Pandoctrinal Pastoral Letters

Blogged by James Preece on 12th March 2012

You choose.

If you want you can have Bishop Conference's Pastoral Letter on Marriage which says that "our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage".

Alternatively you can make a short journey down the road and hear the Fr Timothy Radcliffe alternative letter on Marriage. Fr Ray Blake has had "a few emails from people who say their priests refused to read it or make it available, one where the priest read it and then said he entirely disagreed with it".

Once again, a truth of the Catholic faith is reduced to a matter of personal preference.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+16

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Stuart said...

Sadly, the pastoral letter may not be an entirely correct interpretation of the law:

Gay Marriage, the Universal Declaration and a Cardinal

New Friend said...

I agree Stuart. For me this is a classic case of having found the answer and then searching for anything which might support it.

The whole concept of marriage only being a union intended for the procreation of children, and therefore reserved for those between men and women, is flawed from the onset.

When I married my wife I was already unable to father any children, due to me suffering cancer, and not any decision of mine. By the expressed logic of the Church this ought to mean we should not have married. What should a man like me do? Live alone for the rest of my life? Live in sin? Of course not! We would never have children but we still wanted to marry, so we did. If that is OK in your eyes then why not for other couples who cannot have children?

Many older couples, where the woman is beyond child bearing age, would also be denied the comfort of marriage if your logic was followed to it's conclusion.

That cannot be the true reason for the objection. I have learned today of a much more sinister probable reason that the Vatican won't even share with you. One that threatens the very existence of your Church. What we are seeing is a fire storm of protest whipped up by false accusations, and you are the willing sheep being asked to bleat about it.

Santi said...

@ Stuart

Further to the submission on the link you provided: whilst it may be the case that interpretation of provisions may accommodate “evolving values”, there is an oversight of the fact that the UDHR refers to GLOBAL values based on natural law which has eternal values. Have you come across SPUC’s article on: “Ambassadors walk-out of UN meeting over new sexual rights agenda”? http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2012/march08 It sheds light on where the argument for “evolving” fails. If "evolving" were the case and relevant to “sex” under Article 2, then the UN would not need to introduce specific amendments i.e. sex orientation and gender identity. And, since those two have been around even at the time UDHR was drafted 64 years ago, might it also be the case that those who drafted the UDHR also acknowledged that certain values are entrenched regardless of how society may evolve?

Stuart said...

Thank you Santi, that was very helpful.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I wonder what the authority is for saying that international documents have to be interpreted in the light of "evolving values".

Santi said...

@ Nicholas Bellord

Same-sex human rights advocates are attempting to springboard their arguments from Art 31 & 32 VCLT 1969 in line with objective, purpose and function of human rights treaties, as well as case laws dealing with human rights violations where the courts have validated “present-day conditions” arguments. Entitlement under the UDHR has never been applied to same-sex marriage. I reckon, any attempt to interpret UDHR on the basis of "evolved values" to include same-sex relationships will fail simply because there is no universal acceptance of same-sex relationships. Cardinal O'Brien was certainly spot on. Santus Spiritus eum ducat.

New Friend said...

Santi,

You wish! Who is going to make a determination about whether there is a "universal acceptance"? Those who wish to change the law will decide there is until challenged. If a challenge is made then which Court will hear it? I suspect any likely Court would be sympathetic to progress and such an application would therefore fail. Additionally any organisation sponsoring such a challenge would be seen in a very poor light, for it would look mean spirited and appealing to the basest of homophobic instincts.

Santi said...

“Those who wish to change the law will decide there is…”is illogical. Even when some countries have legislated same-sex “marriages”, those are not portable as heterosexual marriages are because recognition of same-sex marriage is limited to countries with similar laws. There is no consensus on same-sex “marriage” even in the wild West. Same-sex advocates are just too quick to dismiss the inimitable ethical dimension to universality of human rights and the limited powers of international courts which cannot impose a binding obligation on a country where same-sex fornication is not recognized as a fundamental and inalienable right by law, social and religious customs. Same-sex advocates have already challenged the laws using “evolving values” in the ECHR where the court upheld traditional marriage as between a man and a woman. It also held that the European Human Rights Convention does not oblige states to allow same-sex couples to marry and further stated that the court cannot substitute its own judgment in the place of that of national authorities

New Friend said...

