Thursday, 29 December 2016



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN EUROPE and in many other places has made itself into THE FAMILY POLICE.

Is this a good thing or is it a bad thing?

The latest intervention by the Catholic Church into family life in Ireland is coming in less than two years time when the wanna-be-bishop FR TIMMY BARTLETT is organising it's WORLD MEETING OF FAMILIES.

The RC mafia want to control every part of everyone's life and one of it's greatest weapons over the years, decades and centuries has been it's control of the family.

These have been and are it's "rules" surrounding family life:

1. You can only use your sexuality in a man / woman marriage that is approved ( "valid" ) in the eyes of the Church Hierarchy.

2. Ideally you must be a Catholic marrying another Catholic and promise to bring your children up as Catholics.

3. As an adult with a conscience you are not allowed to use condoms - you can only use "natural methods of contraception" approved of by the Mafia Dons.

4. If you masturbate or "waste the seed" you are condemned to Hell for all eternity.

5. If you love someone of the same sex you are "gravely disordered". 

6. If your wife is dying during pregnancy you cannot intervene medically even if it means letting your wife - and baby - die.

7. If you want to marry someone of another religion you must get the bishop's permission.

8. You must send your children to a school approved of by the Mafia.

9. If you are not in a marriage recognised by the Mafia many priests will refuse to baptise your child.

10. Marriage is a second rate calling to celibacy - which many priests do not observe anyway.

11. If you cannot have children naturally you must follow medical methods approved of by the Mafia. 

12. If you do not baptise your child they may not get a place in a school near you which is controlled by the Mafia. 

13. That man in the black suit that lives beside the church is the boss of parents, children and teachers and has control over their lives. 

14. Whether you like it or not your government gives the Mafia bosses part of the taxes you pay to run the schools that they are dictators in. 

15. You and your ancestors have paid for the church buildings but you can only use them for after school activities if the man in black says you can. 

etc, etc, etc...........................

These people are going to be running around Dublin in 2018 telling Irish people and the world how to run their personal and family lives.

At this stage - after all their ABUSE has been exposed - and after the MAYNOOTH GRINDR story and the FATHER RORY COYLE carry on fewer and fewer of us will be listening to them.

Of course they will bring their SUPERSTAR FRANCIS to try and bamboozle us.

But if they had their way in Ireland condoms, contraception, divorce and gay marriage would all be outlawed.

In 2018 we at least need to IGNORE THEM.

Better still, if we get the chance we should tell them in a good old Belfast term:



Evolution of the Western Family
The patriarchal family, which prevailed among the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, is often associated with polygamy.
In Rome, the paterfamilias was the only person recognized as an independent individual under the law. He possessed all religious rights as priest of the family ancestor cult, all economic rights as sole owner of the family property, and power of life and death over the members of the family. At his death, his name, property, and authority descended to his male heirs. The Roman system was transferred in many of its details into both the canon and secular law of Western Europe.
In the 19th cent., when the Western nations began to grant women equal rights with men with respect to the ownership of property, the control of children), divorce, and the like, basic changes took place in the structure of the family, and the rights and protections associated with it.

The state has also intervened to modify the authority of parents over their children. At the same time, education has shifted increasingly from the household to the school. The effect has been to loosen traditional family ties.

In Western Europe, where legislation provides equal financial benefits and legal standing to all children, families have increasingly come to consist of one or two unwed parents and children, especially in Scandinavia and other parts of N Europe. The trend toward unwed parents has also occurred in the United States, where about 40% of children in the early 21st cent. were born to unwed mothers.

Another factor affecting the modern Euro-American family was the Industrial Revolution, which removed from the home to the factory many economic tasks, such as baking, spinning, and weaving.

Economic and social conditions have discouraged the presence of the husband and father in the home; in industrial communities the wife and mother also is often employed outside the home, leaving the children to be cared for by others.


