Which term best describes the reaction from non-orthodox Christians (in practice, if not in name) to being reminded, via the Nashville Statement, that sodomy is a sin that cannot in any way be countenanced, excused, supported, approved of, or indulged in?
(C) Gibbering freakout
(D) Foamy-mouthed frenzy
We’ll answer in a day or two; meanwhile, let’s study up on the Catholic Left’s response.
Part of the Nashville Statement reads:
WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship.
WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.
WE AFFIRM that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality—a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
None of these are in the least controversial and are of such matter-of-fact obviousness that the only wonder is that they had to be stated. If you’re not a (little-o) orthodox Christian, you might not believe any of these affirmations or denials, but if you’re surprised that these are what orthodox Christians actually believe, then you have been spending too much time out of the company of history.
Fr James Martin, SJ, whose profession and credentials would lead one to assume he understood these truths, must have misunderstood them—perhaps he didn’t read them?—for he took to the pages of the Washington Post to attempt his own statement.
He begins well: “I affirm: That LGBT people are, by virtue of baptism, full members of the church. I deny: That God wants them to feel that they don’t belong”
Nothing but net. But then, no orthodox Christian disputes this.
“I affirm that the Father loves LGBT people, the Son calls them and the Holy Spirit guides them. I deny nothing about God’s love for them.”
Nobody denies that either.
Then comes this:
“I affirm: That LGBT people have been made to feel like dirt by many churches. I deny: That Jesus wants us to add to their immense suffering.”
I should have said it before, but it must be pointed out there are no such things as “LGBT people.” Not in the sense Martin paints them, as special creatures, almost as if they are a different species. There are some people who are “gay”, but only in the same way some people are statisticians. Notice, too, Martin, who it is saddening to say, confirms a sort of soft bigotry when he leaves out necrophiliacs, woofies, masturbators, objectum sexuals, eco-sexuals and a host of others who are “oriented” towards non-procreative sexual activities.
The Church has lumped so much “dirt” on men oriented towards post-pubescent young men that it ordained a slew of them, many of whom are still in service (various estimates put their number from one-quarter to one-half of all priests), who misconducted themselves rather badly. Perhaps you read something about that.
Now it does add to the suffering of somebody to point out their shortcomings and sins (of any kind). And since that leads to the confessional, and the confessional to the narrow path, it must be that not all suffering is a bad thing.
Next: “I affirm: That LGBT people are some of the holiest people I know. I deny: That Jesus wants us to judge others, when he clearly forbade it.” Fr also says ” I deny: That Jesus wants any more judging.”
The holiest? One doubts, Father, one doubts. Holier than I, I hasten to say, is easy, and includes a great chunk of the baptised. And I make that point only to show how mixed up Fr Martin is. Here we are not judging men, but acts. If Jesus didn’t want us to judge sin, then there is no point for Fr Martin to admonish anybody, for this admonishing just is him judging, which he says Jesus clearly forbade. It is not hypocrisy for the drunkard to say “Drunkenness is evil.” It only turns into hypocrisy when he says, “It’s okay for me, but not for you.”
(one would be enough but the comment field has a 15 character minimum)
The freak out over this by both Catholics and Protestant has been remarkable.
I hadn’t realized how much the ‘stating traditional Christian beliefs is bad’ trope had become a part of the elite Christian thought-scape. But alas.
You hit the nail on the head. Every Christian I know who finds homosexuality morally abhorrent also finds lying and pornography to be so and also shows kindness to people as best they can.
I mean, I know a lot of Christians. Most of them don’t know of the NS and those who do didn’t suddenly invent this ideology and start using it to bash people. Anyway, I suppose as long as the theological left keeps going insane their influence will dwindle. Sadly, they’ll mess up some beautiful Christian institutions in the mean time.
The Catholic Church is DEAD. Atheists, heathens and Satan rejoice.
Oh dear, we are all in a funny mood.
Nothing is dead.
