Pope Francis and homosexuality: confusing signs

By John-Henry Westen, co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.

shutterstock_164173430_810_500_55_s_c1

If “actions speak louder than words,” as the saying goes, the message of Pope Francis on homosexuality is increasingly confusing. On the one hand, he has reiterated the Church’s teaching that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, and has even repeatedly condemned gender ideology, the intellectual underpinning of the LGBT movement. However both in his deeds – most notably his choice of advisors and prelates to elevate to higher positions – and omissions he has left an impression in many minds that seems very different from the Church’s tradition.

It is not only Catholic conservatives who have observed these mixed signals. In the wake of the demotion of prominent conservative Vatican cardinals like Raymond Burke and Mauro Piacenza, Vatican watchers both on the left and the right have pointed out the seeming favoritism of Pope Francis for liberal prelates. Italy’s conservative Vaticanist Marco Tossati dramatically described it as “open season on conservatives.” John Allen, one of the top Vatican watchers, although he falls on the left side of the spectrum of Catholic thought, has himself highlighted Pope Francis’ decisions regarding the demotion of conservative bishops and promotion of those on the left.

Allen has said Francis is being seen as engaging in an “ideological purge” of conservatives. “Many on the Catholic right can’t help but suspect that the recent preponderance of conservatives who’ve found themselves under the gun isn’t an accident,” Allen added. “Some perceive a through-the-looking-glass situation, in which upholding Catholic tradition is now perceived as a greater offense than rejecting it.”

This article is presented with love and respect for the Holy Father, in answer to his call for open dialogue and in light of his expressed thankfulness to a conservative Catholic writer who had voiced public concerns; concerns which the Pope said were “important” for him to receive.

Silence and ambiguity

Pope Francis has chosen to remain silent at key intervals, most especially in the aftermath of some of the most significant shifts in the globe regarding homosexuality – the same-sex “marriage” decisions of both Ireland and the United States.

Although journalists asked for comment, an eerie silence from Rome met last month’s judicial imposition of homosexual “marriage” on the United States. Similarly, after traditionally Catholic Ireland voted to support same-sex “marriage” in their referendum, comment from the pope himself was absent. Only after a few days did a comment appear from the Vatican Secretary of State calling the decision a “defeat for humanity.”

These silences come two years after the pope made his “who am I to judge” comment, which, while misconstrued in most media presentations and widely abused by advocates of same-sex “marriage,” has never been revisited by the Holy Father to clarify his intent – a clarification that could certainly put a swift end to the ubiquitous misuse of his words. Beyond this, the silence that met the first Synod on the Family’s interim document — which, although approved by the Pope for release, presented a view on homosexuality at odds with Church teaching — remains to this day. This despite the public pleading of Cardinal Raymond Burke for a clarification on that and related matters that could come only from the pope.

Equally concerning as this silence, however, have been the appointments to high office and stature in the Church of men with a position on homosexuality at variance with the established teaching of the Church.

The Church teaches that homosexual sex acts are gravely depraved. Regarding both homosexual “marriage” and even civil unions, it clearly states that “under no circumstances can they be approved.” This is the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach. The Church forbids any type of hatred or aggression towards persons with same-sex attraction and has been the leader in tending to those suffering from AIDS and other effects of harmful same-sex sexual behavior. The Church teaches that the homosexual inclination itself is not a sin, but nonetheless is objectively disordered because it is oriented towards sinful behavior. The teaching stresses that all unjust discrimination against men and women with same-sex attraction should be avoided, but acknowledges there is just discrimination in that regard. For example, it forbids men with deep-seated homosexual inclination from becoming priests.

The elevations

Bishop Heiner Koch: Bishop Koch was appointed June 8, 2015 by Pope Francis as the new Archbishop of Berlin, and selected as one of the three delegates of the German Bishops’ Conference to participate in the upcoming October 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family. Koch has said, “Any bond that strengthens and holds people is in my eyes good; that applies also to same-sex relationships.” In another public interview he said: “To present homosexuality as sin is wounding. … I know homosexual pairs that live values such as reliability and responsibility in an exemplary way.”

Cardinal Daneels in rainbow vestments

Cardinal Daneels in rainbow vestments

Cardinal Godfried Danneels: The retired former archbishop of Brussels was a special appointment by Pope Francis to the 2014 Synod of Bishops. In addition to wearing rainbow liturgical vestments and being caught on tape concealing sexual abuse, Danneels said in 2013 of the passage of gay “marriage”: “I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper: A few days into his pontificate Pope Francis praised one of Cardinal Kasper’s books, and then selected the cardinal to deliver the controversial keynote address to the consistory of cardinals advocating his proposal to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive communion in some circumstances. This proposal led to the high-profile debate at the first Synod of Bishops on the Family. Cardinal Kasper has again been selected as a personal appointee of the pope to the second Synod and regularly meets with Pope Francis. Kasper defended the vote of the Irish in favor of homosexual “marriages”, saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.”

Archbishop Bruno Forte: The archbishop of Chieti-Vasto was appointed Special Secretary to the 2014 Synod by Pope Francis. He is the Italian theologian who was credited with drafting the controversial homosexuality section of the infamous midterm report of the Synod which spoke of “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation.” When questioned about the language, Forte said homosexual unions have “rights that should be protected,” calling it an “issue of civilization and respect of those people.”

Cardinal Kasper and Timothy Radcliffe enjoying a moment together

Cardinal Kasper and Timothy Radcliffe enjoying a moment together

Father Timothy Radcliffe: In May, Pope Francis appointed the former Master of the Dominican Order as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace despite his well-known support for homosexuality. Writing on homosexuality in 2013, he said: “We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.” In a 2006 lecture he advocated “accompanying” homosexuals, which he defined as “watching ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord.”

Bishop Johan Bonny: The bishop of Antwerp in Belgium has just been named as one of the delegates to the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family despite open dissent on homosexual unions. While being named as a delegate to the synod may not in itself constitute a major promotion, what is unique about Bonny is the extremity and clarity of his dissent. “Inside the Church, we must look for a formal recognition of the relational dimension that is also present in many homosexual, lesbian and bisexual couples,” he said in a December 2014 interview. “In the same way that in society there exists a diversity of legal frameworks for partners, there must be a diversity of forms of recognition in the Church.”

With few exceptions the prelates above were made bishops by previous popes but were given new prominence by Pope Francis despite their recent very public statements in opposition to Church teaching.

Different treatment for liberal and conservative bishops

But beyond these elevations is the pope’s increasingly apparent disparity in how he treats orthodox and heterodox bishops when facing controversy or allegations of a failure of office.

U.S. Bishop Robert Finn and Archbishop John Nienstedt, Paraguayan Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano and German Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst are all bishops who were outspokenly supportive of the natural family and were all removed from office by Pope Francis. The first three were removed from their posts for not reporting abusive priests within their dioceses, and the German was the so-called “Bishop of Bling” removed for perceived overspending.

One can entirely agree with the disciplinary actions taken against these bishops, while still taking note of the puzzling concurrent elevation of liberal prelates with records much more sullied than the conservative ones. For instance, Bishop Battista Ricca, a former Vatican diplomat, was well known for homosexual conduct during his term at the nunciature in Uruguay, but the pope nevertheless appointed him to head the Vatican Bank and defended his decision.

Perhaps the most egregious case is that of Cardinal Danneels who, as noted above, is a proponent of Church recognition for homosexuality. The evidence that Cardinal Danneels engaged in a cover-up of sex abuse is overwhelming, clear and well known, yet he was brought out of relative obscurity by the personal intervention of Pope Francis during the Synod:

Immediately following his retirement in 2010, Danneels, who has publicly supported same-sex civil unions, was revealed to have actively worked to hide the activities of the now-notorious homosexual abuser, his friend and protégé Roger Vangheluwe, the former bishop of Bruges. Danneels was caught in a recording telling Vangheluwe’s victim, his nephew, “The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait.”

The cardinal is heard in the recording warning the victim against trying to blackmail the church and urged him not to drag Vangheluwe’s name “through the mud.” Danneels added that the victim should admit his own guilt and ask forgiveness.

Meanwhile while Bishop Tebartz-van Elst, the leading German bishop defending the traditional family, was ousted over charges of overspending, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of Pope Francis’ Council of Nine advisors, spends more. But Cardinal Marx takes a weaker stance on homosexuality. Tebartz-van Elst headed the German bishops’ marriage and family commission and was excoriated in the German mainstream media after he disciplined one of his priests who had conducted a “blessing” of two homosexual men. In 2007, Tebartz-van Elst issued a statement saying that all Catholics “have a duty to protest the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships.”

The perception

If conservative Catholics and prelates have had one common request for Pope Francis during his pontificate, it has been for “clarity” – a cry most publicly and famously issued by Cardinal Burke. To quote the cardinal: “I’m not the pope, and I’m not in the business of telling him what to do – but in my judgment this [the Church’s teaching on sexuality] needs to be clarified, and there’s only one person who can clarify it at this point.”

As John Allen wrote in the piece quoted above, should Pope Francis be aiming to “hobble the traditionalist constituency,” and “using every chance to accomplish it,” then he “doesn’t owe anyone an explanation, because his moves would be having precisely the intended effect.” However, he added, if “the pontiff’s motives aren’t ideological,” then “Francis might need to find an occasion to explain in his own voice why he’s going after the people and groups that find themselves in his sights.”

Allen concluded ominously, “Otherwise, the risk is that a good chunk of the Church may conclude that if the pope sees them as the enemy, there’s no good reason they shouldn’t see him the same way.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

214 Responses to Pope Francis and homosexuality: confusing signs

  1. “(A) good chunk of the Church may conclude that if the pope sees them as the enemy, there’s no good reason they shouldn’t see him the same way.”

    It’s happened before.

  2. geoffkiernan says:

    Bishop Koch Says, “ANY bond that strengthens and holds people, is in my eyes good”…. Just how dumb is this jerk?

  3. geoffkiernan says:

    Perhaps I should elaborate…..ANY BOND THAT STRENGTHENS AND HOLDS PEOPLE….What about an incestuous relationship, does that constitute a good relationship? I am sure any such perverted relationship would, in the eyes of the participants, be considered strengthening and hold them together. What about bestiality? What about a relationship between ……,.,.? The mind just boggles. Who decides the criteria?
    And This clown sits in on the Synod on the Family (Oct 2015)… God Help us…. please.

  4. kathleen says:

    Well said! Any genuine Catholic would share your righteous indignation, Geoff! This ongoing treachery within the very heart of the Bride of Christ cannot be allowed to continue. Why is Pope Francis permitting it?

    [Ed. I’m reminded of this message of warning given by Our Lady to the little seers at Garabandal in 1965, i.e., some years before any of the scandals within the Church had come to light:
    “Many Cardinals, many Bishops, and many Priests are on the path of perdition and they take many souls with them.”]

  5. It seems John-Henry is beginning to see the light about how the homosexual network of dissent operates by deceit , double-talk and ingratiating faithful Catholics. All of us enjoy being on the winning team, and the gay team always wins. Lets’s face it, they have the upper hand among the clergy.

  6. John A. Kehoe says:

    Believe it or not, there are Catholics who are homosexual. How are they supposed to feel when some Bishops or Cardinals condemn them ? Should those of us who are in heterosexual marriages continue to lash out at homosexuals ?

  7. GC says:

    John, to your last question, what lashing out? You know as well as I do that lashings out have been in short supply these many years.

    Believe it or not, there have been Catholics of various sexual proclivities for, oh let’s say, 2000 years now? Believe it or not, let’s just say that sexual proclivities are not everything (that might seem strange to some) and it’s probably better not to be too caught up in them. Give yourself some latitude to be your real self (generic “you”, not “you” personally). You’ll be much the better for it, just like everyone.

