Sunday, 11 November 2018

Remembrance Sunday, 32nd Sun in Ord Time, Yr B



Mk 12:38-44; 1 Kgs 17:10-16
Today I'd like to reflect on the value that our actions have in God’s sight, which is often very different from the value our actions appear to have in the sight of the world.
Today, in our nation, is Remembrance Sunday, when we remember all those who have died in the wars of the past century. This year, 2018, we particularly are aware of it being the century of the end of the First World War.
Among the thoughts that can arise at such moments can be the question of what value sacrifices in war had. Pausing to see the value of deeds in God’s sight rather than our own can help to give us a most important perspective.

One way of considering the issue of the value of our deeds and the value of someone’s sacrifice would be to return to the ‘measuring’ criteria I have often referred to in my sermons:
the value that GOD puts on our actions depends on the LOVE with which we do them (c.f. St Thomas ST II-II q184 a1). And the love of family and love of country that motivate someone’s deeds in warfare is one way of considering their value.
However, most the time we can tend to want to evaluate actions in terms of their OUTCOME, their results, their consequences. The problem with trying to do this is that we can never see all the effects of our actions, so how can we make that the criteria for judging their value? The Scriptures give us another model, as we hear of in the two widows in our scripture readings today.

So, let us look at these two widows and evaluate their actions according to the two different criteria I mentioned: results, and motive.
Let us consider the first widow, who helped the prophet Elijah in the Old Testament. What were the RESULTS, the effects of her deed?
What she did, as we heard, was she chose to generously feed Elijah, even though she had so little food that she thought she was preparing a final meal for her and her son before they died.
The results, however, were very different. The ‘results’ were that GOD worked a miracle and rewarded her generosity by miraculously re-filling her “jar of meal” and “jug of oil” until the rains came and the drought was ended.
One point we can draw from this is that the PRIMARY agent acting in the world is the LORD. And He can draw great things even out of our small efforts.
AND He can do this, and does do this, even working in a world of suffering and evil.
So, we should persevere with our good deeds, even when we can't see what outcome they will have.

The second widow, praised by the Lord Jesus, is praised slightly differently.
We are never told the outcome of her deeds. What was her money used for after she gave it to the Temple? We simply don't know.
Nonetheless, the Lord praises her for her generosity, “they have all put in money that they had over, but she from the little she had has put in everything she possessed, all she had to live on”(Mk 12:44).
The Lord looks on what she has done and praises her, regardless of the outcome of her deeds, simply because of the good motive with which it was done.
God, likewise, will look kindly on us for good deeds that WE do with a generous heart.

So, to conclude, in whatever we find ourselves called upon to do in life, let us take these two widows as examples:
Let us give generously, doing the right thing, even when we cannot see the outcome. Because the value of our deeds, and the outcome of our actions, ultimately lies in the hands of God, who can do much more with our deeds than we can imagine.

Monday, 5 November 2018

Former Anglican Clergy Lecture Notes


9th Jan 2018
1) Introduction: What is ‘Moral Theology’? & The Place of Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, and Reason in Moral Theology
click here


2nd May 2018
2) The History of Moral Theology
click here
Possible additional reading: Servais Pinckaers, OP, Morality: The Catholic View, trans Michael Sherwin, OP (South Bend, Indiana: St Augustine’s Press, 2001), pp.25-41 and p.44, excerpts


13th May
3) Lecture: Emotivism, G.E. Moore, and Logical Positivism
With
Lecture: Aristotelian ‘Good’ vs. Emotivism et al
click here and here


22nd May, 4pm
4) Lecture: Happiness and the Good, Sin and freedom
click here
Possible additional reading:
section "h" of Mark Lowery, "Choosing Evil “Under the Aspect of the Good” , in Handout Notes for Moral Theology, Christian Marriage, and Catholic Social Thought (2007) click here
or
“Freedom and Happiness” in Servais Pinckaers, OP, Morality: The Catholic View, trans Michael Sherwin, OP (South Bend, Indiana: St Augustine’s Press, 2001), pp.65-81 (not online)


3rd June, 6pm
5) Lecture: What is Virtue?
click here
Possible additional reading: John Hardon SJ, The Meaning of Virtue in St Thomas Aquinas click here


