Pope Benedict arrives in UK for state visit

Warned against the tide of "aggressive secularism", eh? Well well well. Maybe Pope Benedict himself should join the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist. Much of the decline in the church really *is* because many church members (of whatever denomination - RCism is just one among many) actually do not believe the truth claims of their religion. Most Catholics, for example, probably do realise that Jesus didn't *really* rise from the dead, and certainly they don't believe in transubstantiation or that Mary was *really* a virgin. Very many no longer believe that "god" is a real thing, and are happy to accept Stephen Hawking's use of the word as a metaphor.

If Benny wants to keep people in his church, he needs to accept this fact. If a church is based on social involvement, and drops its fake magical claims and requirements, it might survive, and its heritage might not be lost. But the tide of secularism continues to build. Churches can grab their board and surf along with the rest of us, or they can drown. It's a choice.

There’s a headline that says:
“SCOTLAND’s struggling economy will benefit from a £13M windfall from the Papal visit.”
Now that’s about as secular as you can get!
Cost estimate: £1million
Profit estimate: £13million
Oops, I think we forgot the cost for security.
Up to 6,000 police officers are expected on duty, cost of the one-day visit @ £10million.
Looks to me like the visit may - possibly - break even.
Some feel that occasion has been commercialised because Got Talent’s Susan Boyle and Pop Idol Michelle McManus were invited to Mass in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park. This also seems to me like a step towards secularization or at least monetizing, maybe just attempting to make this visit break even. Afterall, I guess you have to entertain all these people somehow; you can’t just go into Gregorian Chant for hours on end.
As for the "gaffe" re arriving at Heathrow airport was like landing in a "Third World" country, if that's the way Cardinal Walter Kasper saw it, what's he supposed to do - make a retraction and lie?
Cardinal O'Brien should be careful of his expectations.

Why would the Pope want people in the Catholic Church who don't believe in the resurrection of Christ or his presence in the Blessed Sacrament? If it's only about social involvement that's not a Church.

Did you hear the Queen asking the Pope why his car (from the airport) was so small?

Are those red shoes Prada or Gammarelli :p

Chris, it depends on whether you view the "church" as the wasps or the jam jar.

I listened to what the Pope said when he arrived and a quote came to me, one from Ghandi no less:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Seems after years of being ignored, and then laughed at, atheism is finally being acknowledged by religion as a threat. We all know what happens next.

mccamleyc,

Why would the Pope want people in the Catholic Church who don't believe in the resurrection of Christ or his presence in the Blessed Sacrament?

I agree, why would he, and similarly why does the pope want to control the lives of the people who do not believe what he says, why does he not let them live by their conscience.

Helio: whilst many people are leaving 'religion' and churches of all denominations this does not equate to people no longer having a relationship with God or becoming atheist. In a poll somewhere (sorry I dont have the details) approx 70% people in Britain consider themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. Yes - they recognise the fallacy of some of the teachings as you have outlined and and many have moved on from religious understandings to wisdom teachings that are universal in application and which most definitely include God. Admittedly - I would also say there is alot of what I would consider false teachings out there about God in new age teachings etc as well. So discernment is key.

I think the title of the thread be modified to some Irish Church Leaders as some Irish, or Northern Irish anyway, church leaders were every bit as aggressive as those damn secularists. How very dare they !!!!!

Helio

You must be fit to burst. Britain is to be commended for helping to fight the "atheist Nazis."

There were alot of things I disliked about the Nazis. Their atheism was rather far down my list.

That tells you where this man is coming from.

Pope Benedict has said he wants to "extend the hand of friendship" to the whole of the UK during his visit. It's sad that the Moderator cannot reciprocate on behalf of his denomination. Would the reasons for not doing so also prevent him from shaking hands with the leaders of other faiths, such as the Chief Rabbi, with whom he would also have theological differences - or is it just Catholics?

What a palaver over one man! Absolutely daft and proof that the world is mad.

Dunno - I had said previously I would shake Benny's hand, but now he seems to view me as a Nazi. Which is a bit rich, one might say. I'll still shake his hand, but I would perhaps feel the need to grace his shell-like with a piece of my mind.

Still, it's a good substitute for thought. I like the Gandhi quote - I rather think we have won already.

I've just watched the BBC 10 o'clock news. One Ulsterman who went to Edinburgh said: "The aura was ecstatic". Phew! China under Mao and the Soviet Union under Stalin were criticised for the cult of personality, but they had nothing on the papacy.

The media are also complicit in this collective madness. Apparently, if you are a prominent figure in church or state and you don't go to meet the pope, you are snubbing him.

Now, listen you fellow contributors to this blog. If you don't come to our W&T bloggers dinner in November, you are obviously snubbing us!

Brian

You are quite right! (How often do I say that?!)

A case in point is the current tangle of threads on Pope, Moderator, handshakes and church services... it's enough to make one an...! Even at a practical level one posts a comment and looses it in the ether of Christendom never to find it again. To whom was I speaking and on what thread and where shall I reply? I no longer have any idea. I'm pooped!

Helio #13 Maybe a salute with B16 instead of that handshake :P. Some Vatican speech advisors obviously told him to turn his whole Nazi past thing around and say hey- these guys are the modernday Nazis now- I should know eh? nudge nudge. This article I found quite interesting though, https://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6111.4510.0.0

How dare the Pope compare atheists with a state run by a single man whose power is total and authoratarian and makes mandates based on personal opinion and distorted interpretations of a central ethos! A state that endorsed and (in the past) encouraged discrimination, persecution and the outcasting of those who disagreed with them.

Who does he think we are? The Catholic Church?

Brian: just for the record - I can't make the dinner but I am NOT snubbing all ye lovelies! :-)

Eunice

Its easy. Start off with simple dishes like boiled eggs or spuds and as you build up experience you'll be able to learn more complex things like rice, vegetables, meat fish and poultry.

I'm thinking of Godwins law here. In an internet debate it usually takes a while and an increased number of debaters before a ludicrous comparisons to Nazism is made. Ratzi manages to singlehandedly pull it off in his first speech.

So we can rank the value of his words just below that of a bunch of anonymous internet users engaged in a shouting match.

And let me shamelessly also put in a plug for the bloggers here to attend the next iteration of the W&T bloggers dinner at McHughs in mid November. Non-believer and believers of all flavours (except suicide bomber ones) are welcome. See blog thread about a previous iteration for registration:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/will_testament_bloggers_dinner.html

William, following the success of the Old Testament course you facilitated, any chance you could organise a course in logic for the atheists. Pope says Nazis were atheistic. Atheists get their tartan knickers in a twist and pretend the Pope said all atheists are Nazis.