  8. John A. Kehoe says:

    Dear G,C, As it should happen I am married in accordance with the Rites of the Roman Catholic Church in a heterosexual union but unlike so many others, Cardinals and Bishops included, I do not join in the condemnation of others. You ask what lashing out ? In the past few years in Scotland Cardinal Keith O’Brien, noted for his fulminations against homosexuals, was exposed as engaged in homosexual practices with clerics and resigned his position. A Scottish social group publicly awarded him their annual ‘Bigot of the Year’ prize. O’Brien is not the only one disposed to condemn.

    Of course I agree that sexual proclivities are not everything but I think we are wandering from the point which is do we condemn others ? I do not understand your personal advice to me to give myself ‘ some latitude to be your real self’. I am hardly other than myself as a married heterosexual man.

  9. GC says:

    John, when I said “you”, I tried to point out that I didn’t mean ‘you personally’, but the ‘you’ that in English means ‘a person’ or ‘someone who . . .’

    I only heard that Cardinal O’Brien spoke against “gayriage” in Britain, but that in his other utterances he was compassionate in general towards the difficulties homosexuals experience during their lives, as I’m sure many of us are. I don’t see any hypocrisy involved.

  10. To follow up on Geoff Kiernan’s excellent comments: Reuters is reporting (http://goo.gl/O9yIWB) that a polygamist in the US state of Montana is planning to sue the government there if it does not allow him to legally marry his second wife. I suppose his argument is that polygamists deserve “marriage equality” too.

  11. John A. Kehoe says:

    GC, Your last sentence ‘You’ll be much the better for it, just like everyone’ seemed to suggest that I needed some kind of psychological adjustment as I was unlike everyone else. I am not aware that I do. I am pretty ordinary but non judgmental. Some are even pointing an accusing finger at the Pope himself, apparently because he does not choose to condemn. Rather than condemn, why not direct attention to the existence of Courage International, an Apostolate for gay persons approved by the Catholic Church.

  12. Michael says:

    John,

    Stonewall a gay rights group named Scotland Cardinal Keith O’Brien bigot of the year. The Cardinal apparently wrote that the proposal for same-sex marriage represents a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right” and that same-sex partnerships are “harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved”.

    You may not share his opposition to same sex marriage and his concern about it being labeled as a “human right” by proponents and you may think that homosexual partnerships are an awesome expression of human love rather than gravely depraved. However O’Brien was a Catholic Cardinal and as the above article explained the Church teaching is that homosexual relationships are not beneficial to those involved and in that context there is no reason to think that he wasn’t trying to speak ‘the truth out of love’. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church’s parliamentary officer for Scotland John Deighan contented that “Stonewall wants to shut down anyone who doesn’t agree with them in public discourse.” As you noted yourself O’Brien was himself actively homosexual so it is likely that he had significant sympathy and empathy for those who are driven by a similar orientation even if he attempted to provide sound teachings.

    Christian Concern’s Andrea Williams stated at the time that “Neither he (O’Brien) nor any faithful Christian is homophobic. Stonewall’s attack on him reveals their contempt and brazen attitude to those who will not capitulate to their agenda.”

    You are entitled to your opinion that O’Brien was lashing out and that his comments constituted fulminations against homosexuals but there are other viewpoints out there.

  13. GC says:

    Sorry, John, I did not mean to suggest that at all. I should have been more careful.

    Yes, I’ve heard of Courage and believe that many many people have benefited greatly from it.

  14. John A. Kehoe says:

    Dear GC, Thank you. I know we are essentially of the same mind. Regards.

  15. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, I do [in my case in fact] share O’Brien’s ostensible opposition to same sex marriage. In the recent Irish Referendum on same sex marriage I voted against it but it was passed by a large majority of Irish people, very many of whom were Catholics and despite the Irish bishops’ advice against same sex marriage. Furthermore, for what it is worth and as one who has a Master of Laws degree of London University in Human Rights Law (2013) I do not regard same sex marriage as a human right. That said, I think it a bit rich that Keith O’Brien, an active homosexual himself, should be condemning homosexual practice so I can understand why Stonewall awarded him the Bigot of the Year prize.

    The Catholic boarding school I attended had a number of sexually abusive priests on its staff who abused students, not me,and who, like O’Brien exhibited external piety while acting hypocritically. So one could say His Eminence was in good company.

  16. lyndairish says:

    “Liberal bishops” are heretics and apostates leading souls to damnation. Daneels fought to protect his pornographic, obscene book on perverse sexual relations for children. The souls that have been perverted by these wicked leaders in the institutional Church. Wolves.

  17. lyndairish says:

    He treats God and His Holy Faith, His Commandments as the enemy. Therefore, he is my enemy.

  18. lyndairish says:

    There is no such thing as a homosexual or an active homosexual. These are false and unCatholic terms. A person makes a decision to identify himself in terms of depravity – it is a wholly subjective decision, and gravely immoral.

  19. kathleen says:

    Ah yes, I remember that “obscene book” this “wicked” Church leader wanted to foist on innocent little children – we reported on it here on CP&S. What a scandal! How can such a predator of innocents be allowed to remain in the Church hierarchy, or be allowed to take part in the Synod on the Family? He is clearly against everything the family stands for.
    A “wolf” indeed Lynda, and one in sheep’s clothing, which makes him all the more dangerous.

  20. John A. Kehoe says:

    Most persons find themselves attracted to the opposite sex.Psychologists call those persons heterosexual. Some persons find themselves attracted to the same sex. Psychologists call such persons homosexual or more colloquially gay. Either psychological state is a discovery for that person, not a choice. Making subjective moral judgments on gay persons is not part of Catholic doctrine.

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    Now, without actually reading the above 20 comments, I know where everyone stands, if they have ever commented here before on this or any other issue. Just by their names. Funny, how predictable most people are. If you’re liberal / conservative on some issues, chances are you’re liberal / conservative on most issues. What does that say about people and the truths for which they stand? (Cue Toad and Montaigne)

  22. johnhenrycn says:

    “It seems John-Henry is beginning to see the light…”

    Mrs Avila, never trust a person who hyphenates their name. Especially their given name. Fact is, I suspect “John-Henry” is a fake name, unlike mine. Is this article worth reading? I only ask because the legal shyster from Ireland comments below…

  23. johnhenrycn says:

    “Should those of us who are in heterosexual marriages continue to lash out at homosexuals?”

    John Kehoe, all I can say is: who are we to judge? The best man at my wedding was subsequently (intentionally, I think) found in bed with his dentist. In a house built by a Jew, who also built my parents’ house. Now, the Jew who built my parent’s house was a heterosexual, but my best man’s dentist was not a Jew. He was an atheist, although I didn’t know that at the time. What is your point?

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    …Mr Kehoe… just trying to get your goat (^) Shall try again later😉

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    As you well know, JAK, psychologists/psychiatrists are constantly changing their definitions of what is a mental disease/disorder. Why do you slavishly adopt their nomenclature? Why do you not simply accept the Catholic dogmatic principle that homosexuality is gravely disordered? Have I got that right? Too lazy to pull out the old Catechism right now.

  26. toadspittle says:

    “If you’re liberal / conservative on some issues, chances are you’re liberal / conservative on most issues.”
    Hardly startling. If you’re Catholic, Mormon or Muslim on some issues, chances are you’re Catholic, Mormon or Muslim on most issues.
    ” What does that say about people and the truths for which they stand?”
    Why don’t you tell us what it says, JH?
    (Cue Toad and Montaigne.) What do you mean by that, JH? Something complimentary, certainly. But what?

  27. toadspittle says:

    More to the point here, JH – what is your point here?

  28. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Toad: I happened to run across an excellent article about Montaigne recently (can’t remember where exactly, but it will come to me) and it reminded me of you. Yes, you are correct in taking that as a compliment, but it is not an unalloyed one, as the essayist was able to point out some interesting flaws in Montaigne’s perspective on things.

  29. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad, the pointlessness of my comment was intended to drive home my point that John Kehoe’s comment was a pointless one, not to mention a question begging one.

  30. toadspittle says:

    Montaigne had many flaws, and he knew that better than anyone.
    Enunciating them was a major component of his essays.
    He tried always to be an absolutely honest man.
    …As do we all.
    Don’t we?
    I certainly try to be honest all the time. Except, of course, when it is plainly against my interests to be so – such as on occasions when it really matters.
    …Like everyone else of every religious, and non-religious, stripe – I suggest.

  31. John A. Kehoe says:

    Dear Johnhenrycn. My point, not as convoluted as your post,is simply don’t judge.

  32. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenryen,

    By all means try again.

  33. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenryen, I see that your method of debate is now to resort to abusive name calling. I am proud to be an Irish human rights lawyer. A shyster is one who uses unscrupulous methods. Not me.

  34. johnhenrycn says:

    “Johnhenryen”?
    …er, I think your spectacles need a cleaning, my learned friend .)

  35. johnhenrycn says:

    Name me one Irish human right. Kissing the Blarney Stone is the only one I can think of.

    But speaking of lawyers, I always get a kick out of driving by this place:

  36. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenryen, Why the ‘old Catechism’ ? i have just pulled out the [new] Catechism of the Catholic Church and at paragraph 2358 it tells me that ‘ The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided……

    You should really pull out the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    “My point, not as convoluted as your post,is simply don’t judge.”

    So, no desire to ever seat your back 40 on the woolsack, Mr Kehoe?

  38. johnhenrycn says:

    Tut, tut, my dear Irish human rights lawyer, do try to accurately quote the Catechism, m’kay?

    Funny thing, though: the old Catechism – meaning the Catechism of the Council of Trent – which you seem to disparage – does not even mention homosexuality or sodomy in so many words. One would have thought, therefore, that it would appeal to you

  39. johnhenrycn says:

    Hello, Mr Kehoe: my last reply to you (26 July at 19:23) was incorrect. The Roman Catechism (page 259) does indeed specifically mention the “effeminate” and “sodomites”.
    http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf
    My bad, as they say in Ireland.

  40. John A. Kehoe says:

    Human rights are not classified as national rights, Irish,English,American or otherwise. They arise from a country being a signatory to an international convention on human rights, such as the various human rights conventions of the United Nations e.g. the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Ireland is a signatory but the US is not. Similarly the European Convention on Human Rights to which Ireland is a signatory. If a country is a signatory to a human rights convention then the rights within those conventions become human rights within the jurisdiction of that country. You should really pull out those conventions and acquaint yourself of the human rights therein.

  41. John A. Kehoe says:

    johnhenrycn. Read the substance of my posts. Actually I don’t wear spectacles. A little less sarcasm would suit you better, but if that is all you have to offer …..

  42. johnhenrycn says:

    Sorry, Mr Kehoe, there are not enough hours left in my life to warrant reading any of those things. Next up on my list is The Anatomy of Melancholy, What it is: With all the Kinds, Causes, Symptomes, Prognostickes, and Several Cures of it. In Three Maine Partitions with their several Sections, Members, and Subsections. Philosophically, Medicinally, Historically, Opened and Cut Up by Robert Burton:

    I’ll tell you how it turns out.

    Besides, there are only three human rights – food, clothing and shelter, and I don’t need a long winded apparatchik (no offence) giving me a lecture on fantasy ones. I do have a firm belief in quite a few civil rights, but that’s not your field, apparently.

  43. John A. Kehoe says:

    We don’t have have a ‘woolsack’ in the Republic of Ireland. Nor, to forestall your further jibes do we have ‘lords’ or ‘lordships’ in courts, nor wigs – all consigned to history. Nor do we refer to colleagues as ‘learned friends’ All of that is popular fiction.The injunction not to make moral judgments on fellow human beings comes from Christ himself as you are aware.

  44. johnhenrycn says:

    “Woolsack”, also known as the Bench, is merely an idiom, my dear (un)learned friend, with wide usage around the common law world. As for “learned friend”, I cannot say what the current custom is in the backwaters of Tipperary, but it is still a term of false endearment in the courts of other parts of the Commonwealth, as Ireland was until 1949.