  1. The R C Church runs on the principal of ex opere opetato. We got the tools and the power to keep you on the straight and narrow with God. Follow the rules or go to hell. Canon Law favours control and sanction over justice. I believe one of the reasons the church is the way it is is that the setup as it stands is non human friendly. The "boys" prefer to behave as wayward teenagers rather than tackle the root cause and risk loosing the power and control they never fully had in the first place. If they can't manage their own footsoldiers how can they "manage" their people. Anyway it's not about management but empowerment and liberation with the Grace of God

    1. Ex opere operato means that it is God, not the priest/bishop/deacon, who works through the sacraments. It means that the power resides with God, not the human being presiding over the celebration. It was makes the sacraments grace-filled moment of encounter with God rather than the work of a magician. I don't see how this applies to the point you were trying to make.

    2. It applies very well indeed. The 'tools' in question are the sacramental rituals, which historically (and even today in certain immature clerical minds) are essential vehicles for the reception of grace.

      This model of sacramentality puts the clergy centre-stage with Christ: gives them a certain visceral status that is the foundation of clericalism. And what is clericalism but the modern expression of Pharisaism.


    3. Magna Carta,
      The actual meaning of ex opere operato means the exact opposite of how you and Sean Page are using it. You seem to be saying it is a charter for clericalism, when it means precisely the opposite. The essence of ex opere operato is that the grace of the sacraments are independent of the person of the priest/bishop/deacon. Their "worthiness" or "unworthiness", personal abilities, intellect, character, etc, are immaterial. The grace comes from God, not from anything that the priest/deacon/bishop does. By suggesting that ex opere operato is the essence of clericalism is to misunderstand the meaning of the phrase. Clericalism is focused on the personal power/attributes/personality of they priest/bishop/deacon. Ex opere operato is the declaration that these things are of no consequence.

    4. 21:08, I know precisely the meaning of 'ex opere operato' (in full, 'ex opere operato Christi').

      The phrase itself is not a 'charter for clericalism', but certain historical misunderstandings of sacramental efficacy most certainly are, as my previous comment makes clear.

      The word 'sacrament' comes from the Latin 'sacramentum', which means 'sign of the sacred'. The historical sacrilege that the sign of the sacred (ritual to grace) is essential for the reception of the latter has made the sign itself the actual and only imparting of God's gift. This quasi-theological distortion of grace was frequently evidenced in people's panicky insistence that they must have the presence of a priest in the event of their death in order to receive absolution of sin through sacramental ritual. The spiritual writer and Franciscan, Richard Rohr, recalled that, as a child, he wore around his neck a medallion, given him by nuns and inscribed with the words: In the event of my impending death, please summon a priest.

      You have not acknowledged the effect that this phrase has had on sacramental evolution and understanding, not just of sacramental ritual itself, but of the elevated and indispensible role it allowed the priest to play.

      In theory, the phrase justifies your opinion, but in reality, this has not been the interpretation of the phrase by successive generations of theologians and priests.


    5. Magna Carta,
      I haven't acknowledged it because I don't agree with your analysis. I think our theological opinions are probably quite different. However, I have no interest in trying to change your mind or convince you of anything, as I think those are usually futile exercises. I was simply objecting to the reinterpretation of a theological phrase to make it mean something that was contrary to its actual meaning.

    6. It's a pity you didn't acknowledge the historical misshaping of sacramental evolution and understanding that issued from this phrase. The misshaping isn't a product of my analysis, but of ecclesiastical history. The work of God, in terms of sacramental efficacy, has been concretely (and unfortunately) identified with ritual itself; this, as I made clear earlier, has been evidenced, for example, in people's insistence that they absolutely must have a priest on hand when they are dying. There was never a consideration that God's grace could come to them without ritual of any sort.

      As I said, your opinion is justified theoretically, but not in practice.

      A good scholar does not ignore truth, however unappealing.


    7. Magna Carta,
      As I said, I have no interest in trying to argue with you about your theological positions. I don't agree with them, but I have no interest in trying to change them. I'm sure that you have come to them after honest reflection. I have come to mine after what I think is an honest effort at study and reflection -I just happened to have reached different conclusions than you did. If you wish to look down on me for not agreeing with you, so be it.

