transgender self-identify
Society and Social Structures

The compassionate origins of Tory transgender self-identification proposals

“Maria Miller gathers up her handbag and makes to leave: ‘I don’t think I’m happy about this. I think I’ve finished… I didn’t realise this was such a stitch-up'”, the Times recounts as they probed Tory proposals to make gender-switching a simple matter of self-identification. You’d think, as Chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee, Maria Miller would be eager to explain the rationale and virtues of transgender self-identification – that is, the state’s recognition of a person’s preferred sex/gender irrespective of biology or medical authentication – especially as the consequences will be quite far reaching, and the policy didn’t feature in the Conservative Party’s (very) recent General Election manifesto. The announcement of a public consultation on the matter appears to have come somewhat out of the blue.

The question which particularly perturbed Mrs Miller (or is it ‘Ms’?) was the emotive one of rape. The interviewer remarked that “90 per cent of violent crime and 98 per cent of sexual crime is committed by men. Trans women, such as Davina Ayrton, who raped a 15-year-old girl, have been convicted of offences seldom committed by natal females”, which elicited the question: “Would self-identification mean these crimes would be registered as committed by women, skewing the figures?”

“It should be registered in the gender of the person when they committed the crime,” Maria Miller responded, apparently without thought or hesitation.

And so the Times concludes: “This would mean that if Katie Brannen, charged with twice raping a man in South Shields, is convicted that crime would be recorded on female statistics even though legally women cannot commit rape.”

So the Chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee has confirmed the emergence of a new gender inequality in law: presently, natal women cannot commit rape but transgender women patently can. Transsexuals obviously can’t: the penis is all. This means that transgender women will be treated differently in law to natal women, and that’s… well, it’s called gender discrimination, and it’s Maria Miller’s task to stamp all that out because it isn’t fair.

When this question was thrown out to Twitter (as one does to crowd-source wisdom, which sometimes works), Michael Stokes QC confirmed that the law would need to change:

So the law on rape would need to change for the UK’s entire female population of 33 million in order to redress an inequality which might be potentially advantageous in a court of law to the minuscule number of male-to-female transgender rapists. In fact, the law would need to change in many areas in order to accommodate transgender self-identification, unless we are going to see men who self-identify as women being able to work in rape crisis centres and live in women’s hostels; or circumvent all-female short-lists and other quotas designed to redress gender imbalance. And what happens in competitive sport? Will a trans testosterone-charged self-identifying woman be permitted to trounce all the oestrogen-infused natal women and win gold at the Olympics? Will they be able to dress in the women’s changing rooms? Use the women’s toilets?

How will the state prevent the systematic vexatious abuse (“for a laugh”) of transgender self-identification? How will it judge the motives of those who decide to transition in order to secure benefits peculiar to their new gender (/sex)? What is there to stop gender self-identification being used for trivial or trendy motives? Should a transient rebellious ‘phase’ really have the capacity to amend a state document as important as a record of birth?

And what of the religious realm? Will a Roman Catholic priest who self-identifies as a women be permitted to celebrate Mass? Will Muslim women who self-identify as men be permitted to prostrate themselves in the men’s hall of the local mosque? If Justin Welby decides to self-identify as a woman, does he become the first female Archbishop of Canterbury? Can he be fully woman-bishop with a penis; two Hypostases in one Ousia? If a married Roman Catholic self-identifies as the opposite gender(/sex) 30 years after their wedding, is the couple thereby automatically divorced if there are no valid canonical grounds for annulment (ie, that this is genuine transgender maturity; the original consent was never defective)? These might seem like highly improbable metaphysical questions, which some might term transphobic absurdities, but transgender self-identification raises serious theological questions with which all religions will have to grapple.

Yet the searching questions of gender identity aren’t metaphysical for those who are genuinely transgender. The intersexed patently exist; hermaphrodites blow dimorphic universality and binary sex out of the water. ‘Male and female created he them; and blessed them‘, and then He went and allowed the emergence of ambiguous genitalia, genetic idiosyncrasies, chromosomal spectrums and hormonal confusions, all of which conspire to create a myriad of variations of biological sex urges and societal manifestations of gender dysphoria: natural physical behaviours combined with mental-health disorders. Heterosexuality may be the procreative norm, but there’s an awful lot of messy biological and societal transactions going on within and around God’s perfection.

The Conservative task is to recognise the reality and to ensure that state regulation is proportionate and the bureaucracy defined and limited. The Christian task is to be compassionate and loving, merciful and kind. Five digits on one hand may be God’s prescribed anatomical ideal, but those who have the prenatal printing for four or six are still searching for a soulmate to touch. And those who lose a digit or two postnatally can still point to a destiny. What constraints should there be on those who were born that way in nature, or made that way by nurture or circumstance?

It is patently absurd, not to say demeaning and distressing, that some ad hoc gender recognition committee should sit in judgment to certify what those who are transgendered already know themselves to be. It is bureaucratic, not to say exasperating and humiliating, that the transgendered are presently forced to live for an arbitrary period of two years as their new gender (/sex) in order to ‘make sure’ that that is what they are. They are being asked to prove their humanity; to test the core of their identity. The turmoil and emotional costs of current procedures are considerable:

We have had, for example, a young person in their early 20s who has not yet had any sexual relationships being forced to decide and state categorically whether or not they want genital surgery and being questioned over the fact that initially they wanted breast augmentation but then grew breasts through hormone treatment. Panels have been incredibly pedantic about any perceived inconsistencies in the medical reports, which means that people end up extremely upset and feel really invalidated.

No wonder so many contemplate killing themselves. Yet it is curious that the skeletal anorexic who self-identifies as obese is viewed as someone who needs mental healing, but the gender-dysphoric man who self-identifies as a woman is deemed to have a mental disorder which needs consummating.

But it’s probably transphobic to go there.

The Conservative and Christian response to gender dysphoria hardly needs reiterating: compassion must flow in order to mitigate suffering. Why compound the hate, cruelty and discrimination so many already experience with overbearing state regulation and bureaucracy?

But surely transgender self-identification is three steps too far? Is there not some organic, incremental via media between the invasive medical inquisition of the gender recognition panel and the seismic revolution of universal transgender self-identification?

“How an individual presents themselves is really up to them,” is what Maria Miller told the Times. What happens to feminism if being female is simply a matter of a man choosing to present himself as a woman? What happens to racial equality if white people may present themselves as black? What happens to racial profiling or crime stats? What happens to the Paralympics if the able bodied may present themselves as physically disabled? What happens to abortion if a legal advocate may argue that the disabled baby in the womb might self-identify as physically perfect? What happens to the Equality Act’s protected characteristics if they are henceforth literally in the minds of participant individuals? Will it be a ‘hate crime’ to insist that a self-identifying man is really a woman?

Transgender self-definition will open a Pandora’s Box of identity delusions and infallible feelings. It might even permit liberals and libertarians to self-identify as conservatives, and who knows to what Dystopia that might lead?

  • David

    “How an individual presents themselves is really up to them” says Maria Miller.
    Is it ?
    Yes this is what a society drenched in post-modern assumptions would have us believe, isn’t it ? But what of the responsibility of the individual and the state to first carefully weigh and ponder the consequences of such unfettered changes of self-identification ? And if feelings and impressions are everything, in a fact free post-modern world, what about the feelings of those who feel threatened or intimidated ? Certainly if I was a woman expected to shower or change my clothes in the close proximity of a person who until last week ‘presented’ as a man, I would more than likely feel intimidated and compromised. Some men may feel the same.
    The problem with prioritising feelings over all else, regardlessly and recklessly, as our ‘Conservative’ politicians propose, is that regardless of your feelings, the facts still exist and will, and swiftly too, come back to bite you.
    This is all of course a never ending £ bonanza for a certain cynical type of ‘Rights’ lawyers.
    However one good thing has already come out of this nonsense. For I am now quite sure that I have, at last, a form grasp on understanding May’s new approach to creating new policies – it is undoubtedly to out -Marxist the cultural Marxists !

    • Dominic Stockford

      “How an individual presents themselves is really up to them” says Maria Miller.”

      I’m going to do it, I’m going to be honest and open with you all. Even though I’ve been fighting this for many years, time of denial and pretence as I put myself forward as being me, it has finally come to a head. I now present myself as Maria Miller.

      The bank teller didn’t believe me though. 🙁

      • Bruce Atkinson

        I appreciate your honesty. Not everyone can be Maria Miller.

  • disqus_N9Jawtu8Uw

    Already we have women athletes being defeated by men thinking they are women (e.g. the New Zealand wrestler and the USA runner).

    Therefore a very clear message is being sent out by the government that women athletes are completely and totally wasting their time and lives even bothering to train and compete against others when those others can be male who only think they are women.

    This suggestion by a Tory government is truly misguided. It shows deep, deep hatred of women.
    Hence Germaine Greer and Dame Jenny Murray and others pointing out that men can’t just think they are women and yet being horribly and unjustifiable vilified for such comments.

    In a 2013 interview with David Letterman the top womans’ tennis star Serena Williams said, “If I were to play Andy Murray I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe ten minutes… The men are a lot faster and they serve harder, they hit harder, it’s just a different game”.

    Billie Jean King, herself one of the game’s greats and a feminist icon, agreed with Serena. She only differed by saying that Serena might do a little better than just being in the men’s top 700. King repeated McEnroe’s point that the two games are vastly different and that neither Serena or any other woman could compete with the men. ‘We don’t have the androgen the guys have, we don’t have testosterone, (men) have bigger hearts… Physically there’s no question’.

    Williams and King were clearly right and their statements were rooted in undeniable physical facts. Most popular sports rely on physical strength and dexterity, and despite what progressives might wish men and women differ physically. In sports, such as many of the equestrian events, which do not rely so much on physical strength men and women compete equally. John McEnroe agrees with them and is currently under attack.

    Yet all three are being attacked by the transgender fans without any rational justification.

    How can the government support such absolute misogyny? It shows deep, deep hatred of women. The Women’s Minister, Justine Greening needs to resign.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Where they’re coming from is: if everything is a personal lifestyle choice (ultra-individualism) then why shouldn’t people freely choose their gender? Interestingly, this gender ideology completely supercedes and nullifies feminism as HG indicates. But then, feminism is sooo 20th century. The remaking of society by radicals was never supposed to stop there and transgenderism is the latest frontier in the destruction of all normative boundaries.

    • Anton

      Serena could make the point by actually playing Andy Murray. Whether the result would be win/win or lose/lose depends whether you are of the “born this way” view or not. Which perhaps explains why she hasn’t done.

      Let us not waste sympathy on Germaine Greer for being attacked by transes. She patently hates men and she once okayed FGM on cultural grounds. She is getting what she deserves.

  • Dolphinfish

    Hey, it works in Canada. I think…

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGpZSefYvwM

    • Merchantman

      But hey for how long? In my book Canada is in existential danger of destroying itself.

      • If we elect Photobomb Justin one more time, we’ll tank the economy, wear dresses and turn into a province of Syria.

    • IanCad

      Infinity upticks if I could for you my man!!!! No!! I can’t say that. Fish may choose as well. Shark or sardine.

    • Wow! Looks like the Toronto Service Ontario head office I have to go to for the third time with my daughter and a folder full of documentation so she can get her health card renewed…and Lauren becomes a guy in ten minutes!

  • Notforinfants

    Given that only about 1 in 10,000 adult natal males and 1 in 30,000 adult natal females meet the criteria for gender dysphoria, one has to ask why confused people like Miller, Greening, and a collective Tory government need to intervene at all in what is clearly a medical condition, and one therefore not requiring political intervention – let alone another tranche of impenetrable law making.

    This will indeed open what you so aptly describe as “a Pandora’s box of identity delusions”, and the stench is already overpowering. Given the trickle and then a floodtide of multiple gender based litigation coming down the road, and the massive political fall-out which all this will generate amongst conservative Conservatives, (leave aside the rest of the country) then one can only gape, once again, at Theresa May’s extraordinary naivete.

    But the reality will never change, and how refreshing for Christians to remind themselves of the words of Jesus quoted – “‘Male and female created he them; and blessed them‘,

    • IanCad

      Not in any way questioning your statistics – although I’m surprised how few have a gender dysphoria – but could you kindly provide a link for reference. It would be a great help.

      • Graham Wood

        Christian medical fellowship

      • ecclesiaman

        There was an excellent article by a US consultant specialist in this area in the Christianity Today magazine last year? I think Sonoview’s first 2 points agreed with the specialist.

  • bluedog

    Are we there now? Very nearly, dear.

    Things can scarcely get more silly, can they? Having dismantled sexual identity, one trusts that the progressives will move on to the identity implicit in age. If one wants to self-identitify as infantile, why shouldn’t one? Government ministers seem to be setting the precedent of doing so both effortlessly and daily.

  • Sarky

    Soooo..As the army are trying to boost the number of women and minority recruits, if someone was to identify as black and female would this go towards fulfilling the quota??

    Im pretty liberal, but even i can see that this is now getting bloody ridiculous.
    The problem is that this turns people against the very small percentage of people who genuinely do feel trapped in the wrong body and that is sad and a shame.

    • carl jacobs

      No, a white man can’t self-identify as black. That would be stealing the oppression of another. There are definitive ideological limits to self-identification. That’s how ridiculous this is. You can’t change an incidental such as race but you can change an essential such as gender.

      • Sarky

        Ha ha i did slip in the race thing to see if anyone noticed.
        Self identification but without treading on another persecuted minorities toes. Do these people not realise that they are destroying any sympathy people might have by making themselves look ridiculous?

      • Dominic Stockford

        But there is a white woman in the UK who has self-identified as black…..

        • Sarky

          No, shes american.

  • Anton

    Were the NHS to be privatised…

  • Anton

    Can one now have one’s age removed from one’s birth certificate and self-identify as whatever age one prefers according to convenience?

    • Dreadnaught

      Lying about ones age is nothing new – I had my first pint at sixteen and my mum was never over 30!

  • SonoView

    There are broadly three categories covered by the term “transgender”.

    1. Young people with acute gender dysphoria (gender identity disorder). This condition manifests as acute anxiety associated with feelings that they are in the wrong body and can lead to depression, self-harming and even suicide. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) lists this as a definite mental condition, but it is very uncommon.

    2. Young people who experience gender confusion as they pass through puberty. This is not a mental condition and the vast majority of teenagers will revert to their biological identity once through puberty.

    3. So-called “gender fluidity”. This is not a condition but is an ideology based on no evidence of any sort, where people believe that their gender can change as they chose – that they can self-identify.

    It is important to recognise these distinctions. The first group need urgent psychological treatment. The second group need support and advice. The third group need a dose of reality!

    In the report of the parliamentary sub committee last year into transgenderism these distinctions were completely blurred and consequently the “report” largely meaningless. The parliamentary debate that followed earlier this year was dreadful. It was not a debate – there was no challenge or questioning of any sort, merely a (very small) bunch of politicians virtue signalling about how pro-equality ad diversity they were.

    The fact that so few even bothered to turn up for the debate is an indicator of how they regard the issue.

    • Dreadnaught

      Excellent summary.

    • Inspector General

      There is a fourth category. The so-called ‘gay cure’ as it stands at the moment. Encouraged in Arab lands as the Koran has nothing to say about transgender, so these people actually get to live. The Iran women’s football team had eight examples not so long ago.

      With your third category, you’ll be hard pressed to find any tranny extolling so called gender-fluidity. It’s not what they are about. One wing of homosexuality does wish to break down gender barriers as far as they will break (the pan-sexuals), but it’s not this crowd. Far from it. They are laydees and wish to be treated as such (to the extent that they couldn’t possibly use anything other than real woman’s rest rooms. Certainly NOT the ‘disabled cupboard’ – the very idea!)

      One is informed that around 7% of UK MPs identify as LGBT. That’s twice the accepted population. Not sure this parliament, but last parliament they had a great idea of being photographed together. Not sure if in entirety, but there was quite a crowd pictured. Can we make an assumption that these democratic representatives are in reality homosexuals first, and party members second?

      • alternative_perspective

        Lumping all groups together isn’t very helpful but it helps to inflate the figures I suppose and win greater acceptance….

    • IanCad

      Thanks!! Very clear and concise. C&P’d, and filed away for later use.

    • bosco49

      Here are the words of Our Savior Himself:

      “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Mark 10:6 (ref. Matthew 19:4, and Gen. 5:2)

      The ramifications following from suggesting the Jesus was in error are untenable. Cannot blood tests determine the chromosomal identity of individuals at birth?

  • Anton

    What is truth, asked Pilate.

    • carl jacobs

      “I am truth. Want to make something of it?” answered modern man.

      • Anton

        Indeed, and modern man will find out the hard way.

  • ecclesiaman

    Oh what a tangled web we weave etc., .
    The proverb says it’s deception that tangles. It normally means lies or fraudulent deliberate misrepresentation. In the case under discussion the Frank Sinatra song comes to mind, i.e. “Anything goes”. The lyric has the words, “Black’s white today…!” How prescient. HG has put the situation clearly. Will our parliamentary representatives be prepared to honestly address this? I think the man on the Clapham omnibus will expect no less, no matter whether he votes or not! I anticipate we all agree with Sarky, I do.