  45. John A. Kehoe says:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church first promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1994 represents the updated Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If you go to paragraph 2358 you will see what our attitude to homosexual persons as human beings should be. I do not find any word of condemnation therein. The preceding paragraph 2357 does indeed speak, inter alia, of homosexual ACTS as being ‘intrinsically disordered’. There is no condemnation of the person, however only of the act. For what it is worth my contribution to these posts has simply been to say that we should not make subjective moral judgments of anybody.’Judge not, lest you be judged’ was the command of Christ My contribution has called forth sarcasm and jibes about lawyers which hardly advances the argument one way or the other.

  46. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe (21:32 on 26 July) says:
    “The Catechism of the Catholic Church first promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1994 represents the updated Magisterium of the Catholic Church.”

    Well, no, actually: John Paul II formally approved the Catechism to which you refer on 25 June 1992, and promulgated it on 11 October 1992. A mere quibble, but trials have been lost on lesser points than that, what? As for your updated Magisterium, don’t make me laugh. I have a heart condition.

  47. John A. Kehoe says:

    Yes, you are right. It was promulgated on 11 October 1992 but first published it would seem in 1994 but where does that leave the substantive point of whether or not we should condemn homosexual persons ?
    In his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of 11 October 1992, as introduction to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II stated, inter alia, ‘It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past’. Without doubt, this is updating the expression of Catholic doctrine including, among many other matters, the changed attitude we should have to homosexual persons as set out in paragraph 2358 of the Catechism. Of course I know many Catholics reared in the old tradition would prefer to be issuing condemnations against gay people, accusing them personally of subjective sin, but I seem to remember a different response from Pope Francis to a journalist who asked him what his attitude to gay persons was.

  48. johnhenrycn says:

    Well, Mr Kehoe, God bless you. Such a good person. Clearly a better human than most, but not yet as good as this wee lass:
    http://img.memecdn.com/faith-in-humanity-right_o_2418885.webp

  49. kathleen says:

    John,
    ‘Human rights’ are grounded in the transcendent reality of God and His Divine Law, first laid out in the Jewish Torah, and brought to its fullness by the Catholic Church in the writings of the early Doctors of the Church. In fact all true Christians affirm that human beings have rights, not because they are part of the natural order, but because they are loved by God. Human rights are known through both reason and revelation: “reason enlightened by revelation”, quotes Catholic social teaching.
    IOW, if God is not ‘in the picture’, where is the cornerstone to say whether anything is a true ‘right’ or not?

    Modern secular ‘human rights’ movements have many inconsistencies. The UN Convention on the ‘Rights of the Child’ does not seem to include the Rights of the defenceless ‘Unborn Child’, much to its shame. Some are now also calling to legalise euthanasia (‘assisted suicide’ should be the real term). And oh, don’t forget that ‘gay rights’ (the right to commit sodomy) are also considered ‘human rights’ nowadays!!

    Better to stick with ‘human rights’ as laid out by Christ’s Bride, the Church, through the encyclicals of her great Popes and Magisterial teachings!

  50. kathleen says:

    “Without doubt, this is updating the expression of Catholic doctrine including, among many other matters, the changed attitude we should have to homosexual persons as set out in paragraph 2358 of the Catechism.”

    I absolutely deny that! You have fallen prey to the liberal, unCatholic attitude rampant in the West today. Sodomy has always been a serious mortal sin, and always will be; Pope John Paul II has never uttered anything to suggest otherwise. You are reading things into his statement that are not there. He was referring to many of the modern inventions, technology, etc. that had not existed in the earlier writings of the CCC.
    For instance, “road rage” is a modern sin mentioned in the Catechism; before cars were invented, and traffic in most places became a nightmare, such a sin was nonexistent. “Internet bullying” is another modern sin that has been discussed in recent years on the web.

    P.S. Your reference to Pope Francis’ response to the journalist does excellent justice to the title of this article!

  51. kathleen says:

    @ John Kehoe

    You asked way above ^^ how homosexuals should feel when some Bishops or Cardinals condemn them”.
    Firstly, because Christ’s ministers have a duty to denounce the grave sin of sodomy, for the good of the soul of its perpetrators, I think they should feel gratitude. It would be a good and fitting thing if the clergy were to speak out more frequently of this evil, and the dire consequences for those who persist in such a path. Secondly, it is the sin that is being “condemned” here, not the person; surely you must see that?

    Homosexuals – although really I would rather call them people with ‘same-sex attraction’ (this in itself is a clear disorder, like it or not) – do not have a “right” to indulge themselves, giving in to their perverse passions, as you appear to be suggesting. This is wrong; it is sinful! To remain chaste and virtuous they must fight the temptation and avoid any form of sexual thought word and deed. This is God’s law, John – not mine. Take heed!

    Naturally, this also applies to everyone else too. We all have to learn to avoid ‘sins of the flesh’ and to struggle to keep the holy virtues of temperance and purity during our lives when single, widowed, etc., and to be always faithful to one’s spouse within marriage.

  52. geoffkiernan says:

    John:
    Your comment,
    “Of course I know many Catholics reared in the old tradition, would prefer to be issuing condemnations against gay people, accusing them personally of subjective sin….”

    is breathtaking in its silliness. As One of those reared in the old traditional sense I can tell you that we pray daily for our Homosexual Brothers and Sisters. But in true Charity we do not attempt to confirm them in their sinful behaviour by attempting to white wash or distort or lessen their culpability in engaging in their disordered behaviour.
    I wonder, will you be there to defend them or to offer them solace when they, like the rest of us, stand before our Creator? Your false distorted view of true Charity will then be seen precisely for what it is when that time comes.
    I would much prefer to be accused of Praying for them than confirming them in their sin.
    It is not a condemnation of homosexual people…. It IS a condemnation of any disordered behaviour they may engage in.
    The Holy Father’ comment, “Who am I to Judge” is equally culpable. Regardless of what he meant by those words, the fact is he simply confirmed many Homosexuals in their sin, and for that he will have to answer.

  53. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenrycn. More sarcasm from you. The only commodity in which you trade

  54. John A. Kehoe says:

    Kathleen I am not suggesting any such thing as you suggest. Nobody has a right to indulge themselves but equally nobody has a right to condemn others as you suggest. I don’t need to be told about fidelity in marriage. I agree with all of that.

  55. John A. Kehoe says:

    Kathleen, Yes I agree with Pope Francis. We do not have the right to condemn individuals. Perhaps, unlike Pope Francis, you feel you have that right ? Who are you to condemn ?

  56. John A. Kehoe says:

    geoffkiernan, I too pray for homosexual people.However, I continue to deplore the condemnation of homosexual persons. Whether or not they are subjectively committing sin is not a matter for you or me to decide. God alone knows. Other sexual activities raise the same individual moral problem i.e. whether or not there is individual moral culpability. I agree with Pope Francis. In so far as his statement refuses to accuse the individual of subjective sin he is not in any way culpable. His view represents mainstream Catholic teaching.

  57. Michael says:

    Whether or not they are subjectively committing sin is not a matter for you or me to decide. God alone knows.

    This isn’t wholly true though is it, as there is a significant (and very vocal) number of people who proclaim that they are in active homosexual relationships, whilst also asking for these relationships to be ‘affirmed’ by the Church in some way. I haven’t read all the above thread, so forgive me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick, but surely for people with same-sex attraction who are trying to live chastely, according to the Church’s teachings*, there should be no problem in hearing what the Church has to say on the matter, as she has done so consistently, without appealing to ad hominem or attempting to whip up malice against persons, in a clear way that makes plain the problems with a homosexual lifestyle.

    Those who wish to continue in such a lifestyle however (and have it affirmed), also need to hear the Church’s teaching, as noone else is going to tell them what they need to hear – i.e.; that they are going down a path that is both sinful and unhealthy. Who then is the Church doing wrong by in issuing its teaching, and who is it that is ‘condemning’ anyone (as opposed to providing clear warnings about engaging in the homosexual lifestyle)?

    *It is amazing that the ‘Who am I to judge’ statement is still being advanced in support of anything other than a statement not to judge those persons who, whilst attracted to people of the same sex, try earnestly to live according to Church teachings. This is in part due to the Holy Father’s ‘off the cuff’ manner, and unwillingness to provide clarifications to statements on potentially controversial topics (or failure to recognise that they are potentially controversial in the first place perhaps) and in great part due to the mainstream media’s eagerness to present ‘Who am I to judge’ as something that supports their own agenda. But in this case he did actually make a clarification, which was that the people he was not going to judge were those attempting to follow the Church’s teaching, not anyone who happens to be SSA, and certainly not anyone who wants homosexual relationships affirmed.

  58. kathleen says:

    Pope Francis’ response to the said journalist spread worldwide CONFUSION, John. That is what I meant. Confusion is one of the Devil’s ‘tools’, used widely by some Protestant branches of Christianity where ‘anything goes’, and liberals within our own Church who fail to uphold Catholic doctrines.
    I am not condemning any individual, but I do condemn (as should all Catholics) the sin of sodomy that the ‘gay lobby’ flaunts and celebrates. So should you.

  59. Michael says:

    P.S. Just read a great testimony to how the Church’s teaching here can change people’s lives (also note how little condemnation was experienced by the person giving the testimony at the hands of those faithful to Church teaching compared to those in the homosexual community):

    https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/the-tale-of-two-things/

  60. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, I certainly would not affirm homosexual acts.Many contributors to this thread purposely or otherwise misrepresent me as if I did. Some of them seem to be very happy in a condemnatory role.and use abusive language to make their point. I have been called an Irish shyster lawyer etc
    It is not possible to conduct a civilized debate in such an abusive environment. Some will not even allow Pope Francis to express his views wishing to interpret them to suit their own. Most do not distinguish, or wish to distinguish, OBJECTIVE moral law from SUBJECTIVE sin. For the umpteenth time I say that it is not for us to judge whether sin has been, or is being, committed by any particular individual. Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that homosexuality is not a choice. ‘They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’. Crucially, it calls for ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’ for homosexual people. For this post I expect again to be personally attacked, called an ‘Irish shyster lawyer’ and to be told yet again that Pope Francis is the enemy within, facing the judgment of God etc etc.

  61. Tom Fisher says:

    It is not possible to conduct a civilized debate in such an abusive environment.

    John, I think the commentators here have been quite courteous towards you. And rightly so, you’ve made some sound points. In my experience homosexuality has been discussed on this blog many times, but very rarely have I seen anything hateful towards our homosexual brothers and sisters.

  62. John A. Kehoe says:

    Tom, Do you not think being called an ‘Irish shyster lawyer’ abusive ? It is highly insulting.

  63. Michael says:

    John, I’m sorry if you feel yourself to have been subject to personal attacks, but I must second what Tom has just written below – namely that the comments made in response to yours do seem to have been courteous, and that I cannot recall seeing anything hateful written about homosexuals here before.

    As to the topic being discussed, the point I was trying to make was, if you don’t want to affirm homosexual acts, then what is your quarrel? Noone here is suggesting that we do not treat SSA people with sensitivity or respect, only that the Church’s teaching is clear, and that it benefits both those who are trying to live chastely (by providing clear guidelines and acknowledgement of the difficulty of their condition) and those who wish to flaunt those teachings (by providing a critique of their lifestyle not otherwise forthcoming from contemporary society).

    The invocation of Pope Francis’ infamous comment on this is, as I mentioned before, strange, as he was not actually advocating anything other than what is outlined in the Catechism. The question of whether he could have made this clearer, given the inevitable distortion of anything popes say by the media, is a valid one, and that is the real thrust of the post.

  64. Tom Fisher says:

    Tom, Do you not think being called an ‘Irish shyster lawyer’ abusive ? It is highly insulting.

    I have to admit that I didn’t see that particular remark. I used to comment here a lot, but I’ve been away for a while, so I’m not up to date. I came dangerously close to becoming a lawyer myself once. But the Good Lord knew that a shyster such as myself would be much happier in the humanities.

