₦airaland Forum

bumfem: @dmaz, lalaalamed..the duo have just projected a high level of ignorance.
In western world, all health professional
s attain to level of consultancy without any hindrance. This is recognition of experience and competence. Your health minister is not aware of this... What a shame...
Hospitals are headed by health administrators or any health practitional with relevant cognate experience and academic qualifications. In Nigeria.. Physicians want to in the clinic at the same time an administrator...what a misnomer.
Nigeria is 51st out of 53 africa nations according to Mo Ibrahim Foundation.....thank to the physicians leadership in our hospitals. And Mr minister who has got no shame.

its either u r a damned liar or ur ignorance has reached malignant levels

joshuapharm: No one is confused here. U do pharmacology in ur path/pharm year(just 1 year), we do pharmacology for 3yrs(300L,400 and 500). Pls who shud av a greater pharmacology knowledge base? Ur arrogance here with ur waec result is useless. Pls leave here!

We dedicaated 16 months to study d whole pharmacology and pathology, we dnt cut it into parts like u do. Somebody ll do pharmac 201, pharmac 302, pharmac 401 and now claim he knw better. Oh pls

I wonder which u.k he is talking abt, maybe d United kingdom of his hometown, cos I knw in britain pharmacists don't prescribe. Dat nurses, lab ppl do some courses in anatomy, physiology etc does not mean dey know d real thing.

[quote author=on a good day]the truth is bitter,buh should it not be told?....he should shutup for being reasonable!!![/quote]I knw u are a paramedic that wants to study medicine. Well focus on getting admitted 1st, ASUU strike shuld be ur problem

@ least u can see why I scored higher than u in Jamb. Confusing pharmacology with pharmacy. What a pity

[quote author=on a good day]Doctors know pharmacology more than a pharmacist!!!!
whoever admitted you into medical school should return the bribe money and chase you out,it is obvious that if you are unleashed on the populace,then patients are doomed,i can infer that you would be worse than shekau with your syringe!!![/quote]fool, go n google pharmacology, u ll see its a branch of medicine dat is not to be confused with pharmacy a health profession

Osahon7: if u paid attention to ur medical ethics lecturers,u would hav knw dat each medical specialist are restricted only to dere speciality..dats why a consultant opthalmologist can only be alowed to treat fever if he is d only doc. Available.. Am a future member of NMA bt i strongly beleive dat witout oda professions we ar also handicaped.PLS LETS respect professionality abi because of d path and pharm dat makes u tink we can do wat a pharmacist can? I beleive dere shuld be consultant opthalmic nurse,etc,consultant clinical pharmacist.pls mind d words u use on oda proffesionals.we nid dem

Shut ur crap n graduate, den we can talk. Till den u r not part of d brotherhood

[quote author=adeola_drg]@Dnaz, Pharmacists do more pharmacology than medical doctors, so what crap are you talking about? FYI, pharmacists in developed countries(im only sure of UK) obtain prescribing rights after pharmacy school.. FYI, nurses also do pharmacology, anatomy, physiology in school, so pls tell me(be professional here) what course doctors do in skul, that members of other professions didnt do.. They av no idea about pharmacognosy, we(Rxcists) do, we also do clinical rotations and ward rounds they do.. I know something for sure, something is wrong with the mentality of Nigerian med docs and even studs.. *smh*[/quote]If it comes to pharmacology pls pharmacists don't knw more dan doctors, I dnt blame u, u culdnt even qualify to knw abt d medical curriculum. I agree we dnt knw anything abt drug production and distribution, but pharmacology oh pls! We even do post graduate courses in dat.