Briggs is a neurotic monster,
Sheri needs a drink,
Ken’s had a personality transplant,
John b doesn’t give a fig,
Bob K’s Bob K,
YOY is a yoyo,
and I’m perfect…sailing along on the beautiful briny sea.
Fr. Martin is a great example of the type of priest whose main goal in life is to be liked by everybody.
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
You judge by human standards; (according to the flesh) I pass judgment on no one.
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
It seems to me that if one is detetmined to break the rules, set by one’s religion, there are three options; 1) Admit your deviance and hope for forgivness 2) Claim the religion’s teachings are in error, and 3) Get the hell out.
These days, option 2 seems to be the most popular. That must be because everyone is now smarter than god.
Homosexuality is just a behavior and the bible condemns lots of behaviors. Theft, for instance, is condemned. Why doesn’t the good Fr write something like this.
I affirm: That kleptomaniacs have been made to feel like dirt by many churches. I deny: That Jesus wants us to add to their immense suffering.
If you believe that stealing is wrong, you are obviously kleptophobic.
There are a lot of people who cannot understand the simple teachings and messages from Jesus. There are many who want condemnation rights when it comes to their own favourite subjects. They fail to see the purpose of the teaching of Jesus regarding sin and condemnation.
God and only God can offer forgiveness.
Humans judge by human standards.
Just as with the woman given in the example of John Chapter eight, Jesus demonstrated that thee was no one left to throw a stone who was without sin.
So it is not for the satirist, the shunner, the mocker, the worse than that, to add as the man says to the situation by gloating or holding themselves up as superior simply because they have not sinned as the homosexual has sinned.
I am still unconvinced by the so called Christian excuse for such high handed condemnation when there are as many atheists doing precisely the same thing. This is a feature of male responses to abhorrent male behaviour. That’s all. It will never change and is an ancient problem as the bible demonstrates.
“The sin which cries to heaven for vengeance”. Says only something about the attitude of the witness to the sin. Perhaps it might be some reference to male rape.
This would explain a lot.
To characterise this as being in favour of, supporting, advocating for or any other version of such untruth is just imbuing motive which is not there.
I used to know a gay man who himself was also disgusted by it!
However, Sodomy does not just refer to homosexuality. This is conveniently glossed over. It also refers to heterosexual individuals who commit the sin.
I once pointed out and I will again that there was a documentary about a woman from Las Vagus who is now a missionary in the same place and who tries to lead young women away from their vice. She explained that there are a large number of men who use prostitutes primarily for this purpose alone. Those same men who pretend to respectable lives in all other respects.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
how many more homosexuals are there than there ever were? I would argue that there are no more and that they simply are open about what they do where they were not in the past.
You men will know though! Just how tempted you are to copy the behaviour!
If the answer is very then you win. If the argument is not remotely then you lose.
Nothing in the world would entice me to such a thing. It doesn’t mean that I have to project the hate while pretending not to have it towards the sinner instead of the sin.
My only reservation after a close reading is that they somehow forgot to include baptism in Article 14. Perhaps that makes me an overly sacramentalist Anglo-Catholic crank, but there you are.
“Joy.” How in the world did you end up with such a name?
I was Christened with that name.
There are important lessons from the bible. They are not all about Sodomy.
How man should view the sins of others is not the same as how God will judge the sins of man. This is distinct from permission from God to do anything you like. Including do other than what Jesus commanded: (see below)
New Testament John chapter 12 King James Version.
40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
It is possible to dislike, get irritated with, or even be disgusted by certain behaviour without indulging some secret desire to take part in it. It is equally possible not to feel any of these things and still consider said behaviour wrong. For that matter I suppose it’s possible to be openly or secretly attracted to some behaviour and think/know it’s wrong. The orthodox position of the Catholic Church is not casting stones simply a statement of purpose. Take it or leave it. If you wish to be in communion take it. If not leave it…no problemo.
