It is interesting how many people in the comments below seem to be at odds with what the Church teaches - and quite proud of the fact.

I think it would be nice to see "LGBT Catholics" treated equally. They should be encouraged to live chaste lives - just like all Catholics are.

It will inform the debate because for the first time in 30-40 years, I'll know, and other people will know, what the famous Mr Pendergast thinks. You could say he's had long enough! It's the crux of issue as far as I'm concerned, and I think many of my fellow catholics would agree, even if some here don't.

If you don't want to be in the firing line you don't have to, but if that's where you want to be, then you have to expect tough questions from people you don't necessarily like or agree with. It seems to me just total common sense Martin Pendergast makes himself clear on this, and I'm not understanding why you have a problem with that.

My overall point is really one of transparency, hypocrisy and "progressive Catholics". They are excellent at pointing out others lack of transparency, accountability, and so on, but when it comes to themselves, what we find is that the same rules don't apply. How very convenient. Can you tell me, for instance, one Orthodox Catholic who hasn't made their position clear on homosexual acts and mortal sin? I can't. Think about it, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Pell etc etc etc. When it comes to "progressive Catholics", however, the story is totally the opposite. I can't think of anyone who has.

If "progressive Catholics" want to go around poking everyone in the eye about "transparency", then it's high time they started living like that themselves, and not just gas on and on about it, as if the rules don't apply to them.

Robin

It just goes to show how wires can become crossed. I thought I was being transparent when I said that the bible isn't a sex manual. But then I didn't realise that transparency was the object of the exercise. In spite of the word being used, I had thought, BJC, that you were setting yourself up as judge and jury.

BJC

I notice that you are able to address six of us (including Martin) by our Christian names, but we can only address you by a set of initials. Another sort of transparency called for here, perhaps?

By the way, I totally agree with the last paragraph of Robin's first response.

Without tongue in cheek, have a good weekend.

Richard

My transparency adds nothing to our understanding of the issue.

So again, BJC, how does an answer to your question inform the debate?

Francis, Jim, Robin, Margaret, Richard

Sorry, I can't answer you all. There's too many of you and my time like yours is limited. I'm off today for the weekend, so as much as I might like another exchange, I just can't fit it in. In a way though, it doesn't matter because the internet is littered with discussions like this, so I think we all know the answers in advance.

To get back to my question...

Martin Prendergast has set himself up as arguably the lead voice on gay rights in the Catholic church in this country. He along with other "progressive catholics" bang the drum for "transparency", yet he won't be transparent about his own beliefs on homosexual acts and mortal sin. I find that very strange, if not down right odd. It's the crux of issue, and he's never uttered a single word on it. It's like Jeremy Corbyn not telling me his views on tax.

The point I'm trying to make here, is transparency; "progressive catholics" are always asking for it, but they seem to think they're above the rules they apply to everyone else. That's hypocritical. Martin Prendergast should be open about his beliefs on this issue, not continually hide behind words.

It's strange isn't folks, that I ask for greater transparency from a fellow Catholic, who's the leader of a strand of opinion within the Church, and 5 people here, tell me in not so many words, to "shut up". The irony of it! And all of them, guess what, "progressive catholics".

Robin - thanks for your transparency.

I would love to know why some in the church, such as BJC, think they have a perfect right to question others as to the sinfulness of their private sexual relationships?

It is the attitude of BJC and his fellow travelers that has caused many of us who are LGBT Catholics to simply move one.

There is too much to be done in and with our lives to worry about whether the official organization of this denomination is welcoming or not.

It isn't and there are other denominations who are.

Who needs this?

BJC's question to Martin Pendergast reminds me of a question put to Jesus in Matthew and Mark. Did the pharisees believe that Jesus' views on paying taxes to Rome would really inform the debate? No, of course not! They were just looking for a big stick to beat Jesus round the head.
Would an answer to BJC's question add to this debate? Or was it posed simply to discredit Mr Pendergast in the eyes of one side or the other?

I should also have said ..... I have the greatest admiration for the courage and persistence of all LGBTIQ people who stay within the Church in spite of the uncharitable, self-righteous, judgemental bile that is heaped on them by "good Catholics", day in, day out. I gave up and find my faith nurtured outside the confines of the Catholic Church.

BJC

Dismiss me by all means, but no professed follower of Christ can dismiss or ignore the truths that God is love, and that wherever love is, God is present. They are the true crux of this matter, and must be the foundation for any Christian thinking about sex and relationships.