  65. geoffkiernan says:

    John at 906.
    It is not condemnation of the Homosexual person. It is the condemnation of the sinful and disordered behaviour that is implicit in the activities of a practising homosexual. Surely you can see that? If you cant see that then it is because you simply choose not to see.
    If I see a person about to hit an innocent person over the head with a base ball then I am called to make a judgement about the malicious intent of the assailant. So much for the weak and dangerous call not to judge.
    We are called to make judgments a dozen time a day about the actions of our fellow pilgrims. Not about the Person but their actions/behaviour. Is it sinful/harmful?
    Please continue to pray for our Holy Father, the Church and for our Homosexual Brothers and Sisters

  66. geoffkiernan says:

    That is a Base Ball Bat…

  67. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, I cannot agree that comments made in response to mine have been courteous. Being called ‘an Irish shyster lawyer’ is a gross insult. It also has traces of racism. I am Irish and a lawyer. I am proud of being both. If it is of any interest to my abusers my several academic qualifications were acquired at a British university. Does that make me a British shyster lawyer ?

    P.S. I am also a practising Catholic and I claim to be as informed a Catholic as any one on this thread.

  68. johnhenrycn says:

    John Kehoe, you take yourself a bit too seriously. Now, I admit, the word “shyster” was not very nice, but it was clearly used in jest. Did you fail to see the smiley face I used in my very next comment underlining my clumsy attempt at humour? That aside, nothing else said on this thread by me or anyone else concerning you has been outside the bounds of fair comment.

  69. Tom Fisher says:

    JH, I hope you’re well! I feel like it’s been a while since I looked in. Ain’t you a lawyer anyway? Y’all shysters😉

  70. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, Is it really courteous to say that any utterance of Pope Francis is ‘infamous ‘ ?,
    Neither am I advocating anything other than what is outlined in the Catechism. Read paragraph 2477 of the Catechism which advises us : He becomes guilty ; of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbour’. Better not to make moral judgment on anybody.

  71. Michael says:

    Sorry John, will have to continue down here:

    Being called ‘an Irish shyster lawyer’ is a gross insult.

    Fair enough – I also didn’t see that one, and you’re right, it’s not a very courteous thing to say; I am sorry about that. Overall though, I think the responses to your comments have been fair, and that there is a distinct lack of personal attacks on these threads in general.

    Michael, Is it really courteous to say that any utterance of Pope Francis is ‘infamous

    I certainly don’t see anything wrong with that, no. When he said ‘who am I to judge’, almost immediately it became a huge newspiece, and still carries an enormous amount of weight, causing controversy any time it is mentioned, and is frequently quoted out of context – I would suggest that warrants it being described as ‘infamous’. To say so is not to say anything about the intentions of Pope Francis when he said it, only that the comment itself has garnered a huge amount of controversy and continues to be used to sow confusion amongst the faithful.

    Better not to make moral judgment on anybody.

    Even when we know, thanks to their making it plain to everyone around them, that they are indulging in behaviour contrary to Catholic teaching? The call for us not to judge is not a call for us to ignore sin being lived out or promoted in plain sight; as the excerpt you cite from the Catechism suggests, it is a call not to judge without proper foundation – the problem is, we often do have sufficient knowledge to know someone is flaunting Catholic teaching. It is a spiritual work of mercy to admonish sinners – are we to neglect that? Nothing the Holy Father actually said in his ‘infamous’ comment would suggest so, and if you are suggesting we do not judge those who are trying to live according to the Church’s teaching, then again, what is the problem? Noone is saying otherwise.

  72. johnhenrycn says:

    In much the same way as only black people are allowed to use the “n” word.

    But Mr Kehoe enjoys nursing his hurt, and I expect he will revisit my “gross insult” once or twice more before letting it lie.

  73. Tom Fisher says:

    IVery good point. hope that I’ll always be against those who want to ban any words. There are some words I wouldn’t use to a mans face, because I know they would cause pain. — But my refusal to say n****r for example, is not based on the pathetic whims of the politically correct. It’s based on the fact that I know it can cause anguish,

  74. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, No, I am saying that we are not entitled to judge any person whom we presume to be a sinner. It goes without saying, I hope, that we do not judge those who are trying to live according to the Church’s teaching. Many of the posts in this thread would do credit to the the mentality of the Inquisition

  75. Michael says:

    No, I am saying that we are not entitled to judge any person whom we presume to be a sinner.

    We cannot judge any person overall no, as we are not privy to all the experiences, traits, etc, that make them who they are – only God knows such things. But we can judge what people do. Either you think there has been a lot of judging of persons (as opposed to acts) on this blog, or you are blurring the lines between judgement of conduct and judgement of souls – which is it?

    Many of the posts in this thread would do credit to the the mentality of the Inquisition

    Now who’s being discourteous… A bit of evidence would not go amiss if you are going to make accusations like that (even though the reputation of the Spanish Inquisition – to whom I assume you are referring is greatly overblown, the common characterisation of them would suggest you are making quite a damning assessment of ‘many of the posts in this thread’).

  76. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe says:
    “Many of the posts in this thread would do credit to the the mentality of the Inquisition”

    The Inquisition, under a more pleasant sounding name, still exists as a Congregation of the Church. Do you have a problem with that?

  77. Michael says:

    The Inquisition, under a more pleasant sounding name, still exists as a Congregation of the Church.

    Exactamundo (as they say in France). I don’t know whether John has a problem with the CDF, but I can certainly guess what kind of popular perception of the Inquisition (particularly, I presume, the Spanish Inquisition) he is drawing on here, and it’s not exactly a complimentary one, nor therefore a courteous comparison. Having said that, I’m still a little unsure as to which comments he has in mind, and as to what kind of judgement he seems to have a problem with, given that I haven’t read any indictment of SSA persons here.

  78. John A. Kehoe says:

    I do have a problem with the Inquisition, not with the CGF

  79. John A. Kehoe says:

    My typing error. I do have a problem with the Inquisition; not with the CDF

  80. Michael says:

    I do have a problem with the Inquisition; not with the CDF

    Yes, that you have a problem with the Inquisition (all of them, or just the Spanish one? The difference is quite important) was plain from your earlier comment. JH’s point is that the CDF is the same office under a different name.

    My point is that if you wish to accuse people’s comments of being similar in character to an organisation that you find problematic, then it would be helpful to point out where these comments are and why you have such a problem with them.

  81. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, Running through this thread -you can find them yourself- are challenges to the orthodoxy of Pope Francis himself as the enemy within …..who will be called to account before God etc…. These sentiments would find especial favour with the Spanish inquisitors.

  82. Michael says:

    Sorry John, but I find that to be just as general a statement as your previous one, and a bit of a cop-out to be honest. If you are going to make serious accusations about the content of the comments on this thread (which I have looked through myself and can see no allusions to Pope Francis as being ‘the enemy within’) then specific corroboration would be tremendously helpful.

    Otherwise I will have to assume that you are either exaggerating or blurring the lines between valid criticisms of the Holy Father’s statements and criticisms of the man himself. Anyway, I have to sign off now, but until you do provide some such evidence, and based on your comments about the kind of judgements you believe people here have made about homosexual persons, I am inclined to believe that this is indeed a case of exaggeration and/or blurring the lines.

  83. John A. Kehoe says:

    geoffkiernan, Was the response of Pope Francis ‘Who am I to judge ?’ ‘Weak and dangerous’ ? Why is there such an obsession with commenting on homosexual practice as a sexual perversion ? It isn’t the only one. Sadomasochism, originating in school ‘discipline’ as practised by Catholic priest teachers and religious teachers has been under the radar until the recent popularity of ‘Fifty Shades of Gray’ has shown how widespread this perversion is, but few if any in the Catholic world have yet acknowledged it.

  84. John A. Kehoe says:

    I am afraid you are simply being vexatious. . You say you can find no allusions in this thread to Pope Francis being an enemy. Look at the post of ‘lyndairish’ on 23 July where he says ‘ He treats God and His Holy Faith,His Commandments as the enemy.Therefore he is my enemy’ There are similar such over the top references in this thread.

  85. John A. Kehoe says:

    Deny what you like, Kathleen, but paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church requires people to treat homosexual persons with respect,compassion and sensitivity. You may not like that but there it is in black and white.
    Pope Francis’s reply – ‘Who am I to judge ?’ was to a journalist who sought his opinion on a person who is homosexual. It had nothing to do with ‘modern inventions, technology, etc’ Where in heaven’s name did you get that ?

  86. John A. Kehoe says:

    Kathleen, Like you I do condemn the sin of sodomy as OBJECTIVE Catholic teaching. But neither you nor I nor the Pope can say whether or not a particular individual SUBJECTIVELY commits sin when engaged in a homosexual act. That is all Pope Francis was saying.

  87. John A. Kehoe says:

    Kathleen, It is God’s law, not mine that you judge not. Take heed !

  88. J.A.K.
    “If someone is gay and he is seeking God, and has good will, who am I to judge?”

    I’m getting tired of people misquoting the Pope. If a “gay person” is seeking God, he will find that some of his actions are sinful, including giving in to unnatural sexual inclinations. Get your facts straight!

  89. Well, never mind. But please, don’t quote “who am I to judge?” without the rest of the sentence!

  90. John A. Kehoe says:

    The Hapsburg Restorationist I am getting tired of people who keep telling me that I have misquoted the Pope. Not so. I have quoted him precisely.Get your facts straight !

  91. No, you haven’t. You’ve quote a fragment of the Pope. The full quote is in my comment.

  92. johnhenrycn says:

    Crazy, man. (NB: I did not say “Crazy man”, so please don’t take that as a “gross insult”). Can you give a hypothetical example of a person engaging in a homosexual act who is not “SUBJECTIVELY” committing sin while doing so? Do you mean a queer who happy with his way of life and who doesn’t see sodomy as wrong? Is that what you think the Pope was saying – that we have no business criticizing persons who are comfortable in their skins?

  93. John A. Kehoe says:

    The Hapsburg Restorationist. I believe that gay persons, like all of us, are seeking God or are you presuming to know that they are not seeking God ?

  94. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe (18:15) says:
    “I am getting tired of people who keep telling me that I have misquoted the Pope. Not so. I have quoted him precisely.Get your facts straight!”

    You deliberately misquoted Paragraph 2358 the Catechism yesterday (18:58) by pretending that it contains this statement:
    “They do not choose their homosexual condition…”

    I pointed out your mistake. You chose not to correct it, so it was a deliberate misquote by you. You misquote the Catechism, so it’s not unreasonable to conclude you do likewise concerning the pitter patter of Pope Francis with the media.

  95. Some of them are. Some are not. Not everyone is seeking God, nor is everyone of Good Will. I am not presuming anything in the case of individuals.

  96. johnhenrycn says:

    What about avowed gay atheists? But this is getting silly. You’ve lost the argument that you’re having with yourself, Mr Kehoe. And stop giving me those “thumbs down”. I consider them a “gross insult”.

  97. John A. Kehoe says:

    Yes, seriously. If you read ‘The Ferns Report’ [ a Government Inquiry] on line at pages 115/116 you will see an account in action of a very perverted sadistic priest- teacher who used corporal punishment as a preliminary to actual sexual abuse of the students which is spelled out in detail in the Report. I know about this school – St Peter’s College Wexford – because I attended it although not,luckily, abused in it.
    If, further, you Google ‘Sexual Abuse in the Benedictine Schools in England’ you will find details of the jailing of Benedictine priest- teachers for sexual abuses of students at their several colleges, some explicitly connected with corporal punishment.
    As I have said, the obsession with homosexuality- and the urge to condemn it -has masked the other common sexual perversion, sadomasochism, which has now come to prominence with the ‘success’ and popularity of ‘Fifty Shades of Gray’.

  98. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenrycn. I have consulted paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church again. The second sentence of that paragraph reads (with punctuation marks reproduced exactly}. ‘They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’

  99. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe: Paragraph 2358 of the print (2nd edition, 1994) copy of the Catechism reads thusly:

    “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    The online version at the Vatican website reads the same. I’m intrigued by this discrepancy between your version of the Catechism and mine. Can you explain it? I can’t.

