233-1358, commencing (1233-6) with a discussion of the authenticity of the sermons. The first 50 sermons in the collection are plainly composed by a single writer with a characteristic style, who refers to Sigebert of Gembloux as his ‘compatriot’ in sermon 31 and makes considerable use of the works of Petrus Comestor (Bonnes, p.177). As such, they can only be medieval works, probably of the 12th century, and this text plainly belongs to the genre of marvellous stories of faraway places. This has been known since at least the time of Robert Bellarmine in the 17th century.

  27. Tom Fisher says:

    Fascinating Jabba, and you’re probably right. I’d picked it up as a claim by Augustine several years ago, and quoted from memory.

    I’ll have to look into it before I accept it definitely wasn’t him, but I presume you are right. My point remains the same however. It is not necessarily the case that everything written by a Doctor of the Church should be accepted.

  28. geoffkiernan says:

    Toad at 1233… No headaches up there, but there is one down here that I know of…

  29. geoffkiernan says:

    Tom at 1256.
    I know you are not disputing the ability of Jesus Christ to convey to certain souls here on Earth information/ disclosures for their and our edification, , but you do seem to be disputing as to why he would even bother, or why its is even necessary given the whole of revelation is contained in Scripture and of course Sacred Tradition.
    There is as you know, no obligation to accept any of these .
    If you concede that, then the great test as to the validity of any such disclosures is of course, to ask , does it contradict Scripture or any established doctrine of the Church? If the answer is no, I would be interested to know what yours stance or position is in respect to all such disclosures throughout Church History…. EG Fatima Lourdes, Akita etc. etc.

  30. toadspittle says:

    “Toad at 1233… No headaches up there, but there is one down here that I know of…”

    How do you know that, Geoff – when St Catherine herself reliably(!) informs us Christ personally had an attack of nausea in Heaven, positively perpetrated by persistent and pernicious planet-level poovism ?
    And…do you have any idea which were the five cities Catherine cites as getting celestially chunked as a result? Not Sydney, for one, I assume. I’d have seen it on Twitter.
    And …what price Dublin for number six? Paddy Power will have the current odds.
    Anything over evens must be worth a bet.

    (Why are these “messages” from Heaven so dopey? That’s the real question. So we earthly dopes can get our thick heads round them, maybe?)

  31. Brother Burrito says:

    Toad continues to be the irritant that begets the best pearls in response.

    Hopefully, he won’t quit while he is behind.

  32. mkenny114 says:

    Toad, the ‘five cities’ is a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, together with Admah, Zeboim and Bela, which were collectively known as the ‘cities of the plain’. There is an indirect reference to this tradition of grouping Sodom and Gomorrah with the three others in Wisdom 10:6.

    As to whether the messages are so ‘dopey’ so that we can get our heads around them, I think the answer to that, broadly speaking, is yes. As was discussed on another thread (which dealt with the visions of Our Lady of Akita) messages delivered from Heaven must inevitably be couched in a way of speaking that communicates with urgency and delivers its content in a manner that is plain and accessible to all. It is then up to those responsible for assessing those visions/messages to decide whether that essential content conveyed is consonant with what has already been revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

  33. toadspittle says:

    All I needed to know, Michael.
    Many thanks.
    I though Sodom and Co. were long before Jesus was born. But now I know different.
    And I have often thought Bela had it coming.
    …It was clear the folks there had gone too far. Even for Toad.
    “Toad continues to be the irritant that begets the best pearls in response.”
    And thanks also to Burro. Yes, it's (as Joseph Heller put it in a slightly different context) dark and lonely work*, but someone has to do it.

    * And unpaid!

  34. GC says:

    I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Revelation 3:15-16)

    And that’s just for being neither hot nor cold, Mr Fisher. Careful.

    Well, it would appear that Our Lord vomiting is not particularly at variance with the Gospel after all. (Fair bit of vomiting in the Old Testament too, but that’s by the way. And, actually, I can’t find the word nausea or vomiting in English translations of St Catherine’s Dialogue, but it’s pretty clear that Catherine’s dialogue partner is anything but keen about what these chaps get up to.)

    However, Mr Fisher, we are not talking about seeing people with eyes and moustaches on their chests in Abyssinia, but we were focusing on doctrine – at least that’s what I personally thought. Well weren’t we? Just forget about all those Ethiopians for a sec, ok? Besides, you’re confusing poor Toad.

    You seemed to be suggesting that St Catherine’s doctrine on homosexual activity (as we see it in the clip) was “half-baked” and somehow in conflict with the impression we get of Christ as He appears in the Gospel. You see how that causes some problems, don’t you, and something has to give. St Catherine could not possibly be justly called a Doctor of the Church if she is at variance with Christ.

    A bit of googling will also show that a good many other Doctors of the Church taught doctrine on homosexual activity very much in agreement with St Catherine’s doctrine. All those many Doctors half-baked and at variance with Christ in the Gospels, Mr Fisher? Oh, ok.