[quote author=on a good day]it will be stupid of me to keep explaining to stupid person like,so silent is the best answer to you...just go back and read my post again and stop displaying your ignorance here abeg[/quote]@ least I scored way higher dan u In U.M.E , had better scores dan u in W.A.S.C and have a better knowledge of healthcare dan u. If I am ignorant, den I wonder wat I shuld call u

[quote author=on a good day]you are such a silly and ignoramous fellow,see,i will not because of your stupidity designate all drs as stupid and arrogant because i hve com across many of them that are very responsible,but for your type,i will advice you to go and sit down and acquaint yourself with your area of expertise(diagnosis),so that you will not become a liability to this nation when the time comes,you cannot fool everybody all the time.
Let me even ask you a question,why did you say i am missinforming the public?,did you read through it,or you read like you do your diagnosis,did i tell you that is how it is done? i am only suggesting a lasting solution to this problem that kuti has created for us. let me tell you,that suggestion i wroteis the best way,if you like go and import whatsoever you feel from any part of the world,we no send you,if the battle is not won now,tomorrow dey,and untill Drs leave everything about drugs to the pharmacist,leave nursing to nurse and untill lab scientist have the final say on lab matters,doctors of your type will never see peace,[/quote]Ignorance is a communicable dx, replying u can lead to acute onset itiboliboness

[quote author=on a good day]i don't want to call u a stupid person,however,you should know that a building is not a human body and are at all not the same in terms of sophistication,so you comparison holds no water and secondly,if the minister of health and the cmd had done the job,that nurse would be on duty....so i ask you if you were any of the other profesionals,how would you feel..[/quote]Should you be bothering abt how oda professions shuld feel or if d health system is being run as it shuld. If u dnt like being pushed around by a doctor, den y did u become a nurse or technician( they r not scientists to ♏E). U want to turn d system upside down becos u want to please everybody. There is hierachy in every sector of government not only health or u wuld tell d lawyer dat clerk or paralegal is as impt as him. What a country we are in

I knw u watch dr house and greys anatomy and I knw u see d doctors performing laboratory medicine and running CT scans n MRI. Very soon u guys ll be relegated to primary health care where u belong

enny09: Must i keep explaining things to you, the hematologists, chem pathologists,medical microbiologists, pathologists are not medical laboratory scientist but pathologist doctors, by the law in Federal republic of nigeria 2003 Act No. 11, the only body recognized by law to oversee the practice of medical laboratoy in nigeria is medical laboratory science council of nigeria (MLSCN), so anyone not registered by this body working in a medical laboratory is only performing quackery, doctors a word is enough for d wise i hope some of u will not land in jail, if u are still confused u can speak with ur lawyer.

Crap u dnt knw shit, Go to court and sue dem den u ll tell ♏E why a hematologist who had 6yrs of postgraduate training is not certified to carry out an investigation. How can we move forward in this country with retarded minds pulling us back

Added to it, in a country like nigeria where it ll take 3 dys to a week before tests results cme back, u find dat d doctor has to depend on his clinical skills to make diagnosis and commence empirical trt based on d epidemiology by d time d results cme bak d patient is already healed and d result ll on serve to confirm our diagnosis. I can't see a child with fever and neck stiffness and den wait 4 CSF analysis result to show before I commence trt. Most of d things we do in this country we do from our clinical skills cos lab results take ages to cme out

[quote author=on a good day]let me enlighten you a bit with this scenerio A patient comes into the clinic,where the doctor,the pharmacist,the nurses and the scientist are their to see the patient,the doctor,who are expert in diagnosis,clerks the patient,comes up with the differentila diagnosis,works with(not order) the scientist to come up with the definite diagnosis,the pharmacist,(the drug expert comes in) asseses the apprpriet drug and vet them,the nurse nurses the patient to health,now if anything goes wrong,we definately know who to hold responsible.mr. dr,did u diagnose correctly,mr pharma,was the drug right for the diagnosis,nurse how did u nurse this patient,and pls mr scientist,did you do your work professionally..But when one man diagnosis,prescribe,dispense,assess and discharge,how can one expect a clean job.
Secondly,if a doctor can become a consultant in paeditrics,why can't a pharmacist become a consultant in paediatric drugs,my brother,you must understand that consultation is quite different from clerking a patient, all we are saying is about professionalism in line with expertise.
Please,doctors don't hate others for beginning to understand their rights,and importance.[/quote]U see ur problem . Where in d world is medicine run like dat. Wat crap did u just vommit, how can a lab technician knw wich tests to run. Pls its not everybody dat goes to d hospital dat has malaria, I am amazed @ d level of reasoning of dis ppl, I am now more dan sure dey dnt knw wat dey r doing and if given d chance ll ruin healthcare delivery. Where in d world is a pharmacists allowed to prescribe drugs 4 a patient(FYI dat is is d jurisdiction of a doctor) we studied pharmacology 4 God's sake and we knw d right drugs 4 our patients. A Lab scientist does not even knw what complicated malaria is? He only see malaria parasites in blood film, he is not trained to make diagnosis but to carry out tests. I am lost for words. This is horrible coming from u, Please Go back to school and read something else. Chineke!!! Is dis Guy 4 real

