22 January 2019

A bit confused

Somewhere on the Internet there is a clip of a couple of homosexuals presenting their son for Baptism in one of those very liberal Catholic Churches that they seem to delight in over the water. One of these parents wittily said that Jesus had had two fathers, and He turned out all right.

Possibly like you, I was so irritated by the blasphemy that it was only later that it struck me how illogical the poor (if rather loud) fellow was.

Certainly over here, a big step in the campaign for 'ordaining' women to sacerdotal ministries in Old Mother Damnable came when many of the homosexual clergy cottoned onto a bright idea. If 'development' was the Magic Wand which sanctioned the ordination of women; then the same instrument of Circean enchantment could surely sanctify 'same-sex marriage'. All of a sudden, cohorts of the lace and silver-buckles gentry in the diocese of London allowed their subscriptions to organisations opposing Women's Ordination to lapse. Roger the Lodger could piggy-back into paradise on the backs of the ladies. (Now there's some rich imagery for you.)

But this dapper and jokey American homosexual, swaying back and forth as he clutched the baby, was implying that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was ... a Father.

But that, duckie, is off-message. As some of the Anglican womenbishops over here feel it important to explain (my goodness me, how intellectual they are), God is not masculine.






9 comments:

Ignatius, Cornwall said...

Especially well said, Fr., especially the last two little paragraphs!

Tony V said...

No, no, no. You misunderstand the word 'father'. It doesn't mean someone has a biological connexion to someone else...just like when Heather had 2 mommies (or was it 3?), it's perfectly possible to be a mommy or daddy without being "related" in some crude biological way. Nor, to be a father, do you need to be a "male" (as if such a thing existed, which of course it doesn't, because gender is non-binary): you can be a cis-man, trans-woman, trans-man, or cis-trans-other. Ditto for mother.

fatty said...

And quite the slap to the BVM. Apparently she didn't have much of an influence in the life of Christ.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Father. When the Church opened itself to the world, one unhappy result was not that the world was lifted by Christian leven but that the Church was leveled by worldly influence and ever since that opening to the world we have been blessing anything that irks the world with the sacramental of defenestration and so one suspects that the error of the Anglicans will be repeated by Rome and the conservatives will defend all that Rome does.

Such a dire prospect puts ABS in mind of a great observation by a Calvinist Cassandra, minister, Ronald Darby

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights, will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rĂ´le of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”

Jhayes said...

The Bishop recently married to his partner is the area bishop of York-Scarborough, , a suffragan of the diocese of Toronto - in Canada, not the USA.

http://www.toronto.anglican.ca/about-the-diocese/area-bishops/york-scarborough/

GOR said...

It is incredible to me that priests who have spent at least four years studying Moral Theology, can somehow seek to justify sodomy – their own or that of others. And, like those of the ‘Gay’ agenda, not just justify but promote it as a ‘good’.

Didn’t they learn anything? Or weren’t they taught anything? Given the amount of clerical homosexuality now being revealed, it would appear that frequently the teachers themselves were the ones to promote this initially. It’s a wonder that any orthodox seminarians survived the seminary with their Faith intact in recent decades.

PDLeck said...

I don't know when you saw the vidieo, Fr., but it's been removed. However,Fr. Zuhlsdorf managed to get a copy before it was removed. The parish in question is in Fr. Z's home town and is very lax and illiturgical (if that's a word?) to say the least.

Highland Cathedral said...

Prior to the Synods on the Family, the dissident organisation, ACTA, put on its website the hope that the Synods would agree to sanction Communion for people who been properly married, then had been divorced and then civilly 'remarried'. The reason they gave for this hope was that if that change could be approved then the changes they are campaigning for could also be approved. And what are they campaiging for? Oh, just the usual list, like female priests and the approval of homosexuality.

Mr Grumpy said...

And the Angel said unto Mary, Behold, the Lord God and Joseph thy husband shall come out, and shall come unto thee bearing gifts: gold, gold and more gold, that thou mayest consent to put thyself away privily after the child is born. For blessed art thou among women, if thou knowest when thou art not wanted.