ECUSA is run by women, homosexuals, and weak men that agree with them.

Why anyone would be surprised that Frank Griswold was elected is a mystery to me.

It's not like all this happened in the last 3 years. For ECUSA to truly shock me they would have to make a decidely orthodox decision about conduct or matters of faith, and as we can see from the candidates for bishop of California, that's not gonna happen.

ECUSA continues to sail in the same direction that it has since the 1960's, any change in course would really be big news,while continued revelations of unchristian behavior is not.

Pax, Sam +

The fruit of the fruits of El Griswoldo's tenure - a completely ruined and apostate Episcopal 'Church.'

With Christian love,

Essodalori

P.S. Hey, el Griswoldo! Queen Lutibelle wants to know if she(?) can go with you the next time you go to Paris. And Vickie wants to know if you can bring back a bottle of Napolean Brandy. Oh, right... Don't forget to bring your condoms... (just in case you meet those guys from the Left Bank!) (NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT...)

Dear New Age Abbie,

I'm married, but I was wondering if it's really wrong for me to do the sodomy thing with a bunch of homos from the Left Bank, while my wife is having tea with a friend in Paris. Please advise.

----

Dear Conflicted,

First, if it's OK with your wife, then why not? Go out and sodomize to your _____'s content.

But if it's not (for some wives are still sadly old-fashioned that way), you need some good moral guidance.

My suggestion, as it is for most of my readers, is the Episcopal Church. This is George Washington's church, so you know you can trust it.

Now, according to ECUSA, there's nothing wrong with rectally sodomizing a man in general, and getting all fecal with him. ECUSA teaches that the Bible can be ignored on most issues, because God has revealed to ECUSA's bishops something new and beautiful - a reflection of heaven - homorectal sodomy!

Second, there is the question of whether you should sodomize Left Bank homos if your wife doesn't approve. The way I look at it is - if she doesn't know, it can't make her upset. Just be really careful so that she doesn't find out (to not do so would not be truly loving).

Oh, right - Of course, you should wear 'protection.' Of course, if she really loves you, she'll take on the same diseases you get. (Wives are sooooooo self-centered these days...)

There, I hope that helps.

Finally, Conflicted, if you like that homoanal sodomy so much, perhaps you should think about leaving your wife and kids, and shacking up with a guy (so that he's always available when you 'need' it.) In ECUSA, there's a bishop who did that, so I think that proves it must be right by God? Feel better? I thought you would.

Your spiritual and moral guide,

New Age Abbie (with grateful kudos to ECUSA)

P.S. Your wife is lucky, Conflicted, to have such a thoughtful man! I wish my hubbie was just like you.

P.P.S. You may also want to see Brokeback Mountain, Conflicted, for moral guidance on how to treat wives while gettin' down and dirty with a man's behind. It's truly inspiring. Do you have kids? They should be made to see this glorious movie...for their own good... (Can you believe it? Some Bible-thumpin' right-wing homophobic wackos won't take their kids to see Brokeback. That disgusts me and it should disgust you and every decent person too.)

If this is in fact true, it serves to confirm what so many already suspect: that Griswold is a closet gay or a shill for Integrity! I prefer to wait and see, but I wouldn't be surprised either way. I don't respect the man, and never have! He may be a "nice man" to some, but underneath that veneer, there is a sneaky, cunning, and vacuous individual who has absolutely no business being in Holy Orders....let alone being Presiding Bishop! This man is without a doubt the WORST Presiding Bishop the Church has ever had....bar none!

Well - Well - Well! Another one who *lost it* in GAY PAREE

I suspect that a lot of the clergy at the top are disproportionately in the Griswold mold. The fire and brimstone ministers of the past have been replaced by the weak minded and physically perverse. From homosexuals in the pulpit, the diocese and the leadership, there can be nothing but trouble as they will select and elect their own to preserve their power. No church can survive such corruption.

Dear Cennydd,

Yes, this article is in fact true. I believe it to be true because I know the “anonymous” retired bishop that has told this story. I heard this same story from the mouth of this bishop over dinner about 5 ½ years ago. If you are surprised that this bishop remains anonymous, or if anyone thinks that it somehow cuts to his credibility, I understand why he wants to remain anonymous. Obviously, out of respect for him and his desire to remain anonymous I would not give his name.

Some months ago someone (I forget who) on this website said that he thought FTG is a closeted homosexual. I sent him a PM (not revealing the anonymous bishop) saying that I was aware of a FTG excursion in which probable homosexual “improprieties” had taken place. The basis for this PM was the conversation with the “anonymous” bishop.

Is this to say that Fr. John Cochran is in the know or in the loop on such matters? Absolutely not, the point is that I believe this article by David Virtue because it was told to me years ago, almost word for word. I also believe that if the "anonymous" bishop knows that FTG is a closeted homosexual, so do several other ECUSA bishops. Probably, this is why he was nominated for PB in the first place, and this is why the homosexual agenda is defended by him so vigorously. Watch for FTG to out himself sometime in the future as the first known homosexual PB. Additionally, anyone else that knows this “anonymous” bishop should also respect his desire for anonymity.

John+

Frankly, (no pun intended) I am not fond of undisclosed sources, even when they say things I suspect are true. If Mr. Virtue’s source is as he claims, why did it take him so long to speak and why has he asked to keep his name out of it?

If he is as he claims, a “man”, let him step forth into the light and tell the truth. "All it takes for evil to exist is for good men to remain silent". Let's all stop being "nice", start being honest, and let the chips fall as they will. After all there really is not a church left to save.

A long time ago another man was condemned for consorting with the wrong crowd. His name was Jesus.
Quote:
perhaps this retired bishop needs to think about whose cathedral it really is.

Righteo, Mr. Hill.

El Griswoldo brought the queers into the cathedral to help them find God and to help bring them to repentance for their deviant ways - and to live chaste and holy and pure Christian lives...

NOT!

Essodalori

In breaking news today, it was revealed that Frank Griswold has been bringing Louie Crew to St. John the Divine's, in the hope that he would come to see the beauty and glory and true love in God's way, and give up his sodomy, and his 'crotch perfume' and 'Adam's balls' poetry.

Said Griswold: "I am much distressed that Queen Lutibelle - I mean Louie Crew! - has given himself over, lock, stock and barrel, to deviant lust, and to writing poetry about his deviant lust - and to celebrating his desire for other men's genitals on his website - and in his church. My greatest desire is that this man give up his sin and be saved..."

"He is a saint...," said many who witnessed Griswold's great charity and Christiain witness.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

My family (wife's too) are all from Chicago. My wife's dad used to be pretty involved in diocesian stuff (he is now a Catholic). A couple of times when I've talked to him about his reason for leaving .. he let slip comments like "oh, you wouldn't believe what went on down there (at the diocese)" and "There were constant jokes about why all the candles were stubby."

Other semi-insiders have told me that several of the bishops were closeted gays, and part of the reason for their wishy-washyness was that groups like Integrity, and Bishop Spong knew who they were. They worked under indirect threats of being outted.

The whole church is engulfed in septicemia -- its endemic.

Those who are willing to "go to the mat" in support of the proposition that sodomy is not sin must all (and I mean ALL) have some personal investment in the matter.

As for the revisionists who post on VOL, this is obvious from both the substance and tone of their arguments. Even when revisionists who post here claim to be heterosexuals who have spouses and kids, their reasoning is so illogical and subjective and disingenuous and whining and effeminate that one must conclude they are propagandists whose rational processes have been corrupted by self-interest.

This is precisely why, while one would think the orthodox would be squeamish, it is in fact the revisionists, of all people, who react most strenuously to the more explicit descriptions of what sodomy is on VOL--because they find it unsettling to see that which they ultimately endorse described so precisely as the depravity which it is. The orthodox hold a mirror up to them and they cringe. While they want to cloak their arguments with the legitimacy of logic, while they want to appear objective and detached and "spin" the sin out of the Gospel, as soon as the filthy, debilitating and deadly aspects of sodomy are pointed out, the revisionists become defensive and haul out the words "hate," "intolerance," "neo-Puritanism," "judgmentalism," and "homophobia." Why else would they so cringe but for the fact that they are thereby forced to confront the painful truth about which they have deceived themselves? Theirs is a deceit so powerful that--even in the age of HIVAids--the revisionists are still willing to assert that sodomy is good!

And so, my bet would be that the vast majority who advocate the "un-sinning" of sodomy are either sodomists themselves or sympathetic to sodomists (because some loved one is one); in other words, that they are incapable of objectivity.

It therefore would not surprise me in the slightest if this story were true.

Finally, I am reminded of the following quote by Jonathan Swift, which I think applies to all revisionists:

“But when a man’s fancy gets astride on his reason, when imagination is at cuffs with the senses, and common understanding, as well as common sense, is kickt out of doors; the first proselyte he makes, is himself, and when that is once compass’d, the difficulty is not so great in bringing over others; a strong delusion always operating from without, as vigorously as from within.”

Meanwhile on Paris's Left Bank, the ECUSA Presiding Bishop and John Chane enjoy the sunshine and scenery after just leaving the Integrity Eucharist ...

mlwasp,

There are often times good and valid reasons for wanting anonymity, what’s your reason?

FRHLL,

I think the bishop knows whose cathedral it is. This is kind of like me saying, “I am going to my house.” Or, “I think I will put on my clothes.” We all know whose house and clothes they are. I am merely a steward of such things during my short duration on this planet. The bishop knows this also.

John Cochran+
St. James Anglican Church
8107 Holmes Road
Kansas City, MO 64131

[FrHLL "A long time ago another man was condemned for consorting with the wrong crowd. His name was Jesus.]

1 - He was much more than "a man."

2 - There is a BIG difference between ministering to and cavorting with

Seems pretty clear to me, but what do I know, I never went to ECUSA seminary.

"A long time ago another man was condemned for consorting with the wrong crowd. His name was Jesus."

____

consort n.: a husband or wife; a spouse

consort v.: to associate with, agree with or espouse

FRHLL, when you yourself use the phrase "consorting with the wrong crowd" do you mean "to associate with" sinners for the purpose of admonishing them to repent (as even a sick man requires a physician), or do you mean "to espouse", or "to agree with"?

And if you truly believe that sodomy is not sin (that this isn't "the wrong crowd" (and we know Griswold doesn't consider such "the wrong crowd")), then what distinguishes this august group to make them "the right crowd," so worthy of Griswold's attention? If sexuality is a matter of indifference to God, then by what strange coincidence did so many of one "orientation" find themselves in the Bishop's company? If they are not distinguished by the nature of their sin and yet were all sodomists, one can but infer that Griswold chose to "consort" with them precisely because he espouses sodomy itself.

Your post thus defies logic at multiple levels.

FRHLL,

The question is for what reason did he bring them to the cathedral? For life transformation for those individuals or to transform the Church?

Can you find one example from the New Testament in which Jesus encouraged sexual sin for the purpose of changing it from a sin to a virtue? Just one example?

He told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin now more," after He forgave her. Was this the loving thing to do?

He did not say that the Scriptures have been too restrictive or misunderstood and so opinion needs to change so that sexual behavior outside of marriage is not longer viewed as immorality.

You want the Divine acceptance but not the Divine injunction. Christ offers the package deal.

Neal

A day on vacation in the Griswold household:

---

Hi honey, how was your tea with Emma?

Wonderful, darling, what have you been up to this afternoon?

Well, honey, I decided to go over to the Left Bank and meet up with a bunch of flaming homos that I've never met before, and bring them on down and show them the cathedral.

How special darling!

If it's OK, dear, I'm going out with them tonight...

Oh, how wonderful! Say hi to the queers for me, darling! Have a wonderful evening...

----

Essodalori

Thank you, David, for confirming what was becoming more and more obvious about the PB. At least we now know why.

I must agree with FRHLL over what seems a rather bigoted way to handle homosexuals. I want anyone to feel free to attend my services - even homosexuals. The quotes of the retired bishop indicates a bias against gays and lesbians that I find most unfortunate.

Let me be clear, however, that if Griswold brought them to the cathedral to be in any way offensive, I condemn the move. Griswold's penchance for the dramatic and stupid could easily be an issue here.

But let's be clear: the Church is open for all people - including the gays, lesbians, and transgendered people of this world. Why? Because they are sinners like us and in need of a Savior like us also.

-Jim+

Neal, precisely!

Jim,

Thank you. I also found the Bishop's stereotyping offensive.

Everyone is welcome to come but not for the purpose of creating distraction.

Neal

Jim,

If sodomy is not a sin, then what is Griswold's motivation for gathering people whose distinguishing feature (shall we say common denominator) is likely that they are sodomists? What "statement" was meant to be made? And if the answer is that they considered themselves outcasts who were unwelcome, why would that have been? Because the church condemns sodomy as sin? So, did Griswold invite them to save them and encourage them to repent? Or was the purpose to thumb his nose at the church and its teaching, to tell them that they're "o.k." and that the church will change some day if they work for change from within? I don't get it--but for the obvious answer: namely, that he wants to change the church, not his guests, that he wants the church to repent, not his guests. Open to some other hypothesis.

Ya know, Father Jim - there's an issue there.

All are invited to Christ's cup. What's required? True repentance for sin.

However - gays coming into a church and acting 'gay' toward each other is scandalous to families with children. If they're hanging on each other, or have got their hands on each other's butts, or are talking 'gay' to each other - then no way. That's child abuse.

In our local YMCA, we have homosexuals coming into the locker room reserved for dads and their under 18 sons (which was set up to prevent homosexuals and under-18s from being together to begin with), and there they grope each other, pat their fannies, style each other's hair, and talk gay - and keep taking a look at the boys changing. The fathers have forced them out several times; the Y refuses to do anything.

Enough!

Griswold never had any intention of calling these homosexuals to repentance - - as he spends each day of his life promoting sodomy in the name of Christ.

The bishop is right to not want unrepentant sodomites in his church.

If they want to come in, let them in to confess their sins and repent.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

My family and I attended our local flaming Episcopal church before we knew what was going on there. I noticed in the homilies that God/Christ were never mentioned. Then I began to notice that after services the rector was very "attentive" to my 18 yo son but wouldn't give my wife or I the time of day. Then came the sermon about the beautiful gay couple with aids that died and how their love for each other was like God's love for us. After the service before the rector got to my son I stopped him and let him and everyone else around know what I thought, and for all of them to stay away from my children or my twenty years of karate would overcome my christian charity. They continued sending stuff to my kids (three boys) wanting them to take part in camps, classes, etc. I finally had to threaten them with a harassment lawsuit before they finally stopped sending stuff/calling.
When Esso talks about them getting your kids, it's no joke, they're really after them.
At this church you will now see nothing but "gay equality" bumperstickers on the cars along with "Abortion is a choice" and "Bushitler" stickers.
I wouldn't be surprized if every male Episcopal priest that's left in ECUSA is secretly flaming. I will NEVER set foot in one of those churches again.

My feeling is that -

At best, this action was meant aa some kind of warped "lunch counter sit-in" along the lines of the recent "wear a rainbow sash to chruch" gay campaign in the Catholic church.

At worst, this was really sloppy judgement from Frank, who maybe wan't holding his wine too well after the previous night of fun on the Seine.

Confrontational repentence/intervention isn't even on the radar screen in ECUSA.

In the schools, in some churches (like ECUSA), in the media (like MTV), the homos are out to normalize sodomy and homosex to your kids. Your kids are targets; they are prey (psychological, emotional, spiritual and often physical). In the Catholic church, ten thousand boys were sodomized and homoraped by queer priests in the last three decades. Thousands more were homomolested in other countries (like Ireland).

That's why homos hate, hate, hate the Boy Scouts. There they're not allowed to get near their prey - and the Boy Scouts is not afraid to say that homosodomy is neither moral nor clean.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Word is that FTG, with encouragement from his friend and mentor Dr. Crew, would like to see "Freddie Mercury" added to "Lesser Feasts and Fasts."

Esso, I was a Boy Scout, and I still remember the Boy Scout Oath: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country, to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." "Morally straight"means exactly what it says....too bad ECUSA's leadership hasn't taken it to heart!

Cennydd

Like everything else in this craziness the revision means the opposite.

Neal

I was a Boy Scout too, Cenny, and my sons are both on track to be Eagles.

From the Boy Scout legal issues website (bsalegal.org):

"Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s moral position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views concerning the morality of homosexual conduct, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys."

---

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Dateline: Concord Center for Performing Arts, New Hampshire, September 2002

Event: 200th Anniversary celebration of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire

Eyewitness: Me

Because I was with a fellow parishioner who had the power, I was in the second row. There was a renewal of baptism which involved a baptismal font on the stage. Frank Griswold and former NH Bp. Douglas Theuner decided the baptismal renewal was a game, I guess. They started dipping branches in the water and flinging the water out into the audience, laughing. They looked like quite the co-conspirators. I got wet in the second row.

Didn't think much about it at the time, but I've had plenty of time to reflect on that after the events that started three years ago. I've wondered if there was some slick little secret between Griswold & Theuner. It seemed to me to be very strange behavior for bishops!

Dateline: Concord Center for Performing Arts, New Hampshire, September 2002

Event: 200th Anniversary celebration of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire

Eyewitness: Me

Because I was with a fellow parishioner who had the power, I was in the second row. There was a renewal of baptism which involved a baptismal font on the stage. Frank Griswold and former NH Bp. Douglas Theuner decided the baptismal renewal was a game, I guess. They started dipping branches in the water and flinging the water out into the audience, laughing. They looked like quite the co-conspirators. I got wet in the second row.

Didn't think much about it at the time, but I've had plenty of time to reflect on that after the events that started three years ago. I've wondered if there was some slick little secret between Griswold & Theuner. It seemed to me to be very strange behavior for bishops!

"... a group of very gay looking men .... They were dressed in drag..."
___

"But let's be clear: the Church is open for all people - including the gays, lesbians, and transgendered people of this world. Why? Because they are sinners like us and in need of a Savior like us also."
___

Jim, I agree with you, that they are welcome, that they need to be welcomed.