19th June, 11.30am
6) Lecture: Natural Law I: Basic Principles (Ordinariate course notes)
click here
Possible additional reading: Michael Schutzer-Weissmann, Natural Law (and the Laws of Nature), Catholic Medical Quarterly vol 63(2) (May 2013) click here


27th June, 10.30am
7) Contraception and Natural Law (Ordinariate course notes)
click here
Possible additional reading (omit section on Edward Holloway): Dylan James “The Perverted Faculty Argument” click here


4th July 10.30am
8) Lecture: The Just War
click here
Possible additional reading: Paul J. Griffiths and George Weigel, “Just War: An Exchange”, First Things 122 (April 2002) click here


10th July, 11am
9) Lecture: Natural Law III: The Relationship between Civil Law and Morality
click here
Possible additional Reading: Kathy Schiffer, “Martin Luther King Jr. Quotes St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas” (7 Feb 2014) click here


20th Sept, 10.30am
10) Lecture: Mortal Sin (Ordinariate Course notes)
click here
Possible additional Reading: Jimmy Akin, "Assessing Mortal Sin" click here


25th Sept, 2pm
11) Lecture: The Moral Evaluation of Acts: The End and the Means (c.f. Ordinariate course notes) see here (ignore pages 6 onwards (on cooperation in evil))
Possible additional reading: John Harris, “The Survival Lottery”, in Bioethics, Oxford Readings in Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp.300-303; Robert Spaemann, “Even the best of intentions does not justify the use of evil means”, Reflections on the Encyclical Letter ‘Veritatis Splendor’-7, L’Osservatore Romano (English) 50 (15 December 1993), p.11; Germain Grisez, “Revelation versus dissent”, Veritatis Splendor in focus: 1, The Tablet (16 October 1993), pp.1329-31.


12) Lecture: Cooperation in Evil
see here
Possible additional reading: Germain Grisez, Difficult Moral Questions, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 3 (Quincy, Illinois: Franciscan Press, 1997), pp.365-380, excerpts.


2nd and 28th October
13) Hearing Confessions: Moral Theology and the Sacrament of Penance
see here (Ordinariate notes)


18th Nov, 6pm
14) Divorce and Remarriage (Ordinariate course notes)
see here





15) Homosexuality, Sex Change, and Transgenderism (Ordinariate course notes, 2 different files)
here and here
an optional list of further resources here


16) Infertility, IVF, Human Cloning, and Stem Cell Research (Ordinariate course notes, and pages below)
on IVF and Infertility see here
and
on Human Cloning here and here and here and on the point that a human clone would have a soul see here
and
brief articles on Embryonic Stem Cell Research here and here and here
and possible book reading here:
“Technological Reproduction of Human Life”, and “Stem Cell Research”, in Handbook of Critical Life Issues, by Leies et al, 3rd edition (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2004), pp.97-111; 113-118.


17) ‘Adoption’ of Frozen Embryos? (an issue debated among orthodox Catholics)
Articles:
“Vatican Rules Out Adoption of Frozen Embryos - at Least for Now” (LIFESITENEWS.COM, 12 Dec 2008) see here
“Top Catholic ethicists duel over frozen embryo adoption” (LIFESITENEWS.COM, 2 Aug 2011) see here
Helen Watt, “A Brief Defense of Frozen Embryo Adoption. A Moral Analysis”, see here
“What Should We Do with the Frozen Embryos?”by TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK see here


18) Abortion (Ordinariate Course notes):
on Abortion see here
and possible written texts:
“A. Abortion, Abortacients and Partial-Birth Abortion”, in Catholic Health Care Ethics. A Manual for Ethics Committees, ed. Peter Cataldo et al (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001), 7A/1-5
“Suicide, Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia”, in Handbook of Critical Life Issues, by Leies et al, 3rd edition (Boston: National Catholic Bioethcis Center, 2004), pp.135-150


18) Double Effect and Abortion
see a general analysis here
and on ectopic pregnancies here and here
and possible written texts:
“D. The Double Effect”, in Catholic Health Care Ethics. A Manual for Ethics Committees, ed. Peter Cataldo et al (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001), 3D/1-3
“B. The Ethics of Treating Ectopic Pregnancy”, in Catholic Health Care Ethics. A Manual for Ethics Committees, ed. Peter Cataldo et al (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001), 10B/1-5


