Mr Grumpy

A rather sweet person has found their way on to this blog and made comments expressing dismay at my ‘unloving’ attitude to Anglicans. I am supposed to ‘respect their journey’ and ‘affirm their good will and faith.’ I am blamed for not being open to dialogue and serious discussion of the issues.

I guess I do come across sometimes as Mr Grumpy. Mr All Stick and No Carrot.  I’m not really the touchy feely type I’m afraid, but that’s me. 
To tell you the truth, I’m real tired of dialogue. Usually dialogue is promoted by people who dissent from the truth, don’t want to submit to the teaching authority of the church and want to change the Catholic faith. In my experience their disagreement with the church is almost always of a sexual nature. They’re either contracepting or they in favor of remarriage or married priests or homosexuality or some such. The call to ‘engage seriously in the issues’ is usually code for ‘let’s talk about how we can lobby the Catholic Church to change her teaching about sex.’ 
It’s a waste of time. If people seriously want to know what the Catholic Church teaches so they can understand it more fully I have all the time in the world to dialogue. If they have problems with a discipline or dogma of the church and seriously want to understand so they can obey better and more fully I’ll stay up late. If they really want to know how to grow closer to Christ, learn how to pray and walk in the footsteps of the saints I’ll walk with them the extra mile and try to learn with them.
Otherwise, readers should remember this is a blog. That means it is where Dwight Longenecker expresses his views. I don’t claim that they’re all right all the time. I’m a sinful and arrogant person and I wish I weren’t, and I’m trying hard not to be, but what you’ll get here is a blog. If you want a discussion group they’re available elsewhere on the net. 
Happy hunting!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13691180340362754110 Bernadette

    Spot on. Wish there were more like you in England and Wales.All the best, Bernadette.x

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/03271388607886738576 BHG

    Well said. I am a refugee from the shipwreck that is Anglicanism, who could not be happier in the Catholic Church. I have worried for my friends who remained behind. You last few blogs have made it clear that they do so for the most part because they want to–something I was loathe to realize but see very clearly, and perhaps even more sadly. Having eschewed Authority, they are not persuaded to submit to it even when it is clear how bankrupt the Anglican tradition has become. Thank you, thank you for your clear head and "grumpy" nature.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00997766157711823147 the owl of the remove

    Sock it to 'em, Dwight!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14485768454161100884 Neophyte

    Fr.Grumpy in this year of the Priest please know I'm praying for you.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02366941004713902728 Bishop of Ebbsfleet

    I've enjoyed reading this knock-about stuff. I think the idea of those not in communion with the Holy Father becoming Catholic one by one is, in one sense, a necessary stage in the search for the visible unity of the Church. There are millions of Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Salvationists – as well as Anglicans – and we had better start queuing up so it can all happen. I'm not sure that's the only model, however. Discussions between East and West and between the Church and different ecclesial communities have always presumed that groups exist and that such groups can be reconciled. There must too be an element of that in the greater ecumenism, as different religions engage in the search for what we Christians believe to be God the Logos, the Word, the Truth and the Life.Anglo-Catholics do need to be challenged – I myself am challenged – in the ways you say, but to talk down group movements – what I call 'caravanning' – is, I believe, to underestimate both the power of the Holy Spirit and the determination of the Holy See to do more than say 'queue up one by one' and ditch your treasures. So let us pray that, amidst Anglican disintegration, God does something wonderful and unexpected – and indeed enables each of us to make the journey he has in mind for us, separately and together.+ Andrew Ebbsfleet (Provincial Episcopal Visitor to some very lovely priests, parishes and people, some courageous, some fearful)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12373317560249811006 Fr Longenecker