    8. 23:54, as God is my witness, I look down on no one, except myself.


  2. You would know a lot about it i suppose.

    1. I am speaking from experience. What is your opinion 10.52

  3. Sean
    Ex opere operato

  4. Your blog today is over the top, off the wall, hysteria. It's stuff like this that makes it easy for certain people to write you off, Pat and dismiss the challenge you pose to the institutional church and the difference you could make towards accountability and reform.

    1. I respect your opinion.

      But the RC institution has got it very wrong on sexuality and human relationships so badly for so long.

      In doing so they have condemned millions of people to lives of guilt and mental suffering.

      What makes them the family, sexuality and relationships police?

      They simply want to CONTROL.

      They need to be challanged on these topics at every point.

  5. I'm disappointed, Pat.

    You have long claimed to be on the side of truth, but today's post is full of untruths and exaggerations. For example, you claim, "If your wife is dying during pregnancy you cannot intervene medically even if it means letting your wife - and baby - die". This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and it is unbecoming for an intelligent man like yourself to misrepresent a basic principle of Catholic moral teaching, namely the principle of double effect. In the case of a woman who is dying during pregnancy, there is no impediment in civil or Church law to treating her - in such a case, the death of the child may well be an unfortunate side-effect of treatment, but in treating the mother, the death of the child was not intended.

    Furthermore, your mere listing of the Church's "interference" on family life gives the impression that the Church has merely dreamed up these rules. You give your readers no consideration as to the reasons why the Church teaches that masturbation is sinful (and on this point, you should know that a grave sin may not always be mortal). On point 3 and conscience, you are also surely aware that conscience in not always and everywhere infallible - it is not the fact that a person has a conscience that makes contraception ok or not ok: it is the formation of the conscience which is important.

    You also do not seem to think that the Church has a right to teach its members on matters of Christian morality. I hope you will post some day on why the State should not be giving sexual education to children - surely you would regard this as interfering with the individual conscience just as much as you believe the Church is doing? And, finally, perhaps our Lord should have kept his mouth shut when he decided to teach unequivocally on marriage and family - "He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery". Yes, I'm sure he tugged at many peoples' consciences that day - in the same way, perhaps, as you do not want the Catholic Church to tug at their consciences today?

    1. The RC church has every right to teach its members whatevee it wants.

      It has no right to impose those views on state or society.

      They have done that in many places including Ireland.

      On this they should be resisted and challenged.

      They should have all the rights if a private members club.

      But no such club should be allowed hijack public morality.

    2. But you think you have a right to publish something on your blog which is absolutely false, namely your sixth point, as I mentioned earlier. Of course, this is your blog and you can write more or less what you wish, but freedom of speech surely reaches its limits when the speaker fails to speak that which is true. You tell your readers that the Catholic Church is wrong on this and that - because the Pat Buckley magisterium says so - but will you right your own wrong by retracting the misinformation about Catholic teaching that you have published today?

    3. 11:30, those words on adultery that were attributed to Jesus may not actually have been spoken by him but written by a gospel author or were the product of future redaction.

      You should be aware, too, that this teaching on divorce and adultery is not a consistent gospel theme, with Matthew's Gospel allowing for divorce on the ground of unchastity. It does not, as you stated, render unequivocal Jesus' apparent teaching on the matter (As an interesting aside, evidence of later redaction is obvious in this part of Matthew (19:1-9) in the self-contradiction of Jesus' own words on the subject.)

      Yes, the 'Church' has indeed 'dreamed up' some of its rules, the most obvious of which is its teaching on dealing with enemies: Jesus' expressly forbade retaliation, but this is not what the 'Church' has traditionally taught.

      By the way, you should not use the word 'Church' when you clearly mean 'Magisterium'.


  6. More hate speech! You are a very anti-Catholic blog. This blog is a religious fundamentalist blog, a dangerous blog raising noting but hatred and bile. Very concerning indeed.

    1. I am not anti catholic as I am a catholuc Christian.

      I am anti RC abuse and mind control in all its forms.

      I want to live in a secular, pluralist society and not in a society dominated by any religion or religious body.

      If I am a "fundamentalist" I am for fundamental rights like freedom, free speech, etc.

      As Cardinal Newman said:

      "Conscience is the ABORIGINAL vicar of Christ".

    2. But, Pat, conscience is subordinate to divine revelation because it has truth as its compass. Conscience cannot decide the truth of revelation or of the natural law - otherwise the criterion of conscience and truth becomes a "Because I said so". Newman could not be more opposed to your interpretation of conscience, Pat. In the sentence before the one you quoted, Newman is very clear that "Conscience is...a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives". Conscience for Newman is not just the "inner" voice of God speaking through us, but also the voice of God speaking through the constant and consistent teaching of the Church.

    3. 15:08, you are another who misuses the word 'Church' when clearly you meant 'Magisterium '.

      No, magisterial teaching has most certainly not always been consistent: it has on occasion changed with increased knowledge of, for example, human and biological sciences.

      The Magisterium cannot always teach reliably and , therefore, cannot be classed as the sole representative voice of God in the world. Remember just as individual conscience can err, so, too, can collective conscience. The Magisterium is an example of collective conscience, and history bears out, again and again, that this conscience has indeed erred.

      You are right about one thing: conscience should be subordinate to divine revelation. But to confine divine revelation to the exercise of magisterial teaching is to deny the omnipresence of God, both within and beyond the human heart, and beyond, too, the bounds of Roman Catholic doctrine.

      God is everywhere. So, too, then is divine revelation. As Sean Page wisely said: the Catholic Church does not own the 'Jesus franchise'.


    4. Magna Carta
      Your fairly lengthy absence - and that of Wonky Willy was very much appreciated.

    5. 19:55, I'll take your comment as a back-handed compliment. Why else would you appreciate my absence if you didn't dread the infallibility of my comments.

      Glad to be back.

  7. I remember hearing in school years ago that the reason RC church is anti Birth Control in Ireland was to breed so much there would be no room for other denominations on the island of Ireland Fact Fiction or Myth I am not signing my name to it one way or the other. It was a strange statement to hear in National School. I mentioned ex opere operato more than once on this blog in relation to the R C Church. What I am alluding to is a set of rules and regulations designed to prevent any "problem" Few people manage to follow. Many for reason of conscience reflection and common sense. Compliance is measured by the Sin Scale. (In the old days penances and indulgences were used as a get out of jail card) I believe many clergy no longer believe in sin in the traditional understanding of the concept. This I believe contributes to the do what you like mentality and to hell with the consequences so often portrayed on here

    1. Pat, did you consciously get-out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?! Marriage or Covenant is where Jesus spiritually joins a couple in the Sacrament of Love. Family and unity is very important to God our Creator, and in becoming visible in Jesus, the Church teaches what God expects of us how to behave within a marriage and family. I refer to the Church, the mystical body of Christ, and not to some of the men who run it.

      Fulton Sheen (The Christian Order and the Family, 14/02/43), reminded the world on behalf of Christ, why the family is so important to God and of its purpose, saying;

      "Every child is a potential nobleman of the Kingdom of God. Parents are to take that living stone from the quarry of humanity, cut and chisel it by loving discipline and sacrifice, mould it on the pattern of the Christ - Truth until it becomes a fit stone for the Temple of God, whose architect is Love. To watch a garden grow from day to day, especially if one has planted the seed himself, and cared for it, deepens the joy of living. But it is nothing compared to the joy of watching other eyes grow, conscious of another image in their depths."

      There is that mention of the 'seed' again, the fruit of the womb. However, the original seed provided by the male is one of the greatest and most valuable treasures humanity has inherited, in this earthly kingdom. If we cannot be responsible to utilise and respect it as intended, then we may not be given the opportunity to inherit a greater treasure in the next life to come? The seed of eternal life.

      If water has a value with this reigning Government, then semen surely has a greater value to God - it is a gift to create life so I wouldn't be irresponsible and leave the tap running! Surely that makes common sense apart from divine sense? As one would not throw €500 notes freely around the place - the seed is of a greater value.

      Divorce makes the right of living souls to love dependent on caprice of the senses and the terminable pact of selfish fancy. We Christians argue with those who believe in divorce, but we know no one is ever convinced by our arguments. Not because the arguments are not sound. That is the trouble. They are too good! Good reasons are powerless against emotions.

      The majority of people who are opposed to the stability and continuity of family life, for the most part, do not believe in the moral law of God. They may say they believe in God, but it is not the God of Justice.

    2. Sadly, I have come across too many people like you who idealize reproduction and family to the point of absurd fantasy.

      Have you any idea of the corrosive effect on children of marriages which have grown not only stale but hating?

      People like you would prefer such couples to maintain the sham of marriage in order to uphold what you believe is a sound marital principle: that marriage is for life regardless. No 'ifs' and no 'buts'.

      Of course, maintaining this principle ignores the very real human casualties (broken minds and broken bodies) that can occur among children in such sham unions.

      Pope Francis was right about people like you: you put abstract moral principle before the welfare of very concrete human beings. What was it that Francis called you? Pharisees.


    3. Well said Magna Carta.
      I groan when reading such as Anon @ 17:01, but see no hope of any rational discussion having any effect whatsoever on such minds resolutely closed and fixated on "moral principles" derived from collections of ancient manuscripts the validity of which are continually argued in addition to their interpretation!

  8. The Wounding Hurt-er Brady's 'SPAD', Timeo Bartlett, having so much to do with the World Meeting of Families, is a big turn off for many priests.

    1. The spads at Stormont are coming under scrutiny. Perhaps the Church spads will also be scrutinised? We need a break with past, with the Church PR men, who spat "wounded healer" in the faces of Smyth's hundreds of victims. The mindset that spawned the "wounded healer" is the enemy of Catholic families everywhere.

  9. Even by your standards, Bishop, today's contribution has exceeded all wit, intelligence and normality.
    I wonder if, perhaps, you may have imbibed too much of Black Bush, Powell's (?) or some other form of alcoholic stimulant which may have let you with a sore head or a hangover!
    I can tolerate even the most peculiar statements and opinions BUT I think - as others clearly do - that here you are illogically taking our your shotgun and blasting off at everything in a fit of infantile pique!
    Even your 'normal' I find abnormal - but this is too, too way-out!
    I think the whiskey should be Powers.

    1. I confess that I wrote it totally sober.

      Imagine the job I could have done if I had a jar on me :-)

  10. 17 24 The language of a linguistic painter to be sure. P S Alcohol is a depressant not a stimulant. Yes there is. Powers Whiskey Powell's I'm not aware of but it may be out there in the land of Drink

  11. In response to Magna Carta, your moral principles are mis-chartered. If what you think is true then Christ is the biggest 'absurd' fantasist of all time. As our Creator he must have got the ingredients of marriage and family wrong?

    If the architect of a relationship is based on Love then a marriage can work. Love is communion between persons, union of wills, wanting and pursuing the same thing together. Selfishness is the curse of any relationship.

    I understand a perfect marriage is hard to maintain but it takes a lot of sacrifice and work. Jesus revealed the recipe for unity through mature perseverance, reasonable endurance, acceptable tolerance, patience, forgiveness, kindness, humility, peace, selflessness (O dear, there I go again, mouthing off the Gifts of the Holy Spirit!), exercising a love that benefits the other person and not just the 'me'.

    The biggest requirement for a relationship to work is to first of all, 'know thyself,' and unfortunately gross immaturity is the cause of most broken marriages. If we are ignorant of the workings of our own individual mind and temperament, and not tolerant of ourselves then a relationship with another person will be very hard to work.

    We must ask the question, why has the marriage grown cold and full of hatred? Is it anyone's fault or did it slowly breakdown through time? Is love only sex? Were the children sired out of lust and sexual selfish desire or was it out of love? We need guidance and the Church has a moral duty to instruct. It is our choice whether to accept or reject this advise.

    I've seen too many Dad's abandon not just his wife but his children for the new buzz of another woman - is that a real Dad? All to satisfy his own ego regardless of the harm and suffering left behind in his 'old' second-hand family. Yes it happens, but is it logical? Just because someone got bored with someone they once loved. Even when the consequences of a break-up will have a negative impact on the children for the rest of their lives, and their future relationships - is it right? What does our conscious tell us about this tear in the family?

    Should we not be allowed to begin openly discussing the devastation divorce brings on souls? "Thy kingdom come," means the kingdom of Love and not Selfishness or Betrayal. Ideal marriages and families are possible, through hard work, and should be encouraged and not knocked when someone attempts to promote a goodness within the beauty of a family life, calling it, 'an absurd fantasy.'

    Love by its nature is not exclusively mutual self-giving, otherwise love would end in exhaustion, consumed in its own useless fire. Rather it is mutual self-giving which ends in self-recovery. As in heaven the mutual love of Father for Son recovers itself in the Holy Spirit, the Bond of Unity, so too the mutual love of spouse for spouse recovers itself in the child who is the incarnation of their lasting affection.

    All love ends in an Incarnation, even God’s. 

Procreation then is not in imitation of the beasts of the field, but of the Divine God where the love that vies to give, is eternally defeated in the love that receives and perpetuates. All earthly love therefore is but a spark caught from the Eternal Flame of God.

    1. Oh Dear.
      At one time I used work with patients in a psychiatric hospital. Delusional beliefs were a regular feature. Rational thought processes were conspicuously absent. Only with the advent of psychotropic medicines came any prospect for change.
      That was 40+ years ago. Neither then or since have I been made aware of any "treatment " for delusions of a religious nature. I do see however many parallels in delusional presentation.

    2. Thank you 21.33 for your beautiful words. A refreshing contrast to a lot of what is shared on this blog. I agree with every thing you say having been blessed with the kind of marriage you describe for which I thank God every day.

    3. Yes 21:33, I would also like to express my sincere thanks for your beautiful words.

      I also am blessed with a beautiful marriage and obtained my dream spouse and soul mate, I believe, through deep prayer and trust in God.

      Unfortunately, your words are too deep and profound for many who post "rational" blogs here.

      I have to say that some people are definitely suffering from "delusions" who are not able to read and understand simple messages spoken by Our Lord, but try to contort and pervert His words. Remember, he spoke to simple fisherman and people who were not trained philologists, linguists, theologians or the like. No, just plain simple people.And he spoke a plain simple message.

      I suspect that 21:33 that you may be a seminarian or priest. If you are you haven't been taught what you have written in Maynooth - that is for sure.

      If you are a priest or seminarian we certainly need more like you in an Irish Church which is currently abysmal and woefully lacking in intellectually-cogent, doctrinally-correct and holy priests.

      God bless you whoever you are.

  12. 21:33, you are lost, and rendered intellectually impotent, through slavish observance of abstract moral principles. You have turned marriage into an observance of rules that can impact terribly on human beings, even the very young. This is evidenced in your callous question 'even when the consequences of a break-up will have a negative impact on the children for the rest of their lives and their future relationships-is it right?' Of course it is right!

    When Jesus told certain Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath he was trying to impress upon them that people, love, mercy and compassion were at the heart of worship, not observance of abstract principles. Pope Francis makes a similar point in Amoris Laetitia. But you, like those four rebel cardinals who oppose him, will not listen.

    When God calls upon us to love one another, he doesn't mean that we first consult some rule book on how to love. If people are at the centre of your morality, then this love will come instinctively and naturally. You can no more love to rule than you can love to order. Love is not learned, but caught. You are looking in the wrong places.


    1. All those saints, doctors of the Church and previous Popes were all wrong about everything. Gee, thanks for finally giving us your opinion and so the undoubted truth. Read what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage, he DISAPPROVED in clear words, the Pharisees APPROVED it.

    2. 23:59, my God is Jesus the Christ, not your so-called 'doctors of the Church', or your 'popes'.

      You need to know who your redeemed is.


    3. I agree, Magna Carta, with everything you have said at 23:01.

    4. So Magna Carta you are not an adherer or a learner from tradition - you follow the words of scripture literally??
      You suit this blog and the fundamentalists on it very well.

    5. 10:03, I try to learn from love: from God himself and from the example set by his incarnate son, Jesus.

      You, on the other hand, value 'tradition'. Do you recall what Jesus said to the Pharisees who complained when Jesus breached their traditions?

      You need to be very careful and to ask yourself exactly what it is you worship. Because you sound very Pharisaical to me.


    6. And what Christian does not? Thank you for your judgement - I think Magna Carta is Buckley!!!! Many faces, words and stories!

    7. I4:50, rein in your imagination, there's a good fellow. I am not Bishop Buckley.


  13. What a twisted idea of love MC has? Let's replace the word rule with discipline. Without discipline, guided by Christ in our lives, we become lost as we go along. Jesus set the Way for us to follow rather than ignore his advise and follow our own path. While love is a very natural thing - we must never forget that God is Love. He is the source of all love. This is a love raised to a new level of spirituality. True love of God consists in carrying out God's will. To show God our love in what we do, all our actions, even the least, spring from our love of God. Or is that a 'delusional presentation' or from an 'intellectually impotent' observation'?!

    "Life is both faith and love. Without faith, love is only one dimensional and incomplete. Faith helps you to overlook other people's shortcomings, and love them as they are. If you ask too much of any relationship, you can't help but be disappointed. But if you ask nothing, you can't be hurt or disappointed".

    Debbie Reynolds (1964)

    1. O2:47, if my idea of love is 'twisted', then you must describe its source as twisted, too. And its source is Christ.

      You see love as a set of rules to be followed through self-discipline. This is not love, but Pharisaism. It's a fast track to obsessive-compulsive disorder, and an even faster track to self-righteousness.

      One can love only by grace of God, and this grace dwells within each and every one of us, awaiting our acceptance of it; you won't find it in that rule book of yours. Until this grace is received, everything we believe we do for God is actually done for self: it is motivated by self-interest, prompted usually by fear of damnation. This self-interest colours all our actions and renders them, in God's eyes, worthless. It is why Jesus excoriated certain Pharisees: outwardly they performed good (or lawful) actions, but in truth they lacked proper motivation; they lacked love.

      I shan't comment on your final paragraph, since it has nothing whatever to do with my previous post. I didn't even mention faith.


  14. Let's let Jesus have the last word. “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?[a] 6 So they are no longer two but one.[b] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” VERY CLEAR ISN'T IT?

    1. 'Very clear'? Really?

      You've quoted from Chapter 19 of Matthew's Gospel, but you've conveniently, for yourself, omitted verse 9 of this chapter. Here Jesus says, very clearly: 'And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR UNCHASTITY, and marries another, commits adultery.' (Capitalzation is mine.)

      According to the passage, Jesus not only permits divorce on a particular ground, but permits divorce AND remarriage. Such a situation is not considered adulterous by him. By you, certainly. But not by Jesus.

      I know whose judgement I value. And it isn't yours.


    2. So you believe that divorce and remarriage is possible but only where the wife (not the husband) has committed adultery, and in no other circumstances?

    3. 17:32, this is what Jesus believed, according to Matthew's Gospel.

    4. Many months ago I asked Magna Carta was He God!
      He didn't deny it - so - brothers and sisters, be careful!
      Consider also the possibility of Pantheism - Wonky Willy also seems deifiable if not - like MC - particularly worthy of adoration

    5. 19:00, try to be relevant. You have the attention-span of a three-year-old.

  15. All this cherry picking selective quotations from the supposedly "infallible" bible to 'prove' ones religious beliefs is simply absurd in view of its questionable origins and significance. But that requires much more exposition than possible here.
    But, sticking with your Matthew gospel: if it is to be taken as laying down core religious beliefs on how believers ought to conduct themselves, please explain the following quotation from Matthew 15:4-7, "Children who curse their parents must be killed".

    Either believers accept the bible as the clear word of god, or it isn't, and all the circumlocutious verbosity of allegorical meanings or parables just doesn't cut any ice.
    And anyway, what kind of utterly strange god is it who feels it necessary to communicate his wishes to humankind through such a convoluted medium of collected ancient manuscripts, historically unverified and argued over, as the bible?

  16. I never refer to the Bible as 'the Word of God'. At best, it contains God's words somewhere among the tens of thousands of words (the verbal dross) by mere human beings.

    The Bible can never be properly or fully understood without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It is why Jesus was persecuted by the Jews: he understood the will of his Father in the Hebrew Bible in a way no one else could.

    As far as the Christian is concerned, the benchmark for interpreting Scripture is Christ himself through his words and actions. Roman Catholicism has consistently ignored (and not just ignored, but taught to the contrary) some of the most fundamental teachings of Jesus.

    In that gospel passage you mentioned, did Jesus, by referring to the penalty for dishonouring parents (death), morally approve this outcome? No, he did not, as his reaction to the woman caught in adultery shows. The penalty for adultery, according to Mosaic Law, was death, too.

    You have a very negative view of Scripture, which, I suppose, is understandable if you accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I do not accept this doctrine, as it cannot explain the obvious contradictions between the demands of Mosaic Law and the teachings of Christ.

  17. Sorry friend, but there is no "doctrine" of biblical inerrancy! We freethinkers don't observe doctrinal precepts. We use intelligent thinking processes. And if, within your conceptual framework, you have to acknowledge that your 'God' gave us this facility, can you denigrate us for using it?
    Perhaps by even referring to doctrinal biblical inerrancy, you convey personal adherance to a fixed set in stone absolute thinking concept unable to acknowledge or accept the transient passage of this, our currently evolved humanoid species, (ie, us, we humans) in this infinitessmally small planet world drifting amidst millions of other (potentially intelligent life supporting) planets in this scientifically acknowledged and observable universe drifting amidst millions of other observable universes, each with their own millions of planets.

    So it's little wonder I have, not a 'negative' view of scripture, but a questioning truth seeking analytical approach, one that frankly regards much RC "teaching" and it's supposedly biblical basis, as objectively, scientifically, and intellectually unsupported hogwash.

    What I do accept however, and much support, are the fundamental tenets of Christianity, which are, in reality, simply derived from precedent laudable 'modus operandi', namely the Golden Rule. This, at simplest is "Do to others as you would be done by".
    As for all the other 'precepts', 'teachings', etc etc: it's mostly stuff and nonsense derived from a combination of those who like to organise, adjudicate, and achieve prominence and prestige. Admittedly much of their motivation is derived from laudable moral beliefs, but it is habitually dressed up, encased and promulgated in religious phantasy!
    Enough said for now! Having returned from my customary Friday night pints of Guiness, I think a wee hot Powers is called for before bed. (Sorry DD, Bush just doesn't do it for me!)

    1. MMM, I think you may have had too much of the 'black stuff' before reading on my post, since you clearly misunderstood significant parts of it. Because I mentioned biblical inerrancy did not equate to my believing in it, or upholding it, much less 'convey personal adherence to a fixed set in stone absolute thinking concept unable to accept the transient passage of this, our...'. Well, I'll leave it there, since you rambled on quite a bit longer without making much sense. It does, though, point up the foolhardiness of thinking while drinking.

      There is such a doctrine (teaching...from the Latin 'doctrina') called 'biblical inerrancy'. 'Doctrine' does not mean 'truth'; I think this is where your misunderstanding lies...apart from the surfeit of alcohol.

      I don't denigrate anyone for using 'intelligent thinking processes'; I use them myself, which is why I said in that comment that I do not accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

      I, too, consider as 'hogwash' some of Roman Catholic Church teaching, and not only as hogwash, but as directly and gravely in violation of Jesus' clear instruction. But I do not (as you clearly do) hold the Bible in contempt, dismissing it, according to one of your posts, as something of 'questionable origins and significance'. (Whatever became of that intelligent, freethinking spirit of yours? Silenced by those pints of Guinness? )

      Anyway, happy New Year!