    • carl jacobs

      I anticipate we all agree with Sarky, I do.

      Cranmer’s weblog has officially been turned upside down.

      • Sarky

        Its about time it was the right way round.

      • ecclesiaman

        Not sure what you mean. Please excuse my ignorance. If you mean Sarky misinterpreted HG I did not notice that. I agreed with his main point that matters were getting b… ridiculous.
        I accept sonoview’s points 1 and 2 but there are some individuals who claim (for whatever reason) to be in the wrong body. That has to be some kind of psychiatric problem.
        Sonoview’s point 3 is not the same as the point I am making.

        • carl jacobs

          Sorry. It wasn’t so much what Sarky said but the idea that we should all agree with him. Sarky is a notorious ne’er-do-well on Cranmer’s. Complete with atheist opinions and a shocking set of tattoos. We do our best to help him but he is stiff-necked. Our last resort might be to send him to Canada as tough love.

          • ecclesiaman

            I had noticed Sarky’s atheistic views but maybe he will appreciate areas of common ground? I am amazed that on a blog people seem to know so much about each other! He might be in a majority when it comes to tattoos? (In society, not on the ABC blog!) There is plenty of good stuff to read on the web for people of his religious persuasion to change their minds. He might appreciate some C.S. Lewis but there is much else. Let’s hope some of the contributions from HG plus comments will be of eternal profit. The chaos that we find the world in will definitely cause many to find what the real truth is.

  • Anton

    This is “the sexuality of where I’m coming from”.

  • Anton

    Can one self-identify as pregnant?

    • Sarky

      Trying to explain away the beer gut are we?

      • David

        Sneaky but amusing !

    • David

      If the gestation period stretches beyond your own lifespan I don’t see any problem. After all, it is simply about what you feel – ignore reality !

      • Dominic Stockford

        When I was at University on a Social Work course (don’t worry, I found the course very difficult and they only passed me under protest…) I was badly treated by a ‘practice teacher’. In discussion with a tutor I was asked whether I had been bullied – I and the other student hesitated, but were then told that ‘If you feel you have been bullied then you have been.’ We both believed it to be tosh, but knew that this practice teacher wasn’t helpful, so we both agreed, yes we felt that. It did the trick and another extreme feminist was removed from the social work teaching process.

        • Translation: you told a wilful lie.

        • Cressida de Nova

          You are a very nasty misogynist without an inkling of Christianity or humanity. You boast about getting someone fired on false pretence?

  • Mrs S wilson

    I read somewhere that the actual number of genuine intersex babies born is something like 0.04%, which is hardly enough to “blow binary sex out of the water”. Also, is this not another result of the Fall, and therefore not God’s original intention? Certainly Christians should have compassion for all in this situation, which is different from transgenderism. I have read that in the past, obstetricians based the sex on someone like this to the best of their ability, so it is possible they got it wrong at times, but it does not therefore mean that everyone who simply “feels” they are in the wrong body should be given hormones etc. Common sense dictates that like anorexics, as you say, they should be treated for an illness in the mind rather than a physical problem. People are jumping on the LGBT+++ bandwagon as an ideology, not for factual reasons, and while we feel compassion for all who suffer like this, we cannot and must not go down the road we are headed for at present without a huge increase in problems such as those mentioned above in your article.

    • magnolia

      Exceptional cases have always been held to make very bad law. These days people seem to call for laws from exceptional cases the whole time, with the majority becoming more confused, unhappy, fearful and disillusioned by the day. Some people will have to account in the next life for sowing all this unhappiness into most people’s lives for the sake of a very small confused cohort.

    • Excellent comment, and more astute than Cranmer’s overly generous analysis of transgenderism.

  • John

    It is a very serious matter that this nonsense is being so mindlessly championed by Conservatives. They are alienating their core supporters by colonising the territory of the Loony Left and it lose them the next election. People point at Corbyn and say “be careful what you wish for” but frankly I can’t tell the difference.

  • CliveM

    I don’t really get this self identification. I feel me. Me happens to be male, so I assume what I feel is what it feels to be male. But I have no independent measure to base this on.

    What if I’m wrong? How would I know? I can’t plug into someone else’s masculinity and say ‘yes that’s how I feel’!

    When I was a child I just was. I didn’t think ‘Yes I identify as a boy’! I was to busy playing to care. So how come we now have (allegedly) children identifying as a different sex? How would they (or any of us) know what a different sex feels?

    Confused ? Darn righ I am!

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Please refrain from feeling yourself in public, dear Clive. I have horses, and I don’t want them frightening…

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        And definitely don’t try plugging in to someone else’s masculinity…you could get a black eye.

  • Anton

    If “male” and “female” are not to be defined by genes or by physiology, what are they defined by? Somebody with an XY genotype having a penis and testes who self-identifies as female needs to define “female”, or else no statement has been made. This is a basic point of logic and has nothing to do with any moral argument.

    • CliveM

      Yes what identifies them as women? Liking for dresses? Makeup? Sherry? High heeled shoes?

      Of course you’d get into trouble if you suggested it to a real woman!

      • carl jacobs

        You are defined by an explicit act of self-creation. You are what you say you are. Any resistance constitutes oppression.

        But only you have the authority to create yourself. If some external agent (say the Church) suggests that you should be other than what you present, then that agent has usurped your authority even if you agree with it. This is why gay conversion therapy must be rejected. It’s not about a gay man becoming straight. It’s about delegitimizing the authority by which he makes the decision.

        The basis of modern culture is autonomy, and the basic logic of autonomy demands the boundaries be equated with oppression. Human will must overcome boundaries.

        • CliveM

          So it’s not the pretty frocks?

          • carl jacobs

            Only in Scotland. But I thought you called them kilts?

          • CliveM

            So you think kilts are pretty? Hmmmmm……………….!

          • He was probably raised on a diet of Brigadoon.

          • carl jacobs

            Never heard of it. Is it edible? Or is it haggis?

          • ALL Americans have heard of Brigadoon.

          • carl jacobs

            You know. I’ve been pondering this question because I did have a vague memory of it.

            When iI was in elementary school (more properly called grade school) every year I got a little catalog of books for purchase from some group or other. One year, Brigadoon was one of the books in one of those catalogues. I remember it because it sounded sort of military but then I found it wasn’t so I didn’t order it.

          • Come on Carl. Bit early for dementia!

        • Anton

          Autonomy or anatomy?

  • saintmark

    Will this be the end of women’s sport(and men’s) if a male tennis player has the op can they enter the women’s competition? Will they be allowed to enter if they just self-identify as a woman?

    • magnolia

      Yes, but genuine women won’t have any rights of victimhood- and rights of victimhood are all in all- as women’s sports are dismantled because they aren’t a sufficient minority. The majority must suffer endlessly for the tiny minority; it is the new fairness, you see.

  • David

    Am I hoping for too much if I said that this latest nonsense will finally cause the hitherto all too malleable public to reject all this identity politics nonsense ?
    Surely no sane mature person can buy into this dangerous fantasy ?

    Finally, Mrs May’s latest garbage has confirmed me in deciding to continue supporting Ukip, even with all their leadership problems, as they are the only political player that has retained a normal, sane approach. They still believe that a government’s policies should be for the overall good of the nation, and not just pandering to ever tinier minorities, in this case of questionable sanity.

    • I am still a member of UKIP purely because I forgot to cancel my standing order. The Party has been such a shambles since Farage’s resignation that I thought it not worth bothering with.
      However, that little piece of providence means that I still get the various communications, and if they can get their act together at Torquay in September, I shall be fully back onside.

      • David Kurten and David Coburn are two contenders for leadership.
        Anne Marie Waters is too one dimensional.

        • Inspector General

          David Coburn is the man we want, Marie. He loathes Reds and Militant LGBT. And the latter crowd hate him in return. He’s also a homosexual, but that’s neither here nor there for him as a politician and citizen. How it should be!

          • I know he’s a homosexual, he doesn’t make a fuss of it though. He gets on with taking the EU to task. I like him too, he’s got a wonderful speaking voice. The Russians like him.

    • Inspector General

      David, this fellow before you can hardly believe that after Cameron’s deceit with SSM, the Conservative’s are continuing along same path. So UKIP it is then next time. One likes to hold his head up high after voting, you know!

  • Don Benson

    In 2014 Maria Miller had to resign in disgrace from the cabinet because she had been caught fiddling her expenses. Her apology to the House of Commons lasted a notorious 32 seconds. Throughout she never lost David Cameron’s support, perhaps due to her energy in driving through the ‘Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013’. In 2015 and 2017 the good people of Basingstoke gallantly overlooked her crookedness and returned her as their MP. She now chairs the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

    So what has this got to do with anything? Very simply: honesty. If politicians and people set no store by honesty they are setting no store by truth. And if truth has no value then rational thought cannot have it either. And if we have no interest in conducting ourselves through rational thought we must expect our society to descend into nihilistic chaos. Today we seem to be rushing towards that horror with exponentially increasing speed; our own Church of England, instead of calling the nation to repent (turn back), is rushing along with the crowd.

    We may laugh and have a bit of fun with this nonsense. I suggest we get on our knees and pray, if not for ourselves, at least for our children whose future we adults are destroying.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The box of contradictions has already been opened. The legal status of those in marriage is significantly different between ‘same-sex’ marriages and [yes, I thought hard, and I’m going to say it] normal man/woman marriages. That too pertains to the physical – specifically to do with adultery and consummation. This is simply ‘another’ step along that road.

  • A glimpse of the future:

    A parent who identifies as “non-binary” requested and received a government health card for her child with gender marked “U,” presumably for “unknown” or “unspecified” rather than “M” or “F.”

    As a non-binary person, the child’s mom, Kori Doty, asks to be referred to as “they” instead of “he” or “she,” and so the non-conforming plural pronoun usage can make a recent press release and news reporting a little difficult to navigate.

    There is no indication anywhere of Kori Doty’s actual gender. However, since Doty gave birth to a child, she’s clearly a biological female. Such presumptions may prove difficult in the future with recent claims that doctors hope to do womb transplants for biological men in the next decade.

    Doty, who gave birth to Searyl Atli, sports a mustache and stubble and wants the child’s gender to be undeclared on all government documents until the child has “the sense of self and command of vocabulary to tell me who they are.”

    In a statement released to the press, Doty said,“I do not gender my child. It is up to Searyl to decide how they identify, when they are old enough to develop their own gender identity. I am not going to foreclose their choices based on an arbitrary assignment of gender at birth based on an inspection of their genitals.”

    The child has been denied a birth certificate so far. While born in British Columbia, the birth took place outside of the medical system and so there was no “genital inspection” at birth. Currently, a birth certificate cannot be issued without that information.

    Doty has sought a judicial review of the denial by the vital Statistics Agency, arguing that “requiring a gender marker on a birth certificate amounts to a violation of Searyl’s rights as a Canadian citizen to life, liberty and security of the person, to freedom of expression, and to equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

    So while the government has issued a medical card with no indication of the child’s gender, a battle still looms on the status of the yet to issued birth certificate.

    As a non-binary activist, Doty’s website says “their” goal is “to incite revolution through imagination and play” by:

    Offering online learning opportunities for queer folks looking to dismantle toxic mythologies

    Offering in person accessible learning opportunities for my community, both in the West Kootenays and across the Pacific West Coast of Turtle Island

    Offering adult sex-ed parties

    Being available as a coach for folks needing support through transitions (gender or otherwise)

    Hosting my weekly radio show on harm reduction

    Writing on my blog about any and all topics related to my love and work in the world

    According to RT (Russia Today), “Some precedent on the issue has already been set in other parts of Canada: Alberta allows people to put an ‘X’ as a gender marker on birth certificates and other government documents, while Ontario offers gender-neutral health cards and driver’s licences, and plans to extend this to birth certificates next year.”

    Doty’s attorney, barbara findlay (who does not use capital letters in her name), has said the issuance of a gender neutral health card will most likely serve as an important precedent in seeking a gender neutral birth certificate for the child.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parent-pursues-gender-unknown-birth-certificate-for-their-child

    Total insanity!

    • All those pushing this harmful, detrimental nonsense need to be arrested and jailed for perverting the course of humanity.

      • Martin

        Marie

        As Mr Growser would say “it ought not to be allowed”.

        (I may be revealing my age here)

      • Their eternal fate will be far worse if they persist with this madness. Pray for them. Where in God’s name are the leaders of our Christian Churches? Silence in the face of this diabolic hedonistic narcissism is a dereliction of one’s duty to the Gospel and to Christ.

    • As the gamekeeper of the blog, Jack …or is it jack now…what have you done to Linus? He’d be all over a topic like this.

      • The name’s Jack, Happy Jack.

        • Martin

          shaken not stirred?

          • Never shaken but partial to a bit of stirring from time to time.

      • Inspector General

        Avi. It pleases an Inspector to imagine Linus in throbbing pain, curled up in his bed in the recovery position…

        • Now, now, Inspector, I reaize you’ve to deal with him, but as long as he’s hale and hearty in the end. Every blog needs a Linus although, for some reason, he doesn’t seem to like me much.

          • Inspector General

            That’s the phrase Avi, “throbbing end”

      • Hi Avi,

        Linus already did have something to say to me at length in his typical verbose style ,on the previous thread this week’s Mrs P post , about this topic.

        • Hi Hanna, ah, good, everything’s normal then. See ya after tisha b’av and have an easy fast!

    • Lucius

      New York City now identifies 31 protected “genders.” The “future” is today.

      https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_Card2015.pdf

      • Royinsouthwest

        Perhaps the Mayor of London can prove that London is the real global city by “Trumping” that with 32 genders. It might upset his co-religionists, however, or they might simply regard it as even more evidence that the West is decadent.

  • magnolia

    His Grace has asked too many questions for people like Maria Miller. There are probably only about three “relevant” ultra trendy questions that they can process….though that might be charitably overstating it. Too many questions and they cry ” set up” with a whirring noise.

    They have absolutely no answer to the women who are scared of male rapists dressing up as women and claiming transgender rights to use the ladies. Quite frankly they are a pain anyway as the ladies already has way over 50% of the population since babies and young boys use it too, and it is frequently overcrowded with long queues. But more importantly is this rape question, and I encountered this 30 odd years ago in a workplace where a bearded man suddenly decided he would “become” a woman and started using the ladies and selfishly scaring people silly and inhibiting usual conversations.

    It is usually immediately obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of skeletal proportions who is faking what, so people need telling that- they can only pass off as the opposite gender to the poorly sighted, the ignorant, those who don’t really care, and those who are unobservant. “Be ye therefore perfect” becomes an even more unattainable theological precept.

  • Inspector General

    You had an Inspector laughing today, Cranmer, describing Miller’s cognitive abilities. Women are not noted for deep thought, and never will be. Science tells us their (smaller) brains are not wired for that. They do however place great store in something called ‘intuition’. Whatever that is. That’s why they make bloody awful Ministers of the Crown, and when you get several girl ministers together (and Greenings around somewhere), all hell breaks loose, as this tranny fiasco all too clearly confirms.

    Similar madness awaits for the Church of England. The current crop of bishopettes, all feminists, at least by influence, will blow Christ’s legacy up just as surely as any terrorist bomb would do the same to St Pauls. And there will be more of them as the years go by…

    Little opportunity for laughter then, what!

    By the way. Did you know that Worldwide Big Gay are badgering the World Health Organisation to strike off transgenderism as a psychosis? It’s true! When last reported at PN, those concerned were very hopeful their will be done. Best add the perverting of science to the list of crimes as perverting reality and conspiracy to impersonate the opposite sex.

    • Martin

      IG

      To be fair, the size of a brain has no relevance to reasoning ability.

      • Inspector General

        Has everything to do with the evolution of mankind over 2 million years, but then Martin, you don’t do evolution…

        • carl jacobs

          No, he doesn’t. Please make sure you remain firmly in the Evolutionary Camp, Inspector. You are a great asset to the cause.

          • Inspector General

            Ah, if it isn’t the burning cross of American Christianity…

          • carl jacobs

            I give you a compliment, and this is the thanks I get.

          • Inspector General

            White man speak with forked tongue. Now, where’s one’s fire water got to…

          • carl jacobs

            And here I was just beginning to comprehend the benefits of Higher Understanding to the Evolutionary Apologetic. Now I’m all confused.

          • Thank goodness, Anglo-American amity and comity is still going strong. Warms the cockles of my heart.

          • “Now I’m all confused.”
            Now?

          • carl jacobs

            I also find invaluable the Inspector’s contribution to Roman Catholic apologetics.

          • That’s akin to saying Justine Greening’s exposition of Conservatism is authentic.

          • carl jacobs

            Look up, Jack. The point is passing over your head at 30,000 ft.

          • One has to protect the innocent reader who may be confused by your unkind endorsement of the Inspector’s religio-dysphoria resulting in him self-identifying as a Catholic.

          • carl jacobs

            If the Inspector fits …

          • Hi

            Is fire water your special drink in the ‘higher understanding ‘ sect?