The Pope's entitled to talk about Nazis - you lot have accused him of being one often enough.

I'll concede that the Nazi connection made is tenuous, but perhaps if his just-holy-as-everyone-elseness got his facts right, we wouldn't stamp and pout as much.

I am also proud that the Pope recognises aggresive secularism though, if him, with his vast church and billions of pounds of income, is worried then we must be doing something right.

What about aggressive Catholicism? Ratzinger represents it in spades, attacking Islam, other Christian faiths, and homosexuals, as well as rational and benevolent secularists.

The only truly radical priest in modern Ireland is Pat Buckley. He was excommunicated, something that NEVER happened to Hitler or any other single Nazi leader.

Somebody doesn't like the pope: 5 have been arrested in a suspected terror plot related to the papal visit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11346001

It would be interesting to see if the pope was right about 'atheist extremism' and these 5 turn out to be Dawkinistas who wanted to blow themselves and the pope to bits.

I might curl up and die with laughter if it tuns out that the 5 were part of the Presbyterian fundie delegation on their protest against 'the anti-christ'.

Though if it turns out to have been a real plot I'll bet it was the usual mix of religion and politics that motivated it.

RJB: very good - had me chuckling anyway! lol Maybe you are better sticking with McHughs this year.....:-)

2MP: So many Pope threads - maybe a touch of Popeitis. Seems to be taking over from Creationism.....Pope 6 Creationism 0.5 (sneaked into Hawking thread) .....all a bit Popetastic! How many more Pope threads will emerge over the next week???? When will a new non-Pope thread emerge to join the competition???? During the visitation, 1 day after or more than one day after?? Oh the excitement....Place your bets now L&G please! :-)

Just for the record, Hitler was a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic...if his Holiness wants to start casting nasturtiums about.

The Pope wears Prada shoes. Wish I could afford some!!

Hi Peter, I see those 5 guys were all Algerians. A well known hotded of Atheist extremism. It will be interesting to see if they were religiously motivated (which I suspect) if the Pope will make any comment on the dangers of religious extremism

Nobledeebee, you may be interested in the list of quotes posted on Pharyngula today:

https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/list_of_hitler_quotes_in_honor.php

When it comes to taxpayers' money I think there are strong grounds for ensuring that no person or organisation should be excluded from receiving it because they lack religion. Religious organisations that provide services to the public in many cases effectively exclude the non-religious from applying for jobs which the non-religious could do. This is not fair.

The Pope may call for believers not to be excluded from public life, but as things stand it is non-believers who face the greatest discrimination.

Natman #22. Sorry, to clarify, you think his links to the Nazi's is tenuous, or him calling atheists Nazi's is tenuous?

And Mccamely ~21, you say.. * you lot have accused * It's hardly accusation. The Pope readily admits to being in Hitler Youth and a Nazi Anti-Aircraft Unit in Munich. Also, there was no law in Germany to make children join the Hitler youth. It was certainly pressed home that they should join, but plenty didn't, and talk of him him deserting his Unit - Didn't most of his unit do that too, in the face of the oncoming Americans?
I think it's insulting & hypocritical for him to call an atheist a Nazi. There is no far-right atheist doctrine, and they don't go about the systemic annihilation of an entire race of people

The Vatican has shown its complete ignorance of how things work in the 21st century. The days of peer pressure to attend Sunday mass have long gone, and they keep coming up with spokesmen who seem incapable of actually engaging in a debate on anything, save mouthing variations of their talking points. I say this as a lapsed Catholic, who was educated in a Jesuit-run high school in Montreal, almost 40 years ago. They taught me to think for myself and critically question everything, something missing since John Paul 2. I still have respect for Roman Catholicism, but I truly believe it is time for a Jesuit to ascend to the Papacy. For if "religion is marginalized", then they need someone to effectively argue their case. I believe a Jesuit-educated person could do so for others, but not for me; for at now 52, no one could convince me there is such a being as "god". That said, I still practise the teachings of whoever was Jesus Christ.

Ryan,

Atheists links to him calling atheists nazis. Neither of the above :-)

I've just watched a video showing one of the protests against the Pope, and one of the placards read: "We won't be told what is right and wrong by a former Nazi."

Funny that. I am not aware that in 21st century Britain one is under any obligation to accept what the Pope says. I mean, I myself don't agree with every jot and tittle of Catholic theology, but I don't see the Jesuits being sent round to sort me out. I don't feel a little 'pope' on my back telling me what to do, such that I feel the need to raise up a placard against him to assert my independence from him.

Ah, I suppose their argument might be that they feel they need to protest, in order to get their message across to all those 'vulnerable' people who are supposedly being brainwashed by the nasty Catholic Church (especially those quite obviously well-balanced and joyful schoolchildren, who are benefiting from a Catholic education). Well, if that is the case, then how patronising! "We don't want to be told what is right and wrong by the Pope, but we sure as hell are gonna ram down other people's throats our ideas of right and wrong!!" It seems that religious people are not the only ones consumed by an evangelical moral zeal (in fact, I find some secularists more morally self-righteous on certain issues than even the most uptight Christian fundamentalists!)

Good old McCamley's right - some people do seriously need a course in logic.

By the way... I wonder how some of these protestors would have behaved if they had been required to join the Hitler Youth. Out protesting against Hitler? I don't think so, somehow.

Natman (@ 6) -

I listened to what the Pope said when he arrived and a quote came to me, one from Ghandi no less:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Seems after years of being ignored, and then laughed at, atheism is finally being acknowledged by religion as a threat. We all know what happens next.

Hee hee!

Natman taking advice from a Hindu? Feeling alright, old chap?

Pity that poor old Natman hasn't managed to work out that Ghandi's saying could be applied in the opposite direction. Atheists being laughed at (and not the other way round)?!

As they say in the East End of London: "You're 'aving a larff, aintcha, me old china!"

Pope 's words Yet religion is in fact a guarantee of authentic liberty and respect, leading us to look upon every person as a brother or sister.

how does he say this and then have the attitudes he has to gay people, women and the abused - which are far from brotherly or sisterly. The words here do not match the actions and words elsewhere. Incongruent.

LSV,

Logic lessons aside, I think you need to read other peoples posts; I don't recall advice coming into it, it was a direct quote, observing how things have changed for atheism over the last couple of hundred years. Religion has held an iron grip on peoples thinking for a long, long time, only in the last couple of hundred years has atheism been seen as a legitimate viewpoint.