19) Rape Protocols
See the second part of the article here
and also here
and possible written texts:
“Rape and the Peoria Protocol”, Ethics and Medics 22.9 (Sept 1997), pp.1-2
“Rape and Emergency Contraception”, Ethics and Medics 28.6 (June 2003), pp.1-2
“Why Fear Ovulation Testing?”, Ethics and Medics 28.6 (June 2003), pp.3-4


20) Euthanasia
for an overview on euthanasia see here
for commentary on ordinary/extraordinary, also called proportionate/disproportionate care,
see here
and
a comprehensive summary here
terms are defined here with a very long article here
on the need to continue nutrition and hydration as basic care see here
even for someone in Persistent Vegetative State, see here
for 'A Catholic Guide to End-of-Life Decisions' see here
and on Assisted Suicide proposals in the UK see here
and possible written texts:
“Decisions of Prolonging Life”, in Handbook of Critical Life Issues, by Leies et al, 3rd edition (Boston: National Catholic Bioethcis Center, 2004), pp. 153-162 –p.159 of this article could be read so as to imply that it seems to ignore the authoritative status JPII’s statement on food & water being ordinary care.
“Ethically Ordinary and Extraordinary Means”, in Catholic Health Care Ethics. A Manual for Ethics Committees, ed. Peter Cataldo et al (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001), 3B/1-3
“The Ventilator as Excessive Burden”, Ethics and Medics 36.9 (Sept 2011), pp.1-2


21) Advance Directives:
see here and here
and
on 'Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)' orders see here and here


22) Lecture: Environmental Ethics
see Wonersh lecture notes here
Possible additional reading: Acton Institute, Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Acton Institute, 2007), pp.33-65, excerpts.


23) Lecture: Wealth and Catholic Social Doctrine
see Wonersh lecture notes here
Possible additional: George Weigel, “The Virtues of Freedom. Centesimus Annus (1991)”, in Building the Free Society. Democracy, Capitalism, and Catholic Social Teaching, ed. George Weigel and Robert Royal (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub, 1993), pp. 207-23 excerpts.



25) A Contrast: Catholic and Protestant Approaches to Ethics
Reading: James M. Gustafson, Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics (Chicago: SCM press, 1978), pp.1-29, excerpts


26) Lecture: Conscience
see Wonersh lecture notes here
Possible additional: “Conscience and Christian Tradition” in The Pinckaers Reader, pp.321-41, excerpts.



Sunday, 4 November 2018

Praying for the Dead, 31st Sun Ordinary Time, Year B




Mk 12:28-34
One thing that can be said for almost all of us is that we know someone who has died, probably someone we love. And this is a thought that the Church focuses on in every November. Love tells us that we want to still do something for those who have died –a something that many people in our secular society today seek for in their grief.

We just heard Jesus give the second commandment to "love your neighbour". And love seeks manifest itself in action. There are various works of mercy that are a part of living out this command, but there is one specific act of spiritual mercy that I’d like to focus on, and that is the need to pray for the dead. If our love leads us to want to do something for our deceased loved ones, then we can find in this practice something that’s not only beneficial to them, and rooted in sound doctrine, but is deeply pastoral as a practice for us who remain. It’s one of those practices that makes me very glad to be a Catholic.

We can read in the Bible (2 Macc 12:45) that it was the Jewish practice to offer us sacrifices for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins. This Jewish practice became the early Catholic practice, and it’s rooted in two simple beliefs: That the dead will actually rise again –that there is an eternal focus and destiny to life, a focus so easily lost in our materialistic world. But also, that the prayers of the living can actually help the dead. The prayers of us who live can help each other, after all, that’s why we pray for each other. And it is no different after death. We remain united in Christ, and this union in the communion of saints enables us to pray for each other.

Someone was asking me about Purgatory this week, asking who goes there, and what it’s like, and is it painful. For those of you who don’t know, ‘Purgatory’ is the name of that place where almost everyone goes before they get to heaven –and it’s a very important place, a lot depends upon it. Let me put it this way: heaven is a place of absolute perfection, otherwise it would not be place of absolute happiness, and yet none of us here are perfect, so something must CHANGE before we get into heaven. If we are judged to not be so evil that we are condemned to hell, then we will, nonetheless, still need some serious changes made to ourselves before we get to heaven. After all, if imperfect people were allowed into heaven they would stop it being a perfect and happy place. And if we went there still imperfect our imperfection would stop us enjoying the happiness it brings.
Thus a change is needed, and this is what purgatory is about.