    Dear Bishop Andrew, I'm delighted that you tap into this humble blog. You're very welcome, and despite my sharpish words, do be assured of my prayers and affection for so many of my Anglican friends.I appreciate your comments and wonder if you could answer the question which I find no one will answer:What exactly does a group of traditional Anglican expect from the Catholic Church? What sort of a 'deal' do you expect? You won't be able to keep your churches because your church won't let you. You won't be able to keep your ministry because the Catholic Church doesn't recognize your orders. Even within Anglo Catholicism there are so many splinter groups and so many individuals who do not want to be Catholic, how do you envision such a corporate re union happening? What will it look like? If and when a 'corporate' scheme does emerge you will still have to be catechized and confirmed one by one will you not?Therefore, why not join the queue?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01855399005274376017 Jayedew

    Thank you for admitting to your arrogance, Father; that is very brave of you! In my experience, most gifted clergy are very prideful and can become tyrants to their flock. Instead for thanking God for His gifts, they become puffed up in awe over their own teaching/preaching; they lord over their flock like they are infallible! I pray daily for my priests that they would be humble before the Lord and serve His people as a loving shepherd to His sheep. May God bless you as you tend to your sheep.Jayde

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14531024393615051496 veritas

    Fr Longenecker said: "To tell you the truth, I'm real tired of dialogue. Usually dialogue is promoted by people who dissent from the truth, don't want to submit to the teaching authority of the church and want to change the Catholic faith. In my experience their disagreement with the church is almost always of a sexual nature. They're either contracepting or they in favor of remarriage or married priests or homosexuality or some such. The call to 'engage seriously in the issues' is usually code for 'let's talk about how we can lobby the Catholic Church to change her teaching about sex.' It's a waste of time. If people seriously want to know what the Catholic Church teaches so they can understand it more fully I have all the time in the world to dialogue. If they have problems with a discipline or dogma of the church and seriously want to understand so they can obey better and more fully I'll stay up late. If they really want to know how to grow closer to Christ, learn how to pray and walk in the footsteps of the saints I'll walk with them the extra mile and try to learn with them."Bernadette took the words out of my mouth when she replied: "Spot on."I am SO weary of Anglicans who want to dialogue! Either Our Blessed Lord founded One Church or He didn't – and we all know deep down that He did!That Church He founded is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church built upon the Rock of Peter. For goodness sakes Anglicans, stop "dialoguing" about all sorts of details that you have decided are so important that you can't possibly take the step into God's Church until they are resolved in your favour. How about some good old fashioned humble submission to God's appointed authority.Sure you will find things to complain about – particularly some appalling liturgies in too many parishes. But if you join the Church then you can work from the inside to help bring beauty back to worship.But stop standing on the outside looking in, and throwing stones while you are looking.And yes, Fr is totally correct. Some of you will have to stop thinking contraception, homosexual liasons, divorce, abortion and euthanasia are sometimes OK. The Church doesn't think they are ever OK! And She will be only too happy to carefully explain to you why.I agree with you Fr, there is only so much dialogue that you can take! Eventually the talk must stop and decsion time comes – are you in or out?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04877277112077789044 Julie

    You are absolutely right.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17284905121465747077 Steve

    Well, sure it's a blog, Father. And obviously enough, it IS your blog. You're entitled to express your views, particularly on your blog.Still, maintaining a blog (and providing a link for comments)means that not everyone will agree with what you write. We all have minds. You're writing in a semi-public space. I'm entitled to disagree with you, aren't I? And yes, of course, you can grow weary of people dissenting from what you — and the Church — teach on Issues X, Y, or Z; that too is your right. But I hope you understand that not every attempt at dialogue is a cynical attempt to get you (much less the Church) to budge. Sometimes, dialogue is an attempt to generate real understanding in people on each side of a complex issue. (Most of the issues you've mentioned here are complex issues. Feel free to disagree on that point, of course–such is your right.) There's something inherently charitable, and respectful, and Christian, in a willingness to engage in dialogue with someone with whom one disagrees. Far better to dialogue than to throw bricks, or burn heretics, or denounce one of God's children as evil personified because he/she disagrees with you, or the Church, on some issue, even a very important issue. Thank God for people who are willing to both speak and listen.