It is a mystery to me why those who would consider themselves orthodox Catholics are so obsessed with sex and sin. If one’s focus is so sin-orientated, there’s the risk that one loses sight of God. “Love Bade Me Welcome” by George Herbert is worth digesting.

The language in Martin Pendergast’s article suggests a search for relationship - openness, listening, welcome, integrity, respect and value. It’s an invitation to growth and flourishing within the Church and in the life-giving love of God.
The language of the sin-markers suggests the rupturing of relationship, condemnation, judgement and death. Their attitudes and views, though sincerely held, are so offensive and antithetical to the loving God as mirrored in the life of Jesus Christ, that I fear for them.

Our awareness of sin is only useful in so far as it directs our gaze to the Love which heals us and forgets. Psalm 103:11-12, another text worth a read. The Father’s example calls us to see beyond the sin to the person, made in God’s image and the apple of His eye. “Pleasant words are as honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.”

For the record, I think that love-making within loving gay relationships is as healthy, creative, life-giving and authentic a reflection of the love-dynamic of the Trinitarian God as appropriate love-making within heterosexual relationships. The Church has got it wrong.

Do the 'LGBT' Catholics attending these Masses accept that homosexual genital acts are sinful and contrary to natural law?

I weep at the tragedy of the aggressive, fundamentalist opponents, and BJC and his ilk, who attack and show no charity towards our LGBTIQ brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, parents, friends ....
The bible is not a sex manual. The virulence of the attacks on gay people says much more about the attackers than those whom they condemn. What is their hang-up about sex? Why do they not demonstrate outside shopping malls, condemning all the shoplifters within? Or march in protest and write to the pope about people who do all sorts of things that hurt others?

There is nothing to fear in my beautiful, loving gay daughter and her partner. Both of them go out of their way to help others. Everyone who knows them is better for it.

As Richard Brooke clearly knows, where there is charity and love, there the love of God abides.
May BJC and all those like him be blessed by learning that lesson too.

Richard

You're being pretentious. I'm not interested in getting into a dialogue with you.

My question is directed at Martin Prendergast, and I think it's an important one that he should answer. For the best part of 20-30 years (?) he's set himself up as a spokesperson for gay rights in the church, yet not once, from what I can see, has he ever said whether in his view homosexual acts are a mortal sin or not. That strikes me as being very strange, since it's the crux of the matter. He has made tantalising statements such as "conscientious dissent" (see below), but not once has he uttered a dicky-bird about mortal sin. How very odd. All those column inches, all those essays, all those speeches and yet when it comes to mortal sin and homosexual acts, a complete and utter blank.

http://thewildreed.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/lgbt-catholics-respond-to-final-synod.html

If you're going to put yourself in the firing line, then I think it's fair comment that Martin's fellow Catholics should know exactly what he thinks. This isn't a game, and I think we all deserve an answer.

So Martin, what is it, yes or no? Let's have some of the transparency that "progressive catholics" like you so often call for. It's about time people like you started setting the example, not just hid behind the words.

Will these Masses be encouraging homosexual Catholics of the struggle for chastity and to seek Christ's grace to live within the law of God. All of us are called to live the Divine Law in our lives- both homosexual and heterosexuals

BJC

In the interests of transparency, could you please tell us whether you believe (a) that God is love (b) that wherever love is, there is God and (c) that it is for God, not for us, to judge others? A simple yes or no answer in each case please

You're absolutely right that this cannot be imposed "from above". The move to Farm Street, successful as it is, would never have been possible, without the lay - led congregations that preceded it, at St Anne's, and later at Warwick Street.

The problem, is that in drawing that congregation closer into the folds of the institutional Church, with both moves, we lost people who for one reason or another have been so badly wounded that they were simply unable to move with us.

We must also temember that it was not, and could not be the "LGBT Catholic community" that was invited to move to Farm Street, but rather one specific portion of that community - those who had been worshipping at Warwick St, and geographically were able to make the move.

Many others from further afield, were simply unable or unwilling to make that effort.

If we really are to "roll out" the model, as Cardinal Nichols, hopes, we need to bend our minds to just how this can effectively done for those beyond the immediate limits of the present offering.

Martin

In the interests of transparency, could you please tell us whether you think homosexual acts are a mortal sin. Simple yes or no answer please.