The word ‘Purgatory’ implies being ‘purged’ of sins, of impurities, of imperfections. The traditional image used for this place is fire -because fire purges away impurities. And, there is no point in avoiding admitting that this must be very painful –because all change is difficult. But, the theologians point out that it is a HOPE-filled pain. Someone in Purgatory knows they are going to heaven, so they have hope and joy. Someone in Purgatory wants to be perfect, and so WANTS the painful purging that is involved –they want to be perfect to enjoy heaven, and they want, even more, to be perfect to please almighty God who they love. They want to be free of the residue of their sins.

But, to return to where I began, what does this have to do with us praying for those in Purgatory?
Well, the teaching of the Church, the practice of the Jews before us, and as confirmed by countless visions to many saints, is that this purging action can be assisted by the praying of the living. We can pray:
First, for mercy in the judgment for those who have died;
Second, for consolation and strength to those undergoing to painful, even if joy-filled pain;
Third, our prayers can somehow assist and speed this cleansing process.
And all of this happens because this change, this purgation, is a work of God’s GRACE, and we can implore God that more of it to be poured out.

So, in this month of November, let us remember to pray for the dead, those we have known and loved, and also for those who have no-one else to pray for them –it’s an important way of loving our neighbour.

Sunday, 28 October 2018

Hope and Blindness, 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B



Mk 10:46-52; Ps 125:3; Jer 31:7-9
Today I’d like to draw your attention to the title the blind man used to call out to the Lord.
He didn't just say, “Jesus”, or “Lord”, or even use the description St Mark’s Gospel gave Him, “Jesus of Nazareth”.
Instead, he called out to Him saying, “Son of David”(Mk 10:47;48). In fact, he used this title twice in close succession when he was addressing the Lord.

To a blind Jew this would have been very significant:
The “Son of David” was a title referring to the expected Messiah.
Of course, ALL the Jews we waiting for the Messiah,
BUT, He was to have a special significance for the BLIND. As we heard in our first reading, which was one of many such prophecies of the Messiah, when the Messiah would come He would be distinguished by His capacity to give sight back to the blind. Other prophets had worked other miracles, but this miracle was to be one of THE signs of the Messiah.

Now, let us pause a moment and think what this tells us about this blind man.
This blind man suffered.
He was a beggar.
And, to be a blind beggar in a poor country is a harsh thing.
But, THE point I wish to draw your attention to today is that this blind man somehow kept his FAITH and kept his HOPE.
He didn't curse his darkness, he didn't inwardly close in on himself in bitterness and anger –the way we all know it is very easy to do. Instead, he kept faith and hope, and the SIGN of this is that he was still WAITING and HOPING for the Messiah, and called to Him by His title, “Son of David, Jesus, have pity on me”.

The Scripture readings that the Church has given us today point us to two pivotal things that this blind man must have held on to:
First, the PROMISE from the Lord God that He would send His Messiah, send Him with healing.
This enabled the blind man to look FORWARD with hope.
Our first reading from Jeremiah records one of many such Old Testament promises that remind us of this.
Second, the MEMORY of what God had done the PAST.
If we remember the wonders the Lord has done in the past, then the past is able to anchor our faith. Our being rooted in the past thus enables us to fix our eyes on the future, it enables our faith to give us hope.
Our responsorial psalm reminded us of this with the antiphon, “What marvels the Lord worked for us! Indeed we were glad.”(Ps 125:3).

To summarise: the title “Son of David” that the blind man used for Jesus showed he remembered that a promise had been made that a Messiah, the “Son of David” would come.
The blind man thus serves as a role model for all of us:
We all have difficulties, the way that blind man had difficulties.
But, if we kept our memories secure in recalling the Lord’s past deeds then we will have hope.
We do this by recalling our personal histories, the good things the Lord has done for us.
We do this also, more fundamentally, by recalling the good things the Lord has done in the pages of Sacred Scripture.
He has shown He is a good God.
He has shown He keeps His promises.
And a great many of those He promises still hold for you and me. The promise of heaven if we are faithful. The promise of grace to sustain us on the way. The promise that He is by our side, “I am with you always”(Mt 28:20). And much more.