          • Martin

            Carl

            Are you sure about that?

          • carl jacobs

            Absolutely! He and his 17 lb brain are among the best allies the Truth could possess.

          • Inspector General

            Right then, you two. As a special treat tonight, and one hopes you are both sitting four square on your botty, here comes the snake. So prepare to boo…

            (Yes, grownups. It’s the Inspector’s arm up some woollen thing some old lady knitted, but don’t tell young Carl and Martin)

          • carl jacobs

            Umm … Could someone provide a translation for the poor American? Martin? Jack? Clive? Somebody?

          • CliveM

            Tbh I’m not entirely sure myself. I had assumed it was all part of his higher knowledge (or drink)! Either way it does NOT sound fun.

          • “Botty” for “bottom,” which you Yanks perverted to “booty.” The Inspector wants to entertain you two with a sock snake puppet; the Brits like scaring the blue devil out of their kids. Builds character when it works, makes Linuses when it doesn’t….

          • Martin

            Carl

            You’re not being a little rude about him, are you?

            Never mind, he’s wittering on & will never notice,

          • carl jacobs

            Not at all. I’m paying him a compliment.

        • Martin

          IG

          It’s one of the fallacies they always come up with when examining hominids, rather demonstrates the lack of a science base to Evolution.,

      • Sarky

        I think you might find you’re the exception.

    • magnolia

      I have a vision of you going to look for the biggest brain to question. At 17 pounds that will be the sperm whale, just about right for your converse there. His brain will be 5 to 6 times your size. I hope you are impressed. You can boom sonically at each other. Or the elephant has quite a good sized brain. Then Neanderthal man had a bigger size brain than you; sure you could learn something there.

      Meanwhile back at the human species, the intuitive faculty, spoken of as N in Myers Briggs is neither male nor female, but spread across humans; charismatic churches would probably have many of this type, and they tend to attract men and women equally, unlike the drier more rational places which have a prepondrance of women. On the thinking-feeling continuum women tend to be more in the middle and men to be either on one side or the other.

      But why let quantities of studies and accurate observations get in the way of a slew of Hollywood prejudices and favourite assertions?

      • Inspector General

        You ladies are rather good at juggling many things at once, so don’t complain. Men can’t do that. Just one task for them at any one time. They do it very well, though…

        • Happy Jackie

          One thing at a time is good enough for Jackie, Inspector. What is your specialty?

      • IrishNeanderthal

        And he doesn’t seem to have read Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon, where the Great Brains collapsed under their own weight.

        • Anton

          Cracking read!

      • Royinsouthwest

        Sperm whale? What a sexist name! Why should a female sperm whale be forced to identify as male, and what about those male sperm whales that want to identify as female?

    • HedgehogFive

      Maybe the reason the American psychologists declassified homosexuality was simply because they couldn’t treat it. Less to do with compassion and more they didn’t want to admit that it was outside their abilities.

      • Inspector General

        Good Grief! Any attempt at ‘treating’ homosexuality would incur the greatest of screaming outrage. By our own government among many others. That is how bad things are…

        The fact of the matter, unfortunate flea home, is that gay gangsters bully everyone not ‘on side’ and seek to wreck them professionally if they do not acquiesce to their way of thinking…

  • jsampson45

    “It might even permit liberals and libertarians to self-identify as
    conservatives, and who knows to what Dystopia that might lead?” – the point being, I guess, that they already do.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Was there any difference between David Cameron and Nick Clegg?

  • Susan Longley

    According to neo marxism gender is neo performative. What may I ask? Another notorious claim for so called “progressives” such as Judith Butler. See:

    A Canadian psychologist working from a Jungian perspective and in opposition, Jordan Peterson. See:
    c2cjournal.ca‎

  • IrishNeanderthal

    This article seems right to the point: Wisdom vs. compassion

  • Mike Stallard

    I know a soldier who worked in an office with a sergeant who was chaning from a man to a woman.
    His comment? “He was changing from a remarkably ugly man into a remarkably ugly woman.”

    • Linus

      At least he recognized the individual’s right to change.

      In any case, under Trump’s new rules, he won’t have to put up with this “remarkably ugly” person for much longer. She’ll be out on her ear because your president doesn’t want trans people in the army any more. Well, unless the Supreme Court overturns yet another of his executive orders, of course.

      It must be so frustrating being a president who can’t actually do anything. Except fire his own staff on a weekly basis…

      • Martin

        It isn’t a question of ‘right’ it’s a question of ability, and clearly no one is able.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Oh dear Clive, I have upset you…not my intention, was just being jocular! Much love…and hobnobs!

    • CliveM

      I’m hurt, cut to the bone. I need chocolate hobnobs!

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Then you shall have them, and I will send Mr Slope to massage your ego…

  • Hi,

    With all this gender fluids , I’m self identifying as a liquid life of the Omarion Nebula and as one of founders of the Dominion. What’s cool is that i can shape shift from liquid to anything else i.e. a Changeling. Now I’m off to conquer the alpha quadrant, as is my human right, with my trusty Jem Hadar & Vorta. All hail the conquering Dominion!

    • Linus

      Go ahead and self-identify as whatever you like, but legal recognition of that identity will only be extended to categories known to the law.

      Such categories will probably include gender, race, sexual orientation and perhaps different types of ability/disability.

      Identification as a fictional species won’t be accorded legal recognition, although personally I’d be perfectly happy to recognise you as Dominion, or Klingon, or a Hobbit, or whatever. It’s no skin off my nose if you want to live in a fantasy world, although I draw the line if that fantasy involves you doing harm to others.

      I don’t make the law however. So even though I may call you by your Dominion name and use whatever passes for an appropriate pronoun for a Changeling when referring to you, that won’t mean the law will extend the same recognition to you.

      If you want legal recognition, you’ll have to campaign for it. If you can win enough public sympathy for your cause to convince politicians that supporting you would help them get elected, then they may decide to change the law and recognise your alien identity. But until that happens, you’ll still be a common, garden human. If that thought distresses you, tough luck I’m afraid.

      • Happy Jackie

        Will you marry Jackie, Linus? One is all woman – but has retained all her bits, which is fully functioning until she has completed her transition. Think of the fun we could have. You can help Jackie choose her new bespoke equipment too.

        • Linus

          I’m already married and as I have no wish to divorce and the law doesn’t allow bigamy, I have no plans to marry anyone else.

          If I were single and looking for a spouse however, a morbidly obese hepatitis victim probably wouldn’t be my first choice. Go on a diet and get that virus taken care of and you might find someone willing to take you on.

          • Happy Jackie

            …. but Jackie is in love with you, Linus. Can’t she move in with you and your partner?

          • Linus

            Upon my return this weekend, my housekeeper informed me that our Albanian char has handed in her notice and intends to take early retirement after 20 years of devoted and loyal service.

            There’s a position open if you’re interested. I pay well, although I expect hard work in return.

            If you can provide good references and have at least some rudiments of French, send in your application. If it’s accepted, you’ll then have the pleasure of scrubbing the flagstones I walk across every day on may way from my apartments to the reception areas of the house.

            It’s the closest we’ll ever get to physical contact, I can assure you. But something tells me you won’t get the job. Weighing upwards of 250 pounds and struggling with the debilitating effects of liver disease would make you unsuitable for such physically demanding work.

      • Anton

        Is truth decided by law?

        • Linus

          No, truth is decided by you. It must be. You invented god after all.

          Don’t claim you knew nothing about it. It’s written in black and white in the bible. You know, that bit where your arm is stuck up the rear end of the sock puppet you call Jesus and your fingers move his lips to make him say “I am the way, the truth and the life”.

          We all know who the puppet master is. One wonders why you even bother with the puppet.

          • Anton

            Truth is greater than you, me or the law.

          • Linus

            For you, truth is what you imagine it to be. Therefore it’s only as great as your imagination. In other words, not very…

          • Anton

            I can be right or wrong. You can be right or wrong. Relative to what? The truth, of course.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Pontius Pilate asked “What is truth?” because he did not have a clue. And even the law can be right or wrong because fallible people make the laws (with the exception of biblical laws).

            Relativists (most atheists) deny that any absolute truth exists. “Truth” is all relative and subjective. We each get to make up our “own truth.” But their arguments are patently illogical. They defend their views with absolute certainty– which of course is impossible if all is relative. And they all propose their favorite “right” (often a secular politically correct and antinomian) scheme— the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Their logic is not only circular, its trajectory is in a downward spiral.

          • Linus

            You can’t be wrong if you define the truth. Which is exactly what you do.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    I’m thinking of trans-pennine and trans-alpine…are the mountains changing too?

    • Inspector General

      If weak stock can drag the rest of us down, Mrs Proudie, then anything can happen in the future. Are we prepared for what might be as a result…

    • Sarky

      Not as much as the atlantic!!

    • There now both known as trans-penile

    • David

      Fortunately mountains only grow upwards imperceptibly slowly, as the tectonic plates are forced together, during orogeny. Then after peaking to their maximum height, they are eroded down again, but very, very slowly over aeons of time. The Pennines are well into their wearing down phase and the Alps are probably just past their maximum elevation.
      One wonders when the present madness will peak and die, and what will be left as detritus ? There will be undoubtedly great pain and suffering for many individuals caught up in this insanity, but what of our civilisation one wonders ? The left-liberal tendency is essentially suicidal.

      • Martin

        David

        You are assuming present rates of growth, and erosion is a lot faster than you seem to imagine.

        • Anton

          The Atlantic is slowly growing wider as lava is extruded from the mid-Atlantic ridge, and the fit of Africa to the Americas – which is obvious by eye, much better at continental shelf depth, and confirmed by strata on either side – shows that this growth can be extrapolated backwards.

          The present rate of widening is about one mile every 30,000 years, at which rate its present width would have taken tens of millions of years. The rate might be variable but there is no evidence that it has ever been remotely fast enough for the two continents to have been together a few thousand years ago.

          • Martin

            Anton

            But that extrapolation assumes a constant rate. The evidence that it was once much faster is given to us in the Bible, which gives us an approximate age of the Earth together with the description of a period when such a rapid rate of expansion could have occurred.

          • Anton

            You can’t say that the evidence is in the Bible and also say that it “could” have happened according to scripture. That is a misdefinition of “evidence”. If, moreover, it did happen, there would be very clear evidence in geology – but the evidence is to the contrary.

            It is perfectly possible to reconcile an old earth with Genesis without invoking myth. What is incompatible with geology is your *interpretation* of Genesis.

          • Martin

            Anton

            Nothing about geology is incompatible with my ‘interpretation’ of Genesis. Since the age of the Earth is known to be ~6000 years your extrapolation is clearly wrong, that is the evidence. That the Flood gives a window when this could have occurred is quite clear.

          • Anton

            The age of the earth is not known to be 6000 years. That comes from your interpretation of YOM as meaning 24 hours. It might mean ‘era’, as it must in Job 15:23 & 18:20. Last time we discussed this you correctly pointed out the “evening and morning” passage, but that is an interpretive translation of the Hebrew, which in the original pre-Masoretic language did not have the vowels included and could equally well mean “there was chaos and then there was order”.

          • Martin

            Anton

            That would mean the Sun was created millennia after plants and birds were created long before any land animal. Do you really want to claim that?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Where we easily go wrong in our hermeneutic efforts to interpret the early chapters of Genesis is with regard to the issue of time.
            Living simultaneously in the eternal past, present, and eternal future, God is not limited by our chronological, linear view of time. That is why God can easily prophesy. He knows exactly what has occurred in the past and what will occur in the future. He knows all the causes and effects. Exactly.

            And as the scriptures indicate, to God, “a thousand years is as a year and a year as a thousand years.”

            The issues of the limitations inherent in the human temporal measurement of time as well as getting the literary genre wrong (literate vs. metaphorical) can easily get in the way of our correct interpretation of passages such as the Genesis creation narratives.

            And we have no idea of whether the earth has sped up or slowed its rate of rotation (days) or its revolutions around the sun (years). These things could greatly
            change our concepts of time measurement with regard to cosmology and the ancient genesis of our planet Earth.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            It is a question of what God says about His creation. That’s why we care when. Harold Camping erred because he sought to work out something that we have been specifically told we cannot know, the second coming.

            Of course God is not limited by time, He created it. But when God describes what He did, when He did it and how long it took I think we should pay attention. I think the quote you are looking for is:

            But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (II Peter 3:8 [ESV])

            And Peter is not saying there that when God says something took a day He really means a thousand years. Peter is speaking of the second coming, how to us it may seem delayed, but God will bring it about in His good time.

            The literary genre of the whole of Genesis is clearly historical narrative. It gives details of who was born to who from Adam to Abraham. It also starts off with what is clearly intended to be read as the events of the first week.

            You say our measurement of time is defined by the Earth and the Sun. That is not strictly true, a day is defined by the period of rotation of the Earth. A day would still exist in the absence of the Sun. It has been suggested that God chose to create the Sun later in order for there to be no excuse to worship the Sun. I think that is an excellent point. Now when God uses a term such as day when writing to us, and deliberately structures His creation over six days I think He means us to think of them as six normal days. I think it was Augustine who pointed out that there was no restriction on how long God should take in His Creation. Such an act by God could have been instantaneous, so why quibble when He said He took six days?

            I suspect that your reason for questioning this period rest solely on the claims of men that the period must have been far longer. The problem with that viewpoint is that they have no way of knowing. Science has no means of determining the age of the Earth. As you pointed out, we have no means of measuring if Earth has changed it’s rate of rotation, although recent measurements show it to have slowed down. Nor can we tell what effects have changed the rate of radioactive decay over the lifetime of the Earth. Thus, we cannot by measurement and calculation, based on beliefs, tell how old the Earth is.

            So why not accept the word of the only one who actually knows, God?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The beginning of Genesis cannot be categorically and without question said to be in the genre of historical narrative. No human was there to provide historical evidence. God often speaks in metaphors and allegories (Jesus did much of His teaching in parables). You may prefer to think of these creation stories that literally, but I do not. While they are eminently true, these accounts of divine cosmology were never meant to be confined to the limits of human scientific thinking.

            A “day” to God is a discrete period of time, not limited to our human means of measurement.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            God was there, and it is God who tells us what He did. When God created He did so in a way that could be understood by Man. Without Genesis we cannot understand salvation.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            All we really need to know about the early Creation narratives are that God created the universe and did it with words. And then for salvation we need to know that the first humans sinned, that a result of that sin we live in a messed up (fallen) world and that all human beings carry sin-prone DNA. We cannot repair ourselves, and even the Law cannot do so. We needed (and still need) Jesus Christ to come from heaven and to die on the cross in order to pay for our sins, so that we could be forgiven and transformed, and thus return to that intimate love-relationship with our Maker as members of His divine family.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            So you are saying that we should ignore what God has said He did in Creation.

            For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
            (Exodus 20:11 [ESV])

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I don’t know how you got that, but no, that is not what I am saying. What I say is this: Listen closely to what God reveals in the scriptures, for it is all truth. Just get your genre correct and do not expect human sciences (and means of time measurement) to have the last word.

            Even Jesus changed the interpretation of what the Jews thought about the Sabbath. Certainly this occurred with the Apostles, so that the “eighth day” of Christ’s resurrection became more important than the day of rest. The Sabbath day between Good Friday and Easter was the essential day God rested. The Sabbath was always prophetic, looking forward to this day.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            Genesis is historical narrative, the first eleven chapters as much so as the rest. We have a description of what God has said He did.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            That God created the universe is not in question. However, the genre of the first chapters of Genesis is highly controversial. Such data was NOT historical in our normal sense of the word because no humans yet existed. Nothing was recorded at the time (obviously). Only much, much later was Moses given some essential basics about the events and they were not intended to be scientific facts according to human criteria. God is not required to adapt to our limited ways of knowing. Besides, He was speaking to the ancient Jews first (who had minimal science) and to us only secondarily.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            All it requires is for an observer to exist, and that observer was God. God’s narration of those events was for humans, indeed His actions in Creation were adapted for human understanding, so why should we not take what He says as a description of what happened? Why shouldn’t day mean a 24 hour day?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            As previous posts reveal, I actually DO believe God’s description. Rather than go into a deep, complex and impossible to understand treatise on cosmology and time, God chose to make His account understandable to human beings, even those pre-scientific peoples who first read what Moses wrote down. Since a “day” can be as a thousand years to God, it can also a million years, or whatever. He chose to use the this word “day” in Genesis to stand for a discrete period of time, and used it to describe periods of time that occurred even before there were measurable hours or before the sun was created. What it obviously means is that God created the universe in a developmental fashion, from the simple essentials to the more complex, and He did so in discrete periods of time (which He chose to call “days” to help the first listeners get the idea more easily).

            Come on! Don’t keep requiring God to operate by your own scientific criteria and social conventions! Instead of revering an all-powerful sovereign God, you are insisting on your own limited perception of things, as if you were creating Him in your own image. No can do; God is far larger than our definitions.
            “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.” (Isaiah 55:8)

            Bottom line: We do not know how long (according to our modern ideas of measuring time) each day of creation was. To presume we do know such things is the height of arrogance; neither you nor I are God, with that kind of knowledge and understanding.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            So why do you think the days are long periods of time when the writer specifically says:

            “there was evening and there was morning”

            Do long periods of time normally start with an evening and end with a morning, and where in the Bible is yom ever used with a number to mean other than a 24 hour day?

