Archbishop Vincent Nichols, we need Shepherds not Keystone Cops who fall asleep while on duty

Writing from the UK, my good friend Deacon Nick Donnelly of Protect the Pope reports that:

Archbishop Nichols has re-affirmed the Archdiocese of Westminster’s provision of pastoral care to homosexuals through the so called Soho Masses, while at the same time announcing that he is undertaking a review of the current provision to ensure these Masses are not occasions for opposition to the Church’s teaching on sexuality: ‘At the present time consideration is being given to the circumstances in which these Masses are celebrated to ensure that their purpose is respected and that they are not occasions for confusion or opposition concerning the positive teaching of the Church on the meaning of human sexuality or the moral imperatives that flow from that teaching, which we uphold and towards which we all strive.' (See full article here).

Deacon Nick comments: "This is good news from Archbishop Nichols,and signifies an important shift in his position on the Soho Masses. Before the Holy Father’s visit the archbishop expressed, in intemperate language, that those Catholics concerned about public dissent at the Soho Masses should ‘hold their tongues.’ Now 18 months later Archbishop Nichols has admitted the concern that the Soho Masses could be occasions for confusion and opposition to the Church’s teaching, and needs investigating. This is exactly the claim made by Daphne McLeod and Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice....Protect the Pope recommends that the archbishop includes in his review an examination of the website Queering the Church, run by a member of the organising council Terence Weldon."

So Archbishop Nichols is going to conduct a "review" to ensure that the infamous Soho Masses "are not occasions for confusion or opposition" to the Church's moral teaching regarding homosexuality?  Why is it that I have an image of The Keystone Cops playing in my head?  Your Excellency, Terence Weldon, who serves as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at these Masses, has been engaging in public dissent from the Church's teaching in this area for years.

In his latest post at "Queering the Church," Mr. Weldon writes that, "One part of conventional Catholic teaching on homosexual persons, is that our orientation is the cross that we must take up, and deal with. I disagree – orientation in itself is a gift from God, not an ordeal to survive. The cross that we carry, as I wrote in a Lenten post last year, is the disordered teaching of the Church, the persecution that it brings in discrimination bullying, gay -bashing and hate-crime murders – and the internalized homophobia that drives a disproportionate number of us to suicide, or to less extreme pathological behaviour, in addictions or in the closet....CDF documents claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that homosexuality/homosexual acts lead us away from God. That is certainly not my experience, which shows the exact reverse." (See here).

What do you think Your Excellency?  Does this passage indicate that Terence Weldon is striving to conform to Church teaching or that he is openly dissenting from the same?

Read More

Sir Trevor Phillips: Christians, and only Christians, should be denied religious freedom and conscience rights

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that a law is just if it corresponds to the divine law.  If civil law does conform to the divine law, then it has the power to bind us in conscience and to disobey such a law would be a sin.  But human law cannot exceed the power of its human authors.  Aquinas teaches that the law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law.  No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good.  For this reason, laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5).

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 72-74, Pope John Paul II teaches that, "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: 'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently,laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order,and hence of the divine will,can have no binding force in conscience…;indeed,the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse'. This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas,who writes that 'human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason,it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence'. And again: 'Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law'.


Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good ;as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7;1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that 'we must obey God rather than men'(Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. 'They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live'(Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: 'the midwives feared God' (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for 'the endurance and faith of the saints' (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'.

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions,in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion,often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned,when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official,whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions,which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive,can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question,it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint,it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs;no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6;14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense,the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary,financial and professional plane."

Deacon Nick Donnelly over at Protect the Pope is reporting that Sir Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has stated categorically that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is restricted to within the confines of church buildings if they conflict with secular law.  Sir Phillips has been quoted as having said that, "the law stops at the door of the temple as far as I am concerned."  He has accused Christians who insist upon following the teachings of Christ and their consciences of wanting to impose "sharia law"on the UK.

Deacon Nick comments, "The Equality Commissioner, like the Obama administration, is attempting to re-define freedom of religion as freedom to worship. It’s a verbal slight of hand that seeks to strip away our basic human rights as religious believers in public life and wider society. Basically he’s saying we’re free to practice our faith within our church buildings but nowhere else in society.