enny09: This is exactly the pictures of what happen in d health sector, d Doctors have no respect for other professional, they know everything instead of allowing everyone to do dia work, they want to head everywhere even what they were not trained to do, they can do everything my friend dat is quackery cos u re not licence to do dat and u can go to jail if u do it, remember u are playing with human lifes and not goats

Cut d Crap hematologists, chem pathologists,medical microbiologists, pathologists and radiologists are doctors and dey are licensed to do what d lab technicians and radiographers(camera men) do and in addition to dat diagnose and treat, about d nurses dere is no where it is said dat a doctor can't do d work of a nurse we just opted out so we can make d work less stressful 4 ourselves. Nobody is insulting any profession, its just dat u have chosen to look down on urselves and hence has been consumed with inferiority complex. The Hospital is d Doctors constituency and nobody can take dat from us. Afterall even if u get d money to build a hospital, u can't be d chief medical director, what am I even saying, u won't be licensed to practise unless u get a doctor to be ur MD

enny09: This is exactly the pictures of what happen in d health sector, d Doctors have no respect for other professional, they know everything instead of allowing everyone to do dia work, they want to head everywhere even what they were not trained to do, they can do everything my friend dat is quackery cos u re not licence to do dat and u can go to jail if u do it, remember u are playing with human lifes and not goats

Cut d Crap hematologists, chem pathologists,medical microbiologists, pathologists and radiologists are doctors and dey are licensed to do what d lab technicians and radiographers(camera men) do and in addition to dat diagnose and treat, about d nurses dere is no where it is said dat a doctor can't do d work of a nurse we just opted out so we can make d work less stressful 4 ourselves. Nobody is insulting any profession, its just dat u have chosen to look down on urselves and hence has been consumed with inferiority complex. The Hospital is d Doctors constituency and nobody can take dat from us. Afterall even if u get d money to build a hospital, u can't be d chief medical director, what am I even saying, u won't be licensed to practise unless u get a doctor to be ur MD

ay0201: why won't dey work? Doctors working blindly. Anyway, who no know go know.

We are not working blindly, we are working with hematologist, chemical pathologists,medical microbiologists, radiologists, well house officers have been converted to nurses but we can still live with dat and not to 4get d Chemist outside

[quote author=on a good day]please do some research,and date back prio to 1985...jeez!!![/quote]Abeggy there was nothing like dat

A doctor sees a patient and orders for an investigation to confirm or rule out a diagnosis, a lab scientist ll now cme and say d doctor didn't send 4 d right investigation(what d hell does he know abt which inv d patient needs, His work is to do d damn test period), or maybe a nurse ll start arguing diagnosis with a doctor( WTF does she know abt making diagnosis, can she defend herself if litigation comes)a pharmacist who shuld stick to producing drugs ll start prescribing drugs 4 a patient. When this happens den our health sector ll be in serious Crisis

enny09: so y dont we have health administrators in nigeria, because doctors have push them out of d system for dia selfish intrest and politicized the health sectors, y will i study a course when i knew i have no place to work in nigeria, mind you we have health administrators in nigeria, if only the Doctors will allow them to perform dia duty.

I dnt think there was ever a time we had health administrators in this country, so doctors didn't push anybody out

All you guys run shifts yet u want call duty allowances, it ll not happen in dis country and it doesn't happen anywhere else in d world, I wonder if u guys want to start practising a diff kind of health practise from d world. Anyway we have already started taking over laboratory and radiological medicine it only a matter of years.yeah we can do everythin u guys do. Please my people Hospitals are Open bring ur sick ones