            Could it be that you have been influenced by the claims of men that it must have taken a long time.

            And why could not God have created in an instant on each of those days?

            Why would God have used days when there were perfectly good words He could have used that mean long periods of time?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            How can you have our modern understanding of evenings and mornings with no sun (as in the first days of creation)? However, if the use of “day” is a metaphor, then obviously mornings are simply early in the day and evenings are simply late in the day. They are part of the extended metaphor.

            At times the early part of the day may form a vivid contrast with the early part of the night, morning and evening thus forming a meaningful literary merism. In this case morning tells of the beginning of activities, while evening speaks of their cessation (as in Ps.104:22-23; cf. Eccl. 11:6). There are other passages where “morning” is used to symbolize a new (yes, happier) beginning. “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” (Psalm 30:5)

            This metaphorical genre is also obviously not used in every example in the Bible of “days” and “mornings” and “evenings”— any more than all “sheep” are supposed to be Christian believers in every case the word is used in the New Testament. Sometimes sheep are just sheep.

          • Martin

            Bruce

            The Sun isn’t required because it is the Earth’s rotation that defines a day. God supplies the source of light.

            There is no other mention of yom with a number than means anything other than a 24 hour day.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            However God wants to subjectively measure a “day”, that will work for me.
            “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8). If Peter could say this about how long it could be before the Lord returns, it could easily apply as well to how long the 6 days were that God took to create the universe. Especially since science in its best measurements confirms millions of years of creation and firmly debunks the 6000.

  • Happy Jackie

    Finally recognition on my inner woman ….

    • For goodness sake don’t go into a shower with Grumpy!

    • carl jacobs

      OK. THIS is hilarious.

      • Happy Jackie

        Oh yes, I am wise
        But it’s wisdom born of pain
        Yes, I’ve paid the price
        But look how much I gained
        If I have to,
        I can do anything
        I am strong
        I am invincible
        I am woman

        • carl jacobs

          Do you know why brides wear white?

          So the dishwasher matches the refrigerator.

          • Happy Jackie

            When people thought Jackie was a little boy and made “him” wear boys clothes, “he” asked “his” mummy: “Why do brides always wear white?” “He” was informed: “Because they’re happy,”” Having thought about this, Jackie then asked: “Mummy, if brides wear white because they’re happy, then why do grooms wear black?”

            It was one of the first moments Jackie realised she was really a little girl and wanted to wear a white dress to her wedding.

            Will you marry Jackie, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            Well, first of all … You are a grapefruit so there would be a structural boundary.

            But more to the point. If you are singing old Helen Reddy songs, then you must be a self-described feminist. In which case, you should know that marriage is a sexist tool of patriarchal oppression. There is fraud in your description somewhere. You can’t be a feminist if you want to get married.

          • Happy Jackie

            Jackie is all woman, Carl, and not a fruit – unless you want her to be. Helen merely put into words the struggle for recognition Jackie has been through. Anyways, if Jackie feels we are married, then we are. That’s all there is to it. What would you like me to record your gender and occupation as on the marriage certificate?

          • Happy Jackie

            I am what I am
            I am my own special creation.
            So come take a look,
            Give me the hook or the ovation.
            It’s my world that I want to take a little pride in,
            My world, and it’s not a place I have to hide in.

            Life’s not worth a damn,
            ‘Til you can say, “Hey world, I am what I am.”
            I am what I am,

            I don’t want praise, I don’t want pity.
            I bang my own drum,
            Some think it’s noise, I think it’s pretty.
            And so what, if I love each feather and each spangle,
            Why not try to see things from a diff’rent angle?

            Your life is a sham ’til you can shout out loud
            I am what I am!
            I am what I am

            And what I am needs no excuses.
            I deal my own deck
            Sometimes the ace, sometimes the deuces.
            There’s one life, and there’s no return and no deposit;
            One life, so it’s time to open up your closet.
            Life’s not worth a damn ’til you can say,

            “Hey world, I am what I am!”

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I get it. You’re Popeye the sailor man!

          • meltemian

            I thought it was ‘because all kitchen appliances are white’
            (bit outdated nowadays)

  • Don’t worry Clive. You’re not alone.

    • CliveM

      (In driest tone possible) Thank you.

  • Manfarang

    Is Mrs. P really Widow Twankey?

  • wessexman

    Isn’t it actually problematic that women can’t be legally guilty of rape? There is some American evidence that rape by females if males, generally through forcing or coercing the latter to penetrate, is more common than sometimes thought. It seems unjust this should be counted as sexual assault legally, and certainly that it should allow even non-legal statistics on rape to exclude female on male rape (except where the male is penetrated).

  • michaelkx

    Another dogs dinner served up by this government. Will Brexit be the same? Do not bother to answer I know the answer all ready.

    • If we feel we’ve left the EU then we will have left the EU.

  • Terry Mushroom

    Like SSM, this wasn’t in the Conservative manifesto. (Or did I miss it?)

    Would those who sign be more or less men/women than those who have had operations? The same? Will “treatment” become outdated? Or are we on to equal opportunities?

    Is this a cynical attempt to “take the burden off the NHS” by reducing the need for “treatment”?

    When you transition, how do you know when you’ve arrived?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Many years ago I remember the amusement caused by the presence in a train carriage of a ‘woman’ in twin set who was clearly a man, badly made up too. On his arrival at Torquay he was met at the station by someone clearly taking him to a hotel where such people were all having a ‘meeting’. What struck the rest of us on the carriage was that they looked anything but peaceful and content in their ‘new image’.

  • Murti Bing

    This whole transgender thing is nonsense on stilettos. Can we please have our sanity back?

  • David

    It seems with the “Conservatives” once they have harvested your vote they just do whatever comes into their foolish heads, with no more respect for conservative values and voters than Mr Corbyn would have. The party once in government certainly doesn’t do what it says “on the tin”. Manifestos are meaningless it seems.
    A writer on the “Conservative Woman” site made the accurate remark that if the Conservative Party were a commercial organisation they could be sued under the Trade Description Act for false and misleading descriptions.
    Clearly they have no respect for democracy or the voters. Only Switzerland it seems rightly deserves the description ‘democratic’ – certainly we are not !

  • IrishNeanderthal

    This sexual equalities thing seems to have been Trumping all other considerations in the successive Conservative régimes since 2000. It seems to me that some potentially better cabinet members have been excluded for not toeing the party line on this.

    Indeed, it seems to have become their shibboleth.

  • ardenjm

    “Will a Roman Catholic priest who self-identifies as a women be permitted to celebrate Mass?”
    Validly, yes (the DNA remains, after all). Licitly – almost certainly not.
    In that sense a priest “becoming” a woman would be a bit like him becoming an Anglican : )

    “Will Muslim women who self-identify as men be permitted to prostrate themselves in the men’s hall of the local mosque?”
    Apparently, Iran has the per capita highest rate of sex-change operations in the world. Shia clerics ruled that Allah forbids homosexuality but doesn’t forbid human happiness. If you’re a male attracted to men change sex and enjoy them.

    “If Justin Welby decides to self-identify as a woman, does he become the first female Archbishop of Canterbury?”
    Germaine says no, he’ll be the first penile-amputee Archbishop of Canterbury. This will be a novelty but surely no stranger than many of the occupants of the See of Canterbury who haven’t been Bishops anyway for a long, long time.

    “Can he be fully woman-bishop with a penis; two Hypostases in one Ousia?”
    In the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think that it means.”

    “If a married Roman Catholic self-identifies as the opposite gender(/sex) 30 years after their wedding, is the couple thereby automatically divorced if there are no valid canonical grounds for annulment (ie, that this is genuine transgender maturity; the original consent was never defective)?”
    Now, this is a great question that will please the Canon Lawyers. I’m not sure what ‘automatic’ divorce could mean since the Church wouldn’t recognise the metaphysical foundation of any gender change. In that sense, the husband and wife would still be that, but the husband would be going through a dramatic pyschological situation. The Church, as now indeed, would support the woman’s right to divorce if that was the only recourse open to her. Remarriage would be impossible (yes, still, thank you Pope Francis for not daring to answer the Dubia because you know you can only answer that way and still be Catholic) so finding the grounds of nullity would indeed be a fascinatingly tricky one. I’d guess that they’d be found by saying the fault lines for the transexualism are rooted prior to the marriage and that accordingly, the marriage was null…

    It’s the 50 year old man identifying as the 6 year old girl and the woman who identifies as an elf, though, who should really worry Maria Miller.

    This is what happens when, as C.S. Lewis so rightly predicted, the Poison of Subjectivism has taken over the body politic:

    • Dominic Stockford

      There is a bigger problem. What happens if the ‘priest’ decides to declare his change to a her just after ‘consecrating’ the bread, but before ‘consecrating’ the wine. Is one properly done but not the other? Or what if he decides to fill in his bit of paper in a quiet moment between ‘confessions’ (plenty of them) – is the one before his filling it out valid and licit, and the one after not so?

      • ardenjm

        “What happens if the ‘priest’ decides to declare his change to a her just after ‘consecrating’ the bread, but before ‘consecrating’ the wine. Is one properly done but not the other?”
        The Mass is a complete action. If anything interrupts the action then it has to be started all over again. Since what you’ve described is merely a psychological rupture and shift in the priest mid-celebration there is no reason to suppose that, if his intention is to do what the Church does, then, by ex opere operato, the Sacrament is confected correctly, matter and form, God in His sublime humility effects the miracle of transubstantiation and the psychological state (or otherwise mortal sinfulness) of the priest doesn’t come in to it.

        The same applies to all of his sacramental activity – until such a time as the priest can be objectively shown to have rendered his priestly ministry illicit or invalid.

        This was all sorted out by Augustine many years ago, you know…

        • For the record, Dominic doesn’t understand Catholicism even though he attended completed and seminary training and was ordained a priest. He’s now a pastor in a congregational church.

          • ardenjm

            Well, then, as sad as it is, let us thank God he didn’t do as many Catholic priests have done: remain in the Church without believing the Faith – and certainly no longer teaching it!

          • No, he is now an active and open enemy of the Church – Chair of the Protestant “Truth” Society – something of an oxymoron.

          • Anton

            He is part of the church.

          • Technically, even though he’s excommunicated himself by his words and deeds, as a baptised Catholic and ordained priest, he is still a Catholic. Remorse, a good confession and a firm purpose of amendment and he’s back on board. As a member of a protestant sect, he may or may not be a part of the true Spiritual Church – just as Catholics who remain in the Church may not be. That’s with God. In his case, the moral burden is higher than it would be for those raised without access to the Faith. In their case, the ignorance may be invincible. It’s why so many converts to Catholicism demonstrate greater understanding of the Faith as they have had to work through the deficits and faults in their early Christian formation. Look at the pain Saint Paul experienced.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Erm….Protestant cults are not part of the true Church.

          • Anton

            I am glad that you are allowed to express your views freely in this country!

          • Cressida de Nova

            Why?

          • Anton

            Do you think you shouldn’t be?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Why are you glad?

          • Anton

            For the same reasons that you presumably think you should be allowed to express your views.

          • Cressida de Nova

            OK then:)

          • No, they’re not, but they may be a part of the true Spiritual Church – although deficient.

          • Cressida de Nova

            What do you mean by a true Spiritual Church? Which non Catholic churches fit this definition?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Sadly there are converts like Tony Blair ,Stallard on this blog, and Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (who personally supports SSM ) have no understanding of Catholicism. SSM and transgenderism is an alien concept to Catholics .

          • Anton

            Well Tony Blair was let in having just shafted the Catholic adoption agencies in this country by forcing them to place children with gay couples or close. (They principledly chose the latter.) The Vatican has only itself to blame for him, at least. Blair’s criticism of the Vatican’s stance in a 2009 interview in the gay magazine Attitude after his reception shows that his views did not change.

          • This liberalised neo-Catholicism is not Catholicism.

          • Anton

            He wouldn’t be let into the congregation I am part of as a member as things stand, and I’d support any Catholic move to discipline him over the issue.

          • The only discipline would be refusal of the Eucharist and this is a matter between him and his priest. No one is denied entrance to a Catholic Church – even manifest public sinners causing scandal. Jack would also prefer it if the Catholic Church showed greater protection of the sacredness of the Eucharist too.

          • Cressida de Nova

            His Holiness will be thrilled to hear of this. I hope you have something suitable to wear for your audience. And please no gifts from your community veggie patch.

          • CliveM

            Interesting isn’t it. Being so high profile, you’ve got to suspect that not only his Priest, but also the Bishop will have been involved. Indeed it’s not so outlandish to suggest that the Pope himself will have been kept informed.

            So considering his well publicised position on SSM, homosexuality, Gay adoption and lack of action on abortion, unless he perjured himself when he joined (not impossible), his position on these things can’t have been seen as an issue.

            Certainly he wasn’t asked to publicly recant and doesn’t appear to have changed his position since (or indeed been excommunicated), so one must wonder if the Priest, Bishop and perhaps the Pope either don’t see these views as an issue or indeed may have had sympathy with them.

            But where would that leave the RCC?

          • Anton

            I do wonder if an exception was made for him such that he wasn’t asked explicitly to affirm that he accepted all Catholic teaching before being received. The words of a Vatican spokesman make clear enough that he was regarded as a ‘catch’:

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7157409.stm

            Perish the alternative that Tony Blair would say something that wasn’t true!

          • CliveM

            You’re not suggesting that the RCC has one rule for your average “man in the street ” as it were and another for the rich and powerful?

            I’d find it hard to believe.

            I’m not completely certain but wasn’t that part of the problem it had with Henry VIII ie he wanted what other monarchs had got, especially in light of the number of heretics him and Thomas More (is that St. or Blessed, I have difficulty keeping up?) executed?

          • ardenjm

            St Thomas More was canonised as a martyr: as in someone who was killed out of hatred for the Faith. He wasn’t canonised as a saint: someone whose heroic virtue made of him a model to follow. More had many virtues. His virulence against Protestant heretics was too zealous: about 3/10 on the General Ireton Bloodthirstiness Scale. Mary Tudor is at 6/10. General Ireton gets 11/10 just for his last words – after the slaughter of Irish Catholics over 10 years in the Irish campaign (600,000 dead or exiled according to Puritan historians):

            “blood! blood! I must have more blood!”

            Nice.

            All Christians are conscious that wickedness has been done in the name of the Gospel by Catholic, Orthodox, Puritans, Protestants, Anglicans and even Quakers, apparently. As the largest and oldest Church with the broadest and laxest membership (an accusation you yourself are making, Clive, in these posts on Tony Blair) it is therefore to be expected that the Catholic Church has the greatest number of bad apples. And on balance I’d say that’s just about the case.
            But if you’re going to tax the Catholic Church for the Conquistadores, remember to tax the Church of England for the Atlantic Slave Trade.
            And if you’re going to praise the abolitionist William Wilberforce then you’ve got to praise Pope Benedict XIV who promulgated the papal bull “Immensa Pastorum Principis” against the slave trade 18 years before William Wilberforce was born…

            But I’ve lost count of the number of protestants on these blogs or elsewhere who are unable to say about their own co-religionists in the past what I can say fully and without any reserve concerning my own: they did wicked things which were against the Gospel to people they judged as heretics. They shouldn’t have. As a Catholic ashamed of what Catholics did, I condemn them. Whole-heartedly.
            I invite the usual suspects: CliveM, Anton, Carl, Dominic et al and any other full-blooded protestants to say as much for the wickedness against Catholics done in the past – and I can PROMISE you we shall get very few honest condemnations as I have given. Instead we shall get weasel words, evasions, denials of any wrong doing and cries of ‘not fair’.
            It will not do, Gentlemen.
            God sees all.

          • CliveM

            You really shouldn’t get yourself banned from this blog, if you hadn’t, you would perhaps have seen I have defended the RCC in similar terms , specifically over Priestly abuse. I have also condemned all Churches for their use of violence in support of their cause.

            The 600,000 was probably more of a boast then an accurate statement. But I have also criticised Oliver Cromwell on this blog precisely because of these actions.

          • ardenjm

            Thank you. I am glad to read it.
            Try getting Len to do the same…

            But it’s probably not an exaggeration. Historians seem to concur with the contemporary Puritans’ assessment of the figures. 638,000 I believe.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Ardenjm does not know you .You are the most fair minded truly Christian man on this blog .I wish there were more Catholic men like you.

          • CliveM

            Sadly I am a flawed individual like us all. You appear to have changed your mind!

          • Cressida de Nova

            I must admit that you are the last person I would have thought of to request a gentle hand massage from Mrs Proudie on your whatnot. This blog is full of surprises.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Surely you are not surprised, considering you requested Mrs Proudie massage your whatnot with her gentle hands. Perhaps you are unaware that Mrs Proudie is a female impersonator .