Trevor Phillips has already removed our right to practice the moral teachings of the faith within our own homes, because, for example, if we run a bed and breakfast we have to allow homosexuals to sleep together in rooms in our houses, or else be taken to court and fined.

Trevor Phillips, and his like, have removed the rights of parents to bring their children up in the faith, because if our children, as young as 13, want contraception or abortion the State will provide it without parental knowledge or consent.

Trevor Phillips trivializes Catholic moral teaching on sexuality and parenthood by saying that we just 'decided we’re different’and that we need a different set of laws'. Catholics didn’t decide we’re different when parliament changed the law, we remained steadfast in upholding the moral law...
Trevor Phillips is also hypocritical by saying Christian demands to follow their teachings and consciences are equivalent to wanting to impose sharia law. Sharia law is being exercised in the UK, creating a parallel legal system with the support of the liberal establishment in this country as an expression of 'diversity'. Here’s the BBC’s support for sharia law in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9088957/Trevor-Phillips-stands-by-ridiculous-Sharia-comparison.html

Deacon Nick raises an excellent point here.  When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said that it "seems unavoidable" that the UK will have to "face up to the fact" that millions of Muslims do not relate to the British legal system and implied that British law should accommodate Sharia law, where was Sir Phillips?  When the Archbishop said that, "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law," ("Sharia Law for UK is 'Unavoidable,'" BBC News, Feb 7, 2008), Sir Phillips was strangely silent.
It's obvious that Sir Phillip is anxious to strip Christians of their religious freedoms and to deny them - and apparently only them - of the right to follow their conscience.

Interesting no?

Read More

Archbishop Chaput Thunders: Complacency and pride within the Church are the enemy of Faith

My good friend Deacon Nick Donnelly is reporting that:

"In his latest pastoral letter Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has written that complacency and pride within the Church are the enemy of Faith.


'Advent is a season of self-examination in the light of God’s word;a season of conversion and looking forward in hope to the birth of a Savior at Christmas. There is no better time to speak frankly about the conditions we now face as a community of believers.’

‘Complacency is the enemy of faith. To whatever degree complacency and pride once had a home in our local Church,events in the coming year will burn them out. The process will be painful. But going through it is the only way to renew the witness of the Church;to clear away the debris of human failure from the beauty of God’s word and to restore the joy and zeal of our Catholic discipleship.’

These words may sound sobering,but they are spoken with love as a father and a brother. They are a plea to take our baptism seriously;and to renew our local Church with Christian charity,justice and zeal. As Scripture reminds us so frequently: Do not be afraid. God uses poor clay to create grandeur and beauty. He can certainly use us to renew and advance the work of the Church —and he will.

Protect the Pope comment: We would do well to remember that Jesus longed to bring fire upon the world, the fire of the Holy Spirit. Complacency and pride, particularly among those called to act in persona Christi Capitis, damps down the fire of faith,hope and love as sure as an ocean of tepid water.

The wreckage that we see around us since the Second Vatican Council is the consequence of complacency and pride. The only antidote to this is humiliation,and its fruit,humility.

Until the majority of the Catholic leaders of our country, bishops, priests, deacons, theologians, catechists, truly feels the bitter pain of humiliation as a result of the appalling failures of the past, such as clergy sexual abuse, the collapse of Catholic education in our schools, the wholesale abandonment of Catholic doctrine by Diocesan catechetical teams and the majority of Catholic institutes of education, for example, then complacency and pride will continue to rule our local church;and the fire will continue to splutter out.

http://www.stbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Pastorallet_IC.pdf

Well said Deacon Nick. I have been saying this for many years now. Just recently, I found it necessary to inform my parish priest that his promotion of CCHD in the parish bulletin was most unfortunate as the organization promotes abortion, homosexuality and so-called same-sex "marriage."  Just yesterday, at Holy Mass honoring the Immaculate Conception, this same priest told the faithful present that they should not genuflect on one knee during Eucharistic Adoration and that doing so is a sign of irreverence.  He asserted that Catholics must genuflect on both knees.

Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel?