  • http://openid.aol.com/mtawnick mtawnick

    I often wonder if Athanasius had been interested in dialogue if we would all be Arians.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08930852646863448655 My Chocolate Heart

    Fr.,Don't change a thing. I like ya just the way you are. I don't need more useless dialogue… I just need the truth.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14531024393615051496 veritas

    mtawnick said: "I often wonder if Athanasius had been interested in dialogue if we would all be Arians."So true. The same could be said of so many of the great defenders of the Church against heresy.Explain – yes. Give reasons for the doctrine – yes. Give good, clear teaching about the faith – yes. But endless dialogue … !!Eventually we either accept God's revelation, through His Church, or we don't. Such is how all the heresies began and grew.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14058286668713203201 servingblogger

    I am getting conflicting messages here. Is this blog representative of a kind of schizophrenia exhibited by its author ? Bishop Andrew contributes, and suddenly the blog author becomes all emollient and gentle. Is it because he's answering a bishop ? On other occasions the author's words are barely less than a prejudiced filled, vitriolic diatribe. On these occasions the author just bashes away at his favourites issues, prejudices I'd even call them. But all in the name of Truth, the Catholic Church and loyalty to the Successor of Peter.And what's all this stuff about sex ? When people don't agree with the author, their point of view / stance/differing opinion is put down as having at its origin in issue of sex – be it 'homosex" (a Longerneckerian phrase which barely disguises the authors homophobia), marriage issues, divorce, gender issues. Really ! I do wonder if the author's own Bishop reads this blog ? I wonder if the author's own Bishop is aware of the underlying vitriol and barely disguished prejudices that are exhibited in this blog against a whole range of people who don't fit in with the tightly constructed world of the author. Perhaps the Bishop should. If I were he I would be worried at what is being presented in this Blog. And if such messages were further being disseminated to the students that the author teaches and is chaplain to in the school in which he is employed, I would be very concerned. The Church is about Truth, but Truth that is conveyed with love and gentleness. Christ-like Truth. I don't find that in this author's blog. And the Church is wiser and more loving and more pastoral than this blog's author. I don't t think the author of this blog fully understands what Catholicism is all about. He's taken it's formal and sometimes strict teaching and applied it without the balm of Christian love.It is a blog that is not worthy of someone who calls himself a minister of the Gospel. He presents as a minister of division, prejudice, hatred even.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ romishgraffiti

    I do wonder if the author's own Bishop reads this blog ?Why do I get the feeling this brickbat hurler hasn't the stones to report the blog to his bishop and sign his name?

  • http://doctoreric.wordpress.com/ doctoreric

    Dear Servingblogger,Our Lord is Truth Himself. He wasn't always "nice" in fact he went into a tirade when He found the holy temple in Jerusalem was being profaned. So if Fr. Longenecker gets a little perturbed when people equivocate and dance around the issues then maybe it's the kick in the pants that people need to hear.And, as far as your issues with sex are concerned, perhaps you should read a few of St. Paul's letters. He was also full of "underlying vitriol and barely disguished prejudices." [sic]"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."1 Cor 6:9-10"For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.Romans 1:26-32Yep, I'd guess you'd call them homophobes, except that I'm pretty sure that neither St. Paul nor Fr. Dwight are afraid of anything.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12373317560249811006 Fr Longenecker

    doctoreric, 'a kick in the pants that people need to hear'Now that is one nice mixed metaphor!

  • http://doctoreric.wordpress.com/ doctoreric

    Fr. Longenecker,I'd imagine that a really good kick in the pants would make a sound. ;-)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11153355585571358736 truthfinder

    Fr. Dwight, I do appreciate your telling the unvarnished truth. I am SO tired of hearing from those who seem to equate Christian love with being "nice" all the time. They want to avoid all conflict; to placate evil. If I saw someone about to swallow poison, I would probably shout and slap it out of his hand. If a friend were about to be bitten by a poisonous snake, I might knock him out of the way and kill the snake. We can't be "nice" if it means compromising with evil. I once heard an exorcist say (yes, the Church still has them) "We speak with authority to the demon, but we do not allow it to draw us into a dialogue. It will only speak in half-truths and lies."