There is no way d govt ll concede to deir claims rather health administrators ll start running hospitals which ll still take time to be accomplished cos dere is no course like health administration in nigeria, making deir salaries at par with doctors will only cause chaos in d health sector likewise deir so called consultancy, all this things ll cause chaos and d govt ll not allow dat, first if deir salary is increased, it ll have to be met with a proportionate increase in doctors salary of wich d govt don't have dat kind of money. So let dem cont deir gragra wen dey r tired dey ll call d strike off

vire: very nice..and educative but trust me they which wont listen wont listen.......only the Holy Spirit can help them listen

what was he saying, *continues singing mater amabilis,ora pro obis*

Afam4eva: https://s5.postimg.org/kj7ctximf/IMO_STATE_UNIVERSITY_Agu_Onyeka_Maryann.jpg

this Na yerima type

secretpart: PST CHRIS Oyakhilome AND T.B JOSHUA ARE SECRET AGENT OF THE DEVIL

Whether you believe it or not, this is not one of those criticisms of men of God going on everywhere. I wish it were but unfortunately it is the truth. I worked with Christ Embassy for some time to the extent I almost became a pastor then I left.

THESE WERE WHAT I FOUND OUT THAT MADE ME LEAVE

With due respect pastor Chris was called by God but unfortunately he missed it with his quest for power and influence which brought him in contact with T.B Joshua. No doubt Pastor Chris knows the word like I said He was called but he is one of Satan’s prominent agents gathering people to hell.
I am not saying this because of the miracles, the devil can also perform miracles.

PASTOR CHRIS IS OPERATING WITH THE TSUMANEE SPIRIT. This spirit is able to deceive even the elect, i.e. believers. Matthew 24 vs.24. T b Joshua is operating with the jumani spirit. The jumani spirit is stronger and more suspicious and easily decerned than the tsumanee spirit.

This is what the tsumanee spirit does; it is powerful but can only be conquered by the blood of Jesus, the anointing oil and through deliverance. You can play with the name of Jesus but you cannot play with the blood of Jesus.
So PST Chris preaches against the blood as not being very useful now. He also preaches against deliverance and the use of the anointing oil.

He preaches that once you are saved you are good to go to heaven. So take a look at Christ embassy members most of them are still wallowing in sin. The few that are not involved in it stay a while in the church, then they become uncomfortable and leave. Speaking in tongues does not mean you are heaven bound. In case you don’t know there are demonic tongues also.

His church is the most sinful, some of his members cut corners to get money and use that money to sow seeds. Without Holiness you cannot see God. We are all working towards perfection but Pastor Chris is not preaching the whole truth. All this is a cover up.

The CEC members know the secret that is why they are occupying influential position in the church. It would also shock you to know that many Christ Embassy members don’t read their bibles they read rhapsody and speak in tongues.

PASTOR CHRIS DOES NOT ASSOCIATE WITH OTHER CHURCHES HE IS ON HIS OWN TOGETHER WITH T B JOSHUA. He is supposed to be a member of the PFN I.E the Pentecostal fellowship of Nigeria. But He distant Himself to prevent interference because of the skeletons in His cup board.

So He started to preach against the name PENTECOSTAL. He is just using psychology but His end is near. Does He know more than Bishop Oyedepo, pastor Ayo, Pastor Adeboye and many pastors in the PFN. He is on His own because of His evil.

No other Pastor mounts Christ Embassy pulpit other than a Christ Embassy member because if that happens the Tsumanee spirit will be exposed. He is not free because He is not genuine. Flee from Christ Embassy it is actually Satan’s embassy.

This is a candid advice because I was once a member but I ran away when I saw things for my self. The tsumanee spirit is even stronger than the Anti Christ.

In Christ Embassy you are compelled to give, and made to go the extra mile to cut corners or even borrow just to meet up to the standard. Not knowing that we are not all on the same capacity. The bible said a widow gave 2 mites and Jesus said she gave the greatest.

You might think you are getting blessed but you are actually miles away from God if you are living in sin and don’t see any thing wrong in that. The bible said He that doeth righteousness is Righteous.1st John 2 vs.29.