Sunday, 14 October 2018

Riches and Sadness, 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B


Mk 10:17-30
Today in the Gospel we heard of a man who had no name. At least, no name that history records. Why not? Why do the Gospel writers not know who he is? Presumably, because he went away and never came back. A tragedy.
If we think about why he left, as we heard, he left “sad”.
If we think about why he was sad, it was because the Lord Jesus said he had to choose between his riches, and, following the Lord. And to not follow Jesus leaves the soul sad –this is point that Pope Francis makes repeatedly to us.
He was a “rich young man”, he had his whole life ahead of him. And that life, it seems, was a life of sadness because he chose riches over the Lord.

Let me remind of you of another rich man in the Gospels: Levi.
The Gospels record that he was sitting at his office, and the Lord passed, said, “follow me”(Lk 5:27), and Levi “left everything, and rose and followed him”(Lk 5:28).
This immediacy surely implies a joy and eagerness.
He had riches. The Lord called him. And he eagerly left them in order to follow.

Let me give a third and final example of a rich man called by the Lord: Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-8).
Zacchaeus, if you remember, was the short tax collector who climbed a tree to get a look at the Lord Jesus as He passed by. The Lord called him, Zacchaeus welcomed the Lord into his home, and declared he would give half of his goods to the poor and restore fourfold from all those he had defrauded (Lk 19:8).
All this he did “joyfully”(Lk 19:5), not like the young man who went away “sad”.
And, let us note, he was one of those who weren’t called to give up all their money, but rather, to have money but in a NEW spirit.

Back to the rich young man. He was rich, but he as sad. Which is notable, because we all think that riches will make us happy.
I saw a 55” TV this week. I want it. There is a voice inside me telling me that my lack of a 55” TV is what is holding me back from happiness. And yet, human experience, and the example of the rich young man, shows us that money doesn't give you happiness.
Real joy comes from love, it is a fruit of love. But love of the right thing: of people, of God, not of money, and of people for THEIR sake, not in a possessive clinging-ness.
Joyful people are noteworthy for their freedom, their LIGHTNESS. This is the very opposite of being held down by possessions.
What is needed is spirit of DETACHMENT from the riches of this world. An inward detachment that means I am free to let them go, and free to have them, but I am not held down by them.

And the rich young man, What was his problem? His lack of detachment.
He is not presented to us as selfish, or as uncaring, or neglecting the poor (as some figures condemned in the Gospels are, e.g. Lk 16:19-31).
Rather, the problem is that he is more ATTACHED to his possessions than to his willingness to follow where the Lord called him. And this leaves him sad, sad without the Lord, sad without love.

What of us?
If we are attached like the rich young man, then we will feel sad when we are prompted to anything that disrupts our attachments.
If we are de-tached like Levi, we will be prompt and eager to leave what must be left to follow.
If we are detached like Zacchaeus, then even though we possess things, we will only hold them lightly, because our joy in the Lord, in finding more joy in possessing Him than we do in possessing things, will leave us free to give, free to love, and free to give in a way that causes us to have joy, not sadness, in our heart

Sunday, 7 October 2018

Alone in the Garden, 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Yr B


Gen 2:18-24; Mk 10:2-16
Today I’d like us to consider the symbolism of Adam, alone and lonely, in the Garden of Eden.
This image is one of the most profound in the Scriptures, and, as many of you will be aware, it was the starting point for Pope St John Paul II’s famous Theology of the Body catechesis.

Before saying anything else, less the modern skeptical mind get distracted, let me note that we don’t need to take everything in the Genesis account as science.
I am a scientist. I believe in evolution. I could add that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic priest, Father George LemaƮtre.
Evolution can trace the mechanism of how God made us, not in seven 24-hour days, but nonetheless in the progression of stages.
Genesis similarly describes a progression: the heavens, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals.
At the end of this progression, and on this science CONFIRMS what Genesis teaches, man emerges, and emerges DIFFERENT from the rest of creation. Science cannot explain the MIND, because there is something in the mind that is beyond science. The Bible DOES explain it: the spiritual soul, symbolically directly “breathed” into man by God (Gen 2:7), making man different from the rest of creation:
Only we have a spiritual soul; only we are made in the image and likeness of God.