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12520325224585096747 Éstiel

    Dear Father Longnekker,Please continue. There will always be trolls, you know.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14531024393615051496 veritas

    Servingblogger,You don't like hearing the truth – do you? Especially about certain moral issues. If what Fr Longenecker says upsets you, just start reading what the Bible says, because apparently it's homophobic too. After all God flattened a couple of cities because of their aggressively homosexual behaviour (no – it was NOT because they were uncharitable to strangers as the homosexual lobby try to retranslate it).I don't call this "homophobia' (i.e. fear of homosexuals), I call it a refusal to countenance immoral behaviour that has been explicitly condemned by God. Homosexualty smacks at the very heart of marriage and families. It is a sterile, promiscuous sexuality, contrary to nature and therefore contrary to everything God wants for mankind.If Fr Longenecker offends you by suggesting this, then he happens to have Scripture and the Church on his side.As for Father's weariness with endless dialogue. Anglicans have been arguing about the doctrines of the faith since Henry ripped the Church from the leadership of Rome. I can't believe how many separated Anglican groups there now are in the United States – a search of the internet makes for an incredible list! Instead of simply breaking away from an increasingly corrupt and heretical Episcopal Church and turning towards Rome, the ex-Episcopalians have started countless mini-denominations. Each has some pathetic reason for A)not joining with any of the other separated groups and B) not joining the Catholic Church. Give me a break! Stop finding reasons for NOT joining the Church Jesus Himself founded 2000 years ago. Stop creating yet more man made denominations.Enough already!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14058286668713203201 servingblogger

    Romishgrafitti: actually I do have the courage of my convictions and I have invited Father's Bishop (Charleston) to have a look at his blog and its style and tone. And I'm sure he will. I look forward to his take on things. I believe some of the things that he is saying are not worthy of a priest who is supposed to bring about unity and peace. Much of what is said is divisive and nurtures exclusion of people of other tradition and lifestyle. Is that what the Catholic Church is about ? No, it is about inclusion, nurturing, loving, caring. So, I think Fr D is out of line with the true tradition of Catholicism. Perhaps he needs to have spent longer learning about what it is to be a Catholic. He's missing something.Veritas: your comment just reeks of angry, vitriolic and barely contained venom against a particular group of people that doesn't fit in with your narrowly constructed view of the world, the Church and scripture. It's not a big step from where you are presently to active persecution. You need to be careful. You could easily, if not already with your comment, be close to falling in to grave sin. Hatred of others isn't something I understand as a Christian virtue. And you exhibit clear signs of hatred. Oh, I know it's all wrapped up in the supposed garb of the teaching of the Church, and quotations from Scripture. But, I detect that there is a visceral emotion of hatred bubbling underneath that is the real motivation behind your stance and comment. I see it for what it is.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ romishgraffiti

    I guess I'll leave it to readers to decide who is making a reasonable argument and who is merely ascribing bad motives with no evidence.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08110341406524333073 chimakuni

    hurrah, hurrah! I vote for Mr. Grumpy and his right to voice his opinion any time…Finding common ground is a mantra from many these days – of course, those that are the dissenting side…why can't they find common ground with ME?Why does it always have to be on their terms which I have very little if anything in common with -

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14531024393615051496 veritas

    servingblogger,I am not going to attempt to reply in detail to your accusations against me, it would be pointless. I will simply say that any comments I made are mild when lined up against what Scripture says about homosexuality.And do I feel angry at a group that attacks everything that I,as a father and grandfather hold dear – marriage, family life and children – and is trying its hardest to destroy these things and corrupt our children? You bet I do!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/07740164378856454831 laurazim