What bothers me the most is that people who strive to hew themselves to church teaching even tho their sin may want to lead them someplace else (includes divorced and remarried) are completely pushed off the table and not allowed to be part of the discussion.
The Priest says he denies “That Jesus wants us to judge others, when he clearly forbade it.” and also says ” I deny: That Jesus wants any more judging.”
Good philosophy to apply, that.
Why does it matter what some out-group thinks about a theological position?
There’s a very fundamental issue that gets short shrift here — In a free society freedom includes the right to sin when the sin does not violate other’s rights, law, etc.
We read time & again here about how this or that freedom is under attack, and then, seemingly concurrently, that for some things particular religious values should be imposed on this same free society — maybe not so overtly, but that theme seems clear enough.
Can’t have it both ways. Freedom (including freedom to sin) or something else that isn’t freedom — because that’s what happens when religious doctrine is made a requirement.
The priest’s statements are consistent with the ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ ethos.
And, as for the priest being a hypocrite about judging (“if Jesus didn’t want us to judge sin, then there is no point for Fr Martin to admonish anybody, for this admonishing just is him judging, which he says Jesus clearly forbade. It is not hypocrisy for the drunkard to say “Drunkenness is evil.” It only turns into hypocrisy when he says, “It’s okay for me, but not for you.””)
perhaps one should consider the roles of a bona fide priest vs other mere mortals & bloggers…and what better reference than the Vatican — one of the roles — duties — of a priest, via the sacrament of Holy Orders, is to ‘evangelize’; reference:
Fr Martin’s “judging” one might notice, addresses principles broadly applicable whereas the blogger’s “judging” cannot restrain itself from getting personal — very big differences in the kind of “judging” occurring, which the blogger would seem to conflate as equivalent. Hhhmmmmm.
Fr. Martin appears to be objecting to things that the Nashville Statement does not say, at least in the excerpt above. Nowhere does the Statement declare that these LGBT practitioners are dirty or unworthy per se, only that the acts themselves are objectively wrong. Love the sinner, hate the sin is indeed good advice. Not even Aquinas could have said it better. Oh, wait…
Pope Francis is in full-condemnation mode:
Notable quote: ‘History will judge climate change deniers’
notable quote: “scientists tell us clearly the way forward”
notable quote: “scientists have clearly said what path we have to follow”
WOW! Is this abdication? Christ is now superfluous?: Science is the way, the truth and the light?
You need a new bible!
You’re a bit late on this one issue, so earlier I read this other blog post about it which I thought was very good. It contains the full text of the Statement, comments on each of Fr. Martin’s tweets and a quotation of a really good rebuttal of them at the end. I also like the title.
“Evangelicals More Catholic Than Fr. James Martin, SJ”, from the blog “One Mad Mom”:
This post on Fr. Z’s Blog is related to Fr. Martin’s earlier activism, and I’ll link it simply because I was just reminded of it:
I like the Nashville Statement. As soon as I can, I’ll translate it to Portuguese to get it more well known.
Yes, no problemo,
Plantagenet, It is a free world.
“and you shall know The Truth and The Truth will set you free”
Jesus never said he didn’t want any more judging. That is rather vague and therein lies the disagreement.
He never argued against secular laws and judgement.
I think there’s something in Romans about obeying the law.
The problem comes when the law opposes God’s law as in the Gay marriage laws.
To insist that two men should walk down the isle in a church and marry each other is absurd and perverse. That’s my judgement! Jesus spoke about marriage and divorce.
Men had begun divorcing their wives to trade them in for new ones which Jesus said showed that man’s heart has become hard. I think I’m correct.
He didn’t say there is no divorce either, as it follows.
It was a Douglas Murray who argued for and won a debate for organised religion when the Archbishop of Canterbury was doing a dreadful job and losing to Dawkins, if I’m not mistaken, at Cambridge University.
That is from the King James Bible.
Please check and get back to me.
John B might also need a new Bible, as he probably meant to say “the way, the truth and the life”
What acts are you judging in this case? Their sexual orientation? Their sexual behaviors? If yes, why not advocating for anti-sodomy law?