However, neither do I go into a church with a paramour, nor do I light up a cigar, nor do I go inebriated, nor do I take out of the offering plate, etc., etc.

What, then, does it mean or say when someone shows up in drag?

And so, I do not agree with you that there was bigotry involved in this. Indignation, yes. But bigotry? I think not.

Instead, what I suspect the bishop objected to was what is related in the first quote. People who know they are sinners, and know the nature of their sin, do not go into a cathedral flaunting their sin, and indeed, sinning in the very process. Do they?

Does this not completely justify the conclusion that this was nothing other than an in-your-face political statement?

Guess what? Nothing ... absolutely nothing has changed since the 90s - FTG is still "consorting" ...

Right on, stoneridge.

Let's see, in the Catholic Church, we get sodomites' throwing condoms at parishioners at Mass every year; the bishop gets middle fingers and obscene gestures and sodomites dressed up as nuns mocking Christ on 5th Ave. in front of St. Patrick's in NYC at every 'gay' 'pride' parade, in Boston, they get homosexuals standing up and kissing at Mass, in front of everyone's children, Rainbow Sashers who demand the Body of Christ without the confession of sin, etc. etc.

Any homosexual is loved by God and by Christ - but it is a tough love, that demands holiness and transformation - if one is to be saved.

The first step? Leave the perversion behind when you enter God's house.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

WOW! told ya so!!

now when will the HIV tests be administered?
HIV/AIDS dementia is real.

i have to admit that dressing in drag didn't make much sense So i went out to google
"dresses in drag" opps
i do stumble & fall;

WITHOUT pictures i post;

""Drag is special form of performance art based on cross-dressing. A drag queen is a male-bodied person who performs as an exaggeratedly feminine character, in an elaborate costume usually consisting of a gaudy dress and high-heeled shoes, heavy makeup, and a large wig. A drag queen may imitate famous female film or pop-music stars. (See also RuPaul)

A drag king is the counterpart of the drag queen — a female-bodied person who adopts an exaggerated masculine persona in performance or who imitates a male film or pop-music star. Some female-bodied people undergoing gender reassignment therapy also self-identify as drag kings, although this use of "drag king" is considered inaccurate by some.

Many transgendered people cross-dress relative to their birth sex, but transgendered people who have undergone gender reassignment therapy are usually not regarded as cross-dressing. See transvestism.

A transvestic fetishist is a person (typically a heterosexual male) who cross-dresses as part of a sexual fetish.

The term underdressing is used by male cross-dressers to describe wearing female undergarments under their male clothes.

Some people who cross-dress may endeavor to project a complete impression of belonging to another gender, down to mannerisms, speech patterns, and emulation of sexual characteristics. This is referred to as "trying to pass". Others may choose to take a mixed approach, adopting some feminine traits and some masculine traits in their appearance. For instance, a man might wear both a dress and a beard. This is sometimes known as genderf*ck. Finally, for some the motivation for cross-dressing is to undermine the idea that any article of clothing is "only for men" or "only for women." These people may broadly mix clothing from both genders, in a practice called freestyle.""

You guys are in rare form today. Greg, you may want to edit that post (near the end) before DV sees it, but it is definitely good info. Thanks for it.

I love you all!

jotv

Hello: I'm a new newbie and former Episcopalian. I have been watching this site for the last week or so and this is my first post.
IF this is true about FTG, ( of course time will tell, but I must say I'm about convinced ) it is beyond my comprehension to imagine that FTG brought those people into the cathedral to bring them to the Lord. It was disgusting. Does he have no shame ? Who are these people ?

Quote:

Those are some amazing artists. What we in high school used to call b---s--- artists.

jotv

"Does he have no shame ? "

---

No, JAV, sadly he doesn't.

Welcome to the site!

With Christian love,

Essodalori

No one really knows why Griswold did what he did. Jesus died to save sinners - and bringing homosexuals and prostitutes to church could be viewed as an attempt to save sinners. However, the tone of this story is not one of saving sinners but of abusing and embarassing the Episcopal bishop who would not let him preach again from the Parisian pulpit.

Griswold is the leader of revisionism and decline - and he will be replaced by another bishop of revisionism and decline. Does anyone seriously doubt where GC2006 is headed? The only question at this point is one of degree!!! And one of rate of decline.

jotv, i got in trouble for posting pictures of pagans that looked like gays, whatever ...

The word post i made above is a straight quote from Wikipedia.

=====
Here is the link i liked while googling "in Drag";

Click her for Joe opening up in Drag

Best Draglist link below
Click here to see the pictures and good articles that i liked.

Please be aware that, that ritual has been around for a very long time. Get your dictionary and look up asperges.

That little notion of a proper "wedding garment" comes to mind here. There is something to put off and something to put on. We are not to come in our tattered sinful clothes as if they are to be accepted. We are given new clothes. We are to be clothed not in our "self" but in Him.

We must deny ourselves. We are ordered to do so. We must put off the "corruptible" and put on the
"incorruptible". We are ordered to "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit" and St. Paul goes to great lengths to tell us what they are.

There is really no excuse and all attempts to spin things so that these "defilements" are acceptable are what the Church Fathers called "plani" or delusion. The Scriptures, and the Apologists, and Fathers and Mothers of the Church both East and West, and the Anglican Divines and Reformers and those who represent these traditions faithfully are all of one voice on this. Revisionists cannot claim to be in line with any of them.

We must "put on Christ" all of us.

Neal

JAV123,
First of all, "WELCOME!" It's rather brave of you to jump into this place with two feet.

That being said, you'll have to excuse FTG's behavior. Afterall, "Drag Queens" are rather common place in cities like New York, Chicago (FTG's old Diocese), or San Francisco. Heck, just drop into St. John the Divine in New York and see what I mean.

It would never cross his mind that a European city such as Paris would be any different.

Stoneridge said "However, neither do I go into a church with a paramour, nor do I light up a cigar, nor do I go inebriated, nor do I take out of the offering plate, etc., etc."

********


I have to agree with Stoneridge and others here. When we go to church we behave in a civil manner and in the knowledge that we are there to ask God for forgiveness as we converse with him. This is our small time that we give back to him.

We don't strutt our gayness or behave in an inappropiate manner. All are welcome, but you must be clothe a certain way as the Bible puts it.

God Bless

BHTech

What hateful gossip. God forbid that queers or any other undesirables should be in church. Someone needs to tell Jesus to quit hanging out with the tax collectors and prostitutes.

Woe to you, scribes and pharisees...

Griswold must be in his glee to see or read this.

********

Quebec priests challenge Vatican on homosexuality
Last Updated Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:50:40 EST
CBC News

A group of 19 Roman Catholic priests from Quebec has published an open letter criticizing the church's stand on homosexuality.

* INDEPTH: Same-sex Rights

The 980-word letter, published Sunday in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, is in response to two recent church decisions: the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' opposition to same-sex marriage and the Vatican's refusal to ordain homosexuals.

Titled "Trop, c'est trop!" ("Enough is enough!"), the letter asks: Does the church "have the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life?

"In these matters, the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong," the letter warns.

* FROM NOV. 29, 2005: Vatican says no to gay men in priesthood

In its first major policy announcement since Pope Benedict's election, the Vatican in November barred men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from entering the priesthood.

However, the Quebec priests who signed the letter dispute the Vatican's position that homosexual acts are "immoral and contrary to the natural law," writing that throughout human history, mankind has evolved and redefined what is natural to them. The church's views must reflect human evolution, said the priests.

Full text continues here

I would also report that I have received two unsolicited tips to this same rumor from VOL readers.

While tips and rumors are hardly evidence in a legal or moral sense, I have long suspected this to be the case based a phenomenon I've long observed in my activist career:

Those who are most vociferous in promoting a heterodox position, yet claim to be only a disinterested third party seeking truth, have invariably been discovered to be hiding their own personal belief affirming the position all along.

This is to say, they lie about their own bias, perhaps to increase their apparent public credibility.

Or maybe it's from simple cowardice. Either way, it is despicable. A man should have the courage of his convictions and a Christian ought to speak the truth at all times, regardless of consequences.

BHTech - quoting the letter submitted to La Presse: "However, the Quebec priests who signed the letter dispute the Vatican's position that homosexual acts are "immoral and contrary to the natural law," writing that throughout human history, mankind has evolved and redefined what is natural to them. The church's views must reflect human evolution, said the priests."

------------------------------------------------------
Following their logic, everyone should just sit back and accept HIV/AIDS. Afterall, doesn't that sort of track "human evolution," where gays are by and large the principal victims of this terrible disease?

Hey, the scourge of the gay community would just be another instance of nature (evolved) at work.

WOE2U,

SO, WOEisU, you think a family with children ages, say, 8 and 10 wants to, or should, see a group of homosexuals in drag in the pews about them? You think this is something good, something God wants? Better if you put a millstone around your neck ...

Homosexuals are and should be welcome. They need to be welcomed. Like the rest of us, they need to repent and to be forgiven. And they need to "go and sin no more."

But one does not know the meaning of forgiveness if one is oblivious to the nature of one's sins. And to show up for worship in drag in the midst of the innocent and the reverent is nothing other than blasphemous, an abomination.

WOEisU, if you cannot see how sinful it is to show up in drag in a church, then you know not true forgiveness because you do not even recognize sin. It's as simple as that.

Repent, WOEisU. Sodomy is the work of the devil. Do not bring the devil into the church, amidst the lambs of God's flock.

Yes Arthurdoxy you are absoutely right. According to them its open season on the family. Maye the Lord help us.

When I heard it on the news I could not believe these priests came out and said this. I sincerly hope they are disciplined.

God Bless

BHTech

Dear Woe2u

Yes Jesus hung out with the worse of the bunch in his short ministry. But did he not ask of them, repentance from their sins, encourage the woman at the well to sin no more, ask the rich man to give up all his riches in a Gospel that called for transformation of self?

Please give me an honest answer.

God Bless

BHTech

Dear Friends in Christ Jesus:

First time poster.

Sad but true. I too can confirm this story as told by the retired Bishop. There is one part however, that was left out and that was that it was confirmed that +FTG was also seen in a Paris nightclub with his "friends" and, that ol' +FTG was dressed in drag himself. That was when the retired Bishop said no to his attending the Cathedral in the future.

The other part of the story was that +FTG's predessor was also aware of these activities. Discipline was imposed on the retired Bishop which prevents him from using his name. At one time I was asked to look into these charges and found that all of them could be confirmed by others. Sad but not surprising.

Please don't paint all of us who remain in the ECUSA as not being trustworthy or "safe" around children as it just isn't so. Some of us stay because we are in faithful Dioceses, making a faithful witness under the leadership of an orthodox Bishop. Do what God has placed on your heart, but don't be critical of what God leads others to do for the faith.

Blessings,
Smoke

Dear Smoke

Welcome to VOL and thank you for you contribution! Please keep it up.

God Bless

BHTech

Welcome, JAV123 and Smoke!

As long time VOLunteers know, I once posted with my true name. I changed it after a sex-slave/submissive from North Dakota took issue with my posts and started harassing me directly. Since I've dealt with the LGBTQ crowd in the past, and know they are capable of (anonymous) violence (arson and death threats in my case), I judged a nom de plume the better part of valor.

However, I will vouch for mlwasp's integrity if I am not mistaken in his identity. (Call it a hunch. I do not have specific knowledge neither do I ask it!)

WOEisU,

It take a pharasaical scribe to know one...

Our Triune God calls us to repent of our sinful ways and sin no more - He has the door open for you - go in while there's still time.

Homoanalsodomy IS SIN!!!

Friend Stoneridge,

I follow your reasoning and agree with it. As I mentioned in my post, if Griswold was doing this to make a scene and create a mess, the drama should be roundly condemned. No one is quicker topoint a finger at homosexual behavior as sinful and unacceptable than me!

My concerns were with the way I understood the good retired bishop's language. He spoke of the homosexual people involved with words that seemed to lean towards an exclusivist perspective - in other words, we don't want one of "them" in our churches. I find that to be most unfortunate and, honestly, unnecessarily offensive.

I hope this clears up my post.

-Jim+

frhll,

You sure you don't mean *asparagus* ?

Friend Esso,

I agree with your position on the YMCA and understand your concerns about your children. But I do not think those points adequately address my objections to the bishop's use of language in a way about homosexual that is unfortunate.

To be sure, any of the militant and strident homosexuals would be asked to leave my services if they came to crete disorder. While they get alot of the press, there are not in the majority. Most of the gay men and lesbians I know are much less dramatic about their sexuality. That distinction is important - and I believe the Church needs to recognize it.

When I was a chaplain in a basic training unit, I had a lesbian soldier come and talk to me about her struggles. She attended my Mass eaach Sunday and even took communion. She was struggling with her sexual identity honestly and looked to me and the sacraments of the church for some comfort and direction. I gave her my unconditional love and pastoral direction tenderly and compassionately.

Should she be discouraged from coming to the altar because of her struggles? Should she be denied pastoral care because of her confused sexual identity? I do not think so...and will always welcome other sinners to the arms of God.

Let me be clear: I am not excusing or passing off militant homosexuals, graphically forcing their lifestyle on the rest of us. I am concerned that we welcome gays and lesbians who struggle for peace and need our unconditional love and pastoral concern.

-Jim+

Friend stoneridge,

I concede that you may be correct in the way you understand the facts as outlined by DV. I am, however, concerned that the Church remembers to offer true and good pastoral care to all, no matter how much we may be uncomfortable or offended.

I freely admit I may be misunderstanding the bishop's language. But it seems a bit unfortunate and even over the line from my perspective (ignorant though it is!)

Thanks for your perspective,

-Jim+

What an odd story. Although one could hardly fault +FTG for trying to lead people to Christ and into the Church from whereever they find themselves, it is hard to see how having them show up in drag could be construed as anything other than disrespectful. Their sexual orientation would hardly be an issue here, rather one of appropriateness and respect. Did they do so at his instigation? - if so that would indeed seem to indicate a desire to show up his host who had forbidden him from preaching any more after the previous week.

Leaving aside the issue of sexual orientation, it's hard to believe that anyone would be unaware that this would not be considered appropriate behaviour in a Church. Given that, it's obvious that they were trying to make a political statement and/or get back at the local bishop.

Dear Father Jim

On reading your post I asked myself but didn't Paul and others in a sense rebuke, and chastise those that strayed in the churches from the Lords doctrine? Pauls tone in his letters are harsh sometimes and they are gentle sometimes. Even Jesus chased the money changers out of his fathers temple. He didn't ask them to politely leave. Didn't Jesus say that all are welcome, but come dressed a certain way?

Now regarding the retired Bishops language could it not have been a waryniess on his part of their past activities that caused him to take a stand and basically be on the defensive? It may not necessarily have been that he was trying to be offensive although as we have seen in the Bible it is necessary to be that way sometimes.

I guess while I am not in a position to condemn the good retired Bishop, it sounds like he may have have a good reason to react the way he did, if you follow my reasoning. I am not critizing you by the way.

God Bless

BHTech

Smoke! Griswold in drag! Oh God NO! Please it is too horrible to comtemplate. My head hurts and it will be burned into my brain forever. He is bad enough "straight" but as an "imiation" "woman. Yuk. . But it is something to think about. Hey where are you photo posters? One of you must be able to come up with a suitable picture?

Great balls of fire!


Smoke, were affidavits procured from any eyewitnesses at the nightclub?

Mark Brown

In response to "FRHLL" criticizing me, I don't need a dictionary. I know that the ritual exists. But when it is performed by people acting like Laurel & Hardy, it says something about them.

Baptism and renewal of baptism are not a joke, but a sacrament. Aren't our bishops sworn to uphold the sacraments?

I know I'm not as learned as many of you, but I'll stand my ground on the truth!

Dear Friends in Christ Jesus:

Sorry Anglophile to give you that image but there it is. I doubt Phoebe G. likes it either and now we know why she might have been busy with a friend that evening.

Also, Mark Brown, signed statements could have been obtained, however, we already know that many clergy like to play dress up and do it on a weekly basis. Reminds me of the definition of an actor; one who trys to be someone or something they are not!

Blessings,
Smoke+

"Let me be clear: I am not excusing or passing off militant homosexuals, graphically forcing their lifestyle on the rest of us. I am concerned that we welcome gays and lesbians who struggle for peace and need our unconditional love and pastoral concern."

---

I'm a 1000% with you, Father Jim. Any homosexual, man or woman, who comes to church looking for Christ and God's truth and love should be dealt with compassionately, honestly and lovingly.

I have a good homosexual friend from high school - who has suffered tremendously over the years from his 'lifestyle.' I have always told him the truth - in a loving and compassionate way (but have never lied to him either, or pretended that I wasn't disgusted by what he used to do). He was one angry dude for many years. Yet he has, over those years, become more and more Christian, and has now given up his sexual depravity - voluntarily. He says, and I believe him, that he is happier now than before - not only in terms of human relationships - but also in that he can truly take communion without that internal turmoil. He says formally confessing his sins (including the many years of sexual ones) was the greatest relief and joy of his life. He has also started to go out with girls, and he is unsure of himself - but he says he feels more and more normal - something he always thought would be impossible. He's been struggling all his life. I hope to see him in heaven one day.

With Christian love,

Esso

"God forbid that queers or any other undesirables should be in church. Someone needs to tell Jesus to quit hanging out with the tax collectors and prostitutes."

---

Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and prostitutes to call them away from sin and toward Christ-likedness and holiness and God, WOE2U. It is the sick, Jesus told us, who need the doctor. In Griswold's case, it is the sick basking in the same sickness with others.

It ain't the same thing at all. Queers are welcome in any true Christian church if they are repentant of their sins.

With Christian love!

Essodalori

(Great name, by the way...)

It will be interesting to read of Griswold's reaction to this story, should it be picked up by the press or any other blog site. I imagine the denials will either be forthcoming soon, the spin doctors will be telling it differently, or the silence will be deafening and familiar!