I did not write this to discredit Christianity I can’t do that. But thank God for people like Pastor ADEBOYE, BISHOP OYEDEPO, PASTOR AYO ORITSEJAFOR, PASTOR SAM ADEYEMI,  PASTOR PAUL ENENCHE, Arc bishop BENSON IDAHOSA OF BLESSED MEMORY AND COUNTLESS OTHERS.

secretpart2012@gmail.com

where is it in the bible

God did not destroy sodom and gomorrah only because of homosexuality

takeprofit: Then God wld have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. they committed no crime. and since man is related to animals by the theory of evolution, man can as well seek to satisfy his urges with animals like dogs, goats etc. that does not harm anyone. if the church cannot help the society from moral decadence, who else can?

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine
sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to
receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual
behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a
sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The
Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always
violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful.
People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over
which they have little direct control, but these do not
become sinful until a person acts upon them, either
by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and
deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.
People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted
by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they
act upon those desires in some manner.
Divine Law
The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the
Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in
disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality
and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom
demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual
intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of
Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is
destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has
become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have
recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s
destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual
behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote
the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of
hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the
homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out
for special criticism in the account of their city’s
destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation
of the sin of Sodom.
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally
and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom
committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could
refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even
offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but
the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual
sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does
allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not
aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts
and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction
of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the
"abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old
Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit
condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall
not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they
shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22,
20:13).
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued
that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be
dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements
at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male
babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no
longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue
different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures,
but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on
all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful
rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1,
Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal
to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason
God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons
the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit
to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and
to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree
that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only
do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom.
1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is
one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not
know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor
homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor
drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual
behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an
arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is
rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into
human nature.
Natural Law
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors
are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive
intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another
human, not an animal.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual
behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman,
and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus,
people have the corresponding intuition concerning
homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong
because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard
moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value
that each human being naturally possesses that makes the
needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical
and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of
specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of
murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional
abuse, and so forth.
"I Was Born This Way"
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their
condition, but that they were born that way, making
homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it
was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by
habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious
choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but
one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can
acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming
intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one
may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in
homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously
choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive
conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why
we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of
underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual
if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree
of cognitive conditioning.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward
homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive),
the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is
still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not
make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are
not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a
genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are
born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one
would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by
becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable
"lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
The Ten Percent Argument
Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by
claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual,
meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.
But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if
ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this
would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population
is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If
those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion
in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us
information about the demographics of original sin.
But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems
from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in
the Human Male . The study was profoundly flawed, as later
psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed.
Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted
criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six
percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by
definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.
Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are
not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged
in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then
stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially
homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term
homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods,
see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and
Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar &
Huntington House, 1990].)
Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown
that only around one to two percent of the population is
homosexual.
"You’re Just a Homophobe"
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged
with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do
because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the
charge is even made that these same people are perhaps
homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide
this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other
homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion
of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants.
In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based
on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this
case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an
issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the
point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that
would not diminish his arguments against their behavior.
The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not
nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that
a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish
arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast
majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in
no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the
same as a fear. One can disagree with something without
fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion
by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert
attention from the arguments against one’s position by
focusing attention on the one who made the arguments,
while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
The Call to Chastity
The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus
been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual
behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and
the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and
Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always
held.
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred
Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave
depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual
acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the
natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be
approved" ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
However, the Church also acknowledges that
"[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely
unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have
deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This
inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for
most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These
persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if
they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s
cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their
condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues
of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by
the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and
sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and
resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357–
2359).
Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken
you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will
not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the
temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you
may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
Homosexuals who want to live chastely can
contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support
group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.
Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