    Huh. The Church will change it's teachings, precepts, creed, foundation, etc., etc., etc., because of an angry troll? Probably not. Yes, there are bishops who will flinch when their priests teach the truth unflinchingly. And there are many who will find the Word of God difficult to understand, accept, and live by. But God help us when there are no longer priests who are willing to continue to guide us on the straight and narrow path to Him."I believe some of the things that he is saying are not worthy of a priest who is supposed to bring about unity and peace. Much of what is said is divisive and nurtures exclusion of people of other tradition and lifestyle. Is that what the Catholic Church is about ? No, it is about inclusion, nurturing, loving, caring."Well, my dear, priests aren't supposed to "bring about unity and peace." They are supposed to teach us the Truth in obedience to Holy Mother Church. The Gospel IS devisive. Have you read it? Have you read the New Testament? The traditions handed down by the Fathers of the Church were handed down by the disciples, themselves, which was handed to them from Jesus Christ Himself. Find in Holy Scripture where it is said that the Church should be inclusive to "people of other traditions and lifestyles." "Lifestyle" is one of those touchy-feely words used by those who wish to lump their sins together in one neat little package meant to be swept underneath a collective rug and not noticed, criticized or called out for what they are by anyone who disagrees.I do not live a Catholic "lifestyle." I try live the Catholic faith. I live within my vocation of wife and mother. That does not make me filled with hatred, rage, vitriol, or any of the other ugly brushes with which you've chosen to paint Fr L and those who believe the fullness of the Catholic faith.And if homophobic means that I fear the sin of fornication between two people of the same gender, then I guess I'm a homophobe. I'm also a false-godophobe, a miss-Massophobe, a disrespectaphobe, a homicidiphobe, a larceniphobe, a falsiphobe, a covetaphobe, an adulterophobe…….I'm also afraid of heights and spiders, if that makes a difference.I'm sinful and arrogant. I suffer from secret pride. I'm probably too lazy, and I lose my temer sometimes a little too quickly. I've been disrespectful to my husband, and at times, I've been so even in front of our children. Thank God the straight and narrow path leads to Heaven through the Confessional, attended by His good and holy priests.Thanks Fr L. Rock on.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17284905121465747077 Steve

    Doctoreric,You've quoted scripture (St. Paul), but I find it ironic that you thought some sins (those that we can assume are not your own) have been highligted in bold, while plenty of other sins (sins that are equally evil — e.g., not having mercy; lacking affection for one's fellow humans; being deceitful; committing "fornication" in a heterosexual sense, etc.) don't receive that attention from you. Funny how just the stuff about homosexuality is highlighted in your version of the Bible. Perhaps the publisher of your version owes you a refund?

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ romishgraffiti

    If you will read docteroric again you will see that he was specifically answering someone's disagreement about the Church's teaching about homosex. Thus, it was entirely appropriate for him to highlight those points. No, he didn't highlight the wrongness of deceitfulness for instance. That is because one, because it wasn't a topic at hand and two, there isn't a massive popular movement to bully the faithful into thinking that lying is actually a good thing. To wit: if there is eve a Liar's Pride Parade, I imagine doctororic can be counted on to highlight some Scripture on the wrongness of lying.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17284905121465747077 Steve

    Romishgraffiti, my point was that we're all really good at pointing out the splinter or log in somebody else's eye (e.g., those big bad gay people), but we're usually inclined to ignore our own sizeable logs (e.g., all the sins we don't think deserve loud condemnation because they're committed by us or by people we know and like). Many of us feel like we need to shout at the top of our lungs when gay people want to get married, yet we fail to acknowledge that the biggest threat to heterosexual marraige involves straight people cheating on their spouses — almost always with other straight people. St. Paul's condemnation of promiscuity in general is deserving of real attention, but somehow conservatives manage to reduce it, time after time, to what you term "homosex."