I showed up at my local ECUSA cathedral one Sunday with several of my best comrades from the local branch of the Nazi Party. They were well dressed and cleanly groomed and really looked sharp in their brown shirts and red Nazi swastika armbands. We all went straight to the Dean and ask if we could become voting members of the cathedral parish. Some of us were even interested in pursuing holy orders.

Unfortunately the clergy at that place were prejudiced against our life style. They asked us to leave and never come back. When we pointed out that this was God's house and that all should be welcome they called the police!

My point is that when people with a political agenda show up in force, join your organization and elect themselves to the officer positions then you are out and they are in. Tolerance is only a political weapon to the organized homosexual movement. Once they are in control they will only leave if they are carried out feet first. The agenda of the Church becomes a political one and the Gospel is forgotten. Peter and Paul would never consider giving heretics and those who had a profound misunderstanding of the Church a place of power within it. This is what Jesus was talking about when he said be as harmless as a dove and as wise as a serpent. Too bad that many good people in ECUSA were taken in by false appeals to tolerance which quickly became "embrace and celebrate!" Of course no embracing and celebration for those who aspire to be just like Jesus by being morally perfect. ECUSA has been taken over lock, stock, and barrel by the organized left. The whole town is laughing at you!

Hey Father John,

Welcome! You nailed it. We welcome those to church who seek what the true church of Christ has to offer - help on the path to salvation. We don't welcome those to church who are seeking to turn people from that path, or are seeking affirmation for their sins and depravities.

With Christian love!

Essodalori

The unnamed sources are a problem for me.

HOWEVER my question is SINCE WHEN IS BRING A SINNER TO CHURCH A BAD THING? Why did not the unnamed Bishop use the chance to share the Gospel? The dress may not have been up to standards, but he was given the chance to preach Christ to a group of lost souls. Who knows he might have lead someone to change from sinful ways.

I simple did not get the story here. Griswold goes to Paris, not a good preacher (that is nothing new), brings a bunch of sinners to hear the Gospel from a Bishop or Dean who is orthodox, he is told not to do that again. When he brought the sinners to Church he spared his wife having to be with him. So???? he should be a better preacher??? So??? he should not have invited a sinner to services???? So??? he should not have left his wife out of it????

No where is it stated Griswold was taking part in sex relations outside his marriage. Nor that he was doing anything with them at the church that was disrespectful.


What is going on?

"What is going on?"

*********

Clearly DaleD there is more to it than meets the eye. Given that several VOL posters have voiced support for DV take on the events, directly or otherwise I would be inclined to say that the retired Bishop had good reason to make his comments .

God Bless

BHTech

Tolerance is now a sinister code word for leave your common sense and morals at the door.

The Bible teaches what is right and what is wrong. We are all weak sinners who fail to follow the rules at all times. This is why we need Christ. However, anyone who stands in God's house willfully and deliberately denying that sin is sin, is also defiling God. Committing this sin is unpardonable. Allowing others to commit this sin is almost as egregious.

The loony left within the Church, has desecrated the Word of the Lord long enough. It's time to do the money changers routine on them. Our Father's house and our Savior's church is not a place for a pulpit for the evil one.

I am still waiting for ECUSA to do outreach to racists groups and to accept them for what they are. They were born this way, and God don't make no trash! So what if they show up wearing klan robes and Storm Trooper unifroms? they should be ministered to and not made fun of or called insulting names!

When will you folks still in the ECUSA wake up and realize that you are in a war! You battle not against flesh and blood, but against the Prince of Darkness and his fallen angels. Just do a simple web search and you will discover that not only parishes, buit entire Episcopal Church entities are controlled by the homosexual movement. Type in "When Homosexuals Take Over a Church" read the sad stories about how well dressed young men started attending a certain parish, volunteered to serve on committees, were elected to the vestry, called a deaconess who turned out to be a lesbian activist, and wound up having drag shows in the parish hall. This is not an isolated story. The left's long march through the institutions includes the ECUSA. The people you are dealing with are hard core left wing revolutionaries and not isolated, sad and lonely homosexuals only looking for love and acceptance.

I fear it is way too late for ECUSA, it would take a longitudinal strategy and years of political maneuvering by cloaked orthodox Christians to regain your Church. I have seen this up close and personal and it is not pretty. It is not a question of welcoming the down trodden and despised, it is more akin to welcoming Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung who make nice when they want in, but once in power pervert the resources of the Church to their Satanic revolution.

I certainly agree with Jim+ "that the Church remembers to offer true and good pastoral care to all, no matter how much we may be uncomfortable or offended". To me that certainly isn't the issue. I would welcome any person who feels genuinely compelled to hear the Word and desires the Grace of God.
To me the issue is the matter of non-celibate priests and bishops. Call me old-fashioned, but I expect church leaders to be held to a higher standard. Isn't that what being "called" is all about. They are set apart by their being "called" AND accepting that call. It is a truly awesome responsibility. I understand they are human like the rest of us, but let's not get ridiculous.

To FRJOHN : To "tolerance" I would add "niceness". God forbid you not act "nice". If they act "nice" and you happen to disagree, then you are being "mean". And don't dare "judge", either. UNLESS you "judge" to be "tolerant" and "nice", no matter what the consequences.

And in a related shocker, "Sun rose again today. Likely to do so tomorrow."

Frank has been Louie Crew's cabana boy since day 1. This is supposed to surprise who exactly????

FRJOHN, love your posts! I feel like the cavalry/reinforcements have arrived!

Y'all come on down to Texas, and visit St. Paul's in Gainesville, an orthodox parish with an orthodox rector in an orthodox diocese.

Grant
Diocese of Fort Worth, where Integrity is small, vocal and bitterly frustrated

I have long believed that when one finds something very wrong and finds that it needs to be corrected, he or she must report it. An investigation must be conducted, people must be interviewed, and when evidence of wrongdoing is found, the results of that investigation must be presented to the proper authority for further action; just as in any civil or criminal court case.

In a case such as this, if it transpires that if, in fact, Bishop Griswold actually did do what this article says he did, the evidence should be laid before the House of Bishops and the Executive Committee for action. I do not know why the retired bishop was told not to say anything, and it's not my business to ask. The point is, action has to be taken, if this story is actually true! The people of the Church have a right to know the truth, and to seek redress.

HOWEVER my question is SINCE WHEN IS BRING A SINNER TO CHURCH A BAD THING? Why did not the unnamed Bishop use the chance to share the Gospel? The dress may not have been up to standards, but he was given the chance to preach Christ to a group of lost souls. Who knows he might have lead someone to change from sinful ways.

I don't think anyone said that bringing a sinner to church was a bad thing. The problem with showing up in drag (if that's an accurate description of what happened) is that this style of dress is adopted deliberately ... you can't plausibly ascribe it to poverty or ignorance (which would be another case altogether). It was clearly done because they intended to make a scene, and that's just not appropriate behaviour.

On the face of it, that story alone doesn't sound like it says a whole lot about what kind of relationship (if any) he had with them ... but it does sound rather like some kind of vindictive motivation might have existed either on the part of +FTG or possibly some or all of the others. If so that was totally inappropriate.

C'mon DaleD. Sodomy is the very last sin that Griswold would bring someone to church to repent of.

Bringing people to church while affirming their sin is the devil's work.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

GRISWOLD'S AND ECUSA'S MARKETING OF EVIL

http://www.lovewonout.com/

David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" and "Brokeback Mountain" expose have caught fire with traditionally oriented Americans – after all, Amazon.com has posted over 100 passionate 5-star reader reviews of the book. Homosexuals are not quite so thrilled about Kupelian and his exposure of American society's "evil marketers." In fact, they condemn him as downright evil himself. ECUSA take notice!

Although Kupelian has been sometimes maligned and mocked online, in "gay" blogs, on radio and TV, the national response to his groundbreaking exposure of "evil marketers" has been overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive, with many readers claiming it has literally changed their lives. Here's a sampling of reader-reviews from Amazon.com on "The Marketing of Evil":

· "I finished "The Marketing of Evil" over a month ago. It absolutely changed my life."

· "This book surely is like holy water dashed on vampires. The vampires being the undead leftists sucking the morality out of humanity like blood. If you hate truth, you will not comprehend this book. If you love it, this book is a must read."

· "Opening this book is like turning on the Sun. … Mr. David Kupelian has written a remarkable book that reveals how the American public has been taken down the slippery slope of moral relativism."

· "The Marketing of Evil" irritates only those who hate the light of day, goodness, family and the Truth."

· "Read this book and you will start seeing the lies more clearly and you will then be on the path to truth. It will be very painful for some to admit the truth. You will have to say to yourself, as I did, 'Oh my God. All those precious years wasted living by these lies.' … In the long run you will feel a tremendous sense of gratitude for having read this book."

· "Prepare to see your world with new eyes!"

· "This book has put a powerful voice to many things that truth-loving people in America have felt in their spirits for a long, long time. … I like my medicine straight and my truth even straighter, and this book delivers, with no apologies or flinching. … I for one am forever changed."

Go to Amazon.com and order the book today. After reading it, give it to a friend. Let’s go on offense to defeat the Homosexual Agenda in ECUSA.

WOE2U Said: "God forbid that queers or any other undesirables should be in church."

Man, are you naive!

A few years back our little parish saw the arrival of a former drag queen (his self-description) and his lover. Everyone in the parish showed nothing but hospitality and kindness to them, right up until they suddenly left after two years. Trust me, they always kept the "gay issue" to the forefront (sometimes in your face) in a parish that was very orthodox.

Why did they leave? It turns out that they had sudduced a 16 year old boy member of the parish. They absconded 1,500 miles away to another state, while the parish lost three very good families over this. The boy's mom refuses to attend church anywhere.

Let's not fool ourselves. Many, many gays (and certainly not all gays) see the church as a huge and convenient candy shop. How else could you explain that over 50% of all Roman Catholic clergy and an ever increasing number of Episcopal clergy are gay?

It bids the question: "Should someone with severe diabetes own and manage a Candy Shop?" That sort of thing appears to be what is happening in our churches.

Maybe, just maybe the good Bishop had had it with this sacred place being overrun by people whose focus in life is perversion, not growth in Christ Jesus.

Now I've said this, let's do the ECUSA thing and have a nice group hug and just get along!

"A few years back our little parish saw the arrival of a former drag queen (his self-description) and his lover."

---

1) This should never happen in a Christian church. It's a scandal to children. (It does evil to them.) The two homosexuals should have been told they are welcome in the church - BUT that they must give up the sodomy and repent of it. Allowing them in the church while they continue to sin unrepentantly shows children that such is AOK. That's spiritual child molestation;

2) They should never have been left alone with boys from the church - huge numbers of homosexual men go after teenage boys (just like in the Catholic Church);

3) These men should be hunted down, arrested, and thrown in jail for decades (or, as Aspire suggests, castrated) - for molesting a kid.

With Christian love and justice,

Essodalori

P.S. It is a false and Satanic enablement which leads people to be afraid to call others to repentance for their sins.

Click here to get to Amazon page

THANKS TO OTIS

An update for Esso:

Actually, the boy in question was not hit on by them at the church. Believe it or not, one of the pair got a job driving school bus and it was there that they pulled the old "Hey, come on over to our house!" routine. They established their relationship with him at church.

By the way, both gay men are active AIDS (something we didn't know when they were here). We later found out that they were big into kiddie porn on the internet, all while they were attending out parish. The boy had told his mother about it after "the guys" had left the area.

The latest I heard was that the "drag queen" of the two was in prison in Florida for (get this) molesting a little boy down there. The other has found "a new life-long partner" to carrie on with and had relocated to Miami.

As for the boy's mom (a former parishioner), she has developed terminal cancer. She is still a woman of faith, however, these two morons effectively cut her off from her church, and all in the interest of satisfying their lust for perversion. The boy is now in his twenties and has been in drug rehab a couple of times. It's too bad, because he was a really good kid.

I have been told the facts directly. My source will also remain unnamed.

Regarding some questions above there is another fact to be considered. Griswold was not just with obviously sodomites he had on eye shadow. This was told to me.

To me this makes it clear he was part of the group to whom he accompanied. I therefore do not accept that he was bringing these people to Church for repentance.

It is really too bad that this was kept "hushed up" for so long. Had this been brought into the light back then, FTG wouldn't have become the P.B.. Remember, he barely won over a much more traditional candidate by only the slimmest of margins.

That's not to say that all of the undercurrents wouldn't still be present in ECUSA, however, who knows what course the church would have taken, maybe even toward a more godly direction.

I am sure that at some point we will ultimately discover the real damage FTG and his minions have caused to ECUSA. Afterall, he is "The Captain of the S.S. ECUSA" through to the meeting of the iceberg . . . I mean, meeting in Cleveland.

"The boy is now in his twenties and has been in drug rehab a couple of times. It's too bad, because he was a really good kid."

---

Yeah, ArthurDoxy. You wouldn't believe what some homoCatholic priests did to boys around here. They were messed up for life - in sad and tragic ways. One committed suicide. Two others tried to.

It's all evil.

And another thing. This boy's parent should NEVER have allowed him to hang out at the house of two sodomites.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

The movement from self-restraint if not self-denial to acceptance of human "Passions" as "normal", whether it is greed, pride, or sexual gratification, is destroying Western civilization.

This story of this boy represents thousands more and many thousands we may never hear of. And it isn't just the sexual "passion" that can be implicated. How many times do we hear the "gospel" of materialism and self-interest preached on TV. The devastation of the soul coming from these carnival hawkers is no less. I see shipwrecks of faith from this as well along with all the requiste psychological, emotional, social disorders.

The Church has to once again remember that humanity (and indeed all of creation) is "fallen" and requires the infusion of the Divine Life. And the life of spiritual disciplines is essential. There can be no death to the old "self" without them. There is no place anymore for expressions of "cheap grace". The latter is not a bulwark for or against anything.

And parents need to act accordingly. Otherwise we are no better than those who deposited their children into the "loving" arms of Moloch...to be burned alive.

As a therapist I see everyday the ravages of a culture trying to view itself in its libertine ways as "healthy" and "free". The children of this vice-ridden cess pool are neurotic, depressed, anxious miserable, and trapped in their "need" to fulfill their "desires". It is indeed a mess and I do therapy at a conservative Christian institution no less! The theological confusion is immense. Can you imagine what I find at the outpatient clinic I work in on the other days?

The mental health industry is growing exponentially to keep pace with it(and psychiatry charges rent at this building). New psychotropic medications flood the market every month but psychiatric disorders still grow geometrically. It is a spiritual crisis and nothing else. Medications cannot end the misery. It is only in the path of Christ and our own self-crucifixion and movement toward His likeness that anyone can find what they hope to find. Only there can the suffering we cannot avoid have meaning and the joy and peace we long for be found. These certainly cannot be found in chasing our desires or at the bottom of a pill bottle while we continue to be driven by "passions". We've done this over and over only to find again and again a nightmare at the end.

It is appalling that the clergy of ECUSA and any other "body" would walk hand-in-hand with this "present age". It is inexcusable! I hope they like millstones.

Only those who seek after holiness and have worked to develop virtues as prescribed withing the classic Christian Tradition should receive any amount of trust from any one of us. At least we can suspect that they are involved in the struggle toward becoming like Christ. The other "passion"-driven "wolves" preaching acceptance of "passions" as the new "civil right" will not even get the time of day from me. Respect and trust has to be earned. The latter cannot have it and they cannot have my children!

These indeed are the "vipers" who would make men twice as fit for hell as they are themselves.

Neal

Neal said "The mental health industry is growing exponentially to keep pace with it(and psychiatry charges rent at this building). New psychotropic medications flood the market every month but psychiatric disorders still grow geometrically. It is a spiritual crisis and nothing else. Medications cannot end the misery."

***********

Well said Neal. You have just confirmed what I have said to others in the past. I am over 40 and never in my life did I ever hear about ADT and all these disorders that so many people now claim to have or suffer from. No disrespect to your profession of course Neal, but it is truly a spritual crisis that this world is facing and we don't even know it. The attacks by Satan are becoming more and more and are fast and furious.

In fact it was Leo 13th that saw a glimpse into the 20th centruy and fell on his feet, and when he arose he gave us St. Michaels prayer.

Thanks for your contributions to VOL.

God BLess

BHTech

A profound post, DnNeal - and let me echo BHTech's thanks.

The goal of a secular psychologist is to get you to feel better about life. (Well, how does that affair make you feel?... How does sodomizing your boyfriend make you feel? How does the idea of divorce sound to you?)

The goal of Christ is to transform you into something Godly. (And the amazing little secret of Christianity is that you'll feel a bazillion times better about life if you submit to the Christian transformation program...)

The happiest people in the world?

The saints.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

These postings represent a new low for anything that I have seen. An unnamed retired bishop says Griswold hung out with homosexuals in paris -- a silly enough posting in and of itself, with many details abounding, al of course anonymous and unsubstantiated. Then it morphs into a discussion of Griswold's own sexuality. What's going on? What is the point of this garbage? I can't wait to read Essodalori's response, complete with his signature "in Christian love", an ironic touch to my days whenever I read his postings.

BHTech,

Believe me, my friend, my profession deserves a great deal of disrespect. It is a major purveyor of te kinds of ills ECUSA promotes.

I have left behind long ago the practice of secular counseling and returned to the healing of the soul found in the Desert Fathers and great Christian mystics East and West--2,000 years of applied spiritual wisdom and disciplines. No more self-esteem development for me. It is as fallen and sick as any secular "thing" and gives false hope. And none of this "easy-believism" so popular in our culture of instant-gratification.

I used to say that using secular psychology to heal what ails is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. But I now beleive is actually causes the wound to fester. If I use the jargon of my "profession" it is only to move toward ridding it of its secualar meaning.

No, I completely agree with you and take what you say to heart every day.

Neal

DnNeal said: "New psychotropic medications flood the market every month but psychiatric disorders still grow geometrically."

And what a tradeoff, hey? After twenty or more years of "psychotropic medication" you get treated to "The Thorzine Shuffle," or maybe "the Haldol Shakes." It's not bad enough that those with chronic mental disorders have to dance to "Tardive Dyskinesia," a very large number of them also face death by liver cancer or liver failure.