I wrote this priest an email in which I said: "During Holy Mass today, the people present were told that they should genuflect on both knees during Eucharistic Adoration. Actually, in 1993 the USCC/NCCB Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy published the Order for the Solemn Exposition of the Holy Eucharist, a resource collection of rites and texts for use by those planning annual solemn exposition. In #9 of that document it states, "Genuflection in the presence of the blessed sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee." The footnote references the Vatican document of 1973: the Roman Ritual: Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (HCWEOM.) In #84 of that document is the identical wording.


Father Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., in his Catholic Dictionary, notes that, "..genuflection in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee" (General Instruction on Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass, n. 84).

The faithful should not be made to feel guilty for genuflecting on one knee when the Church proscribes doing just that: "Genuflection in the presence of the blessed sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee." (See No. 84 here)."

This same priest had nothing to say about the woman and her several children who disrupted the Holy Mass this past Sunday, screaming and jumping up and down and running through the church.  He didn't speak of this as irreverence.  He kept that accusation for the faithful and devout Catholics - what few there are - who actually go to Eucharistic Adoration and who genuflect on one knee.

God preserve us from such nonsense!

Read More

Deacon Nick Donnelly on "Catholics for Choice" credal statement: "To raise the use of condoms onto the same level as belief in God is a gross act of heresy and apostasy.."

My good friend Nick Donnelly, a permanent deacon of the Diocese of Lancaster, is reporting that,  "On the eve of the Vatican conference on the morality and effectiveness of condoms in response to HIV/AIDS the pro-abortion group ‘Catholics’ for Choice have issued a ‘creed’ that puts belief in condoms on the same level as belief in God:


‘We believe in God.

We believe that sex is sacred.

We believe in caring for each other.

We believe in using condoms.

We thank Pope Benedict for acknowledging that condoms save lives.’


In a press release issued with this advert in an Italian newspaper Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, mischievously attempts to portray Pope Benedict XVI as supporting the use of condoms: 'The first ray of light from the Vatican came from Pope Benedict XVI himself last year when he acknowledged that condom use can prevent the spread of the disease. Since then, conservatives within the church have worked to try and muddy this clarity, but Catholic health workers must resist their attempts to roll back progress and endanger the lives and health of millions of people at risk for contracting HIV and AIDS. No longer can the Vatican stand by dangerous statements of men like Cardinal Trujillo, who claimed that HIV could pass through a condom.'

In his interview with Peter Seewald published in Light of the World Pope Benedict said that the use of condoms was always immoral and less than human. He did say that a homosexual prostitute considering using a condom to stop the spread of HIV was the beginning of moral reasoning. This example was clearly not an endorsement by the Holy Father of the use of condoms as moral.


Protect the Pope comment: This ‘credal’ statement from ‘Catholics for Choice’ captures the depth of dissent that they, and their supporters, have sunk. The God they believe in is a ‘god’ created by them in their own image, and is not the God of Jesus Christ and apostolic faith.

Their statement of belief in the sacredness of sex is impoverished and debased, for it makes no mention of love, nor does it distinguish between the moral sexual love between wives and husbands, and the immorality of sex outside of marriage.

They say they believe in caring for each other but this care does not include pre-born children, who they actively seek to kill.

Their pressing Pope Benedict into supporting their position is intentionally misleading and mendacious.

That ‘Catholics for Choice’ call opposition to the use of condoms ‘dissent’ is not only absurd, but also a diabolical twisting of the truth.

To raise the use of condoms onto the same level as belief in God is a gross act of heresy and apostasy. When will the Church take legal action to stop this anti-catholic organisation that is funded by enemies of the Church from passing itself off as ‘Catholic’?" (See here).

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/catholics-stand-behind-popes-statement-that-condoms-save-livesurge-conference-attendees-to-resist-minority-dissent-122719173.html

It was Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing against the Greco-Roman pagan world and its vices, who said that, "That Jupiter of theirs is not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders...now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion." (Letters 1:8).

In a series of letters written from 1969-1970, Sister Lucia [of the Fatima apparition] wrote: "It is indeed sad that so many people let themselves be dominated by the diabolical wave that is sweeping the world, and that they are blinded to the point of being incapable of seeing error! Their principal fault is they have abandoned prayer; in this way they have become estranged from God, and without God everything fails. The devil is very cunning and looks for our weak points in order to attack us. If we are not diligent and careful to obtain strength from God, we shall fall, for our age is very wicked and we are weak. Only the strength of God can keep us on our feet."