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14058286668713203201 servingblogger

    Hey, this is great. A debate !Got people thinking, maybe ?But I still do detect visceral, gutteral attitudes of raw prejudice going on in some of the comments. Boy, this thing really does strike deep in people.By the way, let's not use 'homosex' – there is no such word. Have a respect for the English language and use the right word – 'homosexuality' – and be respectful of those who use that description of themselves.Oh, and let's not get on to that well worn issue about 'gay' being hijacked by the homosexual community !Steve, thanks for your helpful perspectives on this. I am with you.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ romishgraffiti

    Romishgraffiti, my point was that we're all really good at pointing out the splinter or log in somebody else's eye (e.g., those big bad gay people), but we're usually inclined to ignore our own sizeable logs (e.g., all the sins we don't think deserve loud condemnation because they're committed by us or by people we know and like).The one useful point here as that you are tacitly admitting that homosexual acts are sinful. And you flew right over my point: there are no Adulterer's Pride Parades, so the whole eye-log thing is a rabbit trail.There is nothing nefarious in the use of the term "homosex" It is simply short for "homosexual act". This is to distinguish between the the sin and the sinner. This is because homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but having same-sex attraction, or what generally goes under the term "homosexuality", while not normal, is not sinful in and of ourselves. We have a duty to avoid ad hominem, attacking a person and judging his motives instead of admonishing people for what they do. For a good example of ad hominem see:But I still do detect visceral, gutteral attitudes of raw prejudice going on in some of the comments.Instead of interacting with a person's points, this tries to imply sleazy motives.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12373317560249811006 Fr Longenecker

    Just for the record, I never used the ugly word 'homosex'.This was used by a commenter about his own experience, and in one post I copied and pasted his comment and therefore the word appeared on this blog.The reason I wouldn't use it is not that it is inaccurate, but because it is ugly.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ romishgraffiti

    Fair enough Father. I shall from this point forward use the term "homosexual act(s)" as does the Catechism:2357 …Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14531024393615051496 veritas

    servingblogger said:"Oh, and let's not get on to that well worn issue about 'gay' being hijacked by the homosexual community !"Sorry servingblogger but that happens to be true. The perfectly good English word "gay" has been taken over by the homosexuals. Go back in your literature and you will find that gay meant: "full of or disposed to or indicating mirth, light-hearted, sportive …" Oxford Dictionary 1964 Edition. Even as historically recently as this 1964 edition of the Oxford Dictionary there is NO mention in the definition of sexual attraction between two males as one of the meanings of gay.The homosexual lobby DID take over this word to try and make homosexuality sound less offensive.By the way, this 1964 edition of the Oxford Dictionary, while it never mentions "gay" as referring to same sex attraction, does say that gay can euphemistically mean: "dissolute, immoral, living by prostitution.." Perhaps the word does apply to the homosexual community after all.I might add that none of us here who are criticisng homosexual behaviour are condemning a person who feels same sex attraction. That is, like any unatural inclination, such as adulterous tempations, food obsessions, excessive desire for wealth etc, not in itself sinful. The temptation is not the sin. The sin only comes if a person gives in to the temptation.But I certainly do criticise a group who actively push an immoral lifestyle and are now trying to have it presented as normal in books our children read at school.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ romishgraffiti

    I might add that none of us here who are criticisng homosexual behaviour are condemning a person who feels same sex attraction. That is, like any unatural inclination, such as adulterous tempations, food obsessions, excessive desire for wealth etc, not in itself sinful. The temptation is not the sin. The sin only comes if a person gives in to the temptation.Aye. This is why suggesting that we are obsessed with homosexual acts rather than say, adultery, is a bogus charge. There is a vast difference because it is one thing if people fail to live up to a standard (which is forgivable), quite another to deny the standard altogether (which is pretending there is nothing to forgive). For instance, In many of these conversations, John 8 is trotted out as a defense. It's the story of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus says "let him without sin cast the first stone." The problem is that this is a complete misapplication of the passage. At the end Our Lord says to the forgiven woman, "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "Go, adultery is not really a sin anyway. It's just an arbitrary patriarchal social construct. Besides we can find examples of multiple sex partners in nature. So, if you sleep with people other than your husband, it's ok as long as you are loving." Scott Waddell