I should mention that I'm not totally anti-medication. Lord knows, it's made the unmanagable, managable for many people. However, the "cure" is sometimes as bad as the disease. And I think that you would agree.

Regardless, the A.P.A. is filled with some pretty wierd and perverted professionals, many who are still chanting that great 60's mantra, "I'm o.k. . . . you're o.k.!" All inspite of the evidence that, as a society, we are circling the drain.

"I can't wait to read Essodalori's response, complete with his signature "in Christian love", an ironic touch to my days whenever I read his postings."

---

Well, restless, I would not want you to wait! (You might get more restless...)

The issue is this: Did Griswold bring a bunch of sodomites into the church to convict them of Christ, and to lead them to Christian chastity and repentance for their deviant sexual acts (which draw them [and those they sodomize] away from health, life, God, Christ and their masculinity) - or did he do it to further push the sodomite agenda?

Well - since Griswold has not once EVER (that I know of) tried to promote true Christian sexual morality, and obviously sees nothing wrong with acts such as homoanalfecal sodomy, and even promotes and glorifies such acts publicly (a severe form of evil perpetrated on the faithful and on kids), it would only be sensible to assume the latter.

But hey - if I (or others) are wrong in reaching such a conclusion, Griswold can post on this site (which his minions, of course, read), and correct us of our convictions. ("I went out to the Left Bank and left my wife behind, so concerned was I about the eternal souls of the many sodomites who populate the Left Bank, and to bring them to Christ and away from their sexual perversions and dysfunctions...")

Any other answer would also cast doubt on the nature of his marriage.

In broader terms - it's just more (indirect) evidence that most of the Episcopal Church now exists to condone, glorify and promote perverted sexual acts like homoanalfecal sodomy - in the name of Christ.

With real (and not fake) Christian love,

Essodalori

ArthurDoxy

Good points. I especially liked the "circling the drain" metaphor.

I am also not completely anti-medication. The "holes" that people are in can create such emotional distress and cognitive disruption that a judicious use of medication can help. Some may take some medication all their lives to deal with the fallen world and its ills. We have to deal with what "is" rather then what is not.

But if the medications are used to avoid dealing with things or prevent them from doing so then they are not helpful.

Again, the goal for me is not to be happily adjusted to a sick and dying world but to move toward Christ-likeness. If medication can help someone find their way out and up then good. I do hope for all I see that medications will not be required indefinitely though and for the reasons you describe--neurological and other disorders can develop from long term use. That is not a trade-off I would choose for anyone if it can be avoided.

Neal

ref. Essoladori -- I am not only restless but now speechless as well. I think I'm supposed to have been put in my place. I can't believe that I or any others are taking the time to respond to an unnamed source's unsubstantiated rumors disguised at reports.

"I can't believe that I or any others are taking the time to respond to an unnamed source's unsubstantiated rumors disguised at reports."

---

Sure, restless. Who are ya goin' to believe?

Jesus Christ, the prophets, the apostles and the writers of the New and Old Testaments - and people, like this bishop, who follow them?

OR

People like Griswold and Queen Lutibelle and Vickie Gene, who constantly tell us they have a new 'truth,' brought to them by the 'Holy Spirit,' which conveniently enables all their lusts and desires and selfishnesses? (I wanna abort, sodomize, fornicate, divorce, etc. etc.)

No - you don't have to believe this bishop. I do, but sure, he could be lying.

But ECUSA is a church which believes Christ was a liar.

So who are ya goin' to believe?

I'll go with Christ and those who I discern to honestly follow him.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

P.S. As for lying and covering up - it's rife in ECUSA. No one is telling the decent folks who still go to ECUSA churches and think they have something to do with Christ what the hell is going on. Vickie's little website for 'queer youth,' with its links to homoporn was taken down super-pronto just before he became bishop. Outrageous lies are now told everywhere in ECUSA about Scpripture. (Really, it means just the opposite of what it says!) The only one who doesn't bother to lie and dissemble is Louie Crew (with his crotch perfume and Adam's balls poetry) - because he doesn't even have any shame left.

Reading Louie Crew's poetry to a kid would be arrestable child abuse in many states. (But of course, it's cause for celebration in ECUSA.)

Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on;

The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."

The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."
The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order."

The fourth surgeon chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would."

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Episcopal Bishops are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable."


gregory

ps Happy Fat Tuesday

I would like to think that VOL would not risk their credibility by posting this article without first checking out the validity of the facts, to a reasonable degree.

These are not stupid or naive or vindictive people running the show, here. It amazes me that there are still people out there that still "don't get it" in regards to ECUSA being hijacked.

Esso : Thanks for your comments. You make a lot of sense.

To Neal : Not to change the basic subject, but in regards to medication, I recently read the book "Overdosed America". The author (an MD) states that over half the RN's that he knew (no , not that way) at the hospital were on anti-depressants.

I thought "notorious sinners" were to be forbidden the cup and the bread until they repented?

Quote:

Regular readers of David's Viewpoints column will note that all Exclusive articles receive approval by legal counsel before they are published. This particular article received much more review, editing and scrutiny than most.

Anonymous sources are not uncommon in this business. It does nothing however to dimish the truth of the story or the credibility of the source.

-Robert
Director of Technology
VOL

I suppose the "unisex" movement was a cousin to this.

I'll second the comment about news stories based on anonymous sources. An unnamed bishop supposedly passes on a derogatory story and some posters can't seem to get enough of this sort of thing. There's news, and then there's gossip and tale-bearing.

I've been accused before of being a "literalist" by church liberals, so here's some stuff I take literally:

MAT 12:36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.

ROM 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

EPH 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.

2TH 3:11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies.

1TI 3:11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

5:13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.

TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

3:1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

1PE 2:1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind.

Gregory,

There are still a few Godly bishops around in the Anglican Church but yes, they are far and few between. Yup! we all know the cast of characters in jecusa whose head and ass are interchangeable.

What do gays and klingons have in common? they both circle around Uranus.

JAV123

That doesn't surprise me at all about the RN's. I'm surprised the % wasn't higher (and would be more surprised if it actually isn't). In a society like this medications are temptimg.

I haven't read that book. Do you recommend it?

Another good one if you're interested is Peter Breggins, "Toxic Psychiatry". The APA really hate this one.

I also recommend a little article I just read in Touchstone Magazine:

Robert Hart on "Not Fixing Boys Who Aren’t Broken"

It isn't on-line yet or I'd include the link. It's about the over prescription of Ritalin to school age boys.

And, yes, ECUSA has been hijacked.

Neal

Jason,

If you're not willing to name the sin then you're not ready to do battle.

It seems to me that there are enough people on this thread who are aware of FTG's little Parisian excursion and enough people here that have heard it from the anonymous bishop. Several of the details (such as the eye shadow thing) of the story I heard (from the anonymous bishop) leads me to believe that he has not changed his story, and therefore it is unlikely he is lying. Also knowing the man's reputation it is inconceivable to me that he is making it up, and obviously David Virtue believes him, otherwise the story would not have been posted. Also, knowing the reputation and actions of FTG, who wouldn't believe this story? Also, FTG knows who the anonymous bishop is, then why doesn't he do the ECUSA thing and sue for slander and libel? Maybe because FTG knows there are too many people that know about this little escapade and would immediately rush to the defense of the anonymous bishop. Don't look for a lawsuit, FTG doesn't have one.

All that being said, one of the things that is not mentioned is how FTG flaunted this in front of his wife. That poor woman must think the world of Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, since when has FTG encouraged anyone to attend church for the purpose of a Christ-centered and life-transforming experience? My guess is never. The guy went to a place where he believed he could operate incognito so that he could hustle a little young-gay-Parisian-tail. And he did all of this while flaunting it in his wife's face. Bringing these young gays to church for Christ?!?!?!?!? Pleeeeeeeeeeaaaasssssse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No one in their right mind, and this includes the anonymous bishop, would prevent anyone (homosexuals included) from coming to his church for the purpose of giving one's life over to the risen Christ--period. The article is not long enough for the bishop to explain and answer every question.

Woe2u,
Your PB is an embarrassment as is your GC. Maybe if you could help clean up the two then possibly the ECUSA might have some respectability. It was once my church too. Now, it is all I can do to force myself to enter one, sit in the back, and endure the embarrassment for the sake of family.

Look fellas, this is kind of like mine (the cathedral that is) back in Chicago, now for a little more debauchery. Debauchery? Didn't you French invent that word?

John+

"I'll second the comment about news stories based on anonymous sources. An unnamed bishop supposedly passes on a derogatory story and some posters can't seem to get enough of this sort of thing. There's news, and then there's gossip and tale-bearing."

---

Hey guys and gals,

There is a profound difference between gossip (sinful) and reporting something you were witness to.

Gossip is stuff like: Oh, I heard from Sally who heard from Joe who heard from Molly that so-and-so did this or that. Turning around and passing that on is not permitted to Christians.

This however is manifestly different. This is an eyewitness account from a Christian bishop (who, if he truly be Christian, is prohibited from bearing false witness).

Further, this account is backed up by others who spoke in the past with this bishop (meaning he is consistent) - as with Father Cochran's account (Father Cochran being another Christian man I believe on things...).

When a serious Christian speaks about witnessing something, one should believe that man or woman (unless one has good reason not to). (For instance, I wouldn't believe a word Griswold speaks, given his egregious lies in the past...)

As for this bishop's remaining anonymous - it is either, presumably, because he was ordered to stay so (a convenient tactic of those high up who do not want truth revealed), OR it is because he is afraid of the inevitable persecution. Joe of the Mountain speaks of persecution from the homosexualists. I also have experienced that - from refusing to back down on the Boy Scouts' policy of no homosexual scoutsmasters - and from speaking up about Catholic priestly homomolestations in our town. In both instances, I was attacked as a bigot, hater, homophobe, and as a "Neanderthal" (no matter than a teen boy committed suicide after being anally raped every weekend by a Catholic priest for more than a year). My kids were told to their faces that they had an evil father. This was only a strident fringe, however - and the vast, vast majority supported what I was saying (though the fear of speaking was palpable everywhere). Nevertheless, it was frigthening and most unpleasant and horrific for my kids. (After the Boy Scout's Supreme Court case on this issue, and our refusal to back down from their policy - a huge fight erupted in our Cub Scout pack - involving about five parents. In the end, three parents (out of 120) left with their boys. (And most parents are greatly relieved to be able to send their boys out with normal men, and to keep them away from being in close quarters with homosexuals.)

Anyone in the world can be a liar. Unless the bishop took pictures of Griswold, we won't have 'proof.'

I choose to believe this man, presuming he is a Christian. If proven wrong over time, I'll correct my belief.

Until then, I'll believe what this man says.

In the same way, I believe Paul and Peter and so on when they tell us Christ was resurrected.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Yes frcochran,

How FTG could flaunt his chasing "male-tail" in gay paree in front of his wife is beyond me. There are only two instances where divorce is self-preservation and allowable: Physical abuse and unfaithfulness to the spouse - my advice to Ms. Griswold: RUN!!! if you haven't already done so.

Didn't Freud write in one of his books that his psychoanalytic theory would bring 'the plague' to America? I believe the context was a retelling of a conversation with a colleague during his transit.

Nancy, don't sweat it. You're dealing with a madman.

Fr John you are indeed wise as a serpent.

And welcome to the VOLunteers!

Joe of the Mountain

nancyrowe,

You're right of course.

These rituals performed as "sacraments" by those who do not believe the theology underlying these acts as sacraments is a Laurel & Hardy act.

If these men were faithful adherents of the Apostolic Tradition their "glee" would mean quite another thing.

Neal

It's also true that VOL has no authority over anyone, neither is it an advocacy group. It is a blog and blogs discuss, dissect and analyze news and ideas.

In this case, it's not really important even if the story is true or not. The salient effect is to provoke a discussion. So far, we've discussed:

1. Worthy reception of Holy Communion
2. How should we treat sinners?
3. The Bolshevik tactics of the homosexualists
4. FTG effeminacy, which everyone agrees is a problem
5. What kind of men we want as leaders
6. What kind of men we have as leaders
7. The pernicious, corrosive effect of the mental-health industry on children and other vulnerable souls
8. The prevalence of mind-altering drugs in the medical profession, schools, etc.
9. Two good books recently published
10. Jesus's preaching to sinners
11. Paul's teaching on Christian ethics.

Now tell me -- how else could we have such a grand discussion without an effective "conversation starter"?

As to FTG gayness? No kidding? He's gay?!?!?!

Quote:

These folks cannot do simple abstraction. If homosexual authority figures in one place resulted in severe problems why couldn't the same thing be true in another context (e.g. the Boy Scouts).

When the 3-4% of the population (homosexuals) are responsible for over 40% of the sexual abuse cases reported (an epidemiological report from 1998) why in God's name would we let the fox guard the chicken house?

Answer: WE WON'T! AND YOU SHOULDN'T! Regardless of what a Supreme Court may or may not decree.

At least these "neaderthals" will put the innocence of our children above a political agenda...and a baseless one at that

Neal

An unnamed retired bishop says Griswold hung out with homosexuals in paris -- a silly enough posting in and of itself, with many details abounding, al of course anonymous and unsubstantiated. Then it morphs into a discussion of Griswold's own sexuality.

The thing is that there's so much that has been omitted about the whole story. Apparently nothing was actually said by anyone, which makes it hard to picture in what way this could have been "promoting" a gay agenda (it's not like nobody knows that gays and drag queens exist). And if the individuals had simply shown up somewhat over-fashionably dressed, people might wonder a bit but it would be purely idle curiosity. The fact that they were supposedly in "drag" strongly suggests a specific desire to make some kind of scene, either because of what had happened the previous week between +FTG and the local bishop, or because of something else that we are not told about.

The whole story is very odd. Assuming that the facts are as stated, I'm not as sure as some of the other posters that the individuals in question were all gay or specifically trying to promote a gay agenda - but they did want to create the appearance of being drag queens: in other words, they wanted to create a disturbance. Quite possibly any number of other "roles" would have done as well for their purpose. The ultimate point was apparently to embarrasss the local bishop in whatever way they could, and they apparently succeeded.

Of course, assuming that the account is accurate, that kind of theatre is not appropriate behaviour in a church and is particularly unbecoming for a bishop.

I am also uneasy about the use of these "anonymous sources." It makes it difficult to verify the story or to know how much weight to put on it; it also makes it impossible for any of the parties to defend themselves.

"I am also uneasy about the use of these "anonymous sources." It makes it difficult to verify the story or to know how much weight to put on it; it also makes it impossible for any of the parties to defend themselves."

---

Ya know - it all comes down again to whom do you trust.

David Virtue is a notable and brave man, who has shown a giant klieglight on the evil machinations of ECUSA (and many in the Anglican Communion).

He makes an occasional mistake - and he corrects himself quickly and apologizes for them too.

However, if David Virtue says that a bishop told him this - I believe David Virtue.

Trust and respect are earned over time. David (and rturner) have earned my trust.

Do I think David Virtue made up this story? No.

Do I think David Virtue said it came from a bishop when it didn't? No.

Do I think David Virtue made an attempt to corroborate what he could? Yes (such as that this man was bishop where he said he was when he was).

Finally, Griswold can defend himself any time he wants. He can sign on to this website, and he can tell us his side of the story any time he wants.

("As a normal husband, I leave my wife behind on vacation while I go out and consort with sodomites I don't even know on the Left Bank...") or whatever...

Has Griswold earned my distrust? Yes.

With Christian love,

ESsodalori

Also, knowing the reputation and actions of FTG, who wouldn't believe this story?

This of course is what gives the story its biggest punch - the story sounds plausible simply because it isn't all that surprising.

Do I think David Virtue made up this story? No.

...

Has Griswold earned my distrust? Yes.

Esso,

By no means am I accusing David Virtue of making anything up ... but he's repeating something he only knows about from another source, and although I'm sure he's made an attempt to verify at least some of the details of the story it's hard to know just how accurate the retelling that David heard actually is. I have a strong suspicion that there's quite a bit to the story, but that's hardly "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

And yes, I'd certainly trust David Virtue before +FTG. I don't think that's the issue.

It's time for David Virtue to do the responsible thing and intervene. The morphing of the original story has gotten out of hand. When did it turn into a tale of Griswold's being gay? Who said that? From out of what left field does that nuance come? Isn't this a matter of those who want to believe the very worst about the PB consorting in a kind of feeding frenzy that as yet has no basis in reliable reporting and had nothing to do with Griswold's sexuality in the first place anyway. This is like the game "Telephone" -- except the stakes are high. Stop it, you silly people. If you don't like the man and ECUSA, I can think of lots of reasons for that. But this tale is being irresponsibly inflated and conflated. Talk about eisegesis....

No - a Christian bishop provided this information to David Virtue to report - which he did. (That's what journalists do - though they usually get their info from far more impeachable sources..)

And it is not a question of Griswold's being 'guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.' That's a US legal jury threshold for convicting someone of a crime.

It's again a Christian bishop's reporting what he saw to a realiable journalist.

You can believe it or not. I do believe it.

As for Griswold's sexuality, I make the following observations:

1) Normal men don't leave their wives behind on vacation in Paris to go consort with queers from the Left Bank...

2) Griswold promotes and condones and glorifies sodomy at every juncture, including to children (like on his last trip to Hawaii)... Men who do not have an innate disgust and revulsion to sodomy are not normal. Normal and healthy men would NEVER promote or sanction such acts to children;

3) Griswold prevented a priest at Vickie Gene's ordination from discussing what homosexuals actually do to each other. (We will not let the truth stand in the way of what we are going to do!!!!)

That's not irrefutable evidence that Griswold's a homosexual or a sodomite; it's just a whole lot of reasons for not being surprised if he is.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

P.S. Griswold's sexuality makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. ECUSA's obviously been taken over by sodomites and their enablers and by the queer theology they espouse.