  100. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe, I think you must be looking at an intratext “interpretive” version of the Catechism. In fact, I’m almost sure of it:
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P85.HTM

  101. I’m not sure if this even deserves an answer.
    Corporal punishment in itself is not an evil thing. It can be misused for evil purposes, all of which are condemned by the Church. Homosexual acts are in themselves evil, and are condemned by the Church. The condemnation of homosexual acts is only part of the condemnation of other sexual acts, including those by heterosexual couples who are not married. The difference is that the acts of the unmarried heterosexuals while wrong, are not perversions as they are ordered towards the right purpose, however they are condemned, as are all perversions (all of which, by the way, have exist since pagan times).

  102. johnhenrycn says:

    The IntraText version found at vatican.va/archive is not the official version. Which leads me to wonder if someone at the Vatican is a Fifth Column homosexual?

  103. johnhenrycn says:

    Hi, THR. That version, like the one I link at 19:38 below, is not the official version (am I wrong?), although it reads the same as the official version. I don’t know much about that URL (Uniform Resource Locator) stuff, but the official URL for Paragraph 2358 is different.

  104. Interesting. Which is the official version?

  105. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenrycn. I am happy to accept all you have said in this post at 19.24 but no, I can not with certainty explain this very important discrepancy. I do repeat, however, for the third time that paragraph 2358 of my Catechism of the Catholic Church, second sentence, reads : ‘They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’. I would not dream of misquoting a text.

    Just now I think I may have it. I note that you say that you are quoting from 2nd edition, 1994. Mine shows on the second page ‘This edition published 1995’ It is still very surprising but suggests ‘minor’ {?} changes/additions in a later text. It would also mean of course that the Vatican Website does not reflect this later change.. But this would not surprise me, given how bureaucracies in general operate.
    I think there have been further later printed editions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and, if this is a sample of what can happen, heaven knows what may be in the later edition(s). I certainly would be very interested to know why there was this change. Catholics should be able to rely on the Catechism without having to watch out for shifting views.

  106. John A. Kehoe says:

    No, I am looking at the printed 1995 edition which I hold.

  107. John A. Kehoe says:

    If the IntraText version is not the official version then we can ignore it in favour of the printed edition which I have.

  108. johnhenrycn says:

    Here’s a picture of my edition of the Catechism, which incidentally was published (not promulgated, which happened earlier on 11 October 1992) by Image Books in April 1995:

    Now, you show me yours, as I once said to a classmate (a girl) in Kindergarten.

    It is inconceivable that this “very important discrepancy” (your words, but I agree) is a mere bureaucratic glitch, and I think we should get to the bottom of it.

    The second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the latest one, and there is no revised second edition.

    Anyway, am interested in seeing a picture of your version.

  109. John A. Kehoe says:

    We differ I am afraid. The close connection between corporal punishment and sexual abuse has been manifested in the many cases where teachers have gone to jail for sexual abuse of students connected with corporal punishment as in St Peter’s College where I went to school and in the several Benedictine ‘elite’ schools in the United Kingdom. It is a well concealed sexual perversion cloaked in religion and piety.

  110. Here is the official Latin text:
    2358 Virorum et mulierum numerus non exiguus tendentias homosexuales praesentat profunde radicatas. Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem. Excipiendi sunt observantia, compassione et suavitate. Relate ad eos vitandum est quodlibet iniustae discriminationis signum. Hae personae vocantur ad voluntatem Dei in sua vita efficiendam, et, si ipsae christianae sunt, ad coniungendas cum Sacrificio crucis Domini difficultates quas in facto suae condicionis possunt invenire.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a6_lt.htm#II. Vocatio ad castitatem

  111. John A. Kehoe says:

    Herewith front cover of catechism: http://i.imgur.com/8CD1RqH.jpg

  112. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe, the copyright for my Catechism of the Catholic Church shown above was taken out by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc. in 1994, which is why I refer to it as the “2nd Edition, 1994”, but it was not actually published by Image Books until April of 1995, which is why I think your print copy and mine must have exactly the same wording barring any shenanigans.

  113. Both copies of the Catechism I own (Image Book Double Day and Urbi et Orbi Communications) have the faulty wording, and both were published in 1995. Recourse to the official Latin text (https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/pope-francis-and-homosexuality-confusing-signs/#comment-54486) will, I think, be necessary.

  114. johnhenrycn says:

    Well, that’s sorted. Mr Kehoe is relying on a defective version, even though his picture of it says that it is “Complete and Unabridged”. But, I find it very disconcerting that this has occurred, and I wonder if mala fides is afoot.

  115. John A. Kehoe says:

    Thanks. But this does not solve the mystery of the inclusion of the second sentence in paragraph 2358 of the second Edition which I have- ‘They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’. The emphasized sentence in Latin above Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem merely refers to ‘This propensity,objectively disordered, for the majority of them constitutes a trial’

  116. The faulty wording only occurs in the English translation, for some reason:
    Un numero non trascurabile di uomini e di donne presenta tendenze omosessuali profondamente radicate. Questa inclinazione, oggettivamente disordinata, costituisce per la maggior parte di loro una prova. Italian version http://www.vatican.va/archive/ITA0014/__P84.HTM

  117. johnhenrycn says:

    This is confusing, THR: I think your research confirms that Mr Kehoe’s Catechism is wrong. Am I right?

  118. johnhenrycn says:

    “Wrong” in the sense of poor translation.

  119. John A. Kehoe says:

    The 1995 edition I have was bought from Veritas the official bookshop owned and run by the Irish Episcopal Conference. I find it hard to believe that anyone meddled with the wording of paragraph 2358

  120. johnhenrycn says:

    I see (now) what you mean. All I meant was the authoritative English translation of the official Latin text.

  121. John A. Kehoe says:

    I am afraid, with regret, that I cannot agree. I bought and bona fide rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church second Edition bought from Veritas the bookshop owned and run by the Irish Episcopal Conference.

  122. John A. Kehoe says:

    It is not so much a poor translation but an additional sentence in paragraph 2358.

  123. John A. Kehoe says:

    I have to stick by what I have.

  124. johnhenrycn says:

    John Kehoe says (21:16) –
    The 1995 edition I have was bought from Veritas the official bookshop owned and run by the Irish Episcopal Conference. I find it hard to believe that anyone meddled with the wording…”

    Well, based on the evidence THR has presented, either meddling or ignorance of Latin are the only explanations that come to mind. This is not to (necessarily) cast stones at the Irish Episcopal Conference, which may subcontracted their translation to an outside bidder. But surely you must admit that your version of 2358 is wrong?

  125. johnhenrycn says:

    “I have to stick by what I have.”

    That’s a silly comment. If your version of the Catechism is wrong, you have to admit it.

    I find myself admitting errors on this blog from time to time. Pride goeth before the fall, Mr Kehoe.

  126. It seems that most of the recent publications of the Catechism in English have interpolated into the second sentence of 2358 a phrase found neither in the official Latin nor the other language translation (by the way, you’ll notice that obiective inordinata entirely disappears from these faulty translations).

  127. johnhenrycn says:

    “It is not so much a poor translation but an additional sentence in paragraph 2358.”

    You are mistaken. Whoever translated your version of 2358 did not add an additional sentence; he/she replaced the first statement in the second sentence, which actually reads:
    “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
    with the following made-up-out-of-whole-cloth alternative assertion:
    They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.”
    That revision is either the product of a homosexual agenda or a poor education. Whichever, it is wrong and not in accordance with Catholic doctrine.

  128. John A. Kehoe says:

    I think it may have been someone meddling by the exclusion of a sentence that was intended to be there and which in fact is there in the edition I have. It is not, by the way, my version. I don’t make up versions. The exclusion of the second sentence in paragraph 2358 of course plays into the hands of those who wish to condemn homosexual people and to insist that their orientation is always their choice. It does not say much about clear Catholic teaching.

  129. John A. Kehoe says:

    Are you saying that all homosexual persons choose their orientation ?

  130. johnhenrycn says:

    “I think it may have been someone meddling by the exclusion of a sentence that was intended to be there and which in fact is there in the edition I have.”

    Ah so, Mr Kehoe, the version published by the Irish Episcopal Conference is the true version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the original Latin version was hijacked and twisted by “those who wish to condemn homosexual people”?

    “It is not, by the way, my version. I don’t make up versions.”

    You rely on made up versions, but don’t make them up yourself. Duly noted.

    You have lost it. Give up.

  131. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m an agnostic on this issue. I think all / most / many / some homosexuals voluntarily choose that life. In other words, I really don’t know. What I do know is that they can choose to reject that life. A black man is stuck with the skin he was born with. A gay man is not compelled to act out his so-called orientation anymore than a devout Catholic separated from his/her spouse is compelled to have sex with someone else.

  132. John A. Kehoe says:

    I did not make up anything. Why tell me not to ‘make them up yourself’ ? I never did. An edition published by the Irish Episcopal Conference is not my responsibility. I have lost nothing.

  133. John A. Kehoe says:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically acknowledges extenuating circumstances in regard to other sexual disorder(s), reducing or negating moral guilt. Where homosexuality is concerned, the invariable practice is to throw the book at gay people. I for one find that odd.

  134. johnhenrycn says:

    Read my comment. I conceded that you did not make anything up. Instead, you rely on a made up version of the Catechism. The question is – now that your mistake has been drawn to your attention – will you continue to rely on a made up version of the Catechism or will you throw it away?

  135. John A. Kehoe says:

    ‘ Now that your mistake…..’ It is not my mistake.

  136. johnhenrycn says:

    [The Moderator – Manners, JohnHenry.]

  137. The Raven says:

    It seems that there was a certain looseness in the English translation of the Catechism. My own copy, which is the first paperback edition of 1994, published by Cassell, words para 2358 in the way that John Kehoe is reporting. However, the Latin Editio Typica, as HRM points out, said something far closer to the wording reported by JohnHenry.

    The Vatican resources now use the English translation pointed to by JohnHenry.

    This commentary is very helpful, in that it explains that after the official text of the Editio Typica was formally promulgated in 1997 a number of changes were mandated to the official translations, including:

    2358 The second sentence of this paragraph is to be changed to read as follows:
    “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

    It seems as though my edition, and John Kehoe’s edition of the CCC are now out of date.

    Given that we are dealing, as it were, with amended legislation, we can place no reliance on the wording adopted by the first translators of the Catechism.

  138. johnhenrycn says:

    Sorry, my finger slipped and skipped the last letter in the name of County Offaly:
    blockquote“Pile the brown turf on the fire, bring the keg in from the barn
    Let the blacksmith sing his rebel song and the poacher tell his yarn
    Come close my friends and neighbours fill your glasses to the brim
    As we toast our Offaly heroes from the heather, hill and glen.”
    Offaly Rover

  139. The Raven says:

    John Kehoe at 2233 on 27 July

    There are only two places in the commentary on the sixth commandment that I can see any discussion of mitigating circumstances: the last paragraph of 2352 (which considers the maturity of persons sinning against chastity on their own) and paragraph 2355 (which deals with women forced by circumstance into prostitution).

    These exceptions aside, I cannot reconcile your representation of this part of the Catechism as “throwing the book” at homosexuals with the actual text. Would you care to elaborate with examples?

  140. johnhenrycn says:

    Thanks for that link, The Raven. Interesting that the solution to all our differences today comes from a backwater parish in Mississippi.

  141. The Raven says:

    Many prodigies come from Mississippi, JohnHenry!

  142. Michael says:

    I am afraid you are simply being vexatious.

    I don’t think so John – you have repeatedly made the assertions that, firstly, comments have been made in judgement of homosexual persons (as opposed to judgement of homosexual activity), and secondly, that comments have been made accusing the Holy Father of heresy, or generally being extremely disrespectful of his person. In both cases you have suggested that these kinds of comments are widespread, yet, when pressed, you are only able to cite one example (which does, I agree, meet your description of ‘over the top’ as well as being disrespectful) – why continue to attribute such lack of respect for the Pope and/or condemnation of homosexuals to the thread in general, on the basis of one comment?