  35. Tom Fisher says:

    Mr Fisher. Careful I have read the book of Revelations more than a few times GC. I think we should be civil to each other, both in what we say, and what we imply. Best wishes.

  36. Tom Fisher says:

    Hi Geoff,

    I’m sorry for the delay in replying to your post tagged (09:17). It’s now 23:30 in NZ and I’ve been teaching, and just got home

    Tom at 1256.
    I know you are not disputing the ability of Jesus Christ to convey to certain souls here on Earth information/ disclosures for their and our edification, , but you do seem to be disputing as to why he would even bother, or why its is even necessary given the whole of revelation is contained in Scripture and of course Sacred Tradition.
    There is as you know, no obligation to accept any of these .
    If you concede that, then the great test as to the validity of any such disclosures is of course, to ask , does it contradict Scripture or any established doctrine of the Church? If the answer is no, I would be interested to know what yours stance or position is in respect to all such disclosures throughout Church History…. EG Fatima Lourdes, Akita etc. etc.

    I definitely don’t dispute that Our Lord can provide the faithful with private revelations.

    But I am more sceptical of ‘private revelations’ than I am of Scripture or Sacred Tradition itself.

    I accept that I am more sceptical of some private revelations than most commentators here. But I only say what I believe to be true.

    Re your last question; I just don’t know enough about Fatima, I do believe in Lourdes, I don’t believe in Akita. — I’m happy to debate my position.

    Hope that helps

  37. GC says:

    Mr Fisher, but who am I to judge?

    I see the original (Tuscan?) word St Catherine used in her Dialogue (actual title – Book of Divine Instruction) in chapter 124 is “schifa” – disgusting, nauseating, sick-making.

    And it’s actually in the section berating priests and ministers! But not to worry. Toad assures us that she made it all up.

  38. Tom Fisher says:

    GC,

    I think it was foolish of me to have said half baked nonsense. That was a belligerent thing to say, and it implied that St Catherine was an idiot — and of course she was no such thing.

    I believe that a great deal of her writings reflect her own conclusions, reached after much prayer, but that they do not reflect direct verbal revelations from Jesus. — We can differ about this point, but I apologise for putting it too flippantly yesterday.

  39. toadspittle says:

    “Well, it would appear that Our Lord vomiting is not particularly at variance with the Gospel after all. (Fair bit of vomiting in the Old Testament too, but that’s by the way.”
    Whoever suggested it was “at variance with the Gospel,” GC? Not Toad.
    Perfectly natural thing for God to do, when looking down from From Above on the antics of those Made In His Image, one might think. Several times a day, probably.
    Probably not wise to stand too near Him in Heaven tomorrow, when the “Two Micks Gay Marriage Handicap Stakes” result is announced.
    But we won’t know that for sure until afterThe Fat Lesbian Has Sung, will we?

  40. toadspittle says:

    “Re your last question; I just don’t know enough about Fatima, I do believe in Lourdes, I don’t believe in Akita. “

    Wow. Can of worms there, Tom. If it’s any help (what do you mean, it isn’t?) Toad also believes in Fatima and he has proof:

    https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBT9Yh911V.e8AbZRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMTd0YmpnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAwMThfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Fatima+Portugal+Souvenir+Shops&fr=yfp-t-304

    See? It’s real!
    And every one of these shopkeepers fervently believes it, as well.
    Just as fervently as Toad.

  41. GC says:

    Toad’s off! And I don’t necessarily mean that in the olfactory sense.

  42. toadspittle says:

    Yes, but Toad’s never really been on – has he? (Poor old thing.)

  43. GC says:

    Ah Toad, nothing like a spot of sport eh? In fact, for toads there seems to be nothing at all but opportunities for a spot of sport, most especially on ye poore olde CP&Se.

  44. toadspittle says:

    Laughter is the best medicine, GC. “Smile, and the world smiles with you – weep, and you weep alone.” – T. Aquinas. …Or else W. Disney. (one or the other.)

  45. GC says:

    Er, thank you, Toad.

  46. mkenny114 says:

    No problem Toad. On a slightly different (but related) note*, would anyone like to sign these petitions?

    https://www.change.org/p/abc-abc-cancel-savage

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/disney-stop-promoting-dan-savage

    If you haven’t heard of Dan Savage before, and particularly if you haven’t heard any of the vile things he’s said, you’re very lucky. But here is a bit of info on the man, so you can see why ABC/Disney commissioning his show is something that needs to be protested vigorously (warnings though, some of the comments cited in this article to illustrate what kind of a man Dan Savage is are extremely vulgar):

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/disney-abc-embraces-hateful-x-rated-bully-in-new-prime-time-show

    *It was Toad’s use of the phrase ‘Sodom and Co.’ that reminded me of this.

  47. mkenny114 says:

    P.S. Further warning – I didn’t realise, but the vulgar comments in the third link are also included at the bottom of the second link too.

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