          • Anton

            That challenge I accept. I am against all politicised Christianity, including protestant. (The Roman Catholic church is intrinsically political.) This is one reason why I’m not Anglican.

            What is my reasoning? Politics is about telling people what to do whether they like it or not, most notably in setting the laws. Christianity is a voluntary grouping of people called out from their nations whilst still living amongst them, and remade better by Christ in a way that they cannot do for themselves. That cannot be enforced by law, obviously. The moment you try to, it ceases to be gospel Christianity.

            The wars of religion involving Catholics and protestants in the two centuries after Luther mingled secular and religious causes in complex ways. One should not automatically side with Catholic or protestant merely according to one’s religious affiliation.

          • ardenjm

            “One should not automatically side with Catholic or protestant merely according to one’s religious affiliation.”

            And that, ladies and gentlemen is Anton’s apparent full-hearted unequivocal condemnation of violence done by co-religionists who would certainly have spared him for his non-catholic non-conformism and almost certainly have recognised in him a fellow protestant ‘Christian’.

            Yup. There you have it.
            ” I can PROMISE you we shall get very few honest condemnations as I have given.”
            Thanks for that, Anton.

          • Anton

            I wasn’t actually making a direct response to your words; I’m not in the dock in your personal courtroom, however much you posture otherwise.

            All violence perpetrated with the aim of furthering Christ’s kingdom is both futile and evil. I condemn it.

            I also condemn the invasion of one nation whose king is one one side of the Reformation by a nation whose king is on the other, supposing that there is no imminent threat to the latter nation by the former.

            When there is an imminent threat, or when the secular and religious issues are more intertwined, I evaluate matters case by case.

            How about you?

          • ardenjm

            Thank you, Anton. A straight reply! Amazing! And very welcome.

            Are you referring to the two Armadas of 1588 (Spanish) and 1589 (English), part of the undeclared Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604? Yes, I’m sure there was some religious element in that series of battles for sovereignty. Just as there was no doubt some personal animus on behalf of Philip II for the memory of his much abused dead great-aunt, Katharine of Aragorn.

            I’m sure you’ll be evaluating this matter ‘case by case’ therefore.

            More speculatively: a wanton invasion – like a war of religious conquest or a jihad – rather than, as you say, a more justifiable war to restore peace in a troubled area is impossible to square with the Gospel.
            The Albigensians, for example, shouldn’t have killed the Papal Legate and other Catholics – since it brought down on them terrible reprisals which were almost certainly disproportionate.
            Just like the Catholic rebels in Drogheda shouldn’t have killed the Protestant land-settlers invited in by James I to protestantise Ireland. It brought down on them the worst ethnic cleansing that Europe saw prior to the Holocaust: 30% of the Irish population at the hands of Puritans.
            But the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing…

            As we move towards population replacement in Europe by African and Middle Eastern Muslims I wonder how long before we re-assess what Ferdinand and Isabella did in Spain when it came to securing the peace of their Kingdoms…

          • Anton

            You drop subjects into dialogue and then expect others to produce tomes of history or theology in response. All of those subjects interest me but I’ve neither the time nor inclination to enter into discussion with you about them. I do seek out people with opposed points of view, the better to educate myself, but not those who confuse abuse with argument.

            That papal legate was in all probability murdered by a knight of Count Raymond of Toulouse rather than by Albigenses, following the legate’s excommunicating of Raymond (who protected the Albigenses because they were good citizens). The Albigenses were not Christian in their religious belief, but Bernard of Clairvaux said that the heretics in that part of France lived moral lives (in his Sermon no. 65), while St Dominic wandered their lands at no personal risk disputing theology with them. Innocent III nevertheless instructed other legates to preach a crusade against the Cathars, offering their land to Catholics who took part; and appealed to the king of France to join in. The result was genocide.

          • Anton

            You’re not suggesting that the RCC has one rule for your average “man in the street ” as it were and another for the rich and powerful?

            In the Middle Ages Rome went several better than the Jews by banning not just marriage between first cousins but between cousins up to five degrees removed. Almost everybody in the European aristocracy was that closely related, allowing divorce on demand for aristocratic couples who had fallen out by petitioning Rome with a better researched family tree than at the wedding. Rome called it annulment, of course.

            Rome would have been on rather stronger moral ground in its dealings with Henry VIII had it not just granted a flagrantly political divorce/annulment to his sister Margaret, and an even more flagrantly political one to Louis XII of France in 1498.

          • CliveM

            I hate to appear objective, but weren’t those divorces, oops, annulments by a previous Pope?

          • Anton

            Not Margaret’s. Louis of France’s was, but it took place in Henry’s lifetime and he would surely have known about it.

          • CliveM

            Oh he knew about it. Undoubtedly.

          • Translation: “Yes, I am but I’ll camouflage it by referring to their past political intrigues. Wouldn’t want to appear too sectarian.”

          • Anton

            I had thought that it was sufficiently obvious that I was saying Yes. Yes I am. Yes. I trust that that is clear enough.

          • Well at least we’re all clear on your sectarianism and the blinkers with which you view the Catholic Church. It’s clear why you cannot understand, or, rather, don’t want to understand writers such as Chesterton. What you ridiculously call Chesterton’s “pomposity” is a reaction to his clarity and certainty.

            Ardenjm is right about you.

          • Anton

            You share something else in common, too: resort to insult when you run out of argument.

          • Yes, Anton. Troll away.

          • Anton

            Trolls get banned. How’s your record and Arden’s?

          • They don’t actually. Those who personally attack and demean the blog owner do.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            And you have to be very direct with the insults to His grace to really get his attention. Archbishop Cranmer tolerates a lot of indirect insults and trolling, like calling Anglicans heretics and worse. I would not be so tolerant.

          • Why did you overlook this:
            “For sure – a formal interior refusal to adhere to the truths of the faith would make the exterior act of conversion a hypocritical one – and if this were known by the competent Church authorities they would be complicit in a grave fault. Whatever the truth of it – it shall be known at Judgement Day and God shall not be mocked. But likewise: Misericordias Domine in aeternum cantabo.”

          • ardenjm

            It would leave the Catholic Church hoping for the continued deepening conversion of one more of her members. Something she hopes for all of us.
            That takes nothing away from the mediocrity and connivance of the individuals involved in the process – from the top to the bottom. The Church’s prayer is always:
            Kyrie eleison.
            For sure – a formal interior refusal to adhere to the truths of the faith would make the exterior act of conversion a hypocritical one – and if this were known by the competent Church authorities they would be complicit in a grave fault. Whatever the truth of it – it shall be known at Judgement Day and God shall not be mocked. But likewise: Misericordias Domine in aeternum cantabo.

            Of course, CliveM, if you are setting yourself up as a finer judge of His Church than Our Lord, I incline myself to your superior moral and spiritual probity than the Son of God.

            Next!

          • CliveM

            “Of course, CliveM, if you are setting yourself up as a finer judge of His Church than Our Lord, I incline myself to your superior moral and spiritual probity than the Son of God.”

            And isn’t that part of the problem, you place too much trust in fragile and sinful humans and their institutions and not enough in God.

            But I suppose clever rhetoric can be useful in distracting from the truth. Especially when that truth is a little embarrassing. However it doesn’t change the truth.

          • ardenjm

            Like you say.
            It doesn’t change the truth.
            And for this kind of ultimate judgement of the secret of men’s consciences it is God’s alone to judge.

            Not yours, sunshine.
            So get off your high horse.

          • CliveM

            You really are a pompous twat.

            There is no secret to Tony Blairs position on these issues, he’s let it all hang out as it were.

            Trying to suggest otherwise and pontificating about it, like its some secret of the confessional simply makes you look disingenuous.

          • ardenjm

            In your eyes the Church is damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.
            Either she burns heretics or she is too lax with them.
            What would you have her do, O SolomanM the Wise?

          • CliveM

            Well as it’s Tony Blair we’re talking about, burnt as a heretic.

          • Anton

            Tried for treason would do.

          • Cressida de Nova

            He is not part of the one holy and apostolical Church.

          • len

            Put those matches down Cressida.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Slap!

          • Bruce Atkinson

            xxx

          • Dominic Stockford

            I also thank God that I am not part of the RCC.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Me too.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            As if you could judge who is really part of the Kingdom of God and the Bride of Christ! The bigotry and arrogance that I hear from you and many other Catholics continue to keep me from the Roman door. When I compare it with the New Testament revelation, I find it to be neither holy nor apostolic.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Fascinating how much Romanists hate those who have been shown the Gospel, and now walk another way. Its all a bit reminiscent of the way in which the lefties speak about anyone who disagrees with their perverted agendas.

          • Terry Mushroom

            Hate? Really? Some here disagree with you. But hate?

            (Edited)

          • Cressida de Nova

            Of course it is not hate. Disagreement is not hate. The Catholics here will feel sorry for Dominic. His own hatred for the Church signifies a lot of pain.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            There is indeed a lot of pain, and righteous indignation. Truly righteous.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Yes. I exaggerate not a bit.

          • Terry Mushroom

            I’m a “Romanist” and I don’t hate you.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            We always appreciate exceptions to the rule.

          • Dominic Stockford

            As Bruce says. You are not the only Romanist here. And my original comment didn’t say ‘here’ alone, it was much wider than that. Try being a Protestant in Mexico, there’s a lot of hatred there. Vicious hatred.

          • Catholics are raised to love the Truth and oppose Satan’s lies and distortions.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Please try to remember this when your ego is being stroked.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Rather, Catholics on this site love to call anyone who disagrees with them “heretics” and believers in “Satan’s lies and distortions.” When the real truth is that these same Catholics are the victims of projection and self-deception. For every finger they point, there are three pointing back at themselves. We have discussed before the long list of RCC errors that have yet to be corrected. The Reformation was God-ordained. But I expect that you would still burn Thomas Cranmer at the stake.

          • Jack would burn no one at the stake for heresy. Treason perhaps, but not heresy.
            The number of fingers pointing back at Catholics accusing them of distorting the Gospel is irrelevant. As Jack recalls, Christ when He was with us in His physical body was outnumbered too. Why should it be any different now that He is with His Mystical Body in the visible Church?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The point being that the fingers pointing back at themselves are their own. Point your forefinger, there are three pointing back at yourself. It is not about numbers, it is about blatant hypocrisy and psychological projection of blame— no acceptance of responsibility for both past and ongoing errors. And then saying that the RCC is the only one true holy church (meaning the rest of us Reformed believers are not a part of that). Ugh! Only those in deep denial cannot see the truth here.

          • Now, now …

            There’s been plenty of acceptance and repeated repentance for past failings in the Church’s human history and acknowledgement of recent and present failures and sins. Being a human organisation means there will be failings – the men and women in the Church are not impeccable. Christ never promised this and chose flawed men as His Apostles. However, there can be no failure in its doctrines or in the success of its mission. This is neither triumphalism, nor hypocrisy.
            As Jack has already said, those baptised Christians outside of the visible structure of the Church may be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but they are not full members of His Church.

            By the grace of God, we can hopefully sort all this out in purgatory.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Thanks and I agree with much of what you have written. However, when you say they “may be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but they are not full members of His Church,” I must edit this to say that they are not full members of YOUR church or the RCC church, but they are actually full members of THE Church. The only one that really matters. Your arrogant elite assumption of THE Church being one particular institution is very, very wrong. In my opinion.

          • It’s not my assumption at all. It’s scriptural. There’s only One, Holy Universal and Apostolic Church and it’s both visible and material (with all the attendant flaws) as well as Mystical and Spiritual. Just as our body and soul cannot be separated here on earth, so both exist both here and now and in eternity.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Then let us debate that assertion only using the scriptures. Show me where that One, Holy Universal and Apostolic church is both visible and material and is somehow connected to the Church at Rome. You said “It’s scriptural.” So scripture and logic only, please. Any writings of the early church fathers after the Apostles were gone are not part of the canon of scripture. The early churches went off base quite early.

            We can start with “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17: 20-21)

          • ardenjm

            Oh no! This is terrible. Poor man.
            Like one of the founding fathers of the Capucin branch of the Franciscan Order. Ended up a Protestant, too.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            And you come to an orthodox Anglican website to say such things? Surely you belong on a Roman Catholic website instead. Coming here to denigrate Protestants is the definition of trollish behavior.

          • Cressida de Nova

            True … I don’ know any who have left the priesthood and who relinquished their faith.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Such figures are not published in the UK, can’t think why not unless someone has something to hide. They are in the USA where numbers are very high.

            I know several who have left, and been drawn away from the roman church. Spoke to one who was on his way out only a few months ago.

          • carl jacobs

            There is a difference between rejecting something and not understanding it. Objectively speaking, he understands Catholicism better than you do.

          • Objectively speaking he cannot possibly understand Catholicism. If he did, he wouldn’t have walked from Christ. His ignorance may or may not be culpable, but ignorance it certainly is.

            The question he just asked Ardenjm clearly demonstrated that his formation as a priest was either defective or he failed to pay attention.

          • Anton

            He didn’t walk from Christ.

          • That was probably a bit harsh on Jack’s part. He walked away from the visible Church, the Mystical Body of Christ and He is the Head of the visible Apostolic Church, represented by His Bishops, who carry His full authority. If he followed his conscience, defective as it is/was, may or may not be culpable, this judgement rests with God alone.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I was drawn to Christ. Far from Rome, near to God.

          • You placed your pulpit centre stage and, therefore, yourself centre stage.

          • Anton

            On what stage is that?

          • The centre stage he created for himself – as opposed to being a mere servant of the Lord celebrating the sacred mysteries with their participation.

          • Anton

            A stage has viewers; this isn’t making sense.

          • Unfamiliar with idioms?

          • Anton

            Familiar with rhetorical trickery.

          • Have now read through Ardenjm’s exchanges with you. Much “beating about the bush” on your part, with it being clear you had “bitten off more than you could chew”. You really didn’t “cut the mustard” in your responses and he “hit the nail on the head” repeatedly. Still “no good crying over spilt milk” now. Jack’s advise, “don’t give up the day job”.

          • Anton

            I am entirely happy for readers to inspect that exchange (which isn’t necessarily over yet) and I thank you for your impartial opinion.

          • Why not leave your comments open and transparent?

          • Anton

            I just clicked a “private” box long ago without much thought about it. Odd that some (not you) take this to have been with sinister motive.

            As you know I am deliberately vague about personal details here and I might have given more at other blogs, so I’ll probably leave it as it is. In any case it is not possible to search somebody’s entire set of posts even if they are open; only the first few dozen before it starts to take ages.

          • len

            A magic show?

          • Speak of the devil ….
            Another example of an idiom, Len.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            If anyone has created a stage for himself on this website comment section, it is you Jack. No one blabbers on here more than you. Not even close. And you are not even an Anglican! It seems to be an addiction … to attention. I understand because I too comment frequently on other website.

          • May God Bless you and keep you.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Thank you. Unless your tongue is firmly embedded in your cheek.

          • So og as its Jack’s you’ll never now ;O)

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Well then. May God bless you and keep you, and make His face to shine upon you and give you peace. And in the meantime, we will just keep enjoying all this attention we get online.
            : – )

          • Very good …

          • len

            That’s the Popes job, Oh, and don`t forget the golden throne and the rest.

          • Dominic Stockford

            It is not my pulpit that is at the centre, but the infallible and inerrant Word of God. The Word which is ‘the power of salvation unto those who believe’.

          • len

            Well said Sir!.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Me too. Very far from Rome, very near to God.

          • carl jacobs

            He understood it. That’s why he walked away from it. To walk away from the RCC is not the same thing as walking away from Christ. To understand Catholicism is not identical with accepting it. What he refused to do is deal with Catholicism through the layers of subterfuge in which RCism envelops itself.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Absolutely so. And my testimony basically says that.

          • Your testimony on-line reads like a self-justifying ego trip.

          • Anton

            I disagree.

          • Well you would.

          • Anton

            That’s what I think about your critique of his testimony!

          • Except he doesn’t understand Catholicism. No one who is given the grace to understand Catholicism rejects it other than through wilful sin. The more he says, the more he reveals his fundamental ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of it. The real question is whether his rejection is culpable or not. Was Judas’?

          • carl jacobs

            Its not a sin to reject a false gospel.

          • It is a sin to knowing reject the true Gospel and/or to not live in accord with it.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, when he does so, then you will have grounds to accuse him.

          • Objectively he has …. God will judge whether it’s a sin and whether the subjective culpability is there.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Thank you Carl.

          • You latest “question” demonstrates your ignorance even more!

          • carl jacobs

            That kind of statement doesn’t help you, Jack. It’s a statement from authority and you don’t possess the standing to silence him like that. I understand why you try. But it won’t work.

          • Ardenjm just did silence him and appears to have that authority. Jack is just a frontline trooper. Jack learned the answers to these rudimentary questions when he was a 14 year old alter server. That’s why preparing the altar is so important. How someone can go through seven years of seminary training and not know is bewildering.

          • Anton

            I’m sure Dominic is quaking in his boots at Arden’s statement “Let’s not quarrel, Dominic. It will get messy in very short order.”

          • Let’s see if he’s man enough to accept the invitation.