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14058286668713203201 servingblogger

    Throw out a line, and you are sure to catch something !And mention gay or homosexual, and bingo, you can reel them in !Vertias and Romishgraffiti and those of our kind: you are so predictable. Obsessive in your need to bang on about this issue about homosexuality.I wish you could talk with such eloquence about other matters – for example the injustice that lives on in our world, about economic and cultural imperialism, about torture and human rights, about ensuring that the weak and marginalised are included etc. etc. In other words, about building up the Kingdom of God here and now.But, no, so wound up are you about sexuality and the issue of gay lifestyle, and gay sin, etc. etc., that you can't find the energy for anything else.I hope that eventually you can get over it

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14531024393615051496 veritas

    Servingblogger,Once again I will point out that any criticisms we have of homosexuality are MILD compared to what God says in Scripture. So don't go for us instead ask yourself why you are so anxious to defend something Scripture calls an abomination.And once again, I will point out that I WILL condemn a group that is becoming increasingly proactive in defending an immoral lifestyle and is becoming increasingly proactive in trying to influence our children through specially written books into accepting this immoral lifestyle as normal.However, since the will of God as revealed in the Bible and teaching of the Church, appears to mean little to you; I have really had enough of this endless discussion, in which you are determined to apply your own extreme judgementalism to some of us, while at the same time calling us judgemental. You really need to look in a mirror. You can now say what you like because I am not going to reply any more, it is a waste of time.

  • http://doctoreric.wordpress.com/ doctoreric

    "If you will read docteroric again you will see that he was specifically answering someone's disagreement about the Church's teaching about homosex. Thus, it was entirely appropriate for him to highlight those points. No, he didn't highlight the wrongness of deceitfulness for instance. That is because one, because it wasn't a topic at hand and two, there isn't a massive popular movement to bully the faithful into thinking that lying is actually a good thing. To wit: if there is eve a Liar's Pride Parade, I imagine doctororic can be counted on to highlight some Scripture on the wrongness of lying."You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.-St. John 8:44Are you happy Steve? I have quoted a verse showing how damnable it is to lie.If you had bothered to read above, you would have noticed that I was referring to another post which accused Fr. Dwight of being homophobic, therefore against what the Bible and the Church teach. Conversely, I posted the Biblical quotes and made bold the relevant phrases showing how this was false-as "romishgraffiti" wrote above.Unfortunately, lying is not described as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel [willful murder], the sin of the Sodomites [same-sex fornication], the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt [oppression of the poor and/or slavery], the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner. Is it OK that I made those bold?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14058286668713203201 servingblogger

    oh dear, Doctoreric and Veritas are really getting their knickers in a twist. They do not like it when someone puts another perspective to them, and they respond in the style that you can see above.That's a pity. I'd rather see them try to understand that even in our Catholic Church there are many perspectives on many issues, from people who are good willed and are trying to discover the truth about life, God etc.All this bashing people on the head with selfserving interpretation of scripture doesn't get us anywhere.There's a great deal of anger in their words, and they are probably puce in colour in the face as they write their comments. I can just see it ! So, good people, settle down, hang on to your own ideas, but just accept that people like me and others have another take on many of these issues, and ours is just as valid as yours, even though you will cry out that it's not what the Holy Father says !The Holy Father, i suspect, is rather more gentle and wise in his views on all these things, applying the balm of love rather than ranting and raving as some seem to do here. Take a lesson from him.I expect another onslaught in response to this. Oh, except Veritas has decided to withdraw from the scene because he doesn't see any point in talking to someone who doesn't completely agree with him.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14058286668713203201 servingblogger