    It seems to me that you are both reading far too much into what people have written here, and, having been offended by one (perhaps two, I don’t know) comment, have projected that feeling onto the thread as a whole. I for one cannot find any real justification for seeing the kind of condemnatory language or tone in the vast majority of what has been written here. And again, why, when all that has been critiqued here is homosexual activity and its promotion, do you continue to insist on calling out the condemnation of those particular SSA people whose lifestyle we know nothing about (and could safely assume to be committed to living chastely), when no such condemnation has actually been made?

  143. kathleen says:

    Oh dear Mr Kehoe, you have the most amazingly ability to get the wrong end of the stick, I must say! Your reams of indignant comments on this thread, erroneously insisting that everyone bar you is condemning the ‘poor’ sufferers of SSA, has tried the patience of everyone to its limits. Having caught up this morning with all the goings on yesterday, I admit that mine, at least, is wearing pretty thin now!

    A few observations on some of your complaints…
    Nobody here is having a dig at the Irish – why ever should they? As you must surely have realised, most of the commenters on this thread (including yours truly) are either Irish, or half Irish, or have Irish roots! You may well be Irish yourself, but the famous (N.B., not “infamous”) Irish sense of humour appears to have passed you by.😉

    Our JH is a Canadian lawyer himself. As he clarifies above, that is why he jokingly used the word “shyster” – sort of self-critically too in a way – and there was no need for you to get so bent out of shape by it.

    At 22:31 on July 26, you said: “In his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of 11 October 1992, as introduction to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II stated, inter alia, ‘It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past’. Without doubt, this is updating the expression of Catholic doctrine including, among many other matters, the changed attitude we should have to homosexual persons…”

    That is what I was referring to, Pope JP II’s “introduction”, when he was referring to “new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past” (i.e. new situations due to inventions, and therefore circumstances, in our world that did not exist in former times). I denied that this was meaning an updating of Catholic doctrine about “the changed attitude we should have to homosexual persons”. There never has been, nor ever will be any changes on the gravity of the Catholic teachings on the sin of sodomy or masturbation.
    You went off on a tangent trying to infer I was saying something I never did… like you have done on most of this thread to me and others.

    Every Catholic knows that EVERYBODY must be treated with “with respect, compassion and sensitivity”, including those with SSA – not one person on here has denied that fact – yet you go on and on and on insisting that we are a whole bunch of homophobes on here. Quite frankly, it is ridiculous, and I can only imagine that the intense brain-washing propaganda enforced by the powerful ‘gay lobby’ in Ireland in the build-up to the vote for Marriage ‘Equality’ last May, found a another easy recipient in you Mr Kehoe.

  144. John A. Kehoe says:

    Kathleen You are all mixed up again as is your wont. The ‘powerful gay lobby in Ireland’ you refer to in the build-up to the vote for Marriage Equality’ last May did not find as you claim an ‘easy recipient’ in me. I voted against that referendum.

    What you should do now is what you enjoy that is to return to your denunciations of homosexuality as you did in your post of 26 July 2015 and to criticize Pope Francis’ response to the journalist which you claim ‘spread worldwide CONFUSION’ ….. ‘one of the Devil’s tools’ as you did in your post of 27 July. There has been very little pastoral concern by anybody for homosexual persons in this thread but quite a lot of self righteous moralizing on the lines of the PharIsee who observing the publican in the temple could say ‘ I thank God I am not like the rest of men, as also is this publican….

    I am afraid that you and I differ and that’s about it.

  145. Michael says:

    You are all mixed up again as is your wont

    What you should do now is what you enjoy that is to return to your denunciations of homosexuality

    There has been very little pastoral concern by anybody for homosexual persons in this thread but quite a lot of self righteous moralizing

    Textbook examples of courteous and balanced commentary there John – really first class. Everyone here will no doubt take some time to reflect on how they can adjust their intolerant and judgemental approach to debate so that it may be more in line with the shining example you’ve provided.

  146. Michael says:

    Many thanks for posting the link to that commentary – upon checking, it seems I have the same edition of the Catechism as John. Now I can (and shall) print off the list of amendments as an appendix and mark the relevant paragraphs in my copy.

  147. John A. Kehoe says:

    Dear Michael, Thank you for your congratulations. The good lady, Kathleen, provides a perfect example of the judgmental frame of mind I reject when she assumed that I fell prey to the ‘powerful gay lobby in Ireland’ who urged support for the marriage ‘equality’ referendum here. I didn’t. I voted against it.

  148. Tom Fisher says:

    Surely it is now time for you to make a positive recommendation, and not concern yourself with who said what, and when

  149. Michael says:

    John,

    That you are unaware of the irony of your judging Kathleen’s ‘frame of mind’ whilst simultaneously writing her off as judgemental is amazing!

    Besides, you have, yet again, read far too much into what was actually written – Kathleen did not actually say that you had been convinced of the rightness of bringing same-sex marriage into law; she suggested, in general terms, that you had been influenced by homosexualist propaganda (particularly that displayed during the build up to the referendum), and as you seem to find any critique of homosexual behaviour exactly equivalent to condemning the souls of individual persons, I must say I’m inclined to agree with that suggestion.

  150. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, No, I am afraid that Kathleen did wrongly assume that I was influenced by the powerful gay lobby. She herself said so . ‘ I can only imagine … that the powerful gay lobby found another easy recipient in you Mr Kehoe’. Are there are debatable points you wish to make, aside from the customary sarcasm directed at me in this thread, including your own above where you talk about my ‘shining example’ ?

  151. Michael says:

    Yes John, I know Kathleen said that it was likely you had been influenced by the gay lobby, and I agreed with her. What I was questioning was your assertion that she directly meant that this influence had resulted in your voting for the proposed legislation in the referendum – she said no such thing, but only suggested you had been influenced in general terms. As I said, this doesn’t seem an unreasonable inference given your equating criticism of homosexual behaviour and its promotion with judgement of individuals, as well as your strange aversion to making judgements of any kind (unless it is you who is doing the judging of course).

  152. John A. Kehoe says:

    No, Kathleen is making an assumption that I was influenced by the gay lobby – aside from whether i voted for the referendum or not. I was not so influenced. My views on the homosexuality issue were formed a very long time ago, as was concern about how the Church reacts to gay people. Kathleen implicates Pope Francis in what she calls the spreading of confusion by the Pope’s particular response to a journalist’s question branding it as ‘one of the Devil’s tools’.Please see her post of 27 July. This is ‘over the top’ language. Kathleen may not, but I do, accept that the Pope knew what he was saying and that as the Vicar of Christ on earth he was entitled to say it. I don’t judge Kathleen. She is as entitled to her views as I am to mine but as long as we post to this thread we will comment on each other’s contributions. Kathleen is no shrinking violet in making her’s about the Pope included

  153. kathleen says:

    In actual fact it matters little whether you voted for or against the recent “Marriage Equality” referendum in Ireland… for however you voted, either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, does not take away from the glaring evidence in your comments that you have been HUGELY influenced by the twisted homosexualist propaganda in the referendum’s build up, condemning (yes, condemning, you who accuse us of “condemning”) anyone who dares to say that homosexual acts are gravely sinful, disordered and against God’s Divine Law for human sexuality, and that those who persists in these sins are seriously jeopardising their own immortal souls.

    The ‘gay lobby’ successfully found lots of useful eejits to help bully, intimidate and ridicule all those who stood up for true marriage and against legalising sodomy; then if this didn’t work, they played their trump card (the one you are using against us, and the one that many in the Irish clergy fell for) that of playing the “poor victim”, and how “oh so mean those heterosexuals are to us”!
    Can you really not see that? It appears to be plain to everyone but you.

    The ‘gay lobby’ is an extremely formidable force that has infiltrated all our institutions, not only in Ireland, but in the rest of Europe, US and other Western democracies. It is now using its influence, wealth and power to pressurise other nations to accept their evil ways, e.g., like Obama in Kenya recently. NGOs, most of them steeped in the ‘gay’ mentality, are doing the same in third world countries, threatening to withdraw their aid if they refuse to comply.

    “Confusion” is most certainly one of the “Devil’s tools”. In this way he can gradually disorient good but gullible people to fall away from the Truth. Confusion is like little drops of poison; one won’t kill you, but drop by drop falling on the mind will do so eventually.

  154. johnhenrycn says:

    I suggest we let Mr Kehoe have the last (not right) word and move on.

  155. John A. Kehoe says:

    Kathleen, How do you know what i have been influenced by ? How can you presume that I was influenced by the gay lobby ? I am a human rights lawyer and my Catholicism, considerable academic studies over many years, one time academic position, as well as my current professional practice have helped to form my views. What lobby groups of one kind or another say does not influence me.

    I have said this before and it seems to be hard to get across. Point one: I agree that OBJECTIVELY homosexual acts are gravely wrong.; Point two : I do not agree that any one of us, from the Pope down, can say that a particular individual engaging in a homosexual act commits a grave sin. That would be to make an individual moral judgment on the subjective state of that person’s soul. I believe that this declining to make such a judgment is part of main stream Catholic teaching.Point three : I personally regret some of the language used by the Church in this connection such as ‘intrinsically disordered’ I do not think that such rhetoric helps homosexual people. Pastoral concern would suggest otherwise

  156. kathleen says:

    Yes, Michael, you are right in ‘translating’ what I meant for Mr Kehoe – thanks.🙂

    I replied to him above ^ on those same lines, but quite frankly I think we have all had enough of this tiresome cyber bun fight.
    JH kindly suggests we let Mr Kehoe have the last word, to tell us all one more time what a whole lot of insulting, judgmental Pharisees we all are.
    Mr Pot-Kettle-Bl…. oops! Start again: Mr Kehoe… please step forward!

  157. toadspittle says:

    Why not split the difference – and let Toad S. Pittle have the last word?

    …Load of inconsequential twaddle.
    Pinheads dancing on an angel.

  158. Michael says:

    Yes Kathleen, I think you’re right – it does seem to be going around in circles a little bit. When clear comments like your previous one need any ‘translation’ at all then there seems little point in continuing🙂

    Also, I for one am still finding it difficult to engage with Mr. Kehoe’s line of thinking to any constructive ends – I don’t know what to do with (e.g.) the idea that homosexual acts are gravely wrong but that we can in no situation state that someone engaging in those acts is committing a grave sin. Baffling.

  159. John A. Kehoe says:

    You or I are not entitled to make a moral judgment on the state of any particular person’s soul. That matter belongs to God alone.

  160. johnhenrycn says:

    Ave atque vale.

  161. John A. Kehoe says:

    Quot homines tot sententiae. Terence.

  162. Brother Burrito says:

    I think I have to agree with you John, the judgement of a soul is for God alone.

    What we can legitimately make judgements on are legion. What use would I be if as a doctor I said I was not fit to judge a person’s health, thereby preventing me from making some life-saving treatment available to them.

    We must not look down on anyone, for we are all sinners, without a doubt. Nevertheless, we can be pastors one to another, leading each other back to the fold. Humility and kindness work together, you see.

  163. John A. Kehoe says:

    Brother Burrito, Thank you for your agreement. I think you are the only one to do so. Most others, if not all, on this thread have opposed me.Many, as far as I can see, do not see, or do not care to see the distinction between what is objectively sinful and what is subjectively culpable in any individual case. That is a mainstream Catholic moral principle. I appear to have given offence by not following the consensus on this thread and weighing in with condemnations, emphasis on mortal sin, accusing Pope Francis of spreading confusion etc etc.

    I do intend to follow up with the Irish Episcopal Conference here in Dublin the matter of how the second sentence in paragraph 2358 of the 1995 edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: ‘They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’ disappeared or was deliberately excised. I have been accused of fabricating that until another contributor to this thread confirmed that it was in his edition also. It is a poor reflection on how this debate was conducted

  164. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe (29 July at 10:38) – In view of input from other commenters, it appears that you were accurately quoting from your “Complete and Unabridged” version of the CCC, and I regret having said otherwise. I previously conceded (27 July at 22:09 and 22:37) that you did not make it up.