From Louie Crew's website - a tribute to the ECUSA of Frank Griswold:

If I
If I could
just get
just
just
get all
all those balls
balls and arms
arms and legs
legs and crotch perfumes
right here
here inside with me
I might never
I might never have to tell
never tell anyone
anyone at all
I'm queer!
queer! queer! queer!

And also from Frank Griswold's ECUSA (by Louie Crew):

In Old Milwaukee

A queer once propositioned me
and, man, was I angry!

He was nice enough about it, sure,
and wanted to buy me lobster,
but speaking his desires right there

on the street!
What's the world coming to?

He wasn't threatening, mind you.
Fact is, I could have beat him up
in a moment, if I'd wanted.

He desired my body!
I mean, even chicks show less attention.

I do like lobster quite alot,
but still, I have to draw the line somewhere,
don't I?
I'm not used to being asked
to put out for another guy,
though I admit he wanted to buy the lobster,
and he said I could just lie on my back.

I left him be, still standing by the bus stop
when I moved into the porn shop,
but I never could keep him out of mind,
even when I tried to watch
the woman mounted by the billy goat.

1) Normal men don't leave their wives behind on vacation in Paris to go consort with queers from the Left Bank...

Agreed, but that's something that the reader has to infer from the story, not something that's explicitly stated. All that was explicitly stated in the story was that they sat in the same area in the church and seemed to know each other, and that his wife wasn't there - which could mean anything or nothing. Perhaps his wife wasn't feeling well that morning. Perhaps one of them was an old school friend of his. Perhaps they were a theatre cast from a play that he and his wife had seen the night before. We just don't know. We don't even know for sure that they were gay, but that's the most obvious assumption - alternative theories being rather implausible (a theatre cast still in their costumes??). What is clear is that their behaviour was over the top - which might or might not have surprised or been intended by +FTG, but obviously the local bishop who saw everything thought that he was involved with the display in some way. Other tidbits have been supplied by other posters but have had no "vetting" whatsoever by the webmaster, even assuming that they are ultimately derived from independent sources.

Griswold's sexuality makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. ECUSA's obviously been taken over by sodomites and their enablers and by the queer theology they espouse.

This is the main point - what any one individual does is one thing, what the entire church does is another. And if only the gay agenda were the only issue! You could fill volumes talking about Spong's heresies ....

Here's a test:

How many of you would leave your teenage son with Frank Griswold in Paris for 24 hours?

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Restless,

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!!!

You show yourself as being afraid of naming the sin for what it is!

Homoanalfecalsodomy is SIN - Enabling homoanalfecalsodomy is SIN -

FTG has chosen to *consort* with homofecalism - now he reaps the fruits of his desire.

Restless, STOP ENABLING HOMOFECALISM!!!

There's certainly a lot of smoke surrounding him, isn't there?

But rather than focussing on tangential and nebulous questions about his sexuality, why not concentrate on his policies? They have been an absolute disaster, and there's no doubt whatsoever that he's instituted them...

How it was in the old days...

----

Now Johnny, Bishop Griswold has agreed to take you around Paris until tomorrow, and to have you stay with him tonight in his hotel room, as a favor to us.

Be good. Stay with him at all times - and do whatever he tells you to.

Have a wonderful time!

Love,

Mom & Dad

bcwright,

Where there is smoke, there is fire!!!

The policies instituted by FTG are the logs of the bonfire and this ain't no bonfire of the vanities.

Quote:

Mommy - Daddy, Bishop Grizzinator was fondling me and touching my privates - I am scared of him. I'm calling 911 and have the Police arrest him.

Maybe Frank should have opted for Las Vegas instead of Paris. I understand their new campaign "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" could have prevented this situation.

Am I shocked, Yawn . . . . just waiting for the other shoe to drop . . . out of the closet.

Well, now -- I've really been told off and put in my place. There are some very disturbed people who use this blog for their ranting. I find it a bit like visiting the snake house at the zoo -- I'm terrified and repelled, but I keep stopping by anyway. May you somehow find some peace and some of that Christian love Esso always mentions. Signing off....

"There are some very disturbed people who use this blog for their ranting. ... May you somehow find some peace and some of that Christian love Esso always mentions. Signing off....

---

Well, restless. There ARE some very disturbed people who post here. They're disturbed that a once good and true Christian denomination has been turned into a cult of sodomy and heresy (and thus destroyed).

The peace and love of which I speak come from God and Christ - not from ECUSA.

With much Christian love,

Esso

Here's what's missing from the story . . .

Following the example of our Lord, bishop Griswold went into the most sin stricken parts of the city and preached the Gospel of Christ. In doing so, he gained a following from otherwise lost souls.

They heard the Truth preached from scripture and began to repent and turn to a life of following God's path.

Why didn't we hear about this part?

Because, it never happened.

Neal :
Yes, I would highly recommend the book. It was written by John Abramson, M.D., a Family Practice Physician who is on the clinical faculty of Harvard Medical School. He has more than 28 years experience as a M.D. and did a Robert Wood Johnson fellowship studying research design and data analysis, so he is emminently qualified to analyze the design and raw data of drug experiments. Check out his website at: http://www.overdosedamerica.com . And thanks for your info.

Restless, are we "very disturbed people who use this blog for their ranting?" Well, yes, come to think of it, we ARE very disturbed! We're disturbed, but not surprised, that some "moles" of the revisionist persuasion have a problem with us when we expose the immoralities and heresies afflicting God's Church. We're not surprised at the number of people who pop in on this blog to vent their spleen at those whom they regard as "gay haters." I hate to burst your bubble, but when we say the things we say, we do it out of Christian love and charity toward those transgressors who are the subject of these postings.....and for whom we pray that they will see the error of their ways, and repent. You are one of them. If we did NOT speak out, we would be failing in our duty as Christians to reach out to those in need of help.

May God's Peace be with you!

Cennydd

"It's time for David Virtue to do the responsible thing and intervene. The morphing of the original story has gotten out of hand."

Restless : Be patient and hang in there for a few days. I believe we will be hearing much more about this from the front office of VOL. I bet they are scrambling on this one to find out the facts. I don't think this is morphing, rather the story is evolving.

You are either completely ignorant or complicit in whar is going on in the ECUSA.

Of course there is a hidden agenda! That agenda calls for the complete acceptance, embracing of, and and celebration of the homosexual life style all in the name of equality which is the real religion of the ilk of Griswold and Robinson.

Satan wants equality with God and bitterly resents having to serve him.

Can you honestly write back and say you are an orthodox Chrisitian who rejects Satan and all his works? I very much doubt that you even believe that Satan exists. Don't bother accusing me of being Satan, I have heard all of the tired left wing cliches before. Be honest with this group, say what you really believe so we can see you for who you are!

FRJOHN, you're right....although I might've toned down the rhetoric ever so slightly. I have seen this Church....if one wants to call it that now....decline from a membership of about 3.5 million 43 years ago, when I was confirmed, to less than 2.5 million. The downward slide actually began around the end of the 60s, when Pike published his heresies, and the rest is history.

I am a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic. I make no apologies for my beliefs, and I stand up for what I believe. I came from the Diocese of El Camino Real....one of the hotbeds where this whole mess began. I saw a conservative parish morph into one which did a complete flip-flop in the short space of six years; during which time the specter of revisionism reared its ugly head. It began with the revision of prayers with inclusionary phrases, a total ruining of the Hymnal....a matter which has been totally omitted in our postings, by the way....and the questionable teaching of our children in Sunday School.

Is it any wonder why so many faithful orthodox Anglicans have left ECUSA? NO! Is there any doubt of the outcome of General Convention in June? NO! Do I look forward to a new beginning in a new orthodox Anglican province....when, not if....it is created? YES!!

A successful Colorado rancher died and left everything to his devoted wife. She was a very good-looking woman, and determined to keep the ranch, but knew very little about ranching. So she decided to place an ad in the newspaper for a ranch hand.

Two men applied for the job. One was gay and the other a drunk.

She thought long and hard about it, and when no one else applied she decided to hire the gay man, figuring it would be safer to have him around the house than the drunk.

He proved to be a hard worker who put in long hours everyday and knew a lot about ranching. For weeks, the two of them worked hard, and the ranch was doing very well.

Then one day, the rancher's widow said to the hired hand, "You have done a really good job, and the ranch looks great! You should go into town and kick up your heels."

The hired hand readily agreed and went into town the following Saturday night. One o'clock came, and he didn't return. Two o'clock, and no hired hand. He returned around two-thirty, and upon entering the house, he found the rancher's widow sitting by the fireplace with a glass of wine, waiting for him.

She quietly called him over to her. "Unbutton my blouse and take it off," she said. Trembling, he did as she directed. "Now take off my boots." He did as she asked, ever so slowly, "Now take off my stockings." He removed each gently and placed them neatly by her boots.

"Now take off my skirt." He slowly unbuttoned it, constantly watching her eyes in the fire light "Now take off my bra." Again, with trembling hands, he did as he was told and dropped it to the floor. "Now," she said, "take off my panties." By the light of the fire, he slowly pulled them down and off.

Then she looked at him and said,

"If you ever wear my clothes into town again, you're fired."

================
Cry or laugh??

i'll laugh

Hey Gregory,

Only in post-modern, post-Christian America do we know think gender-bending 'cute.' It's all over our TVs - including, shockingly on the kids' channels. We're teaching our kids to reject the notion of male and female - and all that flows from that - and a huge chunk of perverted society thinks that wonderful.

It all comes down to the desire of many humans to have no constraints placed on them whatsoever - to enjoy the total freedom of desires and fantasies, and to not have to believe anything in life have a sacred meaning.

It's the Brave New World coming true.

With Christian love!

Essodalori

Hey restless -

Thought I'd say good morning to you - if you should be peering into the snakepit!

Seriously, man, just wanted to tell you that God's morality is given to us out of love to help us become like Christ. Love without a morality would mean nothing, and achieve nothing.

With much Christian love!

Esso

Jumpin' Jimminy!

Restless, you're new to the Blogoshpere, aren't you? The Internet is the opposite of authoritarianism and Robert's Rules. It is about information wanting to be free.

On the other hand, J'ECUSA! could use some discipline, and poeple heckling it about following its own rules since it is technically a corporation and an institution, and bound by rules as part of its privilege.

La vie en rose pour nos cleriques!

I submit that one's first post on VOL is typically a reliable predictor of every post thereafter, since people often study VOL and form an opinion before making their first post. Accordingly, unless we're responding to a very first post, I encourage everyone to consider the source by going to the poster's page and seeing how he started out on his little excursion on VOL. As for "restless", here was his first post, in October 2005:

"Some of us are staying with the creaky ECUSA in part in order to stay away from the bigots who are among those responding to this article."

Inquiring minds have to ask. What (or who or which) else did FTG do in Havana on his recent trip?

He visited the Left Flank.

Essodalori

Esso, he also spent some of OUR hard-earned MONEY! Y'know....the overblown salary we pay him?

Ladies and Gents : Since things here seem to be slowing down, I thought I would throw a few logs into the embers. Please see a belated comment I just made (if you care to) on the "I Told You So" article. I just recalled copying and saving this from VGR's post-consecration bio. It makes more sense now in terms of his alcohol problem. See the paragraph in the middle. My heart and prayers go out to his ex-wife. That woman went through hell.

Excuse me, I meant to say his PRE-consecration bio. Pardon me.

JAV123, I just looked at the comment you made in the "I Told You So" article, and all I could get out of that bio on VGR was a half-second blurb followed by what I think is his diocese's "official" version of his biography. I wonder if they're trying to hide something?

Cennydd

Cennydd :
Apparently so. I can't imagine what they are concerned about. What do they want to hide ?

I noticed that his bio. on the N.H. Diocese website was "blocked" yesterday before I posted in " I Told You So". That's why I pasted the entire bio that I copied about two years ago. If you scroll down my post there, you will find a paragraph that I think makes a lot more sense (even the fact that it was included in his bio makes more "sense", now!) since the recent revelation about his alcohol problem.

I think he decided it was time to seek treatment before he was exposed as an alcoholic; thinking it would be disgraceful to be exposed while serving on the Board of Directors of a health organization in New Hampshire. At least he was honest about it....this time. Too bad the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire didn't know he was an alcoholic before they chose him to be their new bishop!

Cennydd

Please see a belated comment I just made (if you care to) on the "I Told You So" article. [...] It makes more sense now in terms of his alcohol problem.

Frankly what strikes me most about the bio isn't that specific paragraph, but that the entire tone of the bio just seems very self-absorbed - not the bare facts, but the way that they're related. Maybe I'm being a bit dense, but I don't find that paragraph much more enlightening after knowing about the alcohol problem than before. However the general self-absorption seems obvious and fills up the entire bio.

bc: What I was referring to was the bizarre concept of literally dragging one's spouse to the alter and then celebrating the eucharist, as part of a symbolic "annulment". Is this something rational thinking people do ?
Often alcoholics, especially intelligent alcoholics are master manipulators. The above seems to fit the profile.

Neal : Maybe a professional can shed some light on this, if you are available.

JAV123 wrote:

Quote:

It never ceases to amaze me. Human defense mechanisms are fully capable of convincing us that black is white and white is black and then to build mental and behavioral and social structures (and in this case ecclesiastical) to support the conclusion.

You are right, in order for VGR to support his pathology both sexual and with regard to substance abuse he would have to manipulate those around him as well as the established structures. The use of the Eucharistic Liturgy to do this is a prime example of this "black is white" process. The Eucharistic service was originally the context within which the sacramental union of man and wife was achieved. There is no evidence I know of for the use of it to "undo".

That ECUSA can be manipulated like this indicates just how pathological it is itself.

Neal

Often alcoholics, especially intelligent alcoholics are master manipulators. The above seems to fit the profile.

That makes sense - however in the context of the entire biography it just didn't strike me as that unusual (as I said, what struck me most about the entire bio is that it seemed very self-absorbed). Not that it struck me as normal (!) but that given what went before and after in the bio it seemed to fit right in.

I don't know whose idea that was - but if it wasn't his, he apparently didn't resist it very much and in fact makes a point of bringing it up in the bio. Again, a very self-absorbed individual - the incident in question would have included at most their families and perhaps a few friends, and one would expect a very private affair ... not something that would receive such a prominent place in such a short bio.

Even though it's short the bio contains a number of little things like that throughout its whole text that just don't sound quite right to me ... such that that one paragraph didn't seem that out of place.

bcwright

Good observation. It reminds me of a quote from St. Maximus the Confessor. I can't quote it exactly but the jist is that the core of all sin is "self-love" understood as self-absorption.

The way of Christ is in self-denial. The contrast couldn't be more dramatic.

Neal

bc: Yes, I agree the entire bio. seems a bit ego-centric but the paragraph I separated from the other really stuck me as wacko-bizzaro and simply unbelievable that VGR thought it would make sense to rational people.

I have to share the circumstances behind why at the time I saved it as a file. This was before the vote at GC2003 to confirm VGR. I was copying articles that supported a "no vote" and e-mailing them to the members in the congregation because all we were seeing and hearing in church were supporting articles. Well, finally the spouse of the senior warden sent me a email telling me not to send her anymore of these and that she "could not judge anyone's lifestyle". Surprisingly, this was a small congregation in a small town. Most all the "power people" were for (or at least not vocally against) confirmation except one, a cradle Episcopalian who subsequently converted to Catholicism. I left shortly after this myself.

I think +Frank looks very stylish in those flowing robes. And I always suspected he was wearing mascara in some of his photos. Now we know.

the article that spawned these responses and the responses are shamefull. they are full of smear, innuendo, and hate. there are a few exceptions who expressed uneasiness at the tone and content, to those I say thank you for your efforts. to the rest of you this is not even close to Christ like behavior.
Shame on you.

Interesting post from FRHLL,

FRHLL,
can you say "shame on you" to those who:

- deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures...

- deny Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior...

- deny Jesus Christ came in the flesh...

- deny the biblical teaching concerning sin...

- deny the need for repentance from biblical sin...

- deny the gospel of Jesus Christ, thru repentance
from sin and forgiveness of sin, to be able to
change lives and give freedom from sin...

- deny the authority of Holy Scriptures by
continuing to welcome and offer support
to those who promote sin...

FRHLL -

Interesting post, indeed.

Shame?

Christ calls us to be bold in our faith. Further, He forcefully proclaims He is not a uniter, but a divider.

I think it is far more telling to note the resounding silence accross the breadth and depth of the Anglican web community regarding the charges David reports here.

The proverbial 'Baby Ruth Bar' has been hurled into the punch bowl creating what would certainly be a splash of tsunami proportion were the shoe on the other foot. Yet, none apart from this select group is so sedulous as to take active notice. How proper of the greater community to avert its gaze from the untoward scene. How discrete the true Piskies to seek other miens as far more worthy to consider. How .....

A manly reaction would be to confront and deal with such a direct and damning set of charges.

But, I forget, this is ECUSA we are talking about. How foolish and confused I must be even to consider the possibility of a manly reaction within ECUSA. Utterly incomprehensible.

When I was an Ecusan three decades ago, we had men in our church who had the duty to keep order. I saw one of those men ask a college girl who appeared at the Easter liturgy in short shorts to go home and put on a dress; and it was a very warm evening, but she complied and returned properly dressed. We used to call those men "ushers". Do they have ushers any more in the Episcopal church? If so, what do they do?

Our parish visited the Holy Land, and I noticed that the Orthodox Church near the Garden of Gethsemane had an old lady stationed outside the front door who presented improperly-dressed lady tourists with a "one size fits all" dress and commanded them, before they entered, to "Putt onn ze dress!" They didn't take kindly to that, but they did what she asked. We didn't have any problems since our pastor had advised us before we left not to wear slacks or shorts but to dress appropriately when visiting the Holy Places.

I'd have dressed appropriately in Paris, too. Maybe not in a Dior or a Givenchy, but a dress all the same. [ETA: Even in the fashion-capital of the world, I think men are men and women are women and vive la différence, but maybe that's true only for those of us who were "carefully brought up"....] I may be old and on my way out, but good behavior still matters.

