On Calvin Robinson

Dr. G. Ashenden supports him:

"Cancelling Calvin Robinson at Easter:- A Catholic Choir strikes". 'Ashenden Scripted'
Dr G Ashenden, 19 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46prrod1C8w

4:33 "he has done a very good job of defending Christian marriage"

Not quite.

He has pretended homosexual persons cannot marry. Please note, I said persons, not couples, I agree same sex couples cannot marry.

Now, here is the question I posed him, on which he answered no:

Do you agree:

• people with same sex attraction have the right to marriage, unless they have the gift of continence;
• most of them have at least some ability to actual marriage, like Chaput of Philadelphia taught his flock and like Josh Weed practised (though that marriage has now ended in divorce)?

Note, on this, he said no.

That's not a good job of defending Christian marriage.

It's buying in to a determinist ideology which pretends, contrary to the faith, that homosexual people in general are people predetermined to be inable to normal and therefore marital sex. This idea of predetermination is a bit too Calvin-istic in my view.

In fact, the other Calvin, the Reformer, seems to have been homosexual, if he was the Calvin who was branded for sodomy in 1534, and even so, he actually did marry Ydelette de Bure and have children with her.

Guglielmo Marinaro

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Of course homosexual men can shoe-horn themselves into marriages with women (just as heterosexual men can shoe-horn themselves into gay relationships with men). I suspect, however, that those who approve of playing games of this kind with other people’s lives prefer the women chosen for the purpose to be OTHER people’s daughters, sisters, granddaughters etc., definitely NOT THEIRS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Guglielmo Marinaro Look, if I had a lesbian daughter, I would prefer she married an otherwise decent gay man over her "marrying" a woman ...

I obviously prefer to not have the problem in my own family.

I also think the game of "you are homosexual, you should remain celibate then" is an even worse one, there are some who chose celibacy, not all do.

PLUS it's abused against people who are not homosexual.

Again, I don't recommend anyone pretending to be a heterosexual man to get married, and then the wife finds out too late. I do insist that in cases like these, the woman should know where the man is, and vice versa.

@Guglielmo Marinaro Plus, "shoehorn" suggests that homosexual means zero possibility of feeling attraction to the opposite sex - that's just the worst kind, and it still counts as homosexual, even if the same sex attraction is just stronger than the natural one.

Yes, there are men who could not feel attracted to women at all, and I don't think they should try marriage, as long as they feel like that. But I also don't think some other ones should be categorised as these in advance.

Plus, the few gay men heterosexually married I know of, Svante Pääbo and Josh Weed, that's not what happened, shoehorned is not the word.

8:05 There is a problem when "not in the marrying kind" becomes a euphemism for homosexual.

They are indeed less likely to chose marriage, but less likely is not the same as born a eunuch.

As I mentioned, Charles Chaput, former ordinary of Philadelphia, did encourage homosexuals to marry - and some did. Obviously, as he was attacked by a homosexual lobby, this meant real marriage. His action has been labelled "a form of conversion therapy" ... which, given, that marriage after the first good of offspring has a second good of remedy against concupiscence, is not totally off. It's awful his successor has been asking the gay lobby to excuse the diocese for his predecessor.

9:12 Looked up your catechism.

2357 is basically correct, except in so far as to identify "homosexuality" (it's a psychological term and in psychology refers to an inclination) with lived out sodomy (the classical term in moral theology and criminal justice).

2358 - "deep-seated" becomes a bit iffy. My country-man Svante Pääbo thought he was exclusively homosexual, until he met his wife. A lesbian, who had equally considered her lesbianism exclusive. Could these two people have joined fates and flesh and made a child, if they had been involved in your Catholicism, which would have arguably referred them to 2359 and not to Chaput?

Honorable mentions obviously to Philadelphia under Chaput.

This catechism is obviously also faulty in 283, which presents deep time, deep space and "big picture evolution" or "molecules to man evolution" or "microbes to man evolution" as scientific actual discoveries.

Just as in 283 the writers have caved in to superstitions of Galileo, Hubble, Lyell, Darwin, so in 2358 they have caved in to the superstition called psychology.

From Calvin Robinson's no, it is obvious that so has he.

That kind of cowardice is larger scale and therefore more damaging than the cowardice of that clergy in the face of that choir. It is also more direct and explicit.

Given your news, you cannot pretend that at present Catholic clergy are universally courageous and defiant of all error.

10:51 His offense was racism?

I quote the post:*

"There is an argument to be made that English is a nationality, a culture, and an ethnicity, but I argue against anyone who claims to be English, one has to be white."

Good point.

Too bad that to be English one has to be steeped in a culture of the superstitions that go under the label of science, or nearly has to ... but good point nevertheless.

15:18 When His Holiness Pope Michael died on Aug. 2 last year, he had not one time that I learned of backed me up as a blogger in public.

He had done so in private, telling me in PM that this or that post he had read was not objectionable, but never, as far as I know, in public.

As a result, some "well-intentioned" people (whose intentions aren't objectively that good) have been able to go on to treat my blogs as "private" when they are public ones and meant to be that. And as a result of that, I have not had one penny in royalties from books that could otherwise have been printed from them.

Did this stop me from adhering to Pope Michael? No. I didn't do so when I came to know him, back when I was Palmarian, but I did so when your communion "elected Pope Francis" or the months ensuing. Up to then I had been shilly shallying between "Pope Benedict" (both Ecclesia Dei and Novus Ordo), FSSPX, Romanian Orthodox Church.

I had the same problem with FSSPX as Calvin Robertson has with the ordinariate.

But I had one problem more. They were analysing me as perhaps homosexual (contrary to what I had stated myself) and praying to God for me to abide by 2359. Or if it was some other problem they considered as impediment against me marrying. I take this conclusion from the fact they several times over deflected from and joined hands to "keep a secret" every attempt I made both at getting a fiancée and at getting some money for my writing. Once they kind of tokenly opened up a possibility for me, but the one they probably hoped I could marry was one whose younger sister I found more attractive. I left the parish after this leading to an incestuous desire of both sisters, so I had to give up both.

Now, I'll admit, I did after this take the stance to first verify with the sedevacantists how they would support me before I joined them, and in fact, in the end, I didn't join them.

But they would probably say that it was materialistic and mortally sinful of me not to join them before making sure they would support me as a writer, which they didn't, and they would say so even after I had in fact suffered due to the SSPX, and here we have Calvin Robinson claiming this as his excuse for not converting at all, for remaining an Anglican heretic? Shall I find that innocent?

16:04 If you had read my blogs, you would have found me one of the most articulate defenders of the Catholic faith.

Unless of course you hold intensely to paragraphs 2358 and 2359 and obviously on the other issue 283.

* Note

Calvin Robinson's post is here:

Why Enoch was Right
Fr Calvin Robinson, Nov 30, 2022
https://calvinrobinson.substack.com/p/why-enoch-was-right