What is the purpose of the above statement? To deny LGBT people’s existence? To deny the term? I don’t get it. Regardless of what the answers to my questions are, there are LGBT people in this world.
And people are indeed not things.
You are what your act and say. How do you want your God or Jesus to judge you?
What is the purpose of the above statement? [That there are no such things as “LGBT people.”]
I would suppose that it is simply to affirm that they are people like any other person, and not a different species — one which could be judged as inherently inferior once the political conveniences change.
Of course, no one here has any understanding of the law and that nowhere in the SCOTUS decision did the Supreme Court define marriage for any faith. It only define marriage for the State. This is the definition of separation of Church and State.
The proof is that no Church has been forced to perform any gay marriage. Though some church on their own accord do perform them.
A priest performing marriages for a city could be forced to perform it (he can always resign or be replaced by someone else), because this is a non religious marriage.
” Love the sinner, hate the sin is indeed good advice.”
And show them love by denying them service, right and firing them.
” Love the sinner, hate the sin is indeed good advice.”
And show them love by denying them service, right and firing them.
So, to you, love means acting how exactly?
Should it apply to all sins, say murder?
Or do we pick and choose?
As it stands now, you aren’t allowed to chastise or even question some.
For example, punishing a 6 year old for using the wrong gender.
couple took their son out of school after he faced disciplinary action for accidentally referring to his 6-year-old classmate as a boy
Bizarre! Disciplinary action? He faced punishment for what precisely and why? Where did he go wrong?
OTOH maybe you think all sins should be allowed without question. Say with this guy? http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/justice-et-faits-divers/201501/05/01-4832583-meurtre-deric-gauthier-sylvain-allard-plaide-coupable.php
‘the state’, as has no right fiddling and meddling in the business of the church outside of upholding the criminal law. It’s bad enough people within the church interfering with the scriptural messages and people’s direct communion with God.
In the same way the state has no right to demand that a club, even, includes any particular member. What you advocate is a tyranny enforced by the state.
It is no use keep saying that others don’t know the law. This is not a small point of law.
It is. a matter rather more enormous and patently obvious to any thinking person who values individual freedom and or understands the notion of unintended consequences.
The state makes itself a church! and charges you for it.
I use the KJ among many.
I’m just saying that according Pope (I’m sure it’ll be Saint) Francis all of our Bibles are obsolete. The current Bibles all give deference to God. The new Bibles should now give deference to Science.
From the New Scientific Standard Bible (NSciStB):
DeGrasse 6:17 Science is the way, the truth and the light.
Life is just an accident of nature without meaning.
Thanks for the link to Mad Mom
I appreciated that (dare I say?) she identified Martin as Francis’ communications adviser. I’m sure previous posts by Briggs have included that information but it should have been reiterated.
It makes Francis’ communication about skeptics even more telling.
The one unforgivable sin in Science Skepticism.
What a relief!
You were being funny.
I only get my own jokes these days.
You should follow the link to the BBC. The Daily Caller did some distorsions in their story.
You realize that the parents of the boy are sueing the school over the fact that they respected the Human Right law of England by allowing a boy to dress as a girl. Most likely this decision came from intensive counselling by psychologists and psychiatrists to identify how serious the boy was toward his identity.
Not surprised you entirely missed the point. The target of the parents’ law suit is irrelevant. The key issue is that a 6 year old was facing punishment (er, discipline under the school’s bullying policy according to the BBC) for using the wrong gender. Hardly a distortion.
You only have the parents words. Most likely the kid acted as a bully and mocked the other kid. This means that the punishment wasn’t about an honest mistake but most likely was arrasment from a bully to another kid.
Don’t project. Not everyone is like you.