Santi

The fact that the law on marriage varies between countries is irrelevant as it applies equally to hetrosexual couples.

Neither does that fact that the ECHR declines to become involved and delegates responsibility to national governments. Quite rightly too, for this is not a matter to be decided on a pan European level.

I don't expect to see a consensus being established for quite a while yet. There is just too much prejudice, ignorance and misinformation floating around for that. What I hope to see is leadership and cogent argument gradually persuading the general population of the merits of the case.

I hope that in 20 years we will all, even you, wonder what all the fuss was about.

Santi said...

Dream on because consensus will never take place. The Catholic briefing documents on traditional marriage states: ETERNAL.

New Friend said...

Santi

Just as well then that the Catholic vote won't be sufficient to overpower the rest of us, more sensible, people.

Santi said...

Aggressive secularism and atheism are not exactly a global and mighty phenomenon its members believe it to be. They only happen to be an irritatingly noisy bunch. Members of those associations are also making a grave mistake to imagine that they can swing the pendulum so far without regard to the natural consequence when the pendulum swings back. It is only the ill-informed and arrogant who does not realize that staunch opposition to same-sex "marriage" is not exclusively held by Catholics and that nothing binds people of faith more than when confronted with issues which are in conflict with their beliefs.

New Friend said...

Santi,

For pity's sake! There is no such thing as "aggressive secularism"! It is a myth perpetrated by believers for their own ends.

What has secularism got to do with this issue anyway? Secularism is simply about the separation of Church and State. It has no opinion on anything else, and has none on this issue.

I acknowledge that there remains a lot of opposition to same sex relationships, whatever they are called. That the RC Church associates with some of those who hold these views does you no credit at all. As was said today by the responsible Minister, this is lighting a fire under homophobia. I agree with her. The language being used is irresponsible and the arguments illogical.

If you stopped and considered these things really objectively I don't think you could find anything there which really was in conflict with your faith. You have just been led to believe that there is.

Santi said...

Learn to backtrack to discover that I did not bring it up. You did.

Also, aggressive secularism is not a myth as you would want us to believe. We are quite aware that intolerance and hostility towards religion in the public square already exists. Allegations of homophobia is one of those. In this case, it is the quick-fix technique employed by the gay lobby and their advocates to subjugate debate relating to opposition on same-sex marriage.

BTW, I am baffled by your statement in a previous post where you stated:

“What should a man like me do? Live alone for the rest of my life? Live in sin? Of course not!”

Why do you refer to SIN? Rather odd for someone who claims to be a humanist and/or secularist and/or whatever.

+10

Catherine said...

As Blessed Pope John Paul II elevated St. Edith Stein to the rank of co-patroness of Europe, he warned: "A Europe, that would change the value of tolerance and universal respect into ethical indifferentism and skepticism about values that cannot be forsaken, would open itself to most risky ventures and sooner or later it would see appearing in new forms the most dreadful phantoms of its own history."[3]
[3] Motu Proprio Spes Aedificandi, 10: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XXII, 2 (1999), p. 513.
and
"Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."
[Centesimus Annus, 46]

+11

Mark Dobson said...

I'm pretty sure that Catechism refers explicitly to the teaching of the Church on marriage where children are not envisaged for similar reasons. Needless to say, it is flatly contrary to your suppositions. Sadly, I don't have the time to dig out the references. You clearly do have the time however.

As for the bit at the end, what the hell are you on about? Spit it out man, if you think it's worth saying - as it is you only sound like a conspiracy theorist. As for threatening the very existence of the Church, I'll believe it when I see it. People have been saying the same thing for 2000 years.