By Ben Rossington | 29 Jul 2013 17:52
The Pope insisted today it was not his place to judge gay
people and said they should not be shunned.
The Pontiff stood by the Church’s belief that homosexual
acts were a sin, but he said gays should be welcomed into
society.
Pope Francis said: “If a person is gay and seeks God and
has good will, who am I to judge him?”
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very
well.
"It says they should not be marginalised because of this
(orientation) but that they must be integrated into society.
“The problem is not having this orientation. We must be
brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation.”
He was addressing claims of a gay lobby in the Vatican,
following scandals over paedophile priests and corruption
in the administration.
Pope Francis joked: “I have not seen anyone in the Vatican
with an identity card saying they are gay.”
But while he delivered the most liberal words from any
pontiff on homosexuality, he said rejection of women priests
would stand.
He added: “The Church has spoken and says, ‘No’. That
door is closed.
"But we cannot limit the role of women to altar girls or
president of a charity, there must be more.”
Many other figures in the Church have also said women
should be given leadership roles.
The Pope was talking to reporters on a flight back to Rome
after an official five-day tour.
He said the trip “did me a lot of spiritual good”.
His visit was topped off yesterday with a huge Mass on
Rio’s Copacabana Beach , with more than three million
people flocking to hear him speak on the sand.
On the flight he also spoke of scandals at the Vatican bank.
Monsignor Nunzio Scarano, a high-ranking clergyman, was
arrested last month on suspicion of trying to smuggle 20
million euros into Italy from Switzerland.
Pope Francis said there were saints in the Holy See but also
“those who are not very saintly”.

By Ben Rossington | 29 Jul 2013 17:52
The Pope insisted today it was not his place to judge gay
people and said they should not be shunned.
The Pontiff stood by the Church’s belief that homosexual
acts were a sin, but he said gays should be welcomed into
society.
Pope Francis said: “If a person is gay and seeks God and
has good will, who am I to judge him?”
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very
well.
"It says they should not be marginalised because of this
(orientation) but that they must be integrated into society.
“The problem is not having this orientation. We must be
brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation.”
He was addressing claims of a gay lobby in the Vatican,
following scandals over paedophile priests and corruption
in the administration.
Pope Francis joked: “I have not seen anyone in the Vatican
with an identity card saying they are gay.”
But while he delivered the most liberal words from any
pontiff on homosexuality, he said rejection of women priests
would stand.
He added: “The Church has spoken and says, ‘No’. That
door is closed.
"But we cannot limit the role of women to altar girls or
president of a charity, there must be more.”
Many other figures in the Church have also said women
should be given leadership roles.
The Pope was talking to reporters on a flight back to Rome
after an official five-day tour.
He said the trip “did me a lot of spiritual good”.
His visit was topped off yesterday with a huge Mass on
Rio’s Copacabana Beach , with more than three million
people flocking to hear him speak on the sand.
On the flight he also spoke of scandals at the Vatican bank.
Monsignor Nunzio Scarano, a high-ranking clergyman, was
arrested last month on suspicion of trying to smuggle 20
million euros into Italy from Switzerland.
Pope Francis said there were saints in the Holy See but also
“those who are not very saintly”.

m I to judge gay
people?
29 July 2013 Last updated at 14:45
Pope Francis has said gay people should not be
marginalised but integrated into society.
Speaking to reporters on a flight back from Brazil, he
reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's position that
homosexual acts were sinful, but homosexual orientation
was not.
He was responding to questions about whether there was a
"gay lobby" in the Vatican.
"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who
am I to judge them?"
He also said he wanted a greater role for women in the
Church, but insisted they could not be priests.
The Pope arrived back in Rome on Monday after a week-
long tour of Brazil - his first trip abroad as pontiff - which
climaxed with a huge gathering on Rio de Janeiro's
Copacabana beach for a world Catholic youth festival.
Festival organisers estimated it attracted more than three
million people.
His remarks on gay people are being seen as much more
conciliatory than his predecessor's position on the issue.
Pope Benedict XVI signed a document in 2005 that said men
with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be
priests.
But Pope Francis said gay clergymen should be forgiven
and their sins forgotten.
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very
well," Pope Francis said in a wide-ranging 80-minute long
interview with Vatican journalists.
"It says they should not be marginalised because of this but
that they must be integrated into society."
But he condemned what he described as lobbying by gay
people.
"The problem is not having this orientation," he said. "We
must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this
orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies,
Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse
problem."
On the role of women in the Church, he said: "We cannot
limit the role of women in the Church to altar girls or the
president of a charity, there must be more.
"But with regards to the ordination of women, the Church
has spoken and says no... That door is closed."
Answering questions about the troubled Vatican bank, he
said the institution must become "honest and transparent"
and that he would listen to advice on whether it could be
reformed or should be shut down altogether.
"I don't know what will become of the bank. Some say it is
better that is a bank, others that it should be a charitable
fund and others say close it," he