Indeed.  Those who have abandoned prayer have succumbed to a multitude of vices and crimes which quickly become their religion.  Abortion becomes an ersatz "sacrament" in the Moloch religion and contraception a sort of unholy sacramental for those who would worship at the altar of lust.  And too many clerics, paralyzed with either fear or indifference or both, say nothing.  These cowardly clerics, these chicken Catholics, are afraid to stand against the Culture of Death and the emerging Moloch religion which will serve the City of Satan.

Deacon Nick is not one of them.  He is, rather, a shining example of everything a Catholic deacon should be.  I am honored to count him as a friend.

Read More

File under: "See, I told you so."

Back in June of 2005 I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:


Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, 'First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior.' (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).


Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled 'Catholicism and Modernity' (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: 'The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox.'

Truthfully, isn't that what we're witnessing in Canada and even in the United States (albeit to a still lesser degree)? Already there has been much talk in Canada about passing legislation which would make it a "hate crime" for churches - or individual priests and ministers - to refer to homosexuality as being sinful. The Gospel itself would constitute 'hate literature' under legislation which is proposed by homosexual militants who have many friends in the government it would appear.

The United States isn't far behind. Soon, Christians who hold firm to what Sacred Scripture has to say about sodomy will be labelled 'dangerous' and in need of 're-education' or forced internment in a special 'camp.' Perhaps those of us who remain "obstinate" in accepting God's Word will be dealt with in another 'final solution' offered by a society which has succumbed to the 'Dictatorship of Relativism.'

Some will accuse me of being a 'prophet of doom and gloom.' Recent events in Canada and in the United States would seem to contradict such an assessment."

My friend Deacon Nick Donnelly, who defends the Holy Father and the teaching of the Church from England, has a relevant post at his website Protect the Pope.  He writes:

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have ruled that Eunice and Owen Johns, a Pentecostal couple, cannot foster children because they uphold traditional Christian morality about homosexuality. In their judgement Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson stated: That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”.

To emphasize this point the Justices also stated that traditional Christian sexual ethics is harmful to the interests of children: ‘That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”.

They further made it clear that not only is freedom of belief a ‘qualified’ right but that freedom of religion is also universally subordinate to the rights of homosexuals: ‘Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.’

This ruling makes it clear that if homosexuals are given the right to hold civil partnerships in places of worship that the courts will rule that the Catholic Church will not have the legal right to deny them a blessing in a Catholic parish church.

Incredibly, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that they were not discriminating against Eunice and Owen Johns’s religious beliefs because their upholding traditional Christian morality about homosexuality was not a ‘religious belief’.

‘That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs’. This judgement is setting a dangerous and totally unwarranted precedent that a UK court can judge what is a Christian belief and what is not a Christian belief. By so doing the judiciary is usurping the prerogative of the Churches. It’s also a nonsense distinction that brings the law into disrepute, because its obvious that Christian sexual ethics are a fundamental aspect of Christian belief.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have also ruled that local councils must test Christians to ensure that they have socially-acceptable views of homosexuality: ‘That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality’.

Mrs Jones gave the following dignified response after being unjustly told that she and her husband were ‘unfit’ to be foster parents by Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson: “All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.”

Protect the Pope comment: This is a shameful day for British justice and British jurisprudence when a couple are told that they are ‘unfit’ to be foster parents because they uphold traditional Christian sexual morality.
That two UK judges have the audacity to state as legal precedent that Christian teaching on homosexuality is ‘inimical’ to the interests of children turns truth and justice on its head.

As Pope Benedict makes clear homosexuality is a disorder of sexual desire that is harmful to the individual, the family and society. To present this disorder as normal or natural is truly ‘inimical’ to the interests of a child. And same sex unions that seek to adopt or have a child through surrogacy deny a child the right to the love of a mother and a father. This also is truly ‘inimical’ to the interests of a child.

The UK legal system has abandoned common law and common sense and is now enforcing a fundamentally flawed ideology. Where is our Wyszyński in the UK? Where is our Wojtyła to defend UK Catholics?

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/religious-freedom/breaking-news-high-court-judgment-suggests-christian-beliefs-harmful-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Am I still the prophet of "doom and gloom"?
 
It's time to awake from slumber Christians.

Related reading here.

Read More