When you've something accurate and intelligent to add to the thread, feel free to contribute.

Natman (@ 37) -

"When you've something accurate and intelligent to add to the thread, feel free to contribute."

Intelligent?

Surely not? I didn't think the concept of intelligence was allowed to exist in this universe, so I have been told ad nauseam by those who think they know everything.

(That's all I'll say on that matter, for fear of breaking what you have cutely termed 'Crawley's Law').

OK, I agree that 'advice' was perhaps the wrong word. But my point still stands. You can hardly whinge about atheists being laughed at, when you have the nerve to link to a load of twaddle about Christians apparently whining about their supposed persecution complex.

What was it you were saying about 'accurate and intelligent', Natman?

Oh, and I don't suppose a sense of humour will be allowed once the 'wasteland' comes, will it?! A grim sour-faced lot, some of you atheists are (Helio perhaps occasionally excepted).

Brian, what ever happened to Pat Buckley? I rather liked him.

nothing says "faith in god" like 3 inches of bullet proof glass

Well that was a bit boring!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Helio:

Pat Buckley is still conducting his own independent ministry at the Oratory in Larne. He spoke to our group about eighteen months ago, and essentially described himself as a Christian Humanist.

He had a letter in the 'New Statesman' last week in which he said: "I find the current institutional Roman Catholic Church, presided over by Joseph Ratzinger, abominable in the extreme... How can a man who describes himself as the Vicar of Christ live in a palace, declare himself a head of state and send ambassadors to meddle in world politics... This is not a Church. It is the Roman empire MkII and Benedict is the current Roman emperor".

C'mon Mod! Whats wrong with stating that Archbishop Romero could have done with three inches of bullet proof glass?

I'd also like to point out:

- that I dont understand why Benny is so bitter against secularism. If it wasnt for an increase in secularism in this country, his visit wouldnt have been tolerated by the leader of the English Church.

- that Benny's agenda is not about belief in God or spirituality. It is about 'temporal power' and his astute analysis that the Church is in danger of losing it.

- that his comments on the first day about multiculturalism in Britain followed immediately by his urging of the British people not to lose their British values, were dangerous. The Mail and The Star must have thought it was Christmas!!

Thanks Brian - it's good to know that Pat is still going strong. Benny yesterday really was making it "beat up an atheist day", but as Paula Kirby observes, it's pretty much all a stunt to deflect criticism for his corporate responsiblility for institutional abuse of children and the increasing uppitiness of his "flock" who are finding that they can think for themselves on issues like condoms, homosexuality, embryonic stem cells and sexuality & gender equality in the priesthood. But guess what - those *are* things introduced by secularism, so he is very very right to view them as a threat to his misogynistic imperium. Belief-based religion is dying, and is being replaced by a more democratic narrative-based concept in which everything is up for grabs, and nothing is sacred, not even the sacred.

I mean, Pete Rollins does talk a load of old soap with this PoMo e-Merging Church business, but he has some points that are valid. It comes back to the "Jesus was HIV Positive" thing (btw, Will, good interview with Steve Chalke recently - I have my differences, but he made a couple of good points). Jesus needs reinterpreted for each age; yes, we build our own Christ as we go, and it becomes ever more unlike the (if any) "historical Jesus", but Jesus has always been a fridge door that we stick our scribbles on. Different religions have different fridges and fridge magnets.

LSV,

"a load of twaddle about Christians apparently whining about their supposed persecution complex"

Really, twaddle? Have a look at these three links:

https://www.persecution.com/
https://www.persecution.org/
https://www.persecution.net/

If you look at those links you'd almost come to think that persecution was something that only christians ever suffered from. Never mind what the jews went through mostly at the hands of christians during the past ±millenium and a half. Nope, get out the message of 'Help, help, we poor christians are being repressed!'.

Persecution syndrome is very big in christinanity. It's a pr tool, a group bonding exercise, recruitment poster, provides group identity. And it's a money maker of course. Look at the various things the persecution.com site links to. Did you buy any of the DVDs, books, bumper stickers or coffee mugs yet?

Think of it, without persecution syndrome, where would christianity be today?

I think that when people make accusations against others they are often looking at a reflected image of themselves. A few Ratzi examples:

“Pope attacks cult of celebrity”. Ha, ha! Isn’t that what his visit is all about? And what the papacy itself is all about?

Pope attacks ‘atheist extremism’”. Ha, ha! Isn’t he the most extremist head of Catholicism in modern times?

A former member of the Hitler Youth, he brands Nazism as atheist. Ha ,ha! Everyone should read the extensive list of quotes on Pharyngula (See Peter Klaver above, at post 29). A pity, isn’t it, that the Catholic Church didn’t once attack Nazism the way it attacks atheists, Muslims, Protestants, rebel priests, gays and condom users.

The best form of defence is often attack. So he deflects criticisms of his role in the great Catholic cover-up by attacking us poor atheists!

As Fidel Castro might have said, Ratzinger, go home!

RJB: spot on re the power. And control of the masses. Organised religion as it stands today is about power and control. True religion (as I understand it) - brings about freedom from all of that.

Which thread to post this link.....hmmmm ....spoilt for choice on the smorgasbord of popeology!!

It's about the vatican welcoming aliens ---pity they couldn't do the same to women and homosexuals!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs

Ronnie Corbett - Today the Pope, attired in a lace surplice, silk robe and twined golden stole, together with £600 scarlet prada shoes, spoke to 50 000 adoring, cheering, banner waving followers = "Do not be taken in by materialism and celebrity!!"

Ronnie Barker - Meanwhile, speaking from woods, a bear has issued a strongly worded warning.........

LOL! very good :)

Eunice,

"It's about the vatican welcoming aliens ---pity they couldn't do the same to women and homosexuals!"

They say you can tell a man by his friends. The church say they would be buddy buddy with the little green men. Let's see who else they welcome, and who they do not want to be friends with.

On the welcome list:
- aliens with any number of tentacles
- men who bring in lots of money (like father Maciel)
- women who know their place and have lots of kids
- homophobic, sexist Anglicans
- a holocaust-denying bishop
- a cardinal on the run from the US sex abuse scandal

On the not welcome list:
- men who like other men
- women who like having a career rather than kids (especially if they like a career higher up in the church itself)
- women who want control over their own bodies
- protestants (they are not to be taken serious as a church)
- moslims (nothing but evil)
- jews
- reporters and journalists who accurately report the popes words
- nazis (though past mistakes can certainly be forgiven)
- secularists and those damned evil extremist atheists (some of them nazis you know!)
- an archbishop who worked for the poor and paid for it with his life

Draw your own conclusions.