    Perhaps you should consider obtaining a copy of the CCC as revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul ll. We really can’t have a productive exchange unless we’re on the same page. Just a thought.

  165. Michael says:

    Many, as far as I can see, do not see, or do not care to see the distinction between what is objectively sinful and what is subjectively culpable in any individual case. That is a mainstream Catholic moral principle.

    Flippin eck John – for the last time, nobody has been claiming that we are able to judge individual souls as God can. The problem is that you are confusing the principle that we cannot assess the state of someone’s soul overall (which is correct) with the idea that we cannot say whether someone is culpable of a particular sin (which patently is not – if we see someone doing something we know to be objectively wrong, we can have a very good idea that they are culpable for it, and it is then incumbent upon us to correct them in order to direct them away from a destructive path). Yes there are plenty of cases where we do not know if the person involved is fully cognisant of the gravity of their sin, or not fully aware that what they are doing is even sinful, and in such cases we must leave judgement up to God; but there are also plenty of cases where people know full well they are violating Church teaching and are proud of it – to not say anything about this for fear of judging is a confusion of categories and is a dereliction of the duty we receive through Baptism to witness to the Truth and call people to Christ.

  166. John A. Kehoe says:

    Dear johnhenrycn,

    Thank you for your post at 13.20 to-day. I do intend to call soon at the VERITAS bookshop in Dublin where I acquired my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see whether or not they still have on sale the edition of the Catechism which incorporates the disputed second sentence in paragraph 2358 ‘They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’.
    As i mentioned, the Veritas bookshop in Dublin is owned and run by the Irish Episcopal Conference and I dare say they would be surprised, if not horrified, to learn that they were selling a defective Catechism. I intend further, given time, to take this issue up with the Conference. I have a contact or two there but not all of them would necessarily be tuned in to the niceties of what this is all about. I think, however, that it a very important matter. I don’t think it is a matter of mere bad translation from Latin. I read Latin fairly well and I do not think so. The assertion ‘ They do not choose their homosexual condition…….’ is not a matter of simple mistranslation but a definite assertion which was put in and, in a worst case scenario, deliberately omitted from perhaps a first draft. Why so, I don’t know. One way or the other its presence or absence is of significance to the gay Catholic community and to people like myself who are interested that gay persons are properly understood. For what it is worth,I think there must be few indeed who would actually choose to have homosexual inclinations. That said, I do not agree with some homosexual people who unnecessarily parade their condition with Gay Pride marches etc. I remember being on holiday in Canada with a Canadian bishop, Michael Pearse Lacey of Toronto, a number of years ago and him complaining to me about a recent Gay Pride march there and him calling a prominent supporting politician ‘a wimp’.

    However,I think gay people get it hard from the Church. No quarter. By contrast, for example, in the same section of the Catechism- at paragraph 2352 -the issue of masturbation, (another common sexual disorder which at Catholic school in the old days I remember teachers ranting and raving about ) gets humane and understanding treatment by reference to various stated factors ‘that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability’.

    I will of course be buying another Catechism of the Catholic Church but not with any great confidence that somewhere therein there is not another mistranslation, addition, or omission therein occasioned by someone’s personal view on what the Catechism ought or ought not to be saying.

  167. John A. Kehoe says:

    Dear Michael,
    Perhaps our differences come down to what is described as ‘fraternal correction’. I wish I were so perfect that I could engage in that. I have really a job of work on hands to deal with my own faults.The beam in my own eye and the speck in my neighbour’s comes to mind.
    You say ‘if we see someone doing something we know to be objectively wrong, we can have a very good idea that they are culpable for it….’. I wonder. If I see someone completely drunk I can indeed say that this is objectively wrong. However, that person may or may not be guilty of personal subjective sin. Circumstances, which I may know nothing about, may indicate otherwise, such as addiction which may lessen or even extenuate moral culpability. In such circumstances it would be presumptuous of me to accuse that person of sin.
    Charity my indicate that if the drunk person is a friend or family member that I should intervene with advice for him to seek help or treatment but I do not think it would be correct or even helpful to accuse that person of sin,].
    Mitigating factors, including ‘psychological factors’, that ‘ lesson or even extenuate moral culpability’ are recognized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in relation to another sexual disorder. See paragraph 2352 of the Catechism. But no such consideration is accorded in the Catechism to homosexual acts or persons [ if we now omit the disputed second sentence of paragraph 2358 ‘ They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’] .Surely homosexuality is a psychological factor.

  168. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe (15:50) says: “I read Latin fairly well and I do not think so. The assertion ‘ They do not choose their homosexual condition…….’ is not a matter of simple mistranslation but a definite assertion which was put in and, in a worst case scenario, deliberately omitted from perhaps a first draft.”

    An alternative (and to my way of thinking) happier scenario is that Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger was having a cup of coffee at Castel Gandolfo with Pope John Paul ll that sunny morning in June, 1992 when His Holiness approved the second edition of the CCC, and Ratzinger then drew his attention to paragraph 2358, whereupon JP2 took out his pen and redacted the questionable assertion about homosexuals having no choice, replacing it with his avowed belief that the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Is the existence of that disorder not your belief too, or do I presume too much?

    Asking the Irish Episcopal Conference for help with your inquiries will not provide a completely satisfactory answer, if only because the discrepancy has been seen by The Raven and THR in other English versions of the CCC: that is to say, the mistake has occurred elsewhere in the Anglosphere, not just in the Irish section of it, if you and all the other Gaels commenting here will forgive my associating the two.

    What is needed is a chronologically detailed history of the drafting of the CCC from the time JP2 first assigned that task to Cardinal Ratzinger and the other members of the commission in 1986 up to the time of the approval and promulgation of the 2nd edition in 1992. A big job, but you can always assign that grunt work to one of your pupils, hmm?

  169. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe (16:36) referring to people committing objectively obvious sins, says:
    “Circumstances, which I may know nothing about, may indicate otherwise, such as addiction which may lessen or even extenuate moral culpability. In such circumstances it would be presumptuous of me to accuse that person of sin.”

    I think this is exactly where you’re grabbing the wrong end of the stick. You don’t have to be a Christian to see the need of admonishing people who are committing acts which are objectively disordered. Personally, if I was in a position to counsel an alcoholic atheist – or even an agnostic one – I would not criticize him for being a sinner, but rather for killing himself. He might laugh at me for calling him a sinner, but probably not for calling him a suicide-in-slow-motion.

    Likewise, if asked by a homosexual what I think about that way of living, I would reply that it’s wrong from a health point of view and from a social point of view. I would not presume to speak about sin unless I was talking to a Christian or to a person seeking Christian answers.

    In short, we have a responsibility to warn people about the wrongness of their conduct, although how we do so is also a responsibility.
    ___
    You have this idea that people here are anxious to tell others they are damned. Not so. Most of us have *gay* friends and relatives, Mr Kehoe, and we are just as sensitive and kind to them as you think yourself to be.

  170. johnhenrycn says:

    johnhenry says: “I would not presume to speak about sin unless I was talking to a Christian or to a person seeking Christian answers.”

    entre nous, however, commenters on this orthodox Catholic blog are perfectly entitled to take a more a more critical – even sarcastic – approach when discussing the machinations of the Gay Lobby or any other anti-Christian group that meets our eye.

  171. John A. Kehoe says:

    The only reason I will approach the Irish Episcopal Conference is not any belief I have that they are more competent than any other Episcopal Conference but (i) because they are more geographically proximate to me and (ii) more especially, because the edition i have been working from has been published by them.

    I don’t know about your colourful scenario concerning the exchange between John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger at Castle Goldolfo but whatever the explanation may be there are copies of the edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which i have, circulating among Catholics who are entitled to rely on its authenticity. That is not their fault nor mine.

    No, it is not my job to explore the chronology of how this blunder occurred nor would I assign it to anybody else. All that this blunder exposes is a crabbed change of mind about gay people in case it might be seen as too generous to them.

  172. John A. Kehoe says:

    johnhenrycn, Of course I agree with you, as in paragraphs 2 and 3 of your post of 18.32 today, that it is, primarily at least, health issues we should be concerned with in persons with any form of bodily abuse, and that includes homosexual acts. Whether we should go beyond that -as is suggested by some contributions to this thread- and harp on about ‘intrinsic disorder’, ‘mortal sin’, Pope Francis ‘spreading confusion’ etc is something I would not agree with. Some of the language in this thread has been immoderate suggesting moral superiority by the authors of the posts.

  173. John A. Kehoe says:

    johnhenrycn. Do you really think it permissible, or serving any useful purpose, that contributors should be sarcastic in their comments ?

  174. toadspittle says:

    JH does it to make people laugh, John A.
    Occasionally succeeds, too.

  175. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe says: “Some of the language in this thread has been immoderate suggesting moral superiority by the authors of the posts”

    Present company excluded, hmm?

    And then Mr Kehoe says:
    “I agree with you…it is, primarily at least, health issues we should be concerned with in persons with any form of bodily abuse, and that includes homosexual acts.”

    No, I didn’t say that. THE WORST thing is what they are doing to their immortal souls. What I said was: the best way of having a conversation with them might be to leave religious issues for another day.

    But tell me this: do you disagree with the CCC (official version) that the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered? I’ve learned not to attempt to read what you are pleased to call you mind and would, therefore, appreciate an explicit statement from you, one way or the other.

    One final observation: You seem enthralled with the thinking (as you interpret it) of our current Holy Father concerning the issue raised on this thread, but you also seem inclined to give short shrift to the thinking of the last two on that same issue, or have I misread you yet again?

  176. toadspittle says:

    “…the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered?”
    Would a homosexual objectively consider him (or her) self “objectively” disordered?
    Or not?
    I don’t know, myself. No doubt JH does. Might they regard themselves as “subjectively disordered,” possibly? Don’t know that, either.
    Can an inclination be considered “objectively disordered,” even if many people think it isn’t?
    Do we consider Liberals to be objectively disordered? Or Muslims? Or Mormons? Or Anglicans, like C.S. Lewis?
    Some of us do, and some of us don’t – I suppose.

  177. johnhenrycn says:

    Sarcasm is a respected and time-honoured rhetorical and polemical device when not carried to extremes, which it rarely is on this blog. It’s a genre of satire, also known as irony and ridicule, useful in exposing and deriding vice and folly. I appreciate why you dislike it, but you are confusing cruel sarcasm with its gentler variants. Some famous practitioners include Twain, Swift, Erasmus, Rabelais, Lucilius and Bierce.
    ___
    btw: You have, once, twice or perhaps even thrice accused me of calling you an “Irish legal shyster”. Fact is, you made that up. I never said that, and challenge you to find the comment in question. If you can, I promise to make a $100 donation to Aid to the Church in Need.

  178. John A. Kehoe says:

    Johnhenrycn, In your post of July 26, 2015 at 05.52 you refer to ‘the legal shyster from Ireland …’ I won’t hold you to the donation to the Church in Need, an excellent charity to which I contribute myself.

  179. johnhenrycn says:

    Oh puhleeze, Mr Kehoe: I challenged you to find where I called you an “Irish legal shyster”, but you cannot do so. You could be a Mongolian lawyer in County Cork for all I know. Twice (on 27 July at 12:31 and 12:56) you said that I’d called you an “Irish shyster lawyer”, and also (at 12:56) you accused me of racism for allegedly saying so. You made up those accusations. Still, I will accept your retraction of these gross insults if you wish to extend them.

    Actually, I’m not only a member of the bar, but also part Irish, so far as I know (another sad story).
    ___
    My donation to ACN will be forthcoming, but only because I’ve uttered 100 swear words this month, and have vowed to make a $1.00 donation to charity whenever I do so.