That the school has a bullying policy at all is telling. A bit like having a disease-free policy. You can’t build immunity without exposure. Being bullied is part of growing up. Having others deal with it for you makes it harder to learn to deal with adversity yourself. The exposure is a necessary part of the process in becoming an adult.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Seventeen and what Janice was driving at — in particular the inspiration for the song which basically is: having it easy can be detrimental to your development. Clearly, something you don’t understand.
In the USA, suicide is ranked 3rd reason of death for teenagers at around 5000 a year. The highest amount of casualties are among those who consider themselves LGBTQ.
One of the main reason for suicide is being bullied. Some are bullied at home other at school. Suicide rate among LGBTQ gets lower when the individual accept who they are and are accepted by there closest relative (friends or family).
Yes, hardship can help build your character, unless it kills you.
This blog seems only pro life when it is a matter of abortion, other than that they have no problem seeing people dying when their lives could be saved.
”‘the state’, as has no right fiddling and meddling in the business of the church outside of upholding the criminal law. It’s bad enough people within the church interfering with the scriptural messages and people’s direct communion with God.”
The same goes for religion which shouldn’t meddle in governmental affairs. At least, in the west, because in the Muslim world religion is the government and it is going really well for them.
Scotus didn’t meddled in religion since it never said that Church had to agree with their decision. The decision is limited to how the State should define marriage. This is why it is important to understand the law. Because when you don’t, you complain under false motive and sputter non-sense like Briggs.
suicide is ranked 3rd reason of death for teenagers
Now you know why. Expect it to rise.
I speak well and don’t need any help in writing nonsense!
I need help, sometimes, spotting where my thinking isn’t straight but know the truth. There’s no point in anything else.
“The same goes for religion which shouldn’t meddle in governmental affairs.”
1 I’m tempted to say ‘the government started it!’
What IS a governmental affair?
Is the point of the discussion isn’t it?
2 Whose domain is it to determine morals?
3 Whose role is it, if anyones, to check human behaviour?
A church grapples with a deeper and everlasting power which resides in western style nations. All under the physical laws of a nation which promote cohesion and prosperity of the nation and act in the interest of the nation and the individual in Insuring that crimes are punished for those who fall short of the undisputed laws.
Countries have borders and for a reason. Historically this has shown to be the way for success and stability. Where all reside in general harmony given a shared system of values.
Once a government reaches into matters of individual freedom in order to serve a multicultural society, it can no longer serve one world view or call it one culture. It CANNOT please everybody and so must take broad brushstrokes in order to attempt, in vain, evidently, to prevent fighting and a break down of society. The thing it sets out to prevent, or treat, it exacerbates. This is the point you refuse to concede.
Whether speaking of gay marriage, hate speech, or whether some religious group decides to insert itself into government to force its laws, you now have chaos, where no matter what, people will be unhappy and there will.be blood.
It is not, as I said, a small point of law.
“The law is an ass”.
You make it king.
“That the school has a bullying policy at all is telling. A bit like having a disease-free policy. You can’t build immunity without exposure. Being bullied is part of growing up. Having others deal with it for you makes it harder to learn to deal with adversity yourself”
By that logic, schools should have pro-bullying policies so the biggest kids don’t miss out on the invaluable character building opportunities opened up by being bullied.
By that logic, schools should have pro-bullying policies …
Not at all.
Can you provide example your claim:
1) intrusion of government in religion?
2) which of your personal freedom have been undermined by recent government? Hint: you have a lot more personal freedom today than at any other moment in history.
Governmental affair are public affairs, matter of laws, national security, internal security.
Religious institutions are very poor example of morality. See the Catholic Church handling of sexual abusers worldwide.
“Now you know why. Expect it to rise.”
Suicide vary very little over the years between 10 to 13 by 100,000
Are you meaning to say that bullies lack an important tool of growing by not being bullied
Unsurprisingly, you didn’t understand what I meant by “why” and “expect to rise”. If the suicide rate is at all related to bullying then not learning to cope (because of bullying policies) will lead to a rise in the rate. If it’s been constant apparently then you are claiming that bullying policies are unrelated to/ineffective against the teen suicide rate. What was your point in mentioning it? More of your silly irrelevant remarks?