New Friend said...

Mark

You are going to know what the "Catechism" says. I have no idea. However, if it makes an exception for the reasons I describe then the pro-creation of children cannot be the real reason why the Church is objecting to same sex marriage. One follows the other.

What I have read is merely gossip, and is I think just someone's theory which runs as follows. These are some of the words I have read. They are not mine:-

"Same sex marriage calls into question, indirectly possibly, the status and function of celibacy as a dogma. The celibacy of the RC priesthood was never an issue of restraint from sexuality so much as it was from marriage, which has always and uniquely shaped the Catholic priesthood. The hierarchy could live with sexuality as a private matter among it's priests, hence the reluctance to castigate paedophile clergy, and even some of the Popes were fathers in both senses of the term. The key issue surely is the historical nature of the Church. The Apostolic claim is one of Absolute Oneness. Which is why the Church is a type of State, more than Vatican City. This Universal State cannot be privatised, or it falls because fragmented into many small, nationally based 'firms'. The history of the monastic orders bears out this rationale, but that's another question. The Church has no owners, only controllers. The bureaucracy is self-perpetuating. No shareholders to bother with. Like all bureaucracies, e.g; the Indian Civil Service, the higher priesthood is a caste, not a class. Class is defined by ownership; a caste is not. In this case the necessity of a sacramental dogma about celibacy is also the sufficient reason for being unwed. Marriage too is about ownership of goods, chattels, above all property. Hence the edginess of some higher bureaucrats about threats to this caste system, which is also a managerial system. Allow same sex marriage and you permit a contradiction within the Church, one of calling into question the logic of priestly celibacy as unique AND simultaneously sacramental.".

As I say, just someone's theory to try to explain the extreme reaction, which is very clearly not based upon what is being said it is. His reasoning is that accepting same sex marriage could be the thin end of a very big wedge that could significantly widen the many cracks already showing in the structure.

You are in a better position than me to judge whether this has any validity.

+11

Mark Dobson said...

As I had already alluded to, you too could see what the Catechism (and why the scare quotes, pray?) says for yourself rather than inventing spurious "Catholic" teaching of your own:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

However, in a sense you're right. Procreation of children can't be the reason, or only the marriage of fertile couples would be legitimate, and no-one's saying that.

As to your gossip, well you said it. As a conspiracy theory it's pretty underwhelming. It starts off badly by describing priestly celibacy as a dogma, which lets you know that they don't know what they're talking about from the get go. Celibacy is a discipline, and if the the discipline changed, it would no more spell the end of the Church than inclement weather would.

I mean, I just reread what you said:

"I have learned today of a much more sinister probable reason that the Vatican won't even share with you. One that threatens the very existence of your Church."

You have learned gossip? You were talking as if you possessed secret knowledge of the inner workings of the Church that are hidden to its mere pawns! What an anticlimax; at least Dan Brown has albino monks.

New Friend said...

Mark

I am very glad that you have acknowldged that the reason being stated in all the public pronouncements on this subject cannot be correct. Which has to mean there is another, so far hidden, reason why the Church is getting into such a lather about this.

The article I read was long and I only picked out some bits to give you the flavour. I regret I cannot give you a link so you can read it all. It seemed to me to possess some logic and, as the reasoning offered by the Church is now established as flawed, provided a possible alternative.

I don't think it matters whether you describe celibacy as a dogma or a disclipine. If something happened which undermined it's legitimacy then it would be a serious matter and that seems to be the point being made.

By the way, I have not read the Catechism and have no desire to. I prefer to debate with real people who use their own words, and their own judgements, rather than with reference books. If you have to look things up to know what you think, then that is up to you.

Mark Dobson said...

"Which has to mean there is another, so far hidden, reason"
"I have not read the Catechism and have no desire to."

Another interpretation, of course, is that you can't be bothered to investigate the actual teaching of the Church and prefer to listen to whatever ill-informed crap you find lying around.