          • Anton

            Or wise enough not to bother?

          • Surely it presents an opportunity to explain on a public forum why he walked away from the Catholic Church and do some “evangelising”.

          • Anton

            He did that in his testimony which I presume is still online and provides more than a mere soundbite.

          • ardenjm

            Come, come, Anton. You’ve left a LOT of unfinished business on another earlier blog thread inspite of your pirouettes of ‘whataboutery’ that you indulge in.
            I’ll leave that to any reader to judge for themselves, should they want to take themselves to our discussion (my answers, your evasions) on that earlier thread.
            My profile is open – unlike Anton’s – so any reader can click on it and find the posts that have been made. Should they REALLY have nothing better to do with their time.
            So Anton, stop sh*t-stirring. It’s unchristian. Dominic will do what he wants as he wants without your snidey interjections from the sidelines.

          • Anton

            Readers may judge for themselves exactly which of us has ducked the other on the Justine Greening thread.

            I consider that your final comment above says more about yourself than about me.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I’m terrified Anton, quite terrified…. or maybe not.

          • carl jacobs

            Did ardenjm silence him? On what authority? Why should I listen to either him or you over Domimic? You need a reason besides “Because I’m a faithful RC”. This is why you attack him with such ferocity. He has the standing to puncture the fascade of Roman authority.

          • ardenjm

            If I may: I think it was merely over the issue of Catholic teaching on the conditions under which the Mass is celebrated. In that sense it’s just knowledge of the rubric – like knowing the rules of cricket. Dominic can’t change them – he can merely accept or reject them. In this instance I was simply pointing out that he didn’t know them (as well as he thought he did.)
            Afterwards – the stuff about the way the sacraments ‘work’ – sure, Church authority and teaching is involved here with all the attendant differences of interpretation which Dominic or you or anyone else is welcome to disagree and reject according to your own understanding.

          • carl jacobs

            But that really doesn’t address my question. Why should I believe that you know more than he does?

          • ardenjm

            Because this is a question of the knowledge of the rubrics of what to do during the Mass. It’s not a matter of interpretation it’s ‘what does the Church say you should do during the Mass if these things happen’. In short, it’s just liturgical rules.
            You can check them yourself – if you really want to – it’s all published in liturgical norms and texts of the Church.

            Now, you can believe Dominic if you really WANT to but he won’t be able to supply you with the rubrics of the Mass in the way that I can. Sorry about that.
            Here you go, by the way, should you not believe me:
            http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/12/20/canon-law-and-consecrating-the-eucharist/

            http://divinumofficium.com/www/horas/Help/Rubrics/Missal1960%20rubrics.html

            I fully accept, of course, that you can subscribe to Dominic’s interpretation of sacramental theology and deny the Catholic Church’s teaching on the matter. But for the rules of ‘what to do if you realise that you’ve forgotten, say, the hosts or the wine is during the Eucharistic prayer that should be there’ – I’m right: it’s ‘start the prayer all over again’. Not, ‘go and fetch whatever is missing from the sacristy and carry on as if nothing happened’. You’ll notice however on reading that first link above that if the Chalice was consecrated and the priest discovers he forgot to add the wine that is present on the sanctuary with him, he may indeed reach for it (indeed he MUST do so) and consecrate the wine. It comes down to Canon Law 927:

            Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity [eg impending death], to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

            And thus the spirit of that canon extends to stopping and starting the Mass in a way that would inevitably happen if, as Dominic suggests, the priest has to go and fetch things. He should have known this; he was ordained for pity’s sake. But as that link shows you – priests can be badly formed.

            If you still insist on believing Dominic on this, too, that’s fine. I’ll then know that you do so not for any desire to get to the truth but for purely sectarian reasons. And it’s ALWAYS good to know where sectarians are camping out.

            Mind how you go.

          • carl jacobs

            I suppose there are things that interest me less than the rituals that a RC priest must perform during the Mass. Nothing immediately comes to mind, however. I know less than nothing about them. I have no interest in your links (and in fact almost always ignore “argument by link”) – especially given that one of them was called “Canon Law Made Easy”. Was that supposed to be a clever condescending insult because that is exactly how I perceived your intent. Your assertions are not dispositive. Your links carry no intrinsic authority with me. Do I have any reason to judge them as authoritative beyond your say-so?

            Anyways, I possess no knowledge to judge between you and Dominic Stockford on this matter. I neither believe you nor disbelieve you. He may respond as he chooses and every reader can weigh the quality of his response. He may choose not to respond and we all can decide how to weigh his non-response. If he did respond I wouldn’t simply accept what he said on the basis of shared Protestantism anymore than I would summarily reject what you say just because you are RC. However, his response would carry the credibility given him by his ordination in the RCC. Certainly more so than any given RC who inhabits the web. There would have to be much more examination and cross-examination for me to come to any settled judgment.

            But truthfully I have no stake in Dominic being right in this matter. I have no interest in standing upon false information. If he is wrong, it is in my interest to know that he is wrong. What matters is that you don’t have standing to dismiss him simply because he left the RCC. I entered this thread because Jack explicitly made the following argument: Dominic Stockford doesn’t understand Catholicism because he left the RCC. That is a nonsensical argument. It is in fact a purely sectarian argument – to use your word. It does however fit exactly with the common Catholic conceit that only RCs can define the terms and conditions of understanding RCism.

            I don’t think you really understood what I was saying. I wasn’t saying “Dominic is a Protestant. Therefore he is always right.” That is the inverse of Jack’s argument. Instead I was saying this: You can’t as a non-priest credibly instruct a former priest on priestly functions based on nothing more than your own ipse dixit. He doesn’t lose his credibility when he leaves the RCC.

          • ardenjm

            Flummery, flummery, bluster and mesquinerie.
            “Anyways, I possess no knowledge to judge between you and Dominic Stockford on this matter.” Yes. That’s true. None at all.
            Flummery, flummery, bluster and mesquinerie.
            “You can’t as a non-priest credibly instruct a former priest on priestly functions based on nothing more than your own ipse dixit. He doesn’t lose his credibility when he leaves the RCC.”
            A non-cricketer can indeed instruct anyone on the rules of cricket if he has the rules of cricket. I have the rubrics. I could be a witch doctor from the south pacific with no knowledge of Protestantism or Catholicism but if I had the rubrics I could point to them and say – here’s what the rules are. And that’s all I did.

            So, for Dominic to be credible on this particular detail he need only supply the rubric that shows that when he was a priest he could, indeed, walk off the sanctuary, go and shop for bread and wine, bring it back on and carry on the Mass where he left off and the Church would accept that as a valid Mass.
            But of course he knows that he can’t supply that rubric because the Church teaches exactly the contrary. And those superfluous links demonstrate that.
            And you don’t need to click on any of them, lazybones, because I gave you Canon 927 in the body of my reply which says the essential on which all the other rubrics are based.

            Now Dominic should know this. Once, he did know it. Which is why, I’m assuming, unless he was acting in bad faith from the get go, that whenever he did celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass he did so as the Church asks her priests to.

            He could deny all that, of course.
            But then he would have to lie.

            Now. WHY would an ex-Catholic ex-Priest with axes to grind against the Catholic Church POSSIBLY have any motive to lie about the Catholic Church? Hmm…
            None, Carl. Absolutely none.
            Like you said:
            “He doesn’t lose his credibility when he leaves the RCC.”

            And Lord Haw Haw lost none of his when he left Britain at the start of World War 2.

            Whatever, Carl. Whatever.

            Talk to the hand.

          • carl jacobs

            No ardenjm. I’ll put you on the list with Linus and Cressida. You three have so much in common.

          • ardenjm

            Thank you.

            And God bless you! And Our Lady and all the Angels and Saints of the Church Triumphant intercede for you and all that is true and good.

          • Cressida de Nova

            LOL….that would require a personality change and lobotomy as well.

          • He’s knowledgeable, articulate and “shoots from the hip” because of a degree of impatience. Remove the jabs and jibes, and what he says is spot on. His “bedside manner” could be improved.

          • ardenjm

            “His “bedside manner” could be improved.”
            Oh Happy Jack – if only you knew how much it has already!
            Let’s just hope I make it into the lowest circle of the Purgatorio!

            Carl isn’t stupid, far from it. Most of the time he’s considered, measured and informed. But, my, he does have a bee in his bonnet about Catholicism.

            I suspect he might be some kind of heretic, no?

          • Confession time. Jack regards Carl as a fair-minded and honest blogger and a good friend. He has given Jack wise counsel down the years on here. He is a sincere Calvinist. A serious flaw which colours all his views of the Gospel, politics, economics, etc. It also reinforces and sustains a predisposition to downplay God’s mercy in favour of His wrath. This flaw aside, and it appears invincible, he is generally polite and reasonable but always believes he is right and never, never, concedes ground. He’s also ex-military.

          • ardenjm

            Thank you, Jack.
            Yes, that’s the Carl I remember from a few years back. And I share your high regard for him in spite of him not taking hostages when he gets into pontification mode against the Church.
            But no doubt complaints about me will be echoing up to His Crispy-Friedness who’ll block me again from posting on his blog and that’ll be the end of it.

            Perhaps I need a change of 1. tone 2. quantity of words.
            I imagine it’s a little bit like walking into a hail of bullets….
            Right, time to sleep.

          • His Grace tolerates all sorts of differing views and opinions. However, Jack’s biggest lesson was to learn to show him respect for the work he puts into this blog. Jack has been banned two or three times now and, with hindsight, each occasion was justified. Funnily enough it was that paragon of patience, Mundabor, who made Jack see the light. Treat a blog as a person’s front room if you want to stay and show him and others respect – even when in disagreement. It was bloggers like Carl who advocated the ban be lifted. The real wise guys on here are not worth bothering with. They know who they are. Carl isn’t one of them and neither is CliveM.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Carl thought you should be banned, In fact apart from Sister Tiberius and I everyone wanted you banned.

            Reality check….you are not liked here Jack.

          • CliveM

            Not true Cressida I like HJ. Indeed I like most of the people on this blog.

            Including yourself!

          • Cressida de Nova

            This lethal Protestant charm of yours is not going to continue to disarm me Clive. 🙂 I have always had my suspicions about you and that Mrs Proudie

          • CliveM

            Mrs Proudie and myself are simply casual acquaintances.

          • Not sure we were the only ones, Cressida, I do remember other people sticking up for Jack?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Who? I remember that they did not.

          • Carl objected to my lying and claiming to be a “seeker of truth” whilst promoting Catholic teaching. He supported my staying with that qualification. He was right too. Old Jim made the very same criticism. Your unconditional support and that of Sister Tibs and Old Blowers, was much appreciated. As for being liked here, well, that’s never really troubled me that much.

          • Tone, most certainly. It detracts from your effectiveness. The quality and quality of your words is fine. Just meet people where they are at on here. Let Jack put it this way, when Jack was young in his faith he approached gentle confessors who “understood” him. As he progressed he much preferred the more direct and challenging confessors. We all develop at different rates.

          • Cressida de Nova

            You don’t need to change anything. Carl hates to be challenged and finds anyone with real intelligence threatening.His reaction is to attack viciously. You have pressed his buttons . He is basically a coward.

          • Cressida de Nova

            A sincere Calvinist? So now heresy is just a minor flaw,according to whom Jack’s friends are.
            After everything you have been through it shocks me to hear you say this. I can only think Satan has visited you in the guise of an old army hack preying on your vulnerability . Sadly,I am beginning to regret I ever befriended or trusted you.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I know you said it is a serious flaw but you are treating it as a minor one.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I find it amazing that so many Roman Catholics find Archbishop Cranmer (an Anglican site) to be their favorite place to hang out. I think that deep, deep down, you people do not really believe what you write here. Your behavior does not fit your words. Unless … you are trolls who are secretly here only to cause trouble, i.e., trolling for converts.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I wonder whether some of these avatars are in fact several people. Given the incoherent nature of some of their arguments it seems likely.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Chuckle. I cannot dispute the probability of sock puppets. I am just glad that you are here and so they can heft their rocks at both of us. As Bob Dylan wrote/sang (Rainy Day Woman #12 & 35): “I would not feel so all alone; everybody must get stoned.” He was using an obvious double entendre … but I gave up that lifestyle 35 years ago. Now I just duck the rocks and throw a few back.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Yes. He is a heretic.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Roman Catholics think so. They did not care much for Thomas Cranmer either. Burned the Archbishop at the stake as I recall. Such persecution continues here, albeit less violently (as Cressida confirms).

          • ardenjm

            Yeah. The original His Fried Crispiness got it bad from Mary Tudor.
            I wonder whether Mary Tudor wasn’t driven slightly mad by the mistreatment she suffered at her Father’s hands and the fact that she wasn’t allowed to visit her sick and dying Mother… She was, after all, merely a teenager when that happened.
            I also wonder what would have happened had she, when Henry VIII put the screws on her under threat of the Tower and the implication of execution, not capitulated and conformed to his religious diktat but had died a martyr for the Catholic Faith. England would have been spared a lot of subsequent grief and, who knows, perhaps her witness would have helped to keep England Catholic… But there. She was a young woman and she made other choices. And the rest, as they say…
            Still, all in all, in the balance of Catholics v Protestants in the British Isles the scales are OVERWHELMINGLY stacked with Catholic deaths at the hands of Protestants: the Puritans exterminated hundreds of thousands in Ireland in the space of 10 years. And those who spuriously claim this was a rebellion or a political act: piffle. Religion was omnipresent. The Irish weren’t reviled by the Puritans because they were Irish but because they refused to abandon the Faith.
            On the continent, however, the scales are just about balanced in terms of victims with Catholics fighting Lutherans and Calvinists. Catholics helping Protestants fight Catholics. Lutherans fighting Calvinists and Radicals…. The European Wars of Religion are a mess.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Agree with your last statement. It is still a mess, just far less violent. I am happy about that.

          • Dominic Stockford

            When I left the church of Rome, and was drawn to Christ, I was informed by the RCC that I was damned for all eternity. Pleasant. Not.

            Recently I received a letter from an RCC bishop telling me that if I were now to recant and return to Rome they would take me back (his diocese is desperately short of clergy, interesting aside) – telling me also as he did so that my marriage was contrary to God’s teaching, and therefore implying that my children are bastards. And also therefore implying directly that it is right *and godly* that I should abandon them. Nice. Not.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Wow. The RCC is (at least some of their bishops are) worse than I had thought. Their behavior is very much like that of a cult, asserting rigid authoritarian control and using extortion (i.e., threats of damnation) to coerce obedience. Fortunately, they are not the only church in town and membership is completely voluntary.

            I can see where your views on the RCC would have a strong personal element. My problems with the RCC are more theoretical and theological. I have not experienced the same level of betrayals of trust from the RCC as you– but I have from The Episcopal Church. Although I do not hate any individual Episcopalians (they are deceived), I do hate their apostate and mean-spirited organization. And the Church of England is following their heretical path rather closely.

          • carl jacobs

            You’re right. He is knowledgeable. He is articulate. In my judgment he had the better of the argument with Dominic to this point. He’s also an arrogant condescending asshole who is very impressed with his own reflection – so much so that he doesn’t listen to anything but his own voice. I almost blocked him after his first post because I have become very intolerant of that attitude as of late. But (silly me) I gave it one more try.

            Yeah, no. He’s blocked. Life is better on this weblog when I don’t have to deal with arrogant abusive assholes. I don’t make comments like that. I won’t receive comments like that. His problem goes a helluva lot deeper than a poor “bedside manner”.

            And, no, what he said wasn’t “spot on”.

          • Then as a Christian, work with his flaws and help him overcome them. Jack was just as bad, if not worse, a few years back, and doesn’t have anything like his knowledge and ability to marshal it in an ordered and coherent manner. What Jack likes about this blog is our ability to work through issues. Ardenjm doesn’t strike Jack as malicious. Nobody’s perfect.

          • carl jacobs

            He has no interest in me helping him overcome anything. What makes you think he believes he has anything to overcome? But I’ll tell you what, Jack. You get him to apologize for that post and commit to treating people with respect, and I’ll unblock him. But I’ll make two predictions.

            1. Hell will freeze over before either of those two things happen.
            2. He probably thinks of being blocked as some kind of vindication.

            And, no, you weren’t anything like that. I was there. I remember. I saw. You may not have his knowledge. You also don’t have his propensity to turn words into weapons.

          • Hmmm …. if Jack had had his breath and depth of knowledge, command of language and use of reason, combined with his quickness of thought, trust him, Jack would have been just as bad.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Jack would have been as good (you should mean) Pity you are drawn to this vicious heretic because he throws a few kind words your way.

          • CliveM

            Ardnjm is what Linus would be me if he was a practicing Catholic. You’re welcome to him. He’s been here for less than a week and I’ve rarely felt so Protestant.

          • Jack doesn’t agree. For sure he’s aggressive and pulls no punches. What’s clear is he doesn’t tolerate ignorant, unsubstantiated comments or ill-considered criticisms of Catholic doctrine.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Since you too dislike criticisms of Catholic doctrine, of course you would defend such a person, and probably even enjoy his abuse of Catholic critics.

          • He also tolerates other protestants calling the Archbishop of Canterbury a heretic and campaigning on here for Anglicans to leave and join independent congregations. Jack agrees with very many of his posts. He is much maligned by his own co-religionists. Often more so than Catholics on here.
            Are you a member of the Anglican Community and support the “via media”?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Jack,
            I am a member of the Anglican community (a member of ACNA).

            As for “via media”, you would have to define your concept of this phrase because there are many definitions that have been used among Anglicans. It originally meant the middle way between Luther and Calvin, not between Reformed and Roman Catholic. The Oxford movement in the 19th century used the term this latter way. A good summary of the history of the “via media” idea can be found here:
            http://www.virtueonline.org/focus-anglican-identity-anglicanism-and-protestantism-alister-mcgrath

            Anglicans are broad-based in the sense of fluid boundaries between evangelicals and AngloCatholics and everything in between. The latter “high churchmen” are very sacramental, liturgical, and like the showy externals of fancy vestments, bells and smells in worship. Evangelicals not so much. Evangelical Anglicans are big on the authority of scripture, evangelism, and the development of a personal, intimate relationship with Jesus Christ through prayer and spiritual formation. AngloCatholics are sympathetic to most things Roman except for the Pope’s authority and a few other things.

            I once had some fun writing about the boundaries of Anglicanism (and Christianity in general) here:
            http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18737#.U1qoVvldWSo

          • Good to learn you are an “orthodox” Anglican.

            Will read the posts when the inkling takes Jack. However, a couple of comments in your post jumped out: “The latter (AngloCatholics) “high churchmen” are very sacramental, liturgical, and like the showy externals of fancy vestments, bells and smells in worship.” Not how Anglo-Catholics would self describe. Liturgy and the sacraments are not about “show”. And, btw, Catholics – Anglo or otherwise – are big on the “development of a personal, intimate relationship with Jesus Christ through prayer and spiritual formation.”

          • Bruce Atkinson

            To clarify, AngloCatholics and AngloEvangelicals have a lot in common and most Anglicans are somewhere in the middle. I am generalizing as to their most common differences and as a thoroughly Reformed Anglican, of course I am biased. Evangelicals tend to disdain the vestments, smells, and bells, and what the priest does, while Catholics value them more. I love the BCP liturgy but do not like all the externals that I find distracting from the words and worship. All definitions of “evangelical” include an emphasis on personal conversion and relationship with Christ, which is encouraged by but not dependent on anything we do in church services. The Real Presence of Christ is not only available at the Eucharist but all of the time. He is in me and I am in Him…. all of the time. The authority of Scripture is clearly higher for evangelicals than is the authority of church leaders or church authority. There are no need for mediators between us and Christ; He IS the mediator. We value church but do not see it as having much authority over us.

          • When you say “a thoroughly Reformed Anglican”, you mean what? The most confusing thing about Anglicanism is its wide variety of views and opinions about orthodoxy – its soteriology and ecclesiology.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You want a book? How can I simplify? I agree with approx. 95% of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion. I also agree with the new Jerusalem Declaration and most of the Westminster Confession. Although I grew up with a lot of Catholic influence, as I studied the scriptures for myself, I discovered that I was moving increasingly toward Reformed views, now so much so that where the Reformers disagreed with the RCC, I almost always agree with the Reformers. I do highly value the Eucharist and like it to be the centerpiece of congregational worship. But scripture-based teaching sermons come in a close second.

            Most people know a lot about what John Calvin wrote and believed. I am not a Calvinist because in my opinion he was weak (or in error) in theodicy, prophecy, eschatology, ecclesiology, and the role of the Holy Spirit.

            But I do value much that John Calvin produced, especially regarding the sovereignty of God, the authority of the scriptures, justification by faith, original sin, election, and the importance of grace. He mined the scriptures diligently and proved these principles to be of divine origin. So my view of soteriology is similar to his.

          • Take it you’re ‘re not into Calvin’s view of “double” predestination. Major flaw, in my view that coloured all his theology. Picked up on the flaws in Augustine’s inconsistent views about predestination and his overstated on the effects of original sin- or, rather, how God’s grace works. The sovereignty of God isn’t undermined by human free will, correctly understood. And this is not Arminianism/neo-Pelagianism. We can do nothing without the promptings of grace, but it isn’t irresistible and can be rejected or lost.
            As for Jack, a cradle Catholic who was headed for the priesthood but God had a different path in mind. Left the Church for years and then reverted after a period of looking around. Went into the probation service and then into social work, then psychology, specialising in mental health, child protection and working with families and offenders. Now retired. Have faith in all the Catholic doctrines and teachings. Believe it or not, there is scope for personal belief within the parameters of Catholicism. Regard myself as left of centre on the social teachings of the Church and traditional on matters of faith and morals.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Good to meet ya, Jack.
            I don’t think we are horribly far apart in our theological understandings. Just a comment on double predestination. I don’t like it all. It makes God seems so unmerciful and mean. However, I have to admit that it is totally logical because God is omniscient and omnipotent. If He knows everyone and knows who will be saved (even before the foundation of the world), then He knows who will NOT be saved as well. IF God chooses to save the Elect then He must also choose to damn the non-Elect. Logical but ugly. Romans 9 is not my favorite chapter in the Bible. The debate I think all comes down to the question of how sovereign is God versus our free will. How free IS our will? This debate has been going on for a long time without a clear winner.

          • Good to meet you too. The question is how God chooses to bestow His saving grace on – arbitrarily or with foreknowledge of how these will be used. Have you read Father William Most’s resolution to this?

            Here’s a copy of a couple of short articles:

            https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=140

            http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM

            And an overview of the debates by Stephen S. Bilynskyj:

            http://www.bilynskyj.com/papers/freewill.htm

            (This last author is not a Catholic – so exercise caution)

          • Cressida de Nova

            I am assuming that is not such a good feeling.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I identify with CliveM’s statement. It is a necessary (yes, good) feeling for a Protestant when someone represents Catholicity so clearly.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Jack….you can’t possibly take this heretic seriously. He is infantile . What is the matter with you?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Never mind darling… Mummy will put all the toys back into the cot when your tantrum is over!

          • Dominic Stockford

            This post alleges that I have said various things that I have not in fact said. You have set up a straw man. And why would people listen to someone who can’t spell Missal?

          • ardenjm

            Yep. Thinking in French, le missel catholique, not English, the catholic missal. My bad.

          • The “authority” is answering his superficial, sound-bite slurs against the Church. If he presents as an expert on Catholicism, then he is an imposter and you are foolish to regard him as such. He has no credible standing. Indeed, didn’t you pull him up on this several months ago?

          • carl jacobs

            I remember challenging him on blocking you. I thought he treated you unfairly. But to my knowledge I have never challenged him on his statements about RCism. Why would I do so when I basically agree with him?

          • The fact he never wanted to engage with Jack’s objections to his criticisms of the Church was the issue, as Jack recalls. You pointed out to him that Jack was just the type of Catholic he should engage with, instead of blocking him.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s true. I remember saying that. But that just confirms what I said. I thought he treated you unfairly. That didn’t mean I thought he was incapable of answering you.

          • Well he never has.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, the animosity on this thread has been displayed by you. Exclusively. Dominic has largely stayed out of it.

          • Jack takes it you missed this little gem:

            “Fascinating how much Romanists hate those who have been shown the Gospel, and now walk another way. Its all a bit reminiscent of the way in which the lefties speak about anyone who disagrees with their perverted agendas.”

          • ardenjm

            G K Chesterton became a Catholic, Happy Jack.
            His cause for Beatification is open.
            It would be a joy to see that happen in my lifetime…
            I don’t think England has produced anyone finer in the last 100 years.
            Not a nasty bone in his body.
            Even his ideological enemies cherished him.

          • Anton

            He saw where secularism was going alright, but he was clearly antisemitic and, shockingly, changed from being pro- to anti-Dreyfus in that appalling frame-up of a French Jewish army officer:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Charges_of_anti-Semitism

          • ardenjm

            I’ll just leave this here.
            But a humble caveat too: I acknowledge that the Magisterial Anton does know better and takes vicarious offense better than the Jews who speak here. Don’t listen to them. Listen to Anton. He knows best – ESPECIALLY if it can be used to slander the Constantinian Cult that goes by the name of the Catholic Church. That gets Anton salivating with pleasure:

            As Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote in a posthumous tribute to Chesterton, “When Hitlerism came he was one of the first to speak out with all the directness and frankness of a great and unabashed spirit.” As Farmer – a biographer – writes, his response to the evils of Nazism was that it “must be destroyed and the Jewish people preserved”.

            In the biography Gilbert (Jonathan Cape, 1989, pp. 209-11), Michael Coren noted Chesterton’s profound literary and personal friendship with the Jewish writer Israel Zangwill (not, by the way, his only such friendship), his cordial meetings with Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, and the important statement by the Wiener Library (London’s archive on anti-semitism and Holocaust history) that Chesterton was never seriously anti-semitic: ‘he was not an enemy, and when the real testing time came along he showed what side he was on.’

            For sure Geoffrey Alderman writing in the Jewish Chronicle has axes to grind against Chesterton – no surprise that Anton makes use of that source and no other – but Alderman (as wise and cogent as he is in many of his offerings) doesn’t always make the right judgement as this recent controversy shows:
            http://daphneanson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/why-professor-geoffrey-alderman-is.html

            So, all in all, I’ll stick with the views expressed above and continue taking pleasure in refuting and subsequently ignoring Anton’s latest syntactic droppings.

          • Anton

            It would be best to read him on the subject of Jews in his own words, so here is a book-length study, which appears to be readable at Google Books:

            https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pbmWBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

            Meanwhile, there are some regrettable quotes about Jews on that Wikipedia page and they were written by Chesterton, not me as some might think from your comments.

            What of Chesterton’s U-turn in the Dreyfus affair?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

            Chesterton’s writing on the subject is covered in the book I have cited on p51-5; be sure to read to the end of p55 if you look at the passage.

            I do not presume to offer Rome any advice on the subject of his beatification, but merely express the hope that both sides of the coin will be looked at.

          • Is this anti-Semitic?

            There is an attitude for which my friends and I were for a long period rebuked and even reviled; and of which at the present period we are less likely than ever to repent. It was always called Anti-Semitism; but it was always much more true to call it Zionism. At any rate it was much nearer to the nature of the thing to call it Zionism, whether or no it can find its geographical concentration in Zion. The substance of this heresy was exceedingly simple. It consisted entirely in saying that Jews are Jews; and as a logical consequence that they are not Russians or Roumanians or Italians or Frenchmen or Englishmen ….

            But my friends and I had in some general sense a policy in the matter; and it was in substance the desire to give Jews the dignity and status of a separate nation. We desired that in some fashion, and so far as possible, Jews should be represented by Jews, should live in a society of Jews, should be judged by Jews and ruled by Jews. I am an Anti-Semite if that is Anti-Semitism. It would seem more rational to call it Semitism.

            Read the article and not the commentary given by interpreters. To judge it you will have to appreciate Chest

            http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/new-jerusalem/13/

          • Anton

            A lot of people had the following attitude: (1) Jews should have their own nation, so as not to be in ours (we don’t really like them, or we wouldn’t mind them here); (2) but sorry, there isn’t anywhere suitable.

          • You didn’t read the article did you? That isn’t what Chesterton believed or wrote. It fact, it’s a grotesque caricature.

          • Anton

            I didn’t read more than you posted right here, but I already knew that Chesterton once advocated Palestine and then changed his mind.

            One can learn a lot more about Chesterton’s views about the Jews from his casual comments than from a studied essay on the subject, in which he is obviously going to be on his best behaviour.

            I also admit that I don’t like his style of written English, which I find rather pompous. I much prefer his spoken style, when he was mixing it with Shaw (which has been written down).

          • Right, “casual comments” about Jews no doubt scrupulously noted and verified later as being accurate. Such “casual comments” always quoted in context and set within his broader theological and ideological framework.
            Yeah, sure.
            Read the full account of Chesterton’s thinking. In his own words and carefully set out. Not to cover his real thinking, as you suggest, but to illuminate it.

          • Anton

            I’ll read it. I trust that you in turn will read the short book, to which I gave the link, setting out GKC’s various comments on Jews and analysing them. By “casual comments” I meant, of course, written ones and therefore verifiable. (They’re in the book.) I’m glad to see that you question oral tradition. How about applying that laudable principle of sound scholarship to all those Catholic doctrines about Mary that suddenly surfaced a few centuries after her life?

            The principle that casual comments reveal more about a man’s heart on a subject than his deliberate writings is obvious.

          • That depends on the honesty and agenda of those doing the reporting and the audience they’re targeting.
            Go continue to argue the points about Catholic Tradition concerning Our Lady with Ardenjm. You ducked out of that and refused to answer his questions. Jack isn’t going to feed your hostility to Catholicism anymore. Pointless and too wearing.

          • Anton

            Readers can verify who ducked whose questions for themselves on the Justine Greening thread.

          • They can indeed.

          • Anton

            I call asking about Cromwell’s Irish campaign, when the subject is the Council of Ephesus or Mary’s perpetual virginity, to be an attempt at diversion, which is why I didn’t answer it. Would you care to explain its relevance? Meanwhile, Arden ducked the question of whether the Holy Spirit was behind the goings-on at Ephesus in which both Cyril and Nestorius were condemned but Cyril bribed his way back into favour, thereby causing many thousands of believers in the Trinity, and in Jesus as both fully divine and fully human, to be delisted as Christian by the ‘Catholic’ church.

          • Anton

            I’ve now read it, and think it amply confirms the view I took of his attitude, viz: (1) Jews should have their own nation, so as not to be in ours (we don’t really like them, or we wouldn’t mind them here); (2) but sorry, there isn’t anywhere suitable. (Sound of washing of hands.)

          • Let the readers decide.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Clever Chesterton was famous for changing his mind. Wasn’t he once a Reformed orthodox Anglican and later became Catholic?

          • andrew

            Is it anti semitic to connect Jews with communism?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Not if you are a communist. It is antisemitic if you hate communism.

            It is always wrong to over-generalize. Of course a few Jews have supported communism but it has been a small minority. For example, Israel today is a democratic republic. They could have chosen communism back in 1948 but rejected it. Wise of them.

          • andrew

            So the goyim are forbidden from hating communism?! Sounds absurd. AS for your second point, I’ve read different. But we’ll leave there.

          • Unfortunately Happy Jack succumbs more often that he would like to anger in the face of unjustified and untruthful attacks on Holy Mother Church, her sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and the honour we rightfully pay. He tries; God knows he tries. Canonisation is not an expectation and Jack hopes for time in purgatory to finally purify all his many shortcomings.

            Chesterton is a wonderful example and role model as a Christian.

            Now there is no other corporate mind in the world that is thus on the watch to prevent minds from going wrong. The policeman comes too late, when he tries to prevent men from going wrong. The doctor comes too late, for he only comes to lock up a madman, not to advise a sane man on how not to go mad. And all other sects and schools are inadequate for the purpose. This is not because each of them may not contain a truth, but precisely because each of them does contain a truth; and is content to contain a truth. None of the others really pretends to contain the truth. None of the others, that is, really pretends to be looking out in all directions at once. The Church is not merely armed against the heresies of the past or even of the present, but equally against those of the future, that may be the exact opposite of those of the present. Catholicism is not ritualism; it may in the future be fighting some sort of superstitious and idolatrous exaggeration of ritual. Catholicism is not asceticism; it has again and again in the past repressed fanatical and cruel exaggerations of asceticism. Catholicism is not mere mysticism; it is even now defending human reason against the mere mysticism of the Pragmatists. Thus, when the world went Puritan in the seventeenth century, the Church was charged with pushing charity to the point of sophistry, with making everything easy with the laxity of the confessional. Now that the world is not going Puritan but Pagan, it is the Church that is everywhere protesting against a Pagan laxity in dress or manners. It is doing what the Puritans wanted done when it is really wanted. In all probability, all that is best in Protestantism will only survive in Catholicism; and in that sense all Catholics will still be Puritans when all Puritans are Pagans.

            https://www.chesterton.org/why-i-am-a-catholic/

          • Anton

            This is all a bit much given that the issue is a light-hearted one about changing of gender self-identification during Mass!

          • Merchantman

            Jackie I dont think you should divulge personal stuff about Dominic. Its OK to talk about your own fundamental identity crisis and very sudden conversion to another se … there I go

          • Please learn to distinguish between Jackie and Jack. Could prove awkward.

          • Merchantman

            It was intended as a light hearted jab but things have obviously progressed in another direction since I last participated.

          • Lol …. Jack intended his reply as light hearted too. Jackie and Jack don’t see eye to eye.

        • Dominic Stockford

          ‘The mass is a complete action’? So if the priest has forgotten to put something out and has to go off and get it he is required to start all over again? Don’t be silly, of course he isn’t.

          • ardenjm

            Actually, during the Eucharistic prayer, if something is missing – eg wine in the chalice (he wasn’t paying attention and poured only water in from opaque cruets) then, in fact, he DOES have to start again. He can’t just walk in to the sacristy and get the wine from the bottle and nip back to the altar.
            Did they not teach you that in seminary?

            And of course the rest of my post remains the same and pertinent.

            Let’s not quarrel, Dominic. It will get messy in very short order.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The Eucharistic prayer is not ‘mass’, it is only part of ‘mass’. So your riposte demonstrates the error of your original post.

          • ardenjm

            The principle remains the same at whatever juncture. You don’t stop and start the Mass: you follow the order of the Mass and the prayers and gestures that are proscribed.
            But in fact, you know as well as I do that the culmination of the Mass is that sacramental act when the ministerial priest is used as an instrument of the Great High Priest in the unbloody offering of His sacrifice on Calvary and when that Body and Blood are consumed in the act of communion: the Canon and the Communion rite.

            So, no, sorry Dominic, there’s no error in this instance.

  • What if a man self identifies as a woman for legal purposes, then still as a man murders someone, after which he outwardly becomes a she, the police wouldn’t know whether to look for a man or a woman. Will their former names and gender be on the new documents? Will there be a code letter on the documents to indicate self identification, or will this upset the trannies?

  • len

    God created Man and Woman.
    What the hell is man creating?.

    • David

      “What the hell is man creating?”
      That’s simple !
      Man is creating hell, which is the product you obtain in the absence of God.

  • Inspector General

    Fellows may be wondering where these transgender tragics come from.

    Quite simple. For some decades now, young ladies of courting age have been very interested in finding, dating and marrying something called a ‘soul mate’. For the uninitiated, that’s a chap with an acknowledged female side who can sympathise for want of a better word with her lot.

    There you have it. If you breed off an effete, there’s a good chance that resulting litter doesn’t know its arse from its elbow. Any farmer will tell you he sends off his weakest males to market damn early. You’ve never heard of a flock of transgender sheep, have you…

    • IanCad

      Certainly not! The shepherd would never allow it. Very much unlike our shepherds in the education industry who enable, pervert and encourage our young to become neither fish nor fowl.
      The bill will come due; we must drastically cut down on the education budget. Schoolteachers have much to answer for.

      • Inspector General

        This Inspector is rather surprised that our darling Prime Minister has not placed one of her kitten heels on Millers neck over this trans whatever.

        As you will no doubt agree, dear fellow, these pitifuls do not deserve any government time at all. They should all be grateful but for a few years ago, they’d have been wired up to the mains to shock them out of their illness.

        • Martin

          IG

          “This Inspector is rather surprised that our darling Prime Minister has
          not placed one of her kitten heels on Millers neck over this trans
          whatever.”

          Could be she approves.

          • Inspector General

            Martin, it may be that the Inspector’s opinion of female politicians, and female priests while we are at it, is all too sadly confirmed…

          • Dominic Stockford

            She forced through Same Sex Marriage hiding behind Maria Millers back, I expect she is doing the same thing here.

    • carl jacobs

      So where did you get all this copious knowledge about women?

      • From his cat. Along with his “higher understanding” after a few drinks. He is nursing a broken heart.

      • Sarky

        The conduct books of the eighteenth century.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        The Hardest Wish

        A man was walking along a California beach when he looked down
        and found a ancient looking oil lamp. Remembering the story of Aladdin, he promptly rubbed the lamp.

        Out popped a genie who announced that he would grant the man one wish.

        The man said, “Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can drive over there anytime I want.”

        The genie responded that this was too hard and unrealistic a task.
        “The supports required reaching the bottom of the Pacific! The
        concrete and steel it would take! It will nearly exhaust several
        natural resources. I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your
        desire for such a thing. Take a little more time and think of something
        more realistic.”

        The man thought about it and finally he said, “I wish that
        I could understand my wife. I want to know how she feels inside, what she’s thinking when she gives me the silent treatment, why she cries, what she means when she says nothing’s wrong, and how I can make a woman truly happy.”

        The genie sighed and asked, “You want two lanes or four on that bridge?”

    • Anna055

      It’s not a joke …. (though the government’s current policy on it is, which is what I think abp C. is getting at). I know 3 “transgender individuals”. I autistic boy, 1geeky, slightly aspergers boy, both made to feel excluded and “different” at school, now living as girls. 1 girl, child of divorce, sexual abuse, now living as a boy. This fits with the wider picture ….. I believe that there is a high correlation between autism and transgender decisions, and then abused, unhappy children want to escape who they are. Add in the, frankly, abusive current publicity about transgenderism, and the even worse stuff freely available on the internet and hey presto ….. explosion in transgenderism. ….. then of course you’ve got all the other possible scenarios that either make people want to escape who they are, or even become genuinely split away from the real them.

  • Cressida de Nova

    I take it back (my comment about how I wish there were more Catholic men like you) …too many already

  • Cressida de Nova

    Tsk…I thought you were a nice boy !

  • Navarth

    I hear that Welby has excommunicated Andy Lines. Andy is of course the real deal. I can’t help but point out that Bishop Lines is a former British officer commissioned in the Royal Tank Regiment, which in my view says a great deal for his character and life experience. It will be interesting to see what develops – I am optimistic that an Anglican renewal can soon take place along the ACNA model and hopefully involving AMiE.

    • Anton

      If it’s true (link?) then it is why missionary bishops might be better coming from the Anglican communion overseas.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Yes, an orthodox Anglican renewal is gradually happening.

      Andy Lines is not part of the Church of England. Welby cannot “excommunicate” him. Lines is part of GAFCON and ACNA. Sorry, Welby, you have zero power over this bishop’s ministry.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Andy is a jolly good Christian man. Welby demonstrates a lot about himself by claiming to have done such a thing.

    • Hilltop Watchman

      The silence from Welby and others re the genocide of Christians by the Religion of Peace is palpable, likewise the Dhimmi Marxist Pope.

  • len

    I can see why (from some of the comments from the religious brigade ) why God likes religion even less than the atheists do.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Feel free to do so, and thanks. Ad hominems and insults are indeed ugly and even poisonous. However, strong arguments in debating and defending one’s treasured beliefs is a good thing. The focus must remain on the content, not on the person who is writing their thoughts.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    “Patently absurd” is Archbishop Cranmer’s correct evaluation. “Evil” and “sick” would also apply.

  • Hilltop Watchman

    Let’s cut to the chase: Except in VERY rare instances, we are genetically either XX or XY female or male both in gender and sex, which are one and the same thing.

    You cannot actually “change gender” as that would involve replacement of either an X or Y gene in every cell of one’s body, end of story.

    What you can do, is pump yourself full of sex hormones to fool your endocrine system into giving your body the appearance of the opposite sex while dressing and styling accordingly. In the final stages you can have your genitals surgically altered and ovaries/testes removed to stop them automatically reversing the process. You then have a LIFE on hormone treatment to mimic a gonad swap.

    This is not the latest buzzword “transphobic” it is called reality. A dictionary definition of “transphobia” is an IRRATIONAL fear, presumably of transexuals: The word is being used to close down discussion and dissent from the current narrative and our spineless politicians and “academics” are too cowardly to state the bloody obvious, thereby allowing this rollercoaster of the ridiculous to gather pace.

    There is no doubt that gender dysphoria exists, but it is extremely rare, the current epidemic being the latest fad for the Left to champion with the usual bunch of unemployable nose-ringed suspects, artists and celebs after a bit of limelight to virtue signal how caring and right-on they are.

    If someone decides at some stage to go through the process to change their outward gender/sexual appearance then good luck, but don’t presume to do it at our expense. It has been shown time and again that there are deep psychological issues with most of those looking to change sex.

    Unfortunately our “experts” in thrall to the latest fad and scenting both job security and funding, are aiding and abetting invasive and irreversible medical procedures on, let’s not beat about the bush, mentally fragile individuals.

    The reality is that the vast majority aren’t confused about their gender/sex, they’re confused or unsure of their SEXUALITY, not the same thing. That children approaching adolescence experience some sexual ambiguity is hardly surprising as the hormones flood their bodies, but to attribute this to “gender-fluidity” is abject nonsense and quackery of the first order.

    To then fail to explain what puberty is all about and then at a time of confusion and emotional fragility, fill their heads with mumbo-jumbo, psychobabble and trendy junk science, is actually sexual abuse, groomed by the educational system, encouraged by politicians and naturally supported by the Left as their latest banner to march under, the last fad having faced in everyone’s minds.

    But this latest fad is far worse than anything before as it is being deliberately aimed at children and adolescents who don’t or won’t have the capacity or willpower to resist or question their teachers and mentors. Be in no doubt that any who do, or parents who object, will be mercilessly hounded by the schools, councils and in all likelihood the politicised police and media, their futures and reputations blighted. I predict a slew of children stolen from their parents in a further attack on the family. Worse, I see these fragile and confused youngsters, aided and abetted by the State, medicated,filled with hormones and surgically altered, none of which will address the deeper problems while possibly tipping them into the 40% of trans-altered who commit suicide.

    No doubt some worthy will point to “award for bravery” Bruce/Caitlin Jenner, but conveniently omit that he hasn’t had his bits cut off and surgically altered. Firstly, if he hasn’t had that done, he is still a he. Secondly he had enough money to ride it out, most others experience great difficulty especially if their facial features don’t fit. And thirdly until he does have his penis and testes removed he is a man in a dress, sorry that is the cold had reality, a transvestite, cross-dresser whatever.

    Personally I don’t give a tuppenny fourex what someone does, but got “experts” and the State to groom fragile and vulnerable children in this way is not compassionate, nor civilised, it is EVIL and WRONG.

    I will make a prediction: In a few years as the number of “trans” fall into despair, drugs, unemployment and above all suicide, rises, this will dwarf by several orders of magnitude, any scandal that has come before. Remember Orkney, Cleveland, Satanic Abuse, Recoveted memory, that were ALL debunked, cause untold hardship, damaged children, split families and falsely imprisoned so many. Well, we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

    The scandal and the sin, is that it is entirely predictable and preventable. Sadly on current trends this won’t be the last, the bodies and minds of the innocent and vulnerable littering the landscape, sacrificed for an ideological fad, soon to be made worse by the utterly ludicrous Amber Rudd who seems to think that you can change gender at the stroke of a pen. By her moronic rationale a law could be drafted that on a simple legal declaration on a piece of paper, I could legally be defined as a giraffe, despite it being patently obvious that I’m not.

    It is perfectly parodied in the Monty Python film ” the Life of Brian” when at the meeting of the Judean People’s Front, Eric Idle demands that he wants to have babies. Reg the leader says “But you can’t, your a man”. Eric Idles says “but I demand to have babies”. Reg then posits that although Eric is a man he should “have the RIGHT to have babies” . Ms Rudd obviously hadn’t seen the film nor considered the utter absurdity of her Bill. This from a supposed”Conservative” government.

    Neither the Church or any State representative will put their heads above the parapet for fear of getting it shot off or more fearful of being accused of “transphobia”. Strength of convictions and unity of resolve crumbled, the army of the righteous, cowering in fear of a few insults, routed by the assassins of the Left years ago. One only has to witness the silence of the CofE and the Pope at the genocide of Christians by the religion of peace to see how far the rot has spread.

    When the true scale and horror, the festering swollen boil that is this authorised, systematic psychological and sexual abuse comes to a head and bursts, the usual concocted outrage by the guilty parties who caused the mess, not forgetting the now standard trite phrase trotted out like a scratched record “Lessons will be learned”

    • Bruce Atkinson

      I agree in general, but you took an awfully long time to “cut to the chase.”

    • The Snail

      Quite right – to cut to the chase.

      X is not Y,
      And Y is not X,
      You can try as you may,
      But you cannot change sex.

  • Hilltop Watchman

    Let’s cut to the chase: Except in VERY rare instances, we are genetically either XX or XY female or male both in gender and sex, which are one and the same thing.

    You cannot actually “change gender” as that would involve replacement of either an X or Y gene in every cell of one’s body, end of story.

    What you can do, is pump yourself full of sex hormones to fool your endocrine system into giving your body the appearance of the opposite sex while dressing and styling accordingly. In the final stages you can have your genitals surgically altered and ovaries/testes removed to stop them automatically reversing the process. You then have a LIFE on hormone treatment to mimic a gonad swap.

    This is not the latest buzzword “transphobic” it is called reality. A dictionary definition of “transphobia” is an IRRATIONAL fear, presumably of transexuals: The word is being used to close down discussion and dissent from the current narrative and our spineless politicians and “academics” are too cowardly to state the bloody obvious, thereby allowing this rollercoaster of the ridiculous to gather pace.

    There is no doubt that gender dysphoria exists, but it is extremely rare, the current epidemic being the latest fad for the Left to champion with the usual bunch of unemployable nose-ringed suspects, artists and celebs after a bit of limelight to virtue signal how caring and right-on they are.

    If someone decides at some stage to go through the process to change their outward gender/sexual appearance then good luck, but don’t presume to do it at our expense. It has been shown time and again that there are deep psychological issues with most of those looking to change sex.

    Unfortunately our “experts” in thrall to the latest fad and scenting both job security and funding, are aiding and abetting invasive and irreversible medical procedures on, let’s not beat about the bush, mentally fragile individuals.

    The reality is that the vast majority aren’t confused about their gender/sex, they’re confused or unsure of their SEXUALITY, not the same thing. That children approaching adolescence experience some sexual ambiguity is hardly surprising as the hormones flood their bodies, but to attribute this to “gender-fluidity” is abject nonsense and quackery of the first order.

    To then fail to explain what puberty is all about and then at a time of confusion and emotional fragility, fill their heads with mumbo-jumbo, psychobabble and trendy junk science, is actually sexual abuse, groomed by the educational system, encouraged by politicians and naturally supported by the Left as their latest banner to march under, the last fad having faced in everyone’s minds.

    But this latest fad is far worse than anything before as it is being deliberately aimed at children and adolescents who don’t or won’t have the capacity or willpower to resist or question their teachers and mentors. Be in no doubt that any who do, or parents who object, will be mercilessly hounded by the schools, councils and in all likelihood the politicised police and media, their futures and reputations blighted. I predict a slew of children stolen from their parents in a further attack on the family. Worse, I see these fragile and confused youngsters, aided and abetted by the State, medicated,filled with hormones and surgically altered, none of which will address the deeper problems while possibly tipping them into the 40% of trans-altered who commit suicide.

    No doubt some worthy will point to “award for bravery” Bruce/Caitlin Jenner, but conveniently omit that he hasn’t had his bits cut off and surgically altered. Firstly, if he hasn’t had that done, he is still a he. Secondly he had enough money to ride it out, most others experience great difficulty especially if their facial features don’t fit. And thirdly until he does have his penis and testes removed he is a man in a dress, sorry that is the cold had reality, a transvestite, cross-dresser whatever.

    Personally I don’t give a tuppenny fourex what someone does, but got “experts” and the State to groom fragile and vulnerable children in this way is not compassionate, nor civilised, it is EVIL and WRONG.

    I will make a prediction: In a few years as the number of “trans” fall into despair, drugs, unemployment and above all suicide, rises, this will dwarf by several orders of magnitude, any scandal that has come before. Remember Orkney, Cleveland, Satanic Abuse, Recoveted memory, that were ALL debunked, cause untold hardship, damaged children, split families and falsely imprisoned so many. Well, we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

    The scandal and the sin, is that it is entirely predictable and preventable. Sadly on current trends this won’t be the last, the bodies and minds of the innocent and vulnerable littering the landscape, sacrificed for an ideological fad, soon to be made worse by the utterly ludicrous Amber Rudd who seems to think that you can change gender at the stroke of a pen. By her moronic rationale a law could be drafted that on a simple legal declaration on a piece of paper, I could legally be defined as a giraffe, despite it being patently obvious that I’m not.

    It is perfectly parodied in the Monty Python film ” the Life of Brian” when at the meeting of the Judean People’s Front, Eric Idle demands that he wants to have babies. Reg the leader says “But you can’t, your a man”. Eric Idles says “but I demand to have babies”. Reg then posits that although Eric is a man he should “have the RIGHT to have babies” . Ms Rudd obviously hadn’t seen the film nor considered the utter absurdity of her Bill. This from a supposed”Conservative” government.

    Neither the Church or any State representative will put their heads above the parapet for fear of getting it shot off or more fearful of being accused of “transphobia”. Strength of convictions and unity of resolve crumbled, the army of the righteous, cowering in fear of a few insults, routed by the assassins of the Left years ago. One only has to witness the silence of the CofE and the Pope at the genocide of Christians by the religion of peace to see how far the rot has spread.

    When the true scale and horror, the festering swollen boil that is this authorised, systematic psychological and sexual abuse comes to a head and bursts, the usual concocted outrage by the guilty parties who caused the mess, not forgetting the now standard trite phrase trotted out like a scratched record “Lessons will be learned”

  • Plasterer

    “The Conservative and Christian response to gender dysphoria hardly needs
    reiterating: compassion must flow in order to mitigate suffering.”

    Yes, but compassion as many wish to define it is to always nod and say: “yes, whatever you believe about yourself is true”. Ditto acceptance and tolerance.