  180. The Raven says:

    Toad,
    A collection of subjective judgments don’t add upto an objective judgment.

  181. John A. Kehoe says:

    I have shown you, as you requested, where you called me an Irish shyster lawyer and you are now quibbling about it . I did not make it up. Earlier you had accused me of making up an additional sentence in paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church but you had the grace to express regret for that. You are now trying to be facetious to cover your embarrassment. It is not possible to engage seriously with you.

    Being part Irish is not a sad story unless you have a complex about Irish people. I note that in the other posts from you I have read you do not mention the nationality of the person posting.

  182. John A. Kehoe says:

    Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit or of discourse. I am sure he has the ability to do better

  183. “For the great Gaels of Ireland
    Are the Men that God made mad
    For all their wars are merry
    And all their songs are sad.”- G.K. Chesterton

  184. johnhenrycn says:

    Look, Mr Kehoe, there’s a big difference between calling you (facetiously, as you acknowledge on 26 July at 18:35) a “legal shyster from Ireland” and calling you an “Irish shyster lawyer”. The former has no racist element, whereas the latter might. Do grow up. Do be honest.

    As for the sad story of my being part Irish – well, that’s one I told here before you arrived, but which I don’t wish to share with you, and au contraire your statement that – aside from this thread – I “do not mention the nationality of the person posting”, the fact is that I (and others) do mention race and ethnicity now and then; but from now on, I have to keep in mind that you have an extremely thin skin concerning your ethnicity, possibly acquired during your days studying for your post-graduate degree in “Human Rights”.

  185. The Raven says:

    As far as I have been able to discover, the pre 1997 English language editions of the CCC were based on a French text from 1992. When the Editio Typica was promulgated in 1997, the English text was corrected (I have already supplied you with a link to the list of changes).

    if you bought your edition of the CCC after 1997 (and weren’t trawling through the “Sale” items box), then it seems safe to conclude that the Veritas bookshop was selling outdated books to its clientele and you should ask for a refund (does the Irish bishops’ conference concern itself with stock-keeping?). If, as I suspect is the case, you bought your book before 1997, then you, like me, are simply referring to an edition that is out of date (and I don’t see how the bishops’ conference can help with that either).

  186. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe: you say immediately above that: “it is not my job to explore the chronology of how this blunder occurred”, but you also say (at 15:50 today) that you “intend further, given time, to take this issue up with the Conference.” So, are you only going to make half-hearted desultory inquired, or am I misreading you yet again?

    I find that you rarely answer questions for which you have no answer.

  187. toadspittle says:

    I hope you, or any of your family, are never blown to bits in a “merry war,” Hapsburg Reupholsterer.
    Yes, I know – just Fat Boy Gil being his usual paradoxical self. And if God hadn’t made them mad, they wouldn’t have voted for gay marriage, would they? So it’s all His fault.

    All their songs are sad?

    ….well, some are stupid.

  188. toadspittle says:

    Somehow, your answer only makes the whole thing worse – Raven.
    Have I suggested that they did?
    Subjectively, possibly, maybe?

  189. Michael says:

    Perhaps our differences come down to what is described as ‘fraternal correction’. I wish I were so perfect that I could engage in that. I have really a job of work on hands to deal with my own faults.The beam in my own eye and the speck in my neighbour’s comes to mind.

    So the Church is wrong to advise us to ‘admonish the sinner’, ‘counsel the doubtful’ and ‘instruct the ignorant’ then? Nobody here, certainly not myself, imagines themselves to be perfect, but moral perfection is not required to correct someone who it is clear is engaging in destructive and/or sinful behaviour. If that were the case, nobody would ever be told they were doing anything wrong and people would slide ever further into ruin.

    What Our Lord meant by bearing in mind the beam in our own eyes was not to judge the entire character of a person or the state of their soul based on what we see them doing, and as I have pointed out several times now, noone is saying that we can make such a judgement. We can however, sometimes with a great degree of confidence, know when people are committing grave sins, and can therefore alert them to the gravity of what they are doing (as John Henry said, when correcting a non-Christian, this might be best done by drawing attention to physical and social dimensions of their behaviour, given that they will often baulk at any mention of moral judgement).

    Just to make it absolutely clear – making the judgement that someone has committed a sin, and attempting to direct them away from that path either by personal counsel on our own part or by making clear the teachings in that particular part of life on the Church’s part is not the same thing as judging the current state, let alone the possible final state, of their immortal soul. This confusion of categories on your part is, I believe, at the heart of this whole debate.

    But no such consideration is accorded in the Catechism to homosexual acts or persons

    Neither is any extra qualification given to other acts, such as fornication or the use of pornography, but I think that, given that all the statements in this section of the Catechism are made in the context of the universal call to chastity, it would be a fair assumption to make that the qualifications made re the statement on masturbation are not limited to that particular act. Furthermore, as you have pointed out yourself on many occasions, the statements on homosexuality are themselves accompanied by several qualifications which exhort us to treat homosexual persons with respect, compassion, etc – yet I do not imagine that we are to set these things aside when dealing with people who struggle with other sexual sins.

  190. Michael says:

    Can an inclination be considered “objectively disordered,” even if many people think it isn’t?

    Maybe Saint Thomas Aquinas (via Ralph McInerny) will help here. After assessing Saint Thomas’ statement regarding the ‘first precept’ of natural law in ST (IaIIe, q. 94, a. 2) that:

    ‘because good has the character of end and evil is its contrary, reason naturally apprehends as good all those things to which men have a natural inclination, and consequently as things to be pursued; their contraries are perceived as evils to be avoided. The order of the precepts of natural law is based on the order of natural inclinations’

    McInerny elaborates on the ‘secondary precepts’ of the natural law, which form a kind of hierarchy based on our natural inclinations (the most basic inclinations being logically prior):

    ‘What are these natural inclinations? There is first an inclination which men share with all things insofar as all things seek to preserve themselves in being. There is, next, an inclination to more special things which men share with the other animals – sexual union of the genders, the raising of young, etc. Finally, there is an inclination peculiar to man to know the truth about God and to live in society…

    …These inclinations are not as such precepts of natural law, but that on which precepts for guiding action are based. Precepts of natural law are the formulation of action-guiding principles based on the inclinations…

    …Food and drink ought to be pursued in a way conducive to our overall good. Sexual activity should be engaged in a way that takes into account what it is, what its purpose is, and which should be conducive to our overall good. And so too with precepts based on the third inclination. The idea is that a judgement that food and drink ought to be pursued night and day, with no eye to the point of taking nourishment or to our overall well-being, is not one that could reasonably be maintained. So too the pell-mell pursuit of sexual pleasure with man or beast could scarcely be thought of as conducive to our overall well-being. The very sweeping generality of such principles is a condition of their being beyond argument. They establish the parameters of moral discourse. Ever more concrete judgements of how we should behave in these areas will require rational support and are likely to be true only for the most part. And that is a sign that they are not precepts of natural law.’

    taken from Aquinas (2004), pp.103-106.

  191. John A. Kehoe says:

    I did not vote for gay marriage.In the Irish referendum I voted against it. I don’t blame the way the referendum turned out on God.

  192. John A. Kehoe says:

    It is over a century ago since the Irish were at war with anybody that is during the War of Independence with the British. Since then, Irish armed forces have been involved in various parts of the world in peacekeeping missions on behalf of the United Nations. Currently Irish naval vessels are, together with Italians and others, in the Mediterranean rescuing migrants having saved thousands of poor people so far. Does that make them mad ? You will have to look to other nations for warmongers.

  193. John A. Kehoe says:

    I prefer the precept ‘Physician, heal thyself’ from Luke. At Catholic schools I saw and experienced a lot of ‘fraternal correction’ accompanied by physical correction, in the form of corporal punishment, at the hands of Catholic teaching brothers and priests. It didn’t do any good. Some of these men much later went to jail following convictions in Court for sexual abuse connected with their ‘correction’ and usually for peccadillos.There is an element of hypocrisy in setting oneself up as a moral exemplar as I found out from a Catholic education. I am wary of it.

  194. Michael says:

    Fair enough John. Just bear in mind that what you describe above is not the only way that we can lead our neighbour away from sin – it might help to put these personal experiences aside on occasion, as it is never a good idea to let the particular shape our view of the general, or the abuse of a rule to shape our view of its proper use. Otherwise, I don’t think I can say anything clearer than my previous comment above.

  195. John A. Kehoe says:

    Yes, you are, as is your wont, misreading me again. The history of the blunder is something the author of the blunder ought to address. Not I. I will draw attention to it. The Irish Episcopal Conference has more resources, personnel and access to sources than I have. I am merely an average Catholic in the pew. You have your answer. Any more taunts ?

  196. John A. Kehoe says:

    Michael, You ask: Can an inclination be considered ‘objectively disordered’ even if many think it isn’t ? For what it is worth I,for one, say it can although I am accused on this thread of not answering the question as to whether or not homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are.

  197. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr Kehoe asks: “Any more taunts?”
    Yawn. No more exchanging taunts or even idle chit chat with you on this thread. Perhaps we can continue our sparring on a later thread, say one about the rainbow vestments favoured by some go-ahead priests in Ireland and elsewhere. Best wishes on your next appearance before the ECHR.

  198. John A. Kehoe says:

    The taunts and personal jibes have come from your side only including your latest disrespect about priests’ vestments. I am glad to shut down further discourse with you.

  199. John A. Kehoe says:

    Whatever about the date of purchase about which I would have to Inquire further, the Irish Bishops’ Conference should be made aware- and will be when I have time- of the fact that the edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church sold in their bookshop to me contains a sentence in paragraph 2358 which other editions do not and that the subsequent omission, which had acknowledged that homosexual persons do not choose their homosexual condition, is an important one indicating the attitude of the Catholic Church to those people. I will not be looking for a refund. That is a mere trifle. But the issue itself, whatever its history, is an important one raised by me for which I have since in this thread been subjected to derision by self-proclaimed moralists.

  200. toadspittle says:

    Nor me, John.
    I blame it on Chesterton.
    Big fat twit.

  201. You fail to appreciate the poetry of piece, especially the dramatic comparison, which in no way refers to the Irish of today, I’m sure.

  202. John A. Kehoe says:

    ‘poetry of piece…’ ?

  203. “the piece” (typing errors are unfortunately common on my part. I apologize in advance).

  204. John A. Kehoe says:

    Thank you.

  205. Michael says:

    That’s good to hear John. But just to clear things up a bit, that wasn’t me asking the question – I was quoting another commenter in order to respond to his question.

  206. John A. Kehoe says:

    The negative nature of homosexual acts is something on which everyone on this thread for their own reasons appears to.agree. So do I.
    However, how we go on from there either positively, or by adversarial engagement with homosexual persons themselves such as by name calling- the word ‘queer’ has been used at least once in this thread- biblical condemnations,heavy-handed attempts at fraternal correction, criticism of the Pope himself, and of some Irish priests allegedly wearing rainbow vestments and the like is where I continue to disagree with those who use derision and personal ridicule against me by way of argument when I dare to disagree with them.

  207. John A. Kehoe says:

    toadspittle .Why Chesterton who authored Orthodoxy ? If he was alive to-day and Irish I cannot imagine him, as a Catholic apologist, voting for same sex marriage

  208. Michael says:

    Yes John, you’ve made these points several times, and they’ve been debated round and around to nobody’s satisfaction. So maybe it’s best to leave it now would you agree? I don’t see how more going round in circles is going to bring about any agreement any time soon.

  209. John A. Kehoe says:

    Agreed, if others will do likewise, and finally here to express disappointment at the low standard of debate on this thread where fractious comment and personal ridicule pass for argument.

  210. Michael says:

    John, your belief that the standard of debate on this thread is, generally speaking, low, is precisely on of the points on which I and most others disagree. Please stop projecting the bad experiences you feel you’ve had onto the thread as a whole and just let it go.

  211. John A. Kehoe says:

    We are each entitled to the views we hold.

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