True Catholicism v The Rainbow

Here is last Sunday’s sermon. The Gospel text was Mark 10:2-12

God created them male and female 

Increasingly well intentioned but moronic Christians are seeking to join the trend of virtue signalling by draping rainbow flags in churches and on altars. It is unbelievably wrong headed. Not that caring for people with same sex attraction is wrong. Quite the opposite. We must be welcoming and compassionate to such people. It is wrong because that rainbow flag symbolises more than compassion having become the defining symbol of a radical modern ideology- one rooted in the sexual revolution and based on secular notions of political correctness. And the problem for Christians, at least those with a brain, is that this ideology, favoured by political elites, stands in stark contradiction to the teaching of Christ on matters of sexual morality.  It refutes not only the Christian view of sex but, perhaps more importantly, our very understanding of what it means to be human.

Scripture teaches we were created male and female. You heard it from the lips of Jesus in the Gospel this morning. A truth not dependent on faith or belief or opinion but writ large in the natural law. There are over 1500 scientifically determined differences between men and women. Meaning you can dig up even skeletons and know the sex with certainty. Christians believe this difference is intentional and divinely inspired. Men and women were created – as part of God’s plan- as a unity in distinction; philosophical language meaning two halves of an intended whole. The two shall become one flesh. Equal in terms of dignity and worth- feminism has that right- but with intended differences that need to be acknowledged and celebrated. Christianity further suggests that man and woman complete each other and God’s blessing of this completion is seen via their unique potential for the creation of new life. A truth being denied when newspapers claim Tom Daley and his male partner had a baby. No; they took a baby from its biological mother to raise as their own; the difference is all important in discerning truth about the human condition.

The rainbow movement, the new ideology of the world, challenges Christian concepts on marriage because it is centred on radical individualism not organic family life. Historically, when were a Christian culture, we enshrined marriage out of respect for the needs of children. But today such privilege is denied because all couplings, even thruplings, are treated as the same. Thus the needs of children take a back seat to the romantic demands of adults. The truth that mum and dad bring something unique to family life is eroded, even lost.  And men and women are not even being encouraged to come together in trust and love in our society as they should be. Instead we see everywhere an attack on the nuclear family. In the media we hear only of that tired cliché of a battle of the sexes. Is it any wonder, when men and women are pitted against each other in this way, that tension increases, dissatisfaction is heightened and divorce rises. Why do we buy into this language of war? Sorry but I do not believe God’s plan for our human flourishing involves breakdown of the family and conflict/competition between the two halves of the intended whole.

Yet more sinister: the new ideology doesn’t stop at attacking family life. It now challenges our identity. Children are being taught, as part of the National Curriculum no less, that gender is not fixed but fluid; determined by sentiment not reason. A direct contradiction to our Gospel today. And no dissent is brooked in the imposition of this insane modern narrative making school increasingly uncomfortable for our Christian children. Any who dare question the rainbow philosophy are quickly shut down and labelled haters. They are told it is healthy to self identify using labels, most based on adult sexual proclivity, with an infamous letter. LGBTQI. The use of which erodes our understanding of the human person. Sorry but we are embodied souls precious to God not vacuous being defined solely by something as shallow as out sexual preference. I am not an H. You are not a B, L or G. We have to hold to a deeper and richer sense of personal identity rooted in our intrinsic worth.

Now I have compassion for transsexuals. They are troubled people who need our support and sensitivity. But this does not mean we abandon reason in pursuit of kindness. And who says it is kind, anyway, to deform people’s bodies via drastic surgery and artificial hormones? I mean we would not dream of helping an anorexic, who self identifies as fat, by endorsing a diet! We would not aid the man who identifies as Nelson by cutting off his hand! So why are we treating this particular psychiatric condition as if is normative and encouraging children to collude in it? Ever since we encouraged trans activism in our schools the number of children identifying as the wrong gender has increased by thousands of percent. What in the name of God are we doing to impressionable young minds and vulnerable people? I have a name for it- it is called child abuse. Government backed and systematically rolled out though it may be.

As Christians we are called to be inclusive and merciful. And in fairness I think we always have, on the whole, welcomed the divorced, homosexuals, transexuals-everyone. We always have understood that we, are all of us, sinners in need of forgiveness. We  always have understood that preaching an ideal does not mean we will all manage to reach it. What we have not done is change our teaching to endorse an anything goes mentality on morality and it is, in truth, this that enrages our foes who have a liberalising moral agenda. Hence all the rhetoric of nasty uncaring Catholics so skilfully espoused by the new ideology and the mainstream media. Hollywood pedophiles, like Roman Polanski, are misunderstood whilst nuns are only wicked tyrants fit for horror movies.