I should think, that whether a person is male or female, cross-dressing and garish makeup would be inappropriate. But then, I'm Orthodox now. Ecusans don't listen to me any more.

Masha

How can frhll go on babbling about Christ-like behavior when he is an enabler of homoanalfecalism? Do I hear the word oxymoron?

I take it you belive that gossip, unfounded speculation, character assasination and name calling are Christ-like behaviors. That is an accurate description of most of the responses to the article.
I say keep it up, you are being revealed by your own evil.

Just keep on enabling homoanalsodomy like you are doing and God will give you your reward for your carnal lusts - Evil presupposes itself - when you are an apologist for homoanalfecalism, you enable evil - therefore, you partake in doing that which is evil.

Frhll,

I did not hear an answer to the questions...

FRHLL,
can you say "shame on you" to those who:

- deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures...

- deny Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior...

- deny Jesus Christ came in the flesh...

- deny the biblical teaching concerning sin...

- deny the need for repentance from biblical sin...

- deny the gospel of Jesus Christ, thru repentance
from sin and forgiveness of sin, to be able to
change lives and give freedom from sin...

- deny the authority of Holy Scriptures by
continuing to welcome and offer support
to those who promote sin...

Hooray for FrHill! The tone of so many of the postings about this particular posting are 'way over the line. And now FrHill becomes the target of the paranoid ravings of the several who refuse to confront the issue of the evil power of rumor and innuendo. He has said nothing to deserve your silliness, but that doesn't seem to deter the true believers who are persuaded the rightness of their cause. I support those who condemn that which is wrong, but to do so by creating another form of evil is the work of the Dark One.

Dear Helpisonth

Welcome to VOL! Please keep posting as we are here to debate the pros and cons of the Anglican communion as a whole. On reading your very first posting I'm tempted to think that Stoneridges theory of early posters applies in your case, but I for one will give you the benefit of the doubt.

No one is condemning FrHill other than to say they disagree with what he is saying. We all have different ways of expressing ourselves, and some people are more refined than others. To those who you don't agree with, I suggest you direct your comments to them, asking why they have taken such a tone towards FrHill if you think they have condemned him.

Now may I ask, do you think the homosexuality is right or is wrong?

God Bless

BHTech

Well BHTech
it looks as if you dont think homoanalfecalism and carnal lust are not condemnations. it is ok, I'm pretty sure homoanalfecalism isnt a real word anyway.

Dear FrHill,

For your information many words have found their way into the English dictionary that were not there originally. "Podcasting" is one of them. It's made up of two words.

If you have issues with the words you cite, I suggest you take it up with the originators and users.

God Bless

BHTech

"the evil power of rumor and innuendo"

___


Ah yes, helpisonth, "the evil power of rumor and innuendo" ... now there's something for us all to become overwrought about. Let's add that to the list along with neopuritanism, judgmentalism, intolerance, "hatespeech" and "homophobia."

So, let's talk about some of the powerfully evil rumors going around ...

1) That the ECUSA, lead by Griswold, now proclaims that sodomy is good;

2) That the ECUSA does so despite the existence of an HIVAids pandemic;

3) That the ECUSA has ordained as a bishop an alcoholic who divorced his wife so he could engage in sodomy with another man;

4) That the Holy Spirit is claimed to have told the leaders of the ECUSA that sodomists were made by God to commit sodomy and that He wishes the church to bless their barren, depraved and deadly pleasures;

5) That the church catholic around the world rejects this new teaching of the ECUSA;

6) That the ECUSA knew that the ECUSA itself had in the past, and that the church catholic would for all eternity, reject the malignant suggestion that sodomy was godly and yet the ECUSA, in the height of willful and parochial Western arrogance, went right ahead and did as it chose;

7) That the ECUSA is itself now headed for schism;

8) That families with children are leaving the ECUSA in droves rather than allow their children to hear the ECUSA's new Satanic message that sodomy is godly;

9) That the ECUSA is disproportionately lead by sodomists, whose numbers "at the top" far exceed the normal incidence of gays among the general population; and

10) That Frank Griswold was seen in the company of a group of homosexuals IN DRAG at a cathedral in "gay Paris," not to convert them but to proclaim that sodomy was acceptable in the eyes of God.

Now that we've put it all in perspective, helpisonth, what's your point?

Tell us, oh self-proclaimed monitor of rumor and innuendo on VOL, DO YOU BELIEVE SODOMY IS GODLY?

And as for FRHLL, go read his bigotted and sanctimonious posts elsewhere and then whine to us about "tone." Like your post above, like those of tfelch, kurtthomas, fr_steve, Father Jake, godislove, telodi, valis, FRHLL and all the company of Satan's legion, your very first post here told us who you really are!

You see, the Orthodox understand that the world is divided into rams and ewes. We understand that evil is real and deadly and that "rumors and innuendo" are the least of our concerns. We do not yield to Satan, no matter how he may couch his own words in sanctimony.

So, before you have any right to BLEAT to us about "tone", you must tell us whether you believe that God intends that one man place his procreative organ into another man's excretory organ. (For those disengenuous nitwits like FRHLL, who purport to "think" that "homophobia" is the only newly minted word that either side in this war can use, some of us on VOL refer to this as "homoanalfecal sodomy".)

What say you, oh pious "helpisonth"?

Which are you? A pro-sodomist or an orthodox?

Never mind, "helpisonth," we know who you are. The millstone about your neck is a dead giveaway.

You are one of the blasphemers who would teach our children that the Holy Spirit is now proclaiming that sodomy is a delight for God to behold, that the "ancients were wrong," that the Holy Spirit is now "leading the church in a new direction" (and that at a time when it has been proven to be more deadly than ever!).

Yes, we know who you are. You are one of those who have made the Holy Spirit out as a pimp and the church, the bride of Christ, into a whore in drag, willing to accede to the depraved desires of depraved men. You are one of the eternal sinners, the advocates for the practice of homoanalfecal sodomy.

"help is on the way" ... what a fine name you've chosen ... as in reinforcements for Satan's "legion," as in "hell is on the way" ...

But your bleating is too little, too late, helpisonth, for the fire you are playing with is one which will consume your eternal soul, for you are among those who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

Tell us it isn't so, and then you can chastise us over matters of "tone".

Well....Stoneridge has certainly put me in my place. I find myself fearing, after reading this blog for years, that I will end up in the same parish (very unlikely, I know) as some of the posters who vent their spleen here. May the gracious God have mercy on us all -- equally.

that is right Helpisonth, you are faced with a group of people here who speak directly for the Holy Spirit, no need to say anything, they aleady know who you are and what you think. They damn you for it. They are nothing less than the voice of God.
We can only thank God that there are so few of them.

Dear Helpisonth,

Before you go thinking that you have an ally in FrHill, I urge you to consider what Stoneridge has said and reexamine FrHill thinking in the following of his past posts:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

To paraphase FrHill:

"Convincing people that the church is big enough for both views...what makes you think that same sex relationships are not God inspired...sodom was about rape. the sex in the scriptures is about abuse."

FrHill and I have often debated many times and I do my very best not to berate people on this blog. Especially those I do not agree with.

I enjoy a good debate, but that does not happen very often with people who cannot defend themselves. Consequently they resort to hate mongering tactics and name calling and I am not accusing anyone including FrHill of such, but I will let you be the judge and see if his views represent yours. If they do I will gladly enguage you in a public debate.

By the way you have not answered my question on whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong.

God Bless

BHTech

No frhll, our numbers are legion, more than there are stars in the Universe or grains of sand on all the world's beaches. Turn away and repent of thy sin of enabling homoanalsodomy and receive the the Love of Our Triune God who wishes not to banish anyone of us to Hell but would love to see us all at the Banquet table.

The Invitation: *You are invited to come dine with Me, From now through all eternity. Believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, And dine with Jesus as your host. To live in heaven eternally, All you must do is... R.S.V.P.*

Repent and receive.

"that is right Helpisonth, you are faced with a group of people here who speak directly for the Holy Spirit, no need to say anything, they aleady know who you are and what you think. They damn you for it. They are nothing less than the voice of God.
We can only thank God that there are so few of them."

___

FRHLL,

Your posts really are pathetically blind and ineffectual. How far, exactly, did you go in school, and what did you study?

It is the ECUSA which has claimed to speak for the Holy Spirit. This is a fact. So too it is a fact that it is the ECUSA which has claimed that its "Holy Spirit" has changed His mind: YOURS nows says that sodomy is good. By your own admission, YOUR Holy Spirit was wrong in the past. "He" didn't understand.

But the Holy Spirit WE speak for says the same thing today and for all eternity: that sodomy is evil. And thus, when we proclaim what the Holy Spirit teaches, WE simply proclaim what the Holy Spirit has always taught. And WE have evidence: It is called scripture and the testimony of the communion of saints for two thousand years. YOU offer no such evidence, merely YOUR word alone. We are supposed to take YOUR word for it. But YOUR word comes, of all times, in the era of bathhouses and the HIVAids pandemic, both of which impeach your pathetic witness.

Moreover, your witness is impeached by your own perceived self-interest, for you proclaim what YOU want. YOU want people to be able to sodomize, so you say the Holy Spirit condones sodomy. WE, however, gain nothing for ourselves by condemning sodomy; our testimony benefits not ourselves but others--our children for generations to come and the benighted who would become victims of HIVAids. Your credibility is thus further impeached, while OURs remains unassailable. YOU speak from selfishness, to gain a freedom you have never had; WE speak the objective truth with no motivation to gain anything from it for ourselves.

And so, it is YOU who bear the burden of proof, not we. WE enjoy more even than a mere presumption of rightness; ours is an irrebuttable presumption, for the Holy Spirit WE speak for has said the same thing in scripture and to the communion of saints for thousands of years. We impeach your fraud's testimony with scripture and with the witness of the communion of saints and with your own self-interest. In no court of justice would your pathetic witness meet its burden in overturning two thousand years of law.

And so, YOU stand utterly alone; willfully and selfishly alone in your defense of sodomy, in your assault upon natural law and the bedrock of civilization, the family.

And in your willful and selfish bearing of false witness against the Holy Spirit, YOU have commited the eternal sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, imperilling your eternal souls.

Laugh all you like but we do not make this up, Christ Himself said this. Or would you say too that Christ was wrong and has changed His mind?

We have seen such laughter, condescension and sanctimony before. They are the age-old ploy of the Devil and the Devil's dupes. But WE have spoken for God for two thousand years, for we are the Body of Christ, the church catholic, and you are not; you're the "gay church," the church of sodomy.

And thus, in ridiculing us, this too is eternal sin, for in so doing you ridicule not US but the Holy Spirit Himself, whose eternal teaching we but repeat.

Indeed, we simply tell you what you yourselves acknowledge the Holy Spirit has said for 2000 years: That sodomy is evil. And for defending this truth you laugh at us! But in your blindness, you are laughing your way into the pit, foolish and willful have you so become.

And so, it is YOU who are selling falsehoods and claiming the authority of the Holy Spirit to deceive the innocent. It is YOUR argument which is absolutely devoid of truth--both as to the teaching of the Holy Spirit and as to the history regarding which of us has usurped the Holy Spirit's authority. This is evident to the overwhelming majority of Christendom, which recognizes your "new teaching" for what it is, heresy. WE, the body of Christ, the church catholic, have seen the likes of you before, and we will beat your evil down under our feet as we have before.

For while YOUR Holy Spirit equivocates, ours constantly speaks the eternal truth. YOU make it up to suit your own whim. WE don't make it up, we simply affirm it.

AND SO, IT IS YOU WHO FALSELY CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THIS IS THE BLASPHEMY WHICH IS YOUR ETERNAL SIN: YOU CLAIM THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT NOW, AFTER THOUSANDS OF YEARS, COMMENDS ONE MAN'S INJECTION OF HIS SEED INTO ANOTHER MAN'S EXCRETORY ORGAN AND THAT GOD DELIGHTS IN THIS. And you tell us "body parts" are irrelevant! Yet, as neither you nor those who suffer the deadly disease you would nurture, HIVAIds, would utter such nonsense to your earthly doctors, how say you this to the great healer, the one who would heal your souls?

YOUR WITNESS IS FALSE, AND BEING FALSE AND FALSELY ASCRIBED TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, IT CONSITUTES FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH CHRIST HIMSELF TOLD US WAS BLASPHEMY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. YOUR PERJURY SHALL BE ON YOUR SOULS, NOT OURS. SCRIPTURE SAYS THIS; WE DO NOT.

As for us, we will trust in the faith, the truth, once delivered, not "twice" or "thrice" or contradictorily delivered according to the whims of Man.

You have heard the Truth now, it's entirely up to you. Your souls lie in your very hands.

Let him who has ears hear.

BHTech,

When a poster cannot state that sodomy is wrong, by his or her silence you will know what they truly believe.

We can safely say that both FRHLL and helpisonth believe sodomy is godly.

Sodomy, which brings no new life into the world, which knows not the love God intended, which denies the dignity of the order of God's creation, which spreads disease and death, this is what they defend.

It is as simple as that. Their sanctimonious bleating about tone is nothing but a ruse of Satan.

Stoneridge said

"When a poster cannot state that sodomy is wrong, by his or her silence you will know what they truly believe."

***********

Yes that is true Stoneridge! By their fruits shall ye know them! Helpisonth is yet to reply to my main question! Is homosexuality right or wrong? A supplimental question is should it be blessed yes or no?

In the case of FrHill we have seen his posts and as he has indicated he believes same-sex relationships are God inspired and Sodom was about rape.

Yep we can't help them if they think that way. They are lost in their thinking.

May the Lord Bless you Stoneridge for upholding the truth.

With christian love,

BHTech

Gee BHTech and stoneridge

I wonder how much more silence we would recieve if we asked them if they would subscribe to the Nicene Creed in the original intention of its framers?

I have as much as asked this question too and have received no response.

It is clear that to support their beliefs they have to abandon the Faith of the Church for 2,000 years. There is absolutely no support for them there unless they "spin" the Truth on it's head and make it say what it was never meant to say. I wish they would just say so.

Oh well...

Neal

As long as the homoanalfecal-lesbosex movement and their *enablers* do not repent and turn away from their lifestyle choice, maybe the time has come for the orthodox to make that abject movement feel as welcome as a Jewish transvestite lingerie salesman in Taliban-era Kandahar.

Quote:

that would look good,
compared to being in unrepentant sin and misleading the sheep and abuse of the church kids, and trashing the Holy Scriptures, come judgement day...

Reading Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical has been very enlightening to me. In my opinion, it speaks to the issue that is dividing ECUSA. He warns against sex without unconditional love. He states, "The word 'love' is so tarnished, so spoiled and so abused, that one is almost afraid to pronounce it with one's lips." He goes on to clarify the differences between agape and eros. The Pope's message on this subject gives further theological credence to me that actions taken by the hierarchy of ECUSA to accept homosexuality as a God-given normal lifestyle are very inconsistent with God's teachings. Would appreciate comments from those who have read this document on Christian love. After all, the love of Christ is what separates us from other religions. The Pope's message is worth the read.

My silence springs from the sure and certain sense that there is no possibility of dialogue represented here, so my time can be better spent. Do you remember the name of a short story by Ring Lardner: "Shut Up, He Explained." -- an apt evocation of the spirit of some (not all by any means) of the postings on this site. Cheerio --

Sound the retreat! "helpisgone"

Seriously, folks, helpison, told us a lot just with his name.

What happens is someone like fr_steve feels beset and contacts a buddy and then telodi or Father Jake weighs in.

In this case, FRHLL knows he's losing every argument he starts and then contacts his little buddy and then helpison (as in, "Don't worry FRHLL, I'm coming! Help is on the way!") registers and chimes in, whining about "tone" and "homophobia". He was never here to dialogue at all. He can't even say what he believes about sodomy! Absolutely pathetic.

These guys are all just propagandists for sodomy. And inept ones at that!

What sort of nitwit thinks there can be a dialogue about whether homoanalfecal sodomy is good?!?!?!?!

All it takes is one little acronym to prove them wrong: "HIVAids"

Even the heretics' reinforcements don't have the guts to defend sodomy!

"My silence springs from the sure and certain sense that there is no possibility of dialogue represented here, so my time can be better spent."

**********

WRONG! Your silence springs from the fact that deep down inside you know that homosexuality, sodomy and the like are fundamentally wrong.

Your failure to answer a simple question bears testamony to the fact that it is wrong. Silence in this case is a clear admission of guilt or in your case, you know you are incorrect and cannot provide an answer.

I would dialogue and debate with you but you don't want to, so this case is closed. Until you join another post giving your views then people might consider you a worthy oponent to debate with.

Hasta la vista.

God Bless

BHTech

Dear 2Gbtg

Welcome to VOL and kudos to you for reading Benedicts work! I have read one of JPII encilicals and it was mind blowing. I have more available to me to read through my wife, but time is a problem .

I encourage you to continue reading such material as these men speak the truth and are giants in their own right.

May God's blessing be on you my friend.

With Christian love

BHTech

helpisonth posts:
Quote:

Dear Helpisonth,
God will have mercy on us all, as He states in His Holy Scriptures, on all of us who repent from sin and accept Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior thru baptism...

For the unrepentant haters of God, that deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh, that bring a different gospel that the New Testament Jesus Christ gospel;
there is NO such promise that I have found in the bible...

Here is to hoping you do end up in one of our parishes, as you are likely to hear the full Word Of God, from the Priest hopefully, from us if the Priest is not up to it...

Truthseekr

Quote:
Yes, 2Gbtg, I agree. In this letter Benedict doesn't speak directly to the issue of homosexuality, but he draws us back to the wonder of God's love for us, a love that finds a sign in the great gift of the convenant bond between husband and wife.
Quote:

Homosexual relations are missing that complementarity between lover and beloved. Just as husband and wife are different, so God and humanity are different, and it is no accident at all that Romans 1 draws a connection between homosexuality and idolatry. A failure to appreciate the radical otherness of God goes hand-in-hand with an mistaken embrace of homosexual acts as a positive good.