And so Adam was alone in the Garden.
Gloriously in the image and likeness of God, but alone, and lonely.

This image is hugely important in our modern content, because in our modern world the INDIVIDUAL reigns supreme. Me. I. “I’ve got to look after number One”.
But our modern world has formed a culture of isolated, privatised, LONELY people.

Adam, was alone in the Garden, but he wasn’t meant to be alone.
We are made for community.
We only find completion in another, as Adam found it in Eve, and Eve found it in Adam.

A hugely important part of this is the truth about our bodies, as male and female.
Contrary to the currently fashionable viewpoint, we do not CHOOSE our gender, rather, it is a gift given to us at our conception -male or female.
Even for those who are sadly born with imperfect organs, their gender is not a matter of choice, rather, its a matter of biology. Our gender and our sexuality are received, not chosen (see here and here).
We, similarly, if we are to follow God’s plan, not our own, our bodies are designed to find union in another in a very specific manner. Everything to do with sex is part of God’s plan.
Man only finds bodily completion in a woman, and a woman only finds bodily completion in a man.
And that completion is so significant, that, as we heard the Lord Jesus teach, that it involves a lifelong commitment, and thus He forbids remarriage after divorce.

But even outside of marriage, this image of Adam alone in the Garden is vital:
We are made for community. We are not made for loneliness.
Thus communities like the parish community are so important, with our parish supper tonight, our SVP events for the elderly, our Christmas Fayre, and so forth.
Community is often hard work, as the family is often hard work, but it’s what we are made for.

A final aspect to this, concerning celibacy.
The celibate, as Pope St John Paul II noted, stands as a very different image of Adam in the Garden.
The celibate is a sign that our DEEPEST yearning for union can only be satisfied in GOD.
The celibate is a sign, as the Lord Jesus teaches elsewhere (Mt 22:30), that we will not be married in heaven. The celibate, on earth, is a sign of what we will all be like in heaven.

Or, to think of that differently:
The loneliness of the priest is sign of the loneliness within all of of us.
You can be lonely in a happy marriage.
You can be lonely in an unhappy marriage.
When I was a seminarian I was afraid I'd be lonely as a priest, but I've not found it so. Somehow the time I've been freed to have with the Lord has given me more.
The loneliness within us is a sign of our yearning for God.
Adam was yearning, at his deepest level, for God.

To sum up:
The image of Adam alone in the garden is powerfully symbolic:
We are different from the rest of creation;
We are made for community;
We find our fullest unity in God Himself.

Tuesday, 2 October 2018

Moral Theology Lectures to Ordinariate 2019

Below are links for text and audio of my Moral Theology lecture series for the Ordinariate clergy.
The text links below are for the 2019 lecture series, at Allen hall in London.
The audio below is a mix from the 2014-15 and 2016-17 lecture series (based on the same text).
The same lectures were previously given to the Buckfast gatherings of the Ordinariate clergy and the 2014-15 and 2016-17 London Ordinariate clergy.

A googledrive folder of the files for the 2019 year is available here


Lecture 1: Introduction to Moral Theology
8th January 2019 morning, text available here






Lecture 2: What is Virtue?
18th January 2019 afternoon, text available here







Lecture 3: Mortal Sin
5th Feb 2019 morning, text available here







Lecture 4: The End and the Means
5th Feb 2019 afternoon, text available here








Lecture 5: Natural Law
12th March 2019 morning, text available here


Audio from 2015 is:










Lecture 6: Contraception and the Natural Law
12th March 2019 afternoon, text available here

Audio from 2015 is:






Lecture 7: Various Specific Issues
2nd or 9th April 2019, text available https://drive.google.com/file/d/19SK3x3vIGsNF_WcUim_5MAhdT_Hi7slw/view?usp=sharing
Divorce and Remarriage & Holy Communion
Homosexuality
IVF
Abortion (not in verbal lecture)
Sex Change and Transgender articles (not in verbal lecture)

Audio from 2015 is:









Lecture 8: Hearing Confessions
currently unscheduled for 2019, text available here

Audio from 2015 is:












Bibliography, text available here