So we must continue to preach our welcome, mercy, love and forgiveness. But not to the point of endorsing the radical secular individualism that threatens family life. So please put your rainbow flags in the dustbin and dust off your rosary instead. Because Christian marriage remains for us, at least, the foundation of family life. The place in which children are raised and nurtured in accordance with God’s will. So that that which God has joined together no man (or philosophy or ideology) can put asunder. With courage and determination let us resist this new ideology come what may and stand with Christ. Our Saviour who said marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation for family life. Not because he was mean or limited by the wisdom of his age. But because he was God and knows what will help us to flourish – as individuals, as families and as a society.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

30 thoughts on “True Catholicism v The Rainbow

  1. In the light of what has been shown to have been going on in Roman Catholic Ireland for decades and decades, don’t you think it a bit rich to use that language about Tom Daley ? Really, have you no shame ?

    1. What is your point here? I am speaking from the perspective of the teaching of the Catholic church in all ages, the perspective of my faith. I am not defined by the behaviour and scandals of those who failed to live up to it- indeed such people only underline the importance of church teaching in this regard. I use no defamatory language about Tom Daley I merely point out that he and his partner have not had a baby, because that is a biological impossibility, and that to claim they did is to deny the truth of the human condition as defined by the natural law. Are you suggesting I am wrong about this?

      1. Surely the most important issue here is that Tom and his partner provide a loving and stable upbringing for the child.

        1. I disagree- the most important issue here is whether ‘wombs for hire’ are ethical. You suggest the need of the child is most important. Yes. So why were those needs totally overlooked when the child was taken from a surrogate mother and handed to two men? What of the child’s proven need for a loving mum? Children are not commodities for sale or to be created to appease social engineering that denies the natural law.

          1. What on earth is wrong about two men giving love and stability to a child? Surrogacy which results in happiness for all concerned is much better than the so-called normal childhoods of so many within dysfunctional families.
            People who go to the trouble of IVF or surrogacy are far more likely to make better parents.

          2. It is wrong because it denies a child its mother. It is wrong because it is using children as commodities. It is wrong because it is necessarily centred on the demands of adults not the need of the child. It is wrong in Christian terms because it denies scripture and the teaching of the church in all ages. It is wrong because it breaks down and contradicts marriage as God sanctioned it- which Christ had plenty to speak about.

      2. ‘They took a baby from its biological mother’. To pretend to pass that off as ‘merely point[ing] out is, frankly, pathetic.

          1. I look forward to reading, when the day comes, that your child took a birthday present from its father, or that you took money which parishoners had put on the collection plate. Because that will be a statement of fact.

          2. I have never taken a single penny from the collection plate. The offering is counted each week by two parishioners, recorded and banked. Money for my stipend, which is earned not taken I should add, is sent to the Ordinariate who pay me direct. I use that income to buy children’s birthday presents. So it would not, in fact, be a statement of fact. It would be a dishonest statement.

    1. And another thing. According to the natural law we shouldn’t be using antibiotics, having organ transplants, conquering disease or doing anything else that is unnatural.
      As far as I am aware Jesus never said anything about these things, as indeed He didn’t seem to think same sax attraction was important enough to mention either. Even though He said ‘man must leave his mother and father etc.,’ I don’t think this was compulsory.

      1. Just not true. A donated heart is being asked to function perfectly natural- as a heart. It does what it is created for. Jesus spoke very clearly and told us that the union between a man and woman is what God blesses and that this union, which God has joined, no man should put asunder.

        1. If I were to contend that a Caesarean section was not a legitimate procedure because the natural law would require the death of both mother and child, I would be twisting the natuaral law theory to produce a wrong conclusion.
          In the same way, to deny gay people their loving relationships and families by saying it is against the natural law is both wrong and unchristian.

          1. Hi David,

            I hope you are well. Incidentally we hope to be in Walsingham again over the Remembrance Sunday weekend so should i keep an eye out for you?

            Re your response to Fr. Ed as you know I have a great deal of personal sympathy for your position. My difficulty is this; once you start to admit of sexual intercourse outside the marriage bond as not breaching the natural law where do you draw the line? Obviously just about everyone would say that bestiality and paedophilia were always utterly wrong but what about an adulterous relationship (but one that is truly loving, mutually supportive etc.) whether a longstanding affair or a divorced/civilly remarried scenario? Is that always contrary to the natural law but, if it isn’t, how does it fall within it?


  2. Recently, naturalists observing a penguin colony in Antarctica observed two male penguins hatching an abandoned egg and rearing the orphan chick. The rest of the colony left them to it. The “gay” adopters were neither isolated nor pecked to death by their fellows.

    Perhaps, in this instance, “natural law” was neither natural nor law?