May I also draw readers' attention to two fine posts by Fr. Thomas Dowd on responding to dissent within the Church and on frustration.
http://pumpkin-watch.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-should-roman-catholic-church-deal.html
http://fatherdowd.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_fatherdowd_archive.html#114005686246887702

there are many conservative people whom I admire and respect. Some of them occasiionally have written things on this blog. they usually quit. I suspect it is because of the bad behavior of most of the writers here.
the original story would never have been published by a good journalist. it is clearly an attempt to assasinate the character of the Presiding Bishop. to say that it must be true because several people have repeated the rumor, is the same as me saying that David Virtue is an idiot puffing up his own importance, I've certainly heard several people repeat that rumor so it must be true.

then you make wildly false accusations against me and anyone else who disagrees with you. I do actually know one of the other more liberal people who occasionally write here, but to accuse me of recruiting people to respond to you is just another paranoid speculation in this blog. there are so many that one more won't make any difference.

as a group, you really have proved yourself to be mean spirited and homophobic. Get the sin out of your own life before you start condemning so many others. you seem to think Christ died for everyone except homosexuals, that somehow homosexuality is beyond Christs redemption.
that is not part of scripture, tradition, or reason.

I ended my last posting with "cheerio" and I intended never to enter this silliness again. But Fr. Hill deserves hearing because he speaks for the many, like me, who are actually and actively struggling with the heavy issues relating to human sexuality and the authority of scripture in this matter. There are plenty of us who simply cannot hear what some posters are saying because they write so shrillly, so unlovingly that their words pass us by.
Someone insists that I say whether I think homosexuality is right or wrong. The question itself permits no direct answer because it's the wrong question; homosexuality in and of itself is like being right or left-handed (yes it is, despite what agenda-driven, pseudo-authorities, like James Dobson teach). The eternal question relating to any kind of sexual orientation must deal with the behaviors associated with the individual's living-out of her or his sexuality. Heteosexuals can do and actually do more harm in sheer numbers than homosexuals could dream of doing. But we don't for that reason condemn heterosexuality. Of course not. We condemn and punish the behavior that hurts others and abuses the heterosexual who misuses his sexuality.
Further, do those who assure me that Leviticus 18 is a definitive word ever read Lev. 20:13, where death is the penalty for a "man lying with a male as with a woman"? I can't go far with those who insult my attempts at a faithful reading of scripture with their proof-texting.
God is good and, yes, God is the judge. I am working on making my peace with what judgement awaits me. At the end of the day, I trust God enough to believe passionately that he will save us from ourselves and from the dark aspects of our beings, which represent a dimension of our blessed freedom, a great and troubling gift from the loving Father.
Cheerio - this time I mean it. Bless us all. I sign this "in Christian love" -- and I mean that too --

Those who use the term homophobic are closeted heterophobes - Somebody please pass the jug of Kool-Aid to frhll.

The only way for homosexuals to receive the healing they seek is for them to repent and turn away from their willful choice of homo/lesbosex.

The Body of Christ will always reject the grafting of a pus-oozing, putrid lifestyle onto The Body of Christ!!!

Repent and turn away from your abhorrent lifestyle and receive healing from Dr. Jesus.

Heterosexuality within the confines of Marriage between a Man and a Woman is a part of God's plan.

Quote:

For you, helpisonth, to utter such vile contempt, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that your present trajectory is one of hating the Almighty God.

To sign-off *In Christian Love* is not possible, since you have displayed your contempt for heterosexuality as witnessed by the aforementioned quote. You have proven yourself to be a *Hatriot.*

hubba, hubba....

helpisontheway wrote:

Quote:

I sympathize with your desire to deal with the issue of human sexuality as more complex than a simple "right vs. wrong". That I can commend.

But the conclusion you reach in the statement above is not supported by scientific knowledge or by any interpretation of Scripture prior to 30 years ago. If it is please produce the evidence and then we can talk. As a psychologist I have looked into the research studies (and continue to) and the vast majority of them do not suggest what you conclude. The few that "suggest" this have been largely discredited as either flawed or too simplistic themselves (i.e. drawing general conclusions from too little evidence). I also have a masters in historical theology and have had to conclude that the idea of homosexuality as being supported in Scripture or any historical perspective is indeed a "novelty". It seems to be instead a conclusion based on a political agenda and emotional desire. If this is not true please prove it to me using evidence. Then I can consider more thoughtfully alternative positions. Otherwise there can be no fruitful dialogue.

These things can be dialogued about although I admit having become discouraged about the possibility myself. Every time I ask questions based on what evidence I have found no one returns to address my questions.

Dialogue must be about evidence not emotional or political argument. If that can't happen then I will not dialogue either. Simply presenting points of view with no clear evidence to support them is futile.

But neither will I yell at anyone simply because they do not want to go this route.

Neal

Dear Helpisonth

For someone who supposedly has left VOL you sure seem to come back often, and interestingly whenever FrHLL appears. How interesting!

Yes you are struggling with homosexuality and there are probably thousands like yourself out there. The fundamental reason you struggle is because God put it in our hearts to know what is right from wrong, and you know deep down inside it is wrong, but for whatever physiological or physical reasons you say internally that it is right. It also explains why you cannot hear what other posters who get to the heart of the matter have to say on it. You know it is wrong. The truth hurts. Instead you want someone to baby you and comfort you with feelings while you constantly hurt yourself inside.

My question to you on whether homosexuality is right or wrong is a perfectly legitimate question. I'll show you why. Take you response

Quote:

There is a little knownn law know as the law of non-contradiction in reasoning and logic. Something must be true or it is false. I usually use the absolute truth/relative truth argument but for your sake I will use non-contradiction. Now because homosexuality is contrary in nature and in reality to heterosexuality you are claiming the question is wrong, but I say you are wrong simply because there can only be ONE answer to the question. It is either right or it is wrong. In my question I am looking as homosexuality as a subject or a moral condition and I am not interested in the complexities and what causes it. Its been with us for many years so is it right or wrong is what I am asking.

Why? Let's say both heterosexuality is right and homosexuality is right. Now they both can't be right because they violate non-contradiction. Lets say they are both wrong, then again they violate non-contradiction. Consequently either heter is right and homo is wrong or vice-versa. the same argument can be extended to bisexuality, pan sexuality, asexuality and all the other *sexualities out there.

On your Biblical quote you know very well that throughout the Bible homosexuality is routinely condemned and there is no biblical support whatsoever. Jesus changed some laws that the scribes and pharaciees taught but he reaffirmed others. As he himself said for this reason a man shall leave his mother and be united with his wife and the too shall be one. Therefore your Levi point is muted.

I would say more, but you sit on what I have said and think about it. Ask yourself why after 2000+ years should homosexuality be now right and lets see if you come up with a truthful answer.

God Bless

BHTech

Dear Helpison

You said "Quote:

Again I urge you to think carefully about what you write before you say it. You statement is simply not true. First of all what do you mean by "harm"? Commit more murders, more drive by shootings, what? In that same vein I can say heterosexuals produce more life which is good than homosexuals who produce NO life. Least you get any ideas let's rule out lesbians who have to be artifically inseminated to produce life. That sperm comes from the "other" species known as males!

Stastically homosexuals are worse off than hetersexuals when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases, mental health, life expentantcy and the like. The literature abounds with such data.

Finally, homosexuals do more harm to themselves and others than they realize. God calls us to live a certain way, to be transformed into a Christlike manner and to live his life. In maintaining that lifestyle you are not pleasing God, since he never approved of such a lifestyle. Just as Jesus asked the woman at the well to go and sin no more, he asks you to go and sin no more from your lifestyle. He asks me to go and sin no more from my sinful nature as well, so you are no exception, except that the homosexual lifestyle you support promotes death and destruction.

God Bless

BHTech

"the original story would never have been published by a good journalist. it is clearly an attempt to assasinate the character of the Presiding Bishop."

___

More intellectual dishonesty from FRHLL!

"clearly an attempt to assasinate the character of the Presiding Bishop"? Clearly?

And just how would that be? By wrongly suggesting that he might be a homosexual?

But homosexuality is now a gift from God, is it not?

So what if Griswold is gay? So what if he goes to the Left Bank and brings a bunch of sodomists in drag to church? If he's truly a heterosexaul, God "made" him to be so. And if he's truly gay, God made him to be so. Right? That's your argument, right? RIGHT?

Stick with your talking points, FRHLL! If sodomy's good, then to be seen in the company of sodomists in drag says absolutely nothing about a man's virtue. If you really believe that sodomy is good, then there's nothing remotely in the nature of "character assasination" in this article. Only if one thinks sodomy has some moral relevance could one consider what Griswold did to have reflected adversely upon his character.

Sodomists are all hypocrits. THEY ALL KNOW GOD DOESN'T APPROVE OF THE PRACTICE OF ONE MAN'S INJECTING HIS SEED INTO ANOTHER MAN'S EXCETORY ORGAN. What tells them so? Their own consciences. They all know it; they just cannot admit it. And if they didn't get it intuitively, the HIVAids pandemic serves as just one of the reasons God doesn't approve of sodomy. It's filthy and deadly.

This is why anyone who says sodomy is good, why anyone like helpison who will not say one way or the other, is not here to reason, they are here simply to perpetuate their own self-serving delusion.

I, for one, take the hard line with such as these. Yielding to the ridiculous notion that God endorses sodomy is not in their interest or the society's. Those who suffer from delusions need a strong dose of unyielding reality. Yield an inch to them and you feed their delusion with credibility. Were they open to reason, I would reason with them. But what doesn't work, doesn't work. The ones whose posts gnaw at their consciences on VOL are not the ones who dignify their pathetic arguments with polite and patient discourse. To perforate their flimsy delusions one has to be intent on perforating them.

SODOMY IS A FILTHY, FUTILE, DEADLY ACT AND GOD CONDEMNS IT. THOSE WHO PROCLAIM IT IS GOOD AND THAT GOD CONDONES IT ARE DECEIVERS. THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DECEIVING SO MANY OTHERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE DECEIVED EVEN THEMSELVES. WE ARE DEALING WITH A PROFOUND MENTAL ILLNESS AND IT WILL TAKE STRONG MEDICINE TO CURE THEM.

FRHLL, helpison, I will embrace you as brothers when you relent from your self deceit and confess that sodomy is filthy, futile and deadly. Until then, as you would ruin my children's society you will be my mortal enemy. And fear not, until you repent from your evil cause, you and I will never, ever worship the same God, much less be found in the same place of worship.

helpisonth,

We knew you'd follow up and read the replies to your last post. We knew you just couldn't resist! Welcome back for another dose of reality!

Your most recent post is all a muddle. Are you o.k.?

On the one hand, you say, "Someone insists that I say whether I think homosexuality is right or wrong. The question itself permits no direct answer because it's the wrong question ..."

But then, you silly fellow, you go right on to answer the question! Then you say, "homosexuality in and of itself is like being right or left-handed (yes it is, despite what agenda-driven, pseudo-authorities, like James Dobson teach)." Since being right-handed or left-handed is not a matter of morality, you seem to believe that neither is the desire of one man to sodomize another. Right? Or do you want to back-peddle and equivocate some more?

You silly muddled fellow! First you deny the legitimacy of the question and then you answer it in the very next clause!

Is it conceivable that I have told you and everyone else on VOL what you believe before you could even bring yourself to do so? Why so shy about it? Stand up for what you know is right! Just come out and say it! Say, "GOD APPROVES OF ONE MAN'S INJECTING HIS SEED INTO ANOTHER MAN'S EXCRETORY ORGAN."

It's surely Prozac time. Cheers....

helpisonth,

We would be glad to send you truckloads of Prozac for your own personal use.

helpisonth

Not even ONE reasoned answer based on scientifc or Scriptural evidence to any exception to your position?

Neal

Neal said "helpisonth, Not even ONE reasoned answer based on scientifc or Scriptural evidence to any exception to your position?"

*******

Because he can't Neal!! Truth is a hell of a thing and few people can handle the truth. Consequently, when you, Stoneridge, Giovanni and myself confront him with reasoned logic he can't answer, but instead resorts to talking about Prozac as his way of dealing with it. At least his mentor and friend FrHLL will offer some type of response, albeit it an illogical one in defense of homosexuality.

Can he refute the law of non-contradiction? No he can't. Can he give scientific evidence to support homosexuality as being procreative? No he can't. He stumbles upon his words as Stoneridge points out. I advice him to chose his words carefully, he doesn't even see the error in his logic and he keeps coming back.

Not much can be done to help him, if he refuses to reason things out. Pride prevents him from seeing the error of his ways.

God Bless

BHTech

At the risk of saying too much, I should tell some of the orthodox VOL posters that what seems harsh and confrontational and scathing in my treatement of the pro-sodomists who post here is truly just a tactic which I think works.

The pro-sodomists won't believe it possible, but I am actually a kind, long-suffering, patient and soft-spoken person. It takes some effort to deal with them the way I do. Why do I do it?

Because I am convinced that when we "reason" with them, we feed their delusion that what they advocate might just be reasonable. As long as "the dialogue" goes on, they are assured that there is merit to their position. To borrow from the psychobabble of the age, we become enablers, do-dependent with them. This is precisely why the ECUSA is willing to sufffer "living in tension," for they know they will never win. They are content with a stalemate if it gives them legitimacy.

BUT, THE TRUTH SETS MEN FREE!

THE TRUTH TAKES NO PRISONERS!

AND THE TRUTH WILL NEVER, EVER SUFFER A STALEMATE!

To put it another way, sometimes it's better to tell a recalcitrant child who asks "Why?," "Because I said so!" than to reason with him; sometimes it's far more effective to call your brother a "drunk" than to recite the number of drinks he's had that day in an effort to convince him he has a problem! It's called "tough love." Though it be "tough," it remains love, as it shows a willingness to risk being thought less of if it means reaching the person in the end.

And so, I believe we need to shock the flame of the image of God that still flickers within them with the TRUTH, the UNVARNISHED TRUTH, the SOBERING TRUTH, the PAINFUL TRUTH, a truth that they, under the power of SATAN himself, so assiduously deny. Satan tells them a comfortable "truth," it is our job to speak THE UNCOMFORTABLE truth to them. When we do, the part that is offended will be the part Satan controls.

You see, deep down, a part of their eternal souls still recognizes THE truth. When we "dialogue" with them, I believe we are speaking to the wrong part, the part that possesses them.

But there is another part, another part we need to reach. It is reached only with harshness. We must strip away the veneer of credibility, Satan's cloak, to reach that naked and shivering part that still recognizes and recalls the truth.

The truth, you see, is LIGHT. On the surface, their souls are shrouded in Satan's darkness, the darkness of self-deceit and self-interest. We must cut through that darkness, that blindness, to the "eye" shrouded beneath. That "eye" may be a "still, small voice," but it still exists. It needs to be affirmed and upheld.

And so, I submit we must YELL at them, "SODOMY IS FILTHY, FUTILE AND DEADLY!" So too, we must tell everyone in the ECUSA that until they ackowledge THAT truth, their will be NO dialogue, for to reason with someone willful enough to say that sodomy is good is to conceive of the possibility that anyone reasonable could believe sodomy to be good! That bears repeating:

TO REASON WITH SOMEONE WILLFUL ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SODOMY IS GOOD IS TO CONCEIVE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT ANYONE REASONABLE COULD BELIEVE SODOMY TO BE GOOD!

And I say NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EVER, EVER SAY THAT SODOMY IS GOOD, least of all at a time when millions are dying of HIVAids.

Hey BHTech & Stoneridge,

Having witnessed the demagogery, dastardly demeanour and despicable deceit that the homo/lesbosex movement in the church deploys when faced with the Truth, I sense the desperation on their part to drag as many down into the fires of Hell as possible. God really does give them over to their lustful desires. If they will not listen then it would be better to shake the dust off one's sandals and leave them to their devices.

In Xrists Salvific Love,

Giovanni

Quote:

Perhaps this is why no one of them has ever taken to actually "reasoning" their position here based on logic in response to the use of reason.

If a dialogue based on reason and evidence actually occured and was followed through to the end then there is the possibility that reason may actually "win".

The proof is in their lack of response. I see this as a confrontation too.

If there is no reasoned reply to an argument then the use of sarcasm seems less reasonable. Their replies appear to be very thin indeed. I would rather not get lost in harsh replies. For me, then, the logic loses it's preeminence. But here again this is a matter of opinion.

Neal

Quote:
Stoneridge, I admire your willingness to suffer a loss of reputation for the sake of reaching people, but I believe you are deeply mistaken in your tactics.

I write as a former gay activist, someone who lived as a sexually active, openly gay man for more than a decade and a half, and who has renounced all same-sex sexual activity as sinful. I pass, and indeed myself use, the theological litmus test of being able to say that sodomy is sin under all circumstances.

I understand your logic in not wanting to enable sin in any way, and far be it from me to declare that your approach cannot work. The Lord works in mysterious ways, and sometimes he raises up a St. Peter Damian to preach fire and brimstone to a corrupt age.

That said, it was not my own experience, and it has not been the experience of any of the men or women I know personally who have been led out of homosexuality, that our transformation occurred through having someone yell at us. You submit,
Quote:
To this I answer that St Paul himself calls for "correcting opponents with gentleness" (2 Tim 2:25).

Quote:
Yet in the end, as I would like to believe you realize, it is not you or essodalori or any other mortal who cuts through that darkness, not you but the Holy Spirit.

And I'll tell you who the human agent of my own return to Christianity was: a woman in a long-term lesbian relationship, a woman who subsequently broke off all contact with me because she found my new belief system homophobic. But at the key moment she took the trouble to confront me with some tough love, giving me a glimpse of God's unconditional love even when she was rightly furious with my self-centred behaviour.

You tell FRHLL:
Quote:
I think you're forgetting here, stoneridge, that our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness. As in the case of the friend from whom I am estranged, there is always more to people who defend sodomy than their defence of sodomy.

Quote:
Here I wonder if you may be undermining your own absolutism. Are you suggesting that before millions were dying of Aids it was MORE reasonable to say that sodomy was good?