Well you guys must be feeling sick at the huge welcome given to the Holy Father.

By the way, the shoes are not Prada - they're made by a small Italian shoemaker.

And Pat Buckley, if ever I wanted proof that you guys are beyond help, thinking highly of Buckley gives it. You know Buckley is squatting in Catholic property in Larne.

And really moderators, do you think it was appropriate to allow comments at five street cleaners arrested on a dodgy tip off?

Tomorrow we get a new Blessed in the Church, John Henry Cardinal Newman, a giant, despite attempts by the likes of John Cornwell, heresiarch, to destroy his character.

Good to see the organisers giving a platform to the troop of Romanian Roma dancers yesterday at the 'Germanys got Talent (too)' prayer thingy in London.

I hope the President of France was watching.

The significance of why they were given a platform was probably lost on most of the crowd though.

Newman was gay, though, yes?

Helio (@ 55) -

"Newman was gay, though, yes?"

It seems to me that it is not only the Church which is obsessed with sex. Apparently if I have a close (dare I use the word 'intimate') friendship with a person of the same sex - and I even dare to say that I 'love' him - then that makes me gay, according to the current wisdom of the age. Actually, no, it doesn't.

Does that mean that if someone says he 'loves' his children, that that implies some perverted sexual connotation? Does that mean that if he says he 'loves' his siblings, that he has incestuous desires? Or if he 'loves' his parents, that that reveals some deeply hideous (Freudian) sexual deviance within him?

Again, no, no and no. (Funny how society uses the phrase "loved ones" without any sexual connotation, but woe betide anyone who includes a close friend of the same sex in that category, unless he is willing to admit that he is gay!)

But this is, I suppose, typical of materialistic reductionism. Even the concept of 'love' is reduced to the merely physical.

Since you materialist types claim to be so obsessed with 'evidence' (illogically limited, of course, to 'empirical evidence'), then please provide the 'empirical evidence' that Newman was gay? I confidently predict that that will be one challenge too far for you.

I know you are all desperate to use this as a weapon against the Catholic Church, but really this is a non sequitur. Just admit it, and move on now please, chaps...

Also, having endured an all-male boarding school during a chunk of my childhood, I have personal experience of the emotional dynamics at work in that kind of environment. The aspect of the deprivation of the opposite sex has to be factored in. It is quite wrong for those from a different social (and historical) context to draw conclusions about the nature of relationships that emerge within a rigid, (and, in Newman's case, Victorian) single sex environment.

Now, of course, if it could be proven that Newman was gay, then the question arises as to whether it matters. But we haven't even got to that point yet, and I don't think we possibly can!

PK (@ 46) -

OK, point taken. Rush of blood to the head on my part!

I was simply (though admittedly not altogether accurately) responding to the absurd conclusion of the article Natman linked to (i.e. that Christianity is dying a 'whiny death'). I acknowledge that there is indeed severe persecution of Christians in many parts of the world - and you don't need to be a Christian to see that, or even remotely sympathise with Christianity!

Natman was using the Ghandi quote to suggest that, since atheists are apparently being laughed at, this constitutes evidence of some kind of imminent victory. I am questioning the 'persecution' of atheists in the UK, although I understand the situation may be different in certain communities of the Bible Belt in the USA. As I said in my earlier post, Ghandi's quote could point in the opposite direction to Natman's application.

Following on from my last post...

I just want to clarify (in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick), that I am not implying in para. 2 of my last post that homosexuality is necessarily a perversion. I was using examples of family relations to show that we cannot reason from the affirmation of 'love' to an implied admittance of 'sex', and, of course, sexual relations with members of one's own family (whom we generally affirm we love) are recognised perversions - hence no one would reason from 'love' to 'sex' in that context. So why do it in the context of non-family relations?

LSV, a fair point; I don't know enough about the dude (or Jonathan and David for that matter); I had thought it was common knowledge. Not that it should have made a difference, other than to highlight the hypocrisy of Ratzinger "beatifying" (whatever the heck that means) him, while at the same time publicly proclaiming his mantra of intolerance and blinkered dogma.

Commentators have been reminding us of a letter written to the Guardian in 1997. He wrote "The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

On the 2nd of September this year Peter Thatchell is reported to have asked, again, for the age of consent to be lowered to 14. What does this opinion say about the views of someone who has made so much of the issue of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Can he not see the link between the age of consent and child abuse? What defence to alligations of child abuse could Priests then make? What does it say about journalists or TV producers who would give him air time without highlightins this obvious contradiction? Mr Thatchell is entitled to his views, but we are also entitled to some open discussion on the matter. Why have journalists like youself, for you have interviewed him in recent days, not challenged him directly on this topic which is directly related to the sexual abuse by priests story? Are we so political correct that we wo'nt let his views on underage sex get in the way of the main story, which of course systematic child abuse and cover up in the Catholic Church. Has anyone else any views on this issue, or can someone help me make sense of what is going on?

Incidentally, Richard Dawkins' latest speech on the topic is excellent [mods: this link is relevant - please retain]:
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/521113-ratzinger-is-an-enemy-of-humanity

The pope's visit was without doubt a complete failure for the vatican, ok, the media was trying to put a good spin on it but seriously, when you sit down and honestly watch the coverage, you will easily find that the pictures don't tell lies and even low the TV presenters tried their very best to tell the viewers about the crowds that seriously weren't even present at the places were they allegedly lined the routes, when indeed the sky camera tells a different story.

Now to top everything else off, the so-called islamic threat on the popes life will be viewed as a very bad attempt to cause a smokescreen away from the serious Paedophile and other EVIL scandals that have been going on for years from within the system.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sorry Mr Kalvar, I am a first timer. I can't think why you are sensitive to my honest discusion. I didn't see any other discussion on this topic on this page that's why I raised it. The page has links to Peter Thatchell's TV programme. I wonder why you think that there are very few people interested in this topic? There was a time when people were not interested in child abuse. Al I am doing is just pointing out the contradiction in Mr Thatchell's views and wondering why the subject is being avioded by William Crawley, assuming that he is avoiding it, or perhaps he thinks it is not relevant. Hope to read his comments soon. Anyway I have to go, have a nice day.

I listened to William this morning and wondered if his objectivity is going. What a bit of kaw towing over the visit the man that calls himself "pope"- Come on William a bit more rationality and less niceness unless you plan to convert.
Never never underestmate the Vatican's ability to look after the Vatican. The rest of us can go to Hades - Why would we listen to religious propaganda .
I follow Lucretius: Religion is sublime to the ignorant,useful to the polititian and rediculus to the philospher.