    oh dear, Doctoreric and Veritas are really getting their knickers in a twist. They do not like it when someone puts another perspective to them, and they respond in the style that you can see above.That's a pity. I'd rather see them try to understand that even in our Catholic Church there are many perspectives on many issues, from people who are good willed and are trying to discover the truth about life, God etc.All this bashing people on the head with selfserving interpretation of scripture doesn't get us anywhere.There's a great deal of anger in their words, and they are probably puce in colour in the face as they write their comments. I can just see it ! So, good people, settle down, hang on to your own ideas, but just accept that people like me and others have another take on many of these issues, and ours is just as valid as yours, even though you will cry out that it's not what the Holy Father says !The Holy Father, i suspect, is rather more gentle and wise in his views on all these things, applying the balm of love rather than ranting and raving as some seem to do here. Take a lesson from him.I expect another onslaught in response to this. Oh, except Veritas has decided to withdraw from the scene because he doesn't see any point in talking to someone who doesn't completely agree with him.

  • http://doctoreric.wordpress.com/ doctoreric

    "oh dear, Doctoreric and Veritas are really getting their knickers in a twist. They do not like it when someone puts another perspective to them, and they respond in the style that you can see above."I don't wear knickers, since St. Paul says that the effeminate will not enter the Kingdom of God. ;-P(In the United Kingdom, Ireland and some Commonwealth nations, knickers is a word for women's undergarments.In older usage knickers referred to men's garments such as knickerbockers, also known as plus twos or plus fours in British English.[1] The term knickerbockers has become historic in British English but is used in North America.[2][3] The term "knickers" is still used to refer to nickerbockers in American English. However, the adoption of the term "knickers" to denote a women's undergarment in British English has caused the expression, along with "knickerbockers" to become historic.) -from Wiki "That's a pity. I'd rather see them try to understand that even in our Catholic Church there are many perspectives on many issues, from people who are good willed and are trying to discover the truth about life, God etc."It would seem that you don't understand that the Church from the very beginning has condemned homosexual acts. I don't condemn homosexual inclinations, just the acts. Just like I don't condemn a straight man's heterosexual inclinations, I would condemn his fornication or adultery. Furthermore, the Church has only one perspective on this issue. "All this bashing people on the head with selfserving interpretation of scripture doesn't get us anywhere."The Church's interpretation is the only one I consider. The condemnation of homosexual acts doesn't serve me at all. I could care less what people do in their bedrooms. But, what people do in their bedrooms comes out in the way that they act towards others- that I do care about."There's a great deal of anger in their words, and they are probably puce in colour in the face as they write their comments. I can just see it ! So, good people, settle down, hang on to your own ideas, but just accept that people like me and others have another take on many of these issues, and ours is just as valid as yours, even though you will cry out that it's not what the Holy Father says !"Nope, my face is as pale as it always is. I don't get out into the sunshine like I used to do as a younger man. You have to prove that your take on these issues is valid. I have yet to see any proof of this validity. Quite the contrary we have tried to show how you are in error. Matt 18:16-17 "The Holy Father, i suspect, is rather more gentle and wise in his views on all these things, applying the balm of love rather than ranting and raving as some seem to do here. Take a lesson from him."You suspect… in other words, you still haven't produced any substantial proof except for your own relativistic choices. I like vanilla ice cream you like chocolate. Please show us some evidence from the Bible, from the Fathers of the Church, and from Papal documents that your views are correct and ours are false.Sorry for hijacking your blog, Father. Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Amen.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16864993877758217399 Scott

    The Holy Father, i suspect, is rather more gentle and wise in his views on all these things, applying the balm of love rather than ranting and raving as some seem to do here.Perhaps. But in the final analysis, he'd still make it abundantly clear that homosexual acts are wrong, no exceptions. As far as ranting and raving, nonsense. We've used logic, evidence, and actually interacted with people's points rather than trying to scry their motives or attribute to them irrational emotions. So far all you have done is:1. ad homimem2. ???3. Declare victory.I expect another onslaught in response to this.As long as you continue to hang grapefruit over the plate, I'm sure there will be people willing to knock them out of the park.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X