And why stop at sodomy? Sodomy is indeed one of the sins that cry to heaven, but off in the distance I can hear another chorus chanting NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EVER, EVER SAY THAT ABORTION IS GOOD and refusing to dialogue with "pro-aborts." Reducing, in other words, another group of sinners to THEIR sin. But I'm sure that inconveniently some members of that chorus are Gays for Life. Where does it end?

Fact is, all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and none of us gets a free pass on the rest of our behaviour just because we line up on the right side of the struggle over one particular sin, however grave that sin might be.

The day after the vote that legalized same-sex "marriage" in Canada, the Anglican Essentials newsletter here said,
Quote:
Especially now in this season of Lent, that is what I believe we are called to if we want other people to turn away from homosexuality. And may God have mercy on us all.

Dear Sheepcat,

I read your well written post and allow me to say how pleased I am to hear your testamony as one who has left the homosexual lifestyle for one united in Christ. I applaud your courage and honesty and I urge you to continue posting on VOL as evidence of your testamony to people the likes of FrHLL and Helpison who struggle with such issues.

As for the actual content of your response to Stoneridge, I believe that there is merit in his response to those afflicted with homosexuality. Personally, I have great difficulty with directly confronting others in such a manner, but I admire his (Stoneridge) approach because it cuts to the chase. It speaks the truth. The truth is meant to hurt us sometime.

As you probably have noticed I opt for the debate approach which admittedely so far has not worked, even though none of the FrHLLs, FrSteves, telodis etc have been able to successfully rebut it. However, I still consider my approach a success because they can't respond to it, even though my success rate has been nil. Do I expect to convert someone on VOL? Probably not, but I believe God works in mysterious ways and he has given us each talents to use. Sometimes we take away what others have said to us as family and friends, even here on VOL and it sticks somewhere in the back of our minds. This is what Stoneridge and Esso hope for. Don't you ever recall things your parents said to you that did no seem such a big deal or were a big deal at the time, but your remember bits and pieces or wholes of it? I certainly do.

Thus while your conversion to finding Jesus and the truth is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit, I believe other approaches are possible. I liken it to the 3 ways people become Christians: 1) Sudden conversions (180 degrees) similar to Pauls, 2)Gradual conversions over a period of time like John Newton (10 years) the guy who wrote Amazing Grace, and 3) like athesists such as C.S.lewis who struggle with facts for years and then suddenly see the light after they have to admit God exists.

In summary, there is merit for Stoneridges and Esso way of dealing with posters here on VOL. Others like Neal and myself take a different approach, but I truly believe we all mean well and must use our talents to the best of our ability to serve the Lord, even if your conversion may been different.

I thank you for hearing me out and may I say keep up the good work of spreading Jesus good news to those living a life of sin. Even to a sinful wretch like me.

God Bless

BHTech

Dear Sheepcat,

I sincerely appreciate and respect your reply. I will reread and consider it over time.

For example, I agree completely with the statement, "it is not you or essodalori or any other mortal who cuts through that darkness, not you but the Holy Spirit." But have we not both known, repeatedly in our lives, the Holy Spirit to move and speak through people? And have we not known the Holy Spirit to shoot like an arrow, right to the heart of the matter? And as for me, I have known the Holy Spirit to be pragmatic. He is innocent as the dove but also clever as the serpent. When gentleness works, that is the Holy Spirit's path; but when it does not work, the unrelenting truth, without fear of consequences, is His path.

"[O]ur struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness." I agree completely with this. I would say, in fact, that that was precisely my point!

When we speak to the advocates of sodomy, we are, in fact, speaking to two beings, one who possesses and the other who is possessed. The harshness is necessary to pierce the facade of legitimacy which the possessor uses to decieve the possessed. The possessed is the one we are to save; the possessor is the one we are to drive forth. And so, when I said, "Until then, as you would ruin my children's society you will be my mortal enemy," I was speaking to the one in "control," the possessor. And so, I also said that when they repented and cast off the possessor, I would embrace them as brothers. It is as though a "squatter" has taken up residence in their "temple." The temple's rightful owner is still inside, sitting silently in the shadows, and we must exhort that rightful custodian of the temple to evict the blasphemous squatter and we must admonish the blasphemous squatter to depart. In essence, I am speaking of what amounts to an exorcism.

And as for the proposition that "[s]odomy is indeed one of the sins that cry to heaven, but off in the distance I can hear another chorus chanting NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EVER, EVER SAY THAT ABORTION IS GOOD and refusing to dialogue with 'pro-aborts,'" for over 30 years I have engaged pro-abortionists in the debate. What I have invariably found is that they are, in fact, beyond reasoning. What I have invariably found is that, in the end, after being confronted with superior logic and reasoning, they will simply turn on their heels, walk away, and say, "You'll never convince me, and I will never convince you!" or "We must agree to disagree." One can ask them the simplest question, "What is a human being?" and they will never, ever give one a definition that works, and this in the age of modern science, when such a definition is easier to arrive at than ever. And then when one asks them, "How then can you say whether abortion is murder if you cannot tell me what a human being is?" They turn their backs and walk away. This is precisely why the debate has gone on for forty years and why we have seen forty million murdered babies. FORTY MILLION! Because the "dialogue" is and will be endless! And the dialogue is endless because the pro-abortionists are possessed and incapable of being reasoned into the truth. As someone once said, "you cannot reason someone OUT of a position he didn't reason himself INTO!"

So, if YOU have ever convinced someone who advocated abortion that it was murder, I would like to know how you did it! I will do what works! As for me, I have reasoned and reasoned and reasoned with people on the issue, and in the end, I have found that they too are indeed possessed of an unreasonable and willful and selfish blindness.

And so, when it comes to abortion, I submit that when we stop calling a fetus a "fetus" and call it what it is, a "baby," when we stop calling abortion "abortion" and call it what it is, "murder," and when we stop calling abortionists "abortionists" and start calling them what they are, "baby-murderers," we may eventually succeed in breaking the stalemate that has suffered this holocaust. And when we call them "baby-muderers" are we being harsh or are we speaking the truth?

"Fact is, all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and none of us gets a free pass on the rest of our behaviour just because we line up on the right side of the struggle over one particular sin, however grave that sin might be."

Of course, I agree. Of course, I too am a sinner. But there is a profound difference between sinning and confessing it to be sin and repenting, on the one hand, and sinning and proclaiming it to NOT be sin, on the other. There is a profound difference between succumbing to the temptation to sodomy and repenting and proclaiming that the Holy Spirit says that sodomy is good! You know this, as your post reflects! God bless you for it! Forgiveness is promised; indeed it is already yours! But Christ himself made a distinction among the magnitudes of certain sins, saying that whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit commits "eternal sin". What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? As for me, the Holy Spirit tells me that to say that God blesses sodomistic relationships is to defame both God and the Holy Spirit, to ascribe to them an advocacy of a filthy, futile and deadly act, to portray them as force for evil and death rather than the giver of life.

Yes, I am impatient. But I have but one life to give to this world and time is short. I am confident that the pro-sodomists and the pro-abortionists will "dialogue" politely and gently with the orthodox forever if we let them. And while we innocently "reason" with them, not being clever enough to realize that they are incapable of reasoning in good faith, another forty million babies will be murdered and millions more will die of HIVAids.

I could be wrong of course! But I don't care about being wrong. I just care about results. As soon as I see any of the gentler of my brethren making the slightest progress with those whom I believe to be possessed (here on VOL or elsewhere), I will return to my more natural temperament and tone, which, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, is actually one of kindness, gentleness and humility!

Stoneridge said

"or over 30 years I have engaged pro-abortionists in the debate. What I have invariably found is that they are, in fact, beyond reasoning. What I have invariably found is that, in the end, after being confronted with superior logic and reasoning, they will simply turn on their heels, walk away, and say, "You'll never convince me, and I will never convince you!" or "We must agree to disagree.""

**********

On reading Stoneridges words I am reminded of the Song of Bernadette (Bernadette of Lourdes): “For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

In my opinion VOL'ers this further bolsters Stoneridges and Esso's case (and somewhat negates mine) for taking a different tone and approach to the revisionists and those who defy God's words and ways.

For my part I will keep plugging away in the background in my own way, with the knowledge that one day the Holy Spirit will bear fruit in those that eventually wish to see the light by whichever means they chose.

God Bless

BHTech

BHTech

I agree with you and stoneridge on this point and your quote from the story of St. Bernadette is well taken.

I also agree that confrontation of revisionists is necessary but there is more than one way to confront. What I mean by "dialogue" is not what it has come to mean in ECUSA. I do not think that finding "common ground" and synthesizing the two opposing systems is possible. That kind of dialogue is not appropriate here. I do not mean to try to maintain that illusion of two "equal" sides with equal "truths" to offer.

Confrontation with the Truth and with logic in and of itself is a confrontation in my mind. I don't want the argument to devolve into who threw the last and best "zinger". Then, again my opinion, the content may get more lost than it is already.

But I don't really know which approach is the best. Maybe it matters and maybe it doesn't. There is a wonderful variety in the personalities of the Saints. Some were quite harsh in tone at times and some were not. Can we even say which type was superior?

We can all agree that the Truth is not negotiable. How we present it may and probably must differ.

Neal

Neal,

I AM reading your posts regularly and in an ongoing evaluation of my approach.

I think I intuit an aspect relating to "willfulness" and "brokenness" involved in my approach.

The "tough nut to crack" in those who advocate sodomy is their supreme willfulness. It has been my experience that this willfulness must be "broken," for it is when we surrender our own selfishness that we are most open to the transforming presence of the Holy Spirit. First we become conscious of our own weakness, then we feel empty, then we are filled with something far more powerful than anything we could ever, on our own, summon forth from our feeble, mortal selves.

It seems to me that this is why brokeness becomes a blessing, when we give up control, when we stop saying "MY will ...," and start praying "THY will ..."

I think this is why I think the key is to break THEIR WILL. It is not the same as breaking THEM! On the contrary, it is to save them.

stoneridge

And I am reading yours to learn also.

I appreciate the concepts of "willfulness" and "brokeness" and agree that the former must be broken.

Both of us are interested in this goal. In fact this is the core of all Christian life. It is indeed one of the greatest of all blessings as Psalm 51 and Philippians 2 so clearly state. May we all be broken like this and continually.

Who knows how God will use what we do to make that happen? (I hope that He can use our offerings anyway.) I believe that this is His goal as well and He will bring it to pass.

I know this is your goal. It is also mine. I simply do not know how best to do it. I will simply try to be as faithful to what Light I see through the glass darkly, knowing that my efforts are fallible and weak, and trust that God will do the enlightening.

Can either of us do more than that? And if we need to do anything differently then God will find ways to break through our own willfulness. Ours too is often a hard nut to crack.

Thanks and God bless you,

Neal

This would be just one example of the kind of content that has made me steer clear of VOL much of the time. Is this a forum for the defence of Christian orthodoxy within the Anglican church, I wonder, or have I unknowingly stumbled into a pool hall?

Dear Sheepcat,

As you would have noted, neither Stoneridge, Neil or myself have in anyway insulted you. Please do not look upon the work of others and label everyone with the same spoon, as clearly we look at things differently as evidenced by our posts.

I for one appreciate your thoughts and urge you to keep showing others trapped in homosexuality the way to our Lord Jesus Christ.

God Bless

BHTech

Yes, of course, neither you nor Neil nor Stoneridge has insulted me, and I realize now that, while I've been working away offline on responses in appreciation of the thoughtful comments from each of you, this is the first that you've seen of me since my recent post. Bad timing on my part.
I brought this up, though, as an illustration of the kind of atmosphere that is one of the reasons I have not visited VOL more often. One really does not have to be a flaming liberal to recoil from some of the remarks that have been posted here, and yet concerns about tone seem to me to have been largely dismissed--Stoneridge's own words for this were "sanctimonious bleating." I fully agree that FRHLL and helpisonth will have a lot to answer for, but I think all orthodox members of the forum would do well to consider the possibility that once in a blue moon these two might actually have a point.

If helpisonth and frhll had a point instead of coming with vacuous reasoning for their insistence that homoanalsodomy is Godly then VOL would engage them fully.

So far, there has only been blather from helpisonth and frhll of a most specious kind. And we are tired of it!!!

Giovanni, I understand full well that you are tired of blather. But every time you let yourself be provoked into reacting, you give them an excuse to point fingers back at you, which--believe me--they will find a much less frightening outlet or target for their inner unease than the possibility that their worldview might be a house built on sand. It may take years for the latter to be considered, but it can happen, and such reflection is more likely to start when there's nowhere for them to deflect their attention.

It is wrenchingly hard to give up the limited security that comes with a gay identity; that is essentially why self-described "gay Christians" are so acutely sensitive to the hypocrisies of others: their consciences tell them that *something* is wrong, and it's only human for them to shy away from giving up what they know, so . . . "So... uh... Ah! That's it, I've got it: the problem must be with him! HE's evil, not me! Just look at how uncharitable that Giovanni is! Yup, that's the problem with this world: there are too many people like him!"

Which of course is completely bogus moral reasoning, and the clearest way for its bogusness to become apparent even to such a person as FRHLL is for you, brother Giovanni, to purge yourself of anything that could remotely be construed as uncharity.

That's the idea, I would say, behind Romans 12. "Repay no one evil for evil but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all... If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon him head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

It's not a situation I would exactly call fair by human standards, but in practice the only way for orthodox believers to win revisionists over is to hold ourselves to a higher standard of patience, politeness, gentleness, charity, and self-control. Not to mention prayerfulness.

This is too important a matter for us to let our own expectations of ourselves slide to a level that can be defended only by comparing it with worse behaviour on the part of our opponents.

Finally let me commend JimMcNeely for his posts questioning some of the attitudes reportedly expressed by the retired bishop. I would like to see more of the civility and fair-mindedness that Jim has demonstrated, and as he took some pains to point out, this need not in any way entail compromising on the basic moral stand against homosexuality.

Hey sheepcat,

I appreciate your concern about the way I come across. Now, lest you think that I am someone who just fell off the Turnip Truck head-first, I have lost three family members to AIDS because of their unrepentant homofecalsodomaniac lifestyle. Many a night was spent prayerfully in getting them to turn away from that lifestyle.

They went to counseling, confession, EXODUS and the whole nine yards - the problem was this: They could not say no! They paid the ultimate price for their insistence of homosodomy being a Godly lifestyle. I have helped some gays and lesbians give birth to their own faith, not by my actions but by Our Triune God's love and their own willingness to repent and walk away from a sinful life.

I'm happily married to a loving wife who saw qualities in me which I did not see. So sheepcat, I wish you well in your walk of faith and pray that you will find the peace that passes all understanding in your heart, mind, body and soul.

sheepcat

I have greatly appreciated your comments...all of them.

Your journey out of the homosexual lifestyle is inspiring. God bless you on this path. Actually all of us are on the Way out of our sinfulness so we are not dissimilar in this.

I refrain from angry interchanges simply becuase I most often cannot tell the difference between my selfish anger and righteous anger. As in most other areas I can think of, and probably all of them if I could see from God's vantage point, my reactions are a mix of grace and sin. I would rather err when I err on the side of kindness than anger. Still this does not preclude firmness. It simply excludes insults.

I'm certain that the Pharisees didn't like being called "vipers" etc by Our Lord and there is a place for this. But I am not pure like He is so I will refrain from insults. It is true that some of the Saints like for instance St. Cyril of Alexandria had a harsh tone when fighting against heresy but I do not consider myself anywhere near his equal either.

I put this in the first person simply because I can't judge anyone else with any clarity. Is this a cop-out? Could be. Is this something more noble than that? I can't say. But when I consider admonitions from St. Paul to be kind and gentle and patient, bearing all things etc I have to reply clearly but kindly. There seem to be far more admonitions like these than the other.

So, for me, I'm with you in this come what may.

Neal

Bless you, Neal. I have appreciated your comments too, and I share your sense of the difficulty in distinguishing between my own selfish anger and righteous anger.
Giovanni, thank you for your prayers. I certainly need them.

Thank you very much for your reply. I have read the posts by Fr. Dowd. Great reading, especially the one on frustration. Thanks and God Bless.

Well...to sum it all up. The final issue is about doctrine and authority. People who have an agenda to change Church doctrine as defined by Holy Scripture and the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided Church must not be allowed to have positions of authority within the Church. Not even a vote in synod! Heretics must be shunned and kept from power. If a large number of nazis began to join ECUSA and to seek high office and Holy Orders the move to drive them out would be fast and furious. It would not be tolerated at all. No talk about compassion and all being welcomed in God's House. The same holds true for the orthodox Anglican remnant. Suppose that all of the continuing Anglican Churches decided to return to ECUSA. Do you suppose these thousands of orthodox Anglicans would be welcomed back into the fold, their bishops and priests accepted as clergy, and all given the vote in synods? Not on your life! Such a move would be viewed with alarm and a fear that the control gained by the left wing revolutionaries now in power in ECUSA would be threatend. This is about politics and the ECUSA money, assets, and prestige being used to push the left wing political agenda. When established Church doctrine gets in the way simply change or ignore it.

I am convinced that Griswold, Robinson, Spong, Swing and their toadys like FRHILL and helpontheway are not Christians at all. It is one big hoax. The media will of course ignore this story because the ECUSA heretics have way over played their hand and this story will only increase the hemoraging of the ECUSA.

Nothing can be done to save ECUSA because all of the best clergy and laity have already left. None but cowards, hucksters, timeservers and lickspittals remain. That doesn't include the left wing cadres who have labored so earnestly to take over ECUSA. They are driven, committed, hardcore revolutionaries who let nothing get in their way to where they want to go. For that one must admire them in a way. If only God had servants like these!

The main Army has withdrawn to a more defensable position. Those remaining behind have sold out or are too stupid to realize they are now in the belly of the beast.

Join the Anglican Catholic Church while there is still time to organize a counterattack. Episcopalians are keeping the buildings, we are keeping the faith!