# 55 "Newman was gay, though, yes?

Almost certainly he was. He enjoyed an emotionally intense loving relationship with another man sustained over a long period of time. If the letter of his vows were particularly important to him that relationship, sadly, may well have been celibate; whether it was or not we do not know and that detail is scarcely important. What Newman's love for Ambrose St John shows is that the mutual love of two people of the same gender can be a holy thing, personally sustaining and consecrated to God.

Newman, we must remember, lived in an age in which homosexuality was still illegal, still entirely liable to prosecution and incarceration. He could not make a public statement of his nature without losing his reputation and influence; he could not have expected such a statement to be taken seriously and to have had positive impact. Newman was, however, a man in so many ways very much ahead of his time and very far-sighted. His detailled plan to ensure the rapid decomposition of his body show a man conscious of potential future developments, well aware of his legacy. He knew his writings would be subject to posthumous scrutiny, he knew that interest in his work would not fade. With this knowledge and this foresight the leaving uncensored of his writings about the strength of his feelings for St John and his determination to be buried in the same grave can only be seen as a message for posterity.

There is not, in my mind, the slightest doubt but that Newman was saying to generations to come: if I am seen to be holy, if my message is seen to be true, then there is in homosexual relationships the possibility of something good, something faithful, something holy. I am sure that, in time, this strand will be given due weight as part of one of the all-time great Christian legacies.

Gerry47 (@ 64) -

"I follow Lucretius: Religion is sublime to the ignorant,useful to the polititian and rediculus to the philospher."

Would you mind expanding on this - especially the bit about the philosopher?

Given the extremity of this assertion, it would be a good idea to make some effort to substantiate it with some kind of coherent argument. At least then others can analyse your reasoning, to see whether it is valid or whether your statement is simply the utterance of unthinking prejudice (of which - most irritatingly - there is an abundance on this blog).

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

Parrhasios (@ 65) -

I think it might be worth having a read of the Afterword in Ian Ker's biography of Newman. It is available here. The Afterword is included in the preview pages which appear when you click on the image of the book. Just scroll down to find it just before the index.

Ker refers to documentary evidence which debunks the homosexuality theory. It is true that it is not a 100% refutation (proof in the mathematical or philosophical sense), but the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" comes to mind. This evidence is far more compelling than the supposition of his homosexuality based on the fact that he had a number of very close friendships with other men.

I am not making this comment in order to make any statement about homosexuality per se. My concern is for us to avoid a revisionist interpretation of history. If the Catholic Church is ever to embrace homosexuality, it will not be on the basis of any evidence from Newman's life, because the evidence just is not there.

I cannot see how one can argue from close, long-standing and committed friendships to homosexuality. I find this modern tendency to see sexual motives everywhere quite disturbing and insidious, to be honest.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

To post 67 Sorry for geeting the spelling of Mr Klaver incorrect. Just geeting the hang of adding posts. Pity Mr McClinton I think your comments are offensive and should be monitered. I did not attack Mr Thatchell but questioned his apparent double standards i.e. sexula abuse verses sexualising children and supporting the lowering of the age of consent. Your comments "Yes, when I read Check that Out's attack on Peter Tatchell, I too immediately assumed it was OT in another guise. My suspicion was further strengthened by the all so obviously mock mistake over your name in post 63 and the familiar go at William Crawley for soft pedalling on gays. Perhaps OT has found his theological soul mate at last!" Note, I never refered to Mr Tatchell's sexual orientation, that's his business. However you have inferred that I am homophobic. Please correct this statment.

@LSV

The Lucretius quote is probably a misattribution, there's a virtually identical one all over the interwebs attributed to Seneca. The source is probably Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.

It's stood the test of time for me and is probably uncontentious even for you in it's literal state, unless you are holding a candle for Minerva, of course.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Check that out - don't know if you are a puppet or not. If new, you'll find there is no point in raising the contradictory positions of liberals on this site - what they can't address they ignore. Tatchell is a total hypocrite - the evidence is there in black and white. But you'll find that the people who continually attack the Church over child abuse see nothing wrong in doctors and groups like Planned Parenthood and Brook clinics ignoring child abuse and indeed facilitating it by handing out contraception to children.

As for Blessed John Henry being gay, well it's beneath contempt. And I'm not one of those who add "of course I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay" because there is.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

mccamleyc,

And I'm not one of those who add "of course I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay" because there is.

Would you like to explain that in a non religious context because if you cannot then you will have branded not only yourself but your religion and your god as a bigot incapable of treating people who are different with any respect.

mccamleyc thanks for your comments. I don't know what a puppet is, perhaps you mean someone else pulling the strings. This is really my first time bloging and I didn't expect the abuse I recieved from two people who perhaps should know better. They should remember the saying, better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. These are real issues that I raise need honest answers. I don't know what I need to do to convince them I am not who they suspect, but Brian's comments shows perhaps a haughtyness and lack of respect which is typical of someone who thinks that others are beneath them. I hope that he will get around to answer the question raised and perhaps give his view as to whether he agrees with Mr Thatchell that the age of conscent should be lowered to 14 and that sex with children can be a beautiful thing.

Dave, I would draw a distinction between Chris's fantasies about god and the actual view of "god" on the topic of human sexuality. There is no evidence at all that there is anything "wrong" with homosexuality; what *is* wrong has been the societal and religious response to it. It is a terrible shame that the weird office of the celibate RC priest has historically attracted men who have for one reason or another been unable to sort out their own sexuality, and there is hardly any doubt that this bizarre situation has become self-perpetuating and incredibly corrosive, as well as damaging to the victims of that percentage of these confused individuals who have "resolved" their issues in a criminal way.

I have to say that I think that opening the priesthood to married men and women would be one small but significant step towards fixing this strange pathology, although it clearly won't make it go away, at least in the short term.

I am conscious of the irony of Helio giving the RC hierarchy advice that would make them more popular and more relevant, but I am not above making small sacrifices... ;-)

mccamleyc (@ 73) -

"And I'm not one of those who add "of course I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay" because there is."

You are, of course, referring to my comments.

My concern is to look at the question of whether Newman was gay. It is a purely historical question, and I was coming at it from an objective point of view, hence the disclaimer. There is a tendency for advocates of different ideological persuasions to read into the historical record what they want. We often see what we want to see when studying history (and that goes for all persuasions).

So you can read into my disclaimer whatever you like, but I would rather keep the discussion on the question of Newman, and leave the discussion of the general issue of homosexuality (and the ideological posturing that goes with it) to another time and place.

Dave, as a fan of West Wing I know that the road to disaster lies in accepting the premise of a dodgy question, and yours is as dodgy as they come. Firstly I don't have to explain anything in a "non-religious context". We live in a relgious world with religious people and religious constitutions in varying degrees. So, no, I won't accept that premise. Your second premise reveals a lot - if I can't explain something in your terms then I, my religion and my God must be bigots?

Logica - I accept your good faith on this issue, but I don't think it's accurate to say it's only a matter of historical interest and not ideological. In the context of a Blessed it's an attempt to slur - to make him a hypocrite. Is it possible to have a same sex attraction and be a Catholic saint? Absolutely. Is is possible to be gay and a saint? That's much more problemmatic, if by gay you mean someone who has a same sex attraction which they have embraced as a good thing.

and of course there's Oscar Wilde, the closet Catholic who converted at the end.

mccamleyc,

Firstly I don't have to explain anything in a "non-religious context". We live in a relgious world with religious people and religious constitutions in varying degrees.

You do, however, live in a secular world with secular people and secular laws and ethics.

To hide behind a religious dogma to support your own bigotry is all well and good, but don't expect everyone else to see your views as 'special' and needing to be viewed differently to everyone else's. If you insist on branding a (reasonably large) sub-section of society as 'wrong', then demanding your views are founded on religion will not save you from criticism.

Whenever handling a debate of this sort, mentally replace the word 'gay' with 'black' or 'female' or 'disabled'. It soon becomes apparent that it's little more than gross discrimination.

Check that OT:

The age of consent in Europe for selected countries is: Austria 14, Bosnia 14, Bulgaria 14, Croatia 14, Czech Republic 15, Denmark 15, France 15, Germany 14, Greece 15, Hungary 14, Iceland 15, Italy 14, Kosovo 14, Lithuania 14, Monaco 15, Poland 15, Portugal 14, Romania 15, Slovakia 15, Slovenia 15, Spain 13, Sweden 15. In all these countries it is lower than the UK at 16.

So, what’s the big deal? In fact, the countries in Europe with the highest rate of teenage preganancies tend to be those with the highest age of consent, like the UK. Although the Netherlands is 16, the courts are pretty lenient if the two are over 14 and were fully consenting and a similar age. In the Netherlands the rate of teenage pregnancies is much lower than the UK. Perhaps empowering young people with rights and knowledge is the best way to protect them.

Incidentally, since it has the same laws as Italy, in the Vatican state it is also 14. Interesting point, that. But then, of course, you were not baptised a Catholic, were you?

Natman, I'm not hiding behind anything. I've never discussed same sex attraction in religious terms, I've never argued against it based only, in fact if my memory is correct I've never, based on references in scripture. I've never discussed it as some sort of blind dogma. I don't regard my views as special, just correct.

All of that said, I don't have to discuss anything on your narrow terms which excludes God, excludes the possibility of revelation and excludes the notion of the natural law. Every liberal position has the inherent notion that "we hold these truths to be self evident" and the rest of us are supposed to go along with it.

Let's play your little mind game. (a) I feel that I am black. Am I black? Yes. Does that mean I have to behave in a particular way? No. Does it mean I have to believe something? No. Do I have to do something to continue being black? No. (b) I feel a same sex attraction. Do I have to consider this a good thing? No. Do I have to behave in a particular way? No. Do I have to have sex with someone or can I chose not to? Yes, I can chose not to. Do I have to define myself by the same sex attraction? No. (c) I am disabled. What's wrong? I'm blind, I can't see. Do I want people to help and support me? Yes, to some extent. Do I want people to recognise my disabilty? Yes, it's probably a good idea. Do I want to define myself by my blindness? Not necessarily, no. Do I think it's normal to be blind? Well it happens, but no, the norm is to have eyes that can see, that's the ideal. Would I like to be able to see? Yes, of course. (d) I am a woman. Could you help me park the car? Actually that's not funny and unfair. Are there things I can do men can't? Yes. Are there things men can do that I can't? Yes. Does that make us different? Yes, in some ways. Does it make us unequal? No.

mccamleyc,

I think you have proved the point, you have no real basis for your insulting statement other than your religious beliefs, which is not a good enough excuse for bigotry in a secular environment.

You chose to make that statement, you chose to emphasise that particular bigotry, it was not required in making your point but you threw it in which I think exposes as much about you as anything else.

You also do not seem to understand what being gay means. Being gay is a term for male homosexuality which is defined as having same sex attraction. It has nothing to do with whether a person acts on it or indeed even views it as a good thing, it is simply a term to reflect the form of attraction they respond to. So in

Is it possible to have a same sex attraction and be a Catholic saint? Absolutely. Is is possible to be gay and a saint? That's much more problemmatic, if by gay you mean someone who has a same sex attraction which they have embraced as a good thing.

you are either ignorant, confused or attempting to redefine the word gay for some other purpose - what you have done is confirm that it would be absolutely OK for Newman to be gay and made a saint and that it is irrelevant to his beatification.

One other thing, if there is something wrong in being gay then it leads inevitably to a fallible god as he must have made gay people wrong and not just a few but between 6 and 10% of the population (including catholics). Not a very good example of a supreme infallible being unless of course he made us just the way he wanted us and you are wrong.

Helio and Natman I agree.

LSV,
I agree with your points and to be honest I have never been a fan of 'outing' people living or dead. If someone wishes to declare their sexuality then that is a matter for them but to try and infer it from circumstantial evidence is intrusive, potentially unjust and self defeating. There is only one test at the moment for sexuality and Newman is beyond the responsive capability to undergo it. Speculation is an interesting pastime but in this case will not provide proof. I don't have a vested interest in pinning (or unpinning) a sexuality label on someone else as I regard all sexualities (hetero, homo or bi) as normal and equal.


Parrhasios,

There is not, in my mind, the slightest doubt but that Newman was saying to generations to come: if I am seen to be holy, if my message is seen to be true, then there is in homosexual relationships the possibility of something good, something faithful, something holy. I am sure that, in time, this strand will be given due weight as part of one of the all-time great Christian legacies.

We shall see, but if Mcc is any example then I think he wasted his time.

When arrogance and ignorance are present in a person you really have to do something about the arrogance to have any hope of doing something about the ignorance.

Sex, it should really be simple shouldnt it. Check_it_out, aren't the age of consent laws in the popes *kingdom* the same as Italy, ie- lower than even Tatchell had proposed as an alternative to the current situation here- which criminalises those who aren't of age, perhaps who don't know better and are exploring a new dimension to themselves. Don't the laws in the Vatican and Italy also stipulate that there must be no more than a 3 yr gap in age between consenting partners at the lower age-range of consent.That seems logical and if it's acceptable for Italy and the Vatican it should be here.
Mccamely- sexuality is a spectrum. There are those at either end who cannot be any other way and plenty in the middle to varying degrees. If we are all Gods creatures then human beings have the right to be whoever they are , as long as it doesn't hurt another human being. Human beings are anatomically set up to produce children, but there are plenty of people that realise we don't all have to families of 8 kids. We're not bacteria. We can only eat and abuse so much of this planet before it no longer supports humanity in comfort.And whose right is it for any other human being to agree/disagree to what someone else does in their own bedroom, there should be neutrality- unless on some level they feel it speaks to a part of themselves.It certainly isn't any human beings place to act as God.Everybody deserves social justice if they are honest to who they are and don't hurt anyone else- just like anyone who isn't honest with themselves and hurts, stimagtises,kills another should be punished for breaking laws against humanity and causing yet more pain in the world for others to work through

mc,

Your comment "I've never discussed same sex attraction in religious terms, I've never argued against it based only, in fact if my memory is correct I've never, based on references in scripture. I've never discussed it as some sort of blind dogma." directly contradicts your earlier statement that "I don't have to explain anything in a 'non-religious context'."

Either you view your opposition to same-sex relationships in a religious context, or you don't. If you do, then your faith is blatantly discriminatory in the modern world in the same sense that many other peoples views on race and gender were discriminatory in the past. If you don't hold your opposition on religious grounds, then it is you, yourself, that holds these views. Whilst I view that, personally, as more 'legitimate' (you've the guts and self-reasoning to believe it) it's also less acceptable as you cannot use the dictates of someone else as an excuse for your opinions.

Either way, you choose to treat someone in a lesser manner to others, simply based on an arbitrary and meaningless distinction. The modern world has taken the view that such a mindset is flawed, and as such, by claiming your view is correct and you have a right to think that, you're also asking for it to be special.

Dave, having opinions different from your own doesn't make them insulting or bigoted, just different. You should trying being a bit more tolerant of people who disagree with you.

The reason I threw in the line is that Newman's sexuality was being discussed as if it were as irrelevant as his favourite colour. There has been a mini campaign by some to prove that he was gay and that the Church is somehow trying to cover this up and deny it. We've had the Newman was really a liberal and the conservative Pope is trying to hijack him nonsense and this gay thing is another element.

I don't think the term "gay" has the neutral meaning you think. It implies a fixed state like male or female. It implies a presumption that homosexual sex is a good thing. It goes with Pride. You may have no choice in having a same sex attraction but you chose to be gay.

You may not recognise this distinction but researchers in the field do and it's important in looking as the question of numbers. Link below is interview with Gary Gates of the Williams Institute. https://gaylife.about.com/od/index/a/garygates.htm

Parrhasios - that's like a Dan Brown novel.

Jellybean - I've been trying to help you for a long time now - how'm I doing?

William, any sign of that course on logic, Natman badly needs it.

natman, saying that I've never discussed something in religious terms is in no way contradicted by saying I don't have to discuss it in your non-religious terms. One is a statement about what I haven't done, one is a statement about what I wish to do.

You think that if things aren't discussed in your terms, using your rules, your categories then they must be inherently bigoted and discriminatory. You have no evidence for this - it's something you believe to be self evidently true.

If I said discuss the origin of the universe purely in biblical terms you would rightly say, well, no, I believe in science, I won't be restricted by your demand. If I say, well most people in the world believe the universe was created by God and that a merely scientific view is flawed and if you refuse to debate the issue in my terms you would shake your head and walk away.

Who have I chosen to treat in a lesser manner?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Interesting debate. Frankly, reading some of the 'pro-religious' posts here shows clearly the stone age mentality of an increasingly irrelevant group of psuedo-pagan cultists trying to make their ludicrous ideaology mean something in a world bored and wise to their tripe. Grasp at straws all you like, i'll see you on the other side. Good luck with the hoping. Oh, wait a minute, there is no other side...

mc,

"And I'm not one of those who add "of course I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay" because there is."

If you perceive there being something 'wrong' with people being gay then by implication, you'd treat them in a lesser manner. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

You're also side-stepping the issue; are your opinions on being homosexual based on religously ascribed mandate, or of your own personal opinion?

On a side note, majority opinion is not a valid criteria for selecting what is right and what is wrong. Whilst you may jump on this as justification for your discriminatory views, it also applies to your "most people in the world believe the universe was created by God" (which I'm not going into here, lest I break Crawley's Law ;-)

And.... I'm pulling the thread off topic, gah. Enough from me.

Mcc,

Dave, having opinions different from your own doesn't make them insulting or bigoted, just different.

I agree but your views which denigrate a person because of who they are with no real basis are insulting and bigoted. You are just going to have to come to terms with that.

I said Being gay is a term for male homosexuality which is defined as having same sex attraction the link you provided says If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors , it implies nothing about goodness or pride in either definition so I fail to see your point or any justification for making it, you have essentially proved mine, homosexual = same sex attraction = gay. I was gay before anyone except me knew and before I ever touched another man. There is no choice in being gay or straight or bi.

As for numbers, the 6% I quote came from official UK 2005 figures which was from government research into the numbers of people for whom civil partnerships were of interest and the survey concluded that 6% of the UK population identified as gay or lesbian. It was also recognised that a significant number of homosexuals are in marriages with children and would never admit to being gay even in an anonymous survey. 10% is the highest figure I have seen and is based on the Kinsey research which included those in that number who were not exclusively gay.

Who have I chosen to treat in a lesser manner?

Well your statement "And I'm not one of those who add "of course I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay" because there is."

says that in your opinion there is something wrong with being gay.

I would say telling someone there is something wrong with them when there is not is treating someone in a lesser way - unless of course you tell everyone there is something wrong with them based on some unchangeable part of their being.

I was using "most people" the way you use "the modern world". To show you what it's like to exclude someone's views from debate. You say "well you can have your mad religious views, but the modern world thinks different". By the modern world you mean you and people you agree with.

There's lots of things I think are wrong - doesn't mean I treat people in a lesser way. You've drawn a conclusion with no evidence.

My views on homosexuality are based neither on a "religiously ascribed mandate" nor on my "own personal opinion".