Yes, not facing adversity, whether by being bullied or by generally being unpopular or other reasons, means you can’t learn from it and grow. Didn’t you read the Janice Ian link?
You don’t appear to have answered but have asserted that “you are more free…”. etc.
Which isn’t true in terms of laws brought in which affect everybody.
There are not special laws for Sylvain and another law for Brigs although you might be excused for thinking it. The government makes laws which encroach on what you can do and the net gradually closes even if you or anyone else are not to be directly impinged upon by it. The boundaries are reduced. Can you see this is true?
This is the reason for the very real unhappiness and unrest which you cannot, even you, deny.
Which those of us who attempt to think seriously about are the ones who are pilloried and those who dump and run, skulk in the background or join the baying crowd are just adding to the noise.
Enjoying displaying their less gentle side. It’s not a reason to miss the point.
You really lack any perspective on the issue of freedom.
Haven’t you read anything on the reality of being a woman in 1800s.
Back then a woman was a commodity, first she was the property of her father and then of her husband.
Back then if a woman got rape it was the father or husband that received a monetary compensation for the loss of value of the woman.
A woman couldn’t own property, she couldn’t inherit unless in very rare cases where there were no brother, husband or uncle around.
There was no penalty for a husband beating is wife.
Women only became a person under the law in the first quarter of the century.
The law is what gave you your right to complain that the law infringing on your freedom. Freedom you wouldn’t have without it.
Sylvain you’re being cheesy. Why not start in stone age when women were dragged by their Hair! Possessions and all that talk just makes me laugh.
If you think you can appeal to some sisterly sense of ubiquitous outrage that I’m supposed to feel as a female then you are mistaken. If I have empathy or compassion it is not as a result of being part of a given group. If I have experience of a group then this also gives insight.
You view the world in terms of groups. I do not. Does that make you a fascist?
I don’t know because that’s another group and these things will drive you mad.
I am female and make no apologies for thinking, viewing, perceiving, feeling, and any other type of word of that ilk as a female might do. I will not choose between your dichotomous, or Briggs’s for that matter, world of old or new woman. It’s cheesy and it’s inaccurate.
You think and I think what we think because of a multitude of factors.
What you are expressing is your ideal world as to how things should be.
So I will do the same.
We go back to Georgian times but I really rather love the victorian innovations and particularly the walled garden, the only possession worth having in life.
I insist that this is the way things must be. This way men would have to be polite and not treat women the way many of those who would send us back in time would have us treated.
Sylvain there were good and bad men throughout history. You have confused several matters in the quest to split into two a thing which is more complex; that is, the so called collective attitude towards women through the ages of society as a whole!
Life has improved for everybody over all and this is mostly due to science innovation and engineering, a clearly male pursuit. NOT the law. Crimes remained crimes with respect to women. Now what is observed is a cathartic vicious and angry treatment of women by dissatisfied men on the one hand and rabble rousing feminists and mostly shallow thinking do gooders on the other side. A lot of heat is generated and a false battle line. If I had the power of a celebrity I would do something about it.
Segregated education would be a start. Boys and girls schools. For those wishing to instil respect for women in the true sense. Imprisonment for those men on the activist side who have wrongly identified and harassed women for crimes and sins which they have not committed. Preferably in the stocks out in the street. I’m compiling a list.
I don’t know who provides you your drug but it must be some great stuff to be able to remove you from reality.
You don’t like Georgian?
Sylvain, Sober as a judge, merry as always, the others have to imbibe to come to my level of awareness!
I thought you might find this interesting but don’t know if you accept what the bible says.
Luke chapter 11
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
On baking cakes and the courts:
11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
8,000+ people are praying against Fr. Martin’s talk in Cincinnati. You too can pray in reparation for this attack against God and the Holy Catholic Church. Go to https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/petitions/fr-martin-and-sister-gramick-attack-church-teaching
God bless you.