    1. Steve two important points on penguins. First whatever they are about- gay is a ludicrous word to project onto them, I think. It is a human construct that is highly charged and not applicable to the animal kingdom with much integrity beyond propoganda. Secondly we are not animals but embodied immortal souls. We are called to a moral life beyond the mere animalistic. Beast is therefore how we describe the despicably fallen- and indeed the artists image of Satan shows a man becoming like a mere animal, cloven hooves et al. Dogs do it in the street- that is hardly justification for how couples on the same street should behave.

      1. Thee points and a question:

        Readers familiar with English punctuation will have noticed that I put quotation marks around “gay” to signify that the label was not my own and that I was clearly signalling that fact.

        When I last checked, the word “natural” meant pertaining to Nature. We are all God’s creatures and, as such, frequently mirror the good and bad behaviours – and also the societal traits – of those lesser creatures we deem not to have souls. Maybe, the word “unburdened” is applicable here.

        The penguins in question were undoubtedly in a same-sex relationship. As far as the fortunate foundling was concerned I doubt whether the fact that his foster parents were or were not “doing it in the street” (or on the ice floe for that matter) was of any relevance whatsoever.

        With the benefit of hindsight I wonder if there are not a significant number of unmarried Irish mothers who now wish that they had given up their babies to penguins rather than nuns?

  3. Mary,

    I have just spent ages writing a very long, articulate response! Unfortunately everr time I attempt to post it I get a message saying the coonnection to the server has been lost

  4. Mary,

    I am tempted therefore to write in instalments!

    I have come to the conclusion that as regards morals one must follow one’s conscience. Obviously this involves dangers. Some would say that this opens the door to anything being acceptable.
    All I can say is that a responsible, decent , well balanced and basically good person ought not to come up with anything plainly repugnant to other similar individuals.

    1. David however you came to your conclusion – it was not through conventional Christianity. Consciences, especially poorly formed ones as so many are, are an appalling guide in life- just ask the adulterer who is convinced God wants them to leave their wife and children and shack up with somebody new. We must do better than that and self discipline, self control and sacrifice need to be part of that. Many today want to cherry pick faith especially where sexual morality is concerned. If only they would trust God I sincerely believe he will lead them to a better place they themselves would arrive at in life.

  5. Mary,

    What in the deposit of faith is immutable and what isn’t ?
    Between the rigid traditionalist to the silly progressive many of us might want change but very few agree on what should be cherished and what abandoned.
    Everyone thinks the answer to this is obvious and yet there is much disagreement.
    If we have a conscience then we have a grave responsibility not to use it to excuse what is wrong. In my view we should follow tradition until conscience screams out against it and common sense should then prevail.

    1. Nothing of the deposit of faith should be abandoned David. Jesus told us that very plainly. Not one jot nor one iota. What possible reason could there be for our generation to be held to a different standard than previous generations? Why would God demand self control from one group of people but not care about it for another? What possible reason could we have for suggesting God’s divine plan revealed in scripture is no longer relevant to man? Beyond a wayward desire, however cleverly wrapped up in the language of mercy, to discard it for our own agendas. And indeed those pushing for change speak loud and long about a cold rigid traditional Christianity as if it is crippling the church. Which is laugh out loud funny when set against the reality of almost every parish in the West given over to mushy, touchy feely modernist praise and worship. Just who are this imagined cold rigid neo-palagians? I dont see any. Do you? Really? Name the parishes…

      1. Thought for the day.
        Two of the commandments forbid killing and adultery.
        Whilst traditional catholic teaching sees the latter as absolute it treated the former with relativitity.
        Although burning heretics,ethnic cleansing of Cathars and slaughtering infidels during crusades is no longer encouraged;until a few weeks ago judicial murder by the state was condoned.
        Which of these two commandments is the more important?

      2. If nothing ever changes, would it be acceptable for Abp Peter Smith to augment the funds of the diocese by being knowing landlord of brothels, as his predecessors (Bishops of Winchester) did in Southwark? Apparently, there were so many restrictions on marital relations that brothels were considered necessary to discourage men from seducing virgins, having relationships with men, or – worst of all – masturbating!! The Bishops of Winchester were not alone in providing the “least bad” alternative… And, in spite of the examples of Sarah and Elizabeth, marital intimacy after the menopause was judged unacceptable (though unless admitted in confession it might be a difficult sin to prove). Of course, now it’s Lent, no sex – beware conception as a birth 40 weeks from now is a dead giveaway.

  6. Mary

    Final instalment until my I pad allows longer. (I don’t know if it’s time or length that’s the problem)

    If the law itself causes untold misery to some people, in some situations, then that is where relativism is justified and conscience should prevail.

    By the way we are away that weekend unfortunately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.