Further to post 89 I notice that Callum Webster of the Christian Institute in NI notes the rejection of the lowering the NI age of consent from 17 to 16 by the Assembly- "The age of consent law is a good child protection measure. In cases of abuse it spares children the horror of cross-examination over whether they consented to sexual activity. Reducing the age of consent to 16 will remove this protection from 26,000 youngsters in Northern Ireland.Belfast Rape Crisis Centre has strongly criticised the plans for these reasons."
If the age of consent is reduced to 14? ... well, Mr Brian McClinton do the figures for yourself. It seems that there are those who are concerned with the logical conclusion of Mr Thatchells proposals.

Ok so the consent law in the Vatican and Italy is more liberal than Tatchells proposals. That seems to be something that everyone can agree.

LSV - I've read the Afterword but I'm afraid neither the terms 'debunk' nor 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' seem remotely appropriate descriptions of its content - how about 'sustained piece of entirely specious special pleading'? Yes, on reflection, I think that's better!

I read the journal entries cited and, in every case, came to quite the opposite conclusion to that of the author. Fr Ker can hardly be regarded as an objective reporter he is, after all, promoting a cause. For a more objective assessment we might look instead at Dairmaid MacCulloch's piece in The Literary Review. I find his argument much more compelling.

Newman formed deep emotional engagements characterised by love and devotion apparently exclusively with males. His grief at St John's passing was, he tells us, the equal of that of a widow or widower; St John himself he describes as his "earthly light". This is bonding love of the type that unites two souls. It's the love of a married couple. It's a spiritual union. Newman loved a man as a husband loves his wife and if that isn't gay I don't know what is. Surely sexuality is about a lot more than just the sex act?

I have to disagree with you and Dave, I think it is important that we understand Newman's sexuality: I think we owe it to him.

Newman was a man of prodigious learning; it is impossible to conceive of his being unaware of the tradition in which his actions would place him. Could a man of his time and his education have demanded imperiously to be buried with St John and not at least have recalled Patroclus and Achilles? Could he be ignorant of how English tradition viewed the pair? The Cardinal's intention here is vitally important because Newman writes approvingly that St John, on his deathbed, was able to consider that in the whole of his priestly life he had not committed one mortal sin. As a sin must be committed with knowledge of its sinfulness to be considered mortal, this would imply, if Newman and St John's relationship were homosexual, that Blessed John Henry did not judge a homosexual relationship to be intrinsically sinful.

It is impossible to underestimate the importance of for Catholics of arriving at a correct understanding of Newman's sexuality. If he were gay, in view of his writings and actions, the Church's newest Blessed must be seen to have been signalling furiously to posterity his conviction that gay relationships can be acceptable, valid and entirely moral.

This understanding may be of no consequence to you Dave, but it could be of the greatest comfort to many committed gay Catholics struggling with their orientation, denying themselves unnecessarily the wholesome fulfilment of loving same-sex relationships.

Parrhasios,

I understand what you are saying and I guess as a non catholic, and atheist anyway, I have little personal vested interest in the outcome. You are right however in that I have a several gay catholic friends and a couple really struggle within their faith and a pro gay answer would certainly help.

My point is that any conclusions drawn now is a judgement based on circumstantial evidence, there is no third party kiss and tell or indeed an unambiguous confession.

You say that sexuality is more than the sex act, I would say that it is separate. Sexuality defines who we are attracted to and so which gender we will naturally wish to bond with, in many ways it is little more than that. What is far more important is love and sex which is were we have some freedom of choice. I also think that sex and love are two different things. It is possible to have sex without love or love without sex.

You then need to ask, how deep can platonic love become, can non related men form loving platonic relationships and how deep can they become especially were they are in a predominantly male environment and where they are denied female bonding. Can they become like brothers. Heterosexual prisoners have sex so why couldn't celibate men love.

Historically men going to war, who were away for long periods, certainly talk about some relationships built with comrades which could seem to suggest 'gay' to day but are just deep platonic relationships formed in an environment which was conducive to it.

I am not trying to build a case either way I just feel that there are several ways to view the evidence and that in that environment people will chose what they want to believe and have very valid arguments to both support their case and weaken the oppositions case.

The desire and need for an answer is not enough to deliver one, it takes verifiable facts. We would do both Newman and those who used the outcome of such an enquiry no favours if we got it wrong.

I fundamentally agree with your last paragraph, and wish we could find a way to resolve this issue, not just for struggling catholics, but other struggling religious folk as well, to do so in a way which diffused the whole bigoted mess. I am just not sure Newman has the legs to run that course.

Dave

"Sexuality defines who we are attracted to and therefore which gender we will naturally wish to bond with..."

Some of the closest and most intimate friendships I know are between gay men and heterosexual women. I always just assumed that such friendships were able to become so deep precisely because sex was not on the agenda.

Now that he has thankfully disappeared from the news, could I ask a few questions about the pope. Perhaps McC or some other Catholic contributor might offer some explanations.

Why is the pope head of a state? Surely Jesus was persecuted by a state? Did he not separate God and Caesar?

Why is the pope surrounded by pomp and splendour? Surely Jesus had no designer red shoes, gold rings, popemobiles, helicopters or palaces? Did he not say that 'the son of man has nowhere to lay his head'?

Why does the pope proclaim that he is infallible when speaking 'authoritatively' on matters of faith and morals? Surely only God is infallible?

Why do the pope and his minions think they have the power to forgive sins? Didn't Jesus proclaim that no one could come to God except through him? Doesn't salvation come through faith in Jesus alone?

Why does the pope not allow other members of the Catholic Church have a say on policy? Why does he have to be so dictatatorial? Some Catholics insist that they have freedom of conscience, but why doesn't the pope stress this point when telling less educated Catholics in Africa that they must not use condoms?

Why does the pope claim authority to speak to women of matters of sex? Surely women are the best judges of sex for women?

In short, who does this man think he is? Is he not just, in the Richard Dawkins, 'a leering old fixer'?

RJB,

I didn't mean to suggest exclusively want to bond with - just that there is attraction to start the process - my question was how deep or intimate can a relationship become between two people where sex/physical attraction is not a component? can there be deep love without attraction/sex?

If we accept, as you contend for the gay/straight relationship that you quote, that deep intimate relationships can be formed when sex or sexuality is not a bonding component then we give the wiggle room necessary to be unable to definitively label Newman. In fact the relationship you describe, viewed from the outside, might erroneously label the sexuality of the two people.

In those relationships you mention, do they exist in conjunction with the people having relationships which are in line with their orientation as well or is the non sexual relationship exclusive of others?