"I don't think it matters whether you describe celibacy as a dogma or a disclipine."

Well given that you obviously don't really care about the issues involved, I suppose it would be quite optimistic to expect you to make any kind of conceptual distinctions between two quite different things.

New Friend said...

Mark

As a non believer I don't think it is for me to investigate the teaching of the Church. I think it is for you to explain and defend it in the light of whatever issue is being debated. I merely reported a theory, which appeared to have a grain of truth within it and be worthy of consideration. It certainly makes more sense than what is being said by the Church.

I don't suggest that there is not a "conceptual distinction", for you at least, between dogma and a discipline, although it seems a pretty fine line to me. What I suggest is whatever it is called the result will be the same.

Mark Dobson said...

"I prefer to debate with real people who use their own words, and their own judgements, rather than with reference books."
"I don't think it is for me to investigate the teaching of the Church."

It all sounds very noble, but the upshot is that you prefer reading internet gossip to a reference book which was specifically prepared (by people who are no less real than you because you can't swap comments with them on the internet) to explain the teaching of the Church in an accessible and authoritative manner.

Expect no applause.

New Friend said...

Mark

I have read enough quotes and referencies from those books to know that they are not going to be of any interest to me, especially as any revision in the light of experience seems to be a painfully slow process, if it happens at all. In today's fast changing world that just seems somewhat out of touch with reality. What is of interest is those people who follow them and why. When discussing a topic they can turn to their reference books if they wish to, so to know what they are supposed to think, but I prefer to hear the words of today's Catholics and not yesterday's.

I don't particularly like internet gossip. It is just there, and is current as well as being readily accessible. That particular reference introduced some new thoughts to me, which I thought might be of interest to some others. If not, thats fine.

Ella said...

It seems silly to me to base your idea of truth on people's ever changing whims and opinions.

New Friend said...

Ella

No-one is suggesting that. If something is true it is always true. The problem though is that so much of what is true remains obscured, and it is only through the passage of time and knowledge that it is revealed to us.

So when what we have believed to be true can be shown to be false we need to re-assess, and adjust our thinking.

Only a fool thinks he knows everything already.

James said...

"If something is true it is always true."

You told me that a 24 week unborn baby in 2012 is a person. If that is true, is it not always true? But you told me that a 24 week baby in 1512 is not a person.

Your "truth" changes...

New Friend said...

James

Truth never changes, but opinions of what it is can, as events and knowledge unfold. For many things the truth remains hidden, so what we are left with are opinions of what it is. Until something can be proven beyond any doubt, and whilst more than one opinion exists, the truth remains unknown.

Whether a foetus was a person at 24 weeks in 1512, or in 2012, is a matter of opinion. It is not such a proven fact as to be determined as an established truth.

It is unlikely that things such as this will ever move from being an opinion. There are just too many conflicting views as to what is correct.

This is the primary reason why I find the Catholic claim to know the "Truth" to be false, when what is held is merely their opinion of the truth.

James said...

Previously you said: "in 1512 a 24 week foetus could not have been a person"

Now you say: "Whether a foetus was a person at 24 weeks in 1512, or in 2012, is a matter of opinion"

New Friend said...

James

What we are now discusing is not the issue of personhood for a foetus. We are discussing what constitutes "Truth" and "opinion". Of course what I hold about personhood is an opinion, just as what you hold is your opinion. There is no absolute truth for such things. No doubt you believe that this is wrong, and that your opinion is the truth, but as this cannot be proven, it remains a disputed opinion.

Mark Dobson said...

You occasionally insinuate that your presence in the comments section brings true dialogue what would otherwise be a stale debate between people who all sing from the same hymn sheet in any case, but you have quite the penchant for refusing to engage with what people say and changing the subject (especially in cases like these, where you patently contradict yourself).

Two monologues do not a dialogue make.

New Friend said...

Mark,

Excuse me! I have not changed the subject at all. I am simply pointing out the facts. Mixing chalk with cheese never works. If you really want to be pedantic I would point out that the discussion was actually about truth. A point was attempted to be made that if something was true in 1512 then it would still be true in 2012.

That would be fine but for one thing. It is patently a fact, and therefore true, that 1512 is NOT 2012. Indeed it is the only thing in this discussion which is a fact. Everything else is just an opinion. Which is what I have been trying to point out to you. Unless nothing else changed at all between 1512 and 2012, what was true then cannot remain true, because the conditions are different.

There is no contradiction at all. If you cannot see that then I regret, but cannot be responsible for, it.

The truth is a slippery beast and too many generalisations are made by people who feel they know it all. Changing conditions mean that what was true yesterday is no longer true today. Not because truth changes. It is because the question has changed so the answer has to as well.

James said...

You just said: "what was true then cannot remain true"

But previously you said: "If something is true it is always true"

Which is it?

New Friend said...

James

Both are correct. It just depends on the circumstances. If all the circumstances are identical, then that which is true at one time is always true. If the circumstances change, then you are not making an identical comparison, so whilst what used to be true remains true for the previous circumstances, it can no longer be applied to the changed circumstances.

It isn't the truth which is changing. It is everything else.

Simon Platt said...

I normally ignore your comments as not worth reading, but having seen Mark Dobson's criticisms I thought I'd go back and see what you have to say.

Really, your comments are beneath contempt - and surely you must recognise this. You criticise what you assert to be church teaching, and yet you seem proud of your refusal to find out what teaching actually is. And you peddle ignorant gossip - apparently believing in its truth, and claiming that the distinction between dogma and discipline is unimportant. Do you know what is meant by either "dogma" or "discipline"? It seems not. And you have the temerity to claim to be a "friend".

I can't decide whether James is a saint or a fool for tolerating your nonsense.

New Friend said...

Simon

I won't respond in kind, although that would be easy. If you don't draw anything from my comments I regret that. I am not peddling gossip at all. I am merely making you aware of it, so you can study it if you wish to. It made some sense to me, but you will have a better idea than I as to it's likely validity. I have said that I think whether something is a "dogma" or a "discipline" seems like a red herring in the context of the debate. If you don't that's fine with me.

If you hold my comments as being "beneath contempt" then you obviously find the views of most of society intolerable. I firmly believe that the views I am posting here represent mainstream opinion on most of the issues we debate. The difference is that I bother to come on here and discuss them with you.

The arrogance of some religious people never ceases to amaze me. They claim humility but practice superiority.

As I cannot understand why anyone has to be taught what they must think on any subject, I reject the concept of "catechism" entirely. As a consequence I have no interest in finding out what it teaches you, so that I can assume what your view is, before I discuss it with you. I want you to know what you really think, not what you are supposed to think.

Salisbury John said...

Interestingly, twenty members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe signed Written Declaration No 486, on June 24 2011, which states in part; "The theory of gender identity, opposed to biology, considers masculine and feminine distinctions as a social orientation, therefore additional genders can be created. These variations produce a new gender terminology which is used in common and scientific language, although having no biological basis...Personal and social costs of the varied lifestyles linked to sexuality should not be underestimated. The dignity and the equality of rights accorded to everyone must be protected in any situation. Nonetheless, these principles cannot constitute a uniform juridical discipline when biological differences represent the precondition for a legal status, as in the case of marriage. Policymakers must ensure that the rules they create are rooted in scientific evidence and avoid adopting policies which promote risky behaviour for individual health and for the society, simply because they are an expression of the so-called politically correct attitudes."
This chimes with Mgr. Tony Anatrella, one of the leading advisers to the Pontifical Council for the Family at the Holy See on this issue who calls gender theory 'a deception which, for much of the time, undermines the intelligence of citizens and blinds those with political responsibility when they take legislative decisions which are opposed to the truth of conjugal and family life." In the same document he calls gender theory 'an anthropological heresy'.
I would be very surprised if the UK did not create so called "gay marriage" as it plans to by 2015.....all those commited to true marriage either according to their orthodox faith [of whatever faith] ot those who simply accept the natural law regarding marriage between one man and one woman will need to prepare now for the radical onslaught that will inevitably follow against their conscientious beliefs. As Christ said some demons can only be cast out by prayer and fastng and we certainly doon't do enough of that as a beleiving community.

+13

Catherine said...

A few years ago Archbishop Hickey of Perth, Australia sent a superb letter to the Tablet on marriage in which he said:

"Marriage of a man and a woman is a totally natural relationship to which most people are naturally drawn and in which most people find happiness and fulfilment. It is also nature’s way to provide for the preservation of the species both in reproduction and in the fully human nurture and development of children. Marriage is also the foundation of the common good of the community. The collapse of so many marriages under the assaults of the egocentric modern world is the cause of the destruction of so much of the common good that should be available to all in society. The current state of society should not come as a surprise to the English. In their book “Families without Fatherhood” (Institute of Economic Affairs, 1992) academics Norman Dennis and George Erdos detailed the results of large, long-term studies of children through to adulthood. They showed that the children of marriage were far better off by every measure of their own wellbeing and their relationship with society in childhood, youth, and adulthood. They found it inexplicable, but dutifully reported, that cohabitation did not compare with marriage in the wellbeing of children. Sadly, their observations did nothing to slow the lemming-like rush to cohabitation which has proved so damaging to adults and their children, as well as to society.
Dennis and Erdos (neither of them Catholic) quoted The Venerable Bede’s history to remind England of a previous time when its society was in such a parlous state: When St Augustine and his monks arrived in England, he wrote to the one who had sent him (Pope Gregory) to describe the levels of aggression, lawlessness, random sexuality, broken families and neglect of children which made his work futile. Pope Gregory told him to concentrate on teaching them about marriage and its many benefits. They did, and England recovered.
It is time for all of us (here in WA as well as in Britain) to acknowledge the truth of what is going on and to dedicate ourselves to the re-establishment of marriage and family life for the good of our society."

New Friend said...

Catherine

What you write is an attack on co-habitation and not upon the concept of same sex marriage. Indeed it is perfectly possible to read the words and find support for the idea of extending marriage to same sex couples. Would it not be better if they married, rather than co-habited? That way they have made the commitment you recommend.

Salisbury John said...

Benedict XVI Calls Christians to Rediscover Chastity

Addresses US Bishops on Issues of Marriage, Sexuality

By Kathleen Naab

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 9, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says that chastity might be countercultural and challenging, but the entire Christian community should recover an appreciation for it.

The Pope said this today in an address to a group of bishops from the midwest of the United States, who are in Rome for their five-yearly ad limina visit.

The Holy Father's talk, which he presented as a continuation of reflections on "certain aspects of the evangelization of American culture," resonated in the social and political climate of the United States, in the throes of a battle over religious freedom and a government mandate to include abortifacients and sterilization in health insurance as "preventive care."

The Pontiff alluded to his speech to the last group of bishops from the US -- given the day before the health insurance mandate was announced -- and mentioned "our concern about threats to freedom of conscience, religion and worship which need to be addressed urgently, so that all men and women of faith, and the institutions they inspire, can act in accordance with their deepest moral convictions."

In today's address, the Holy Father turned specifically to the issue of "the contemporary crisis of marriage and the family, and, more generally, of the Christian vision of human sexuality."

Benedict called attention to the "powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage," and he said that the Church needs to give a "reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation."

"Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage," he affirmed. "Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike."

Catechesis problems

Benedict XVI acknowledged the "deficiencies in the catechesis of recent decades" in regard to the Church's teaching on marriage and family life. He called for strengthening marriage preparation programs -- echoing recommendations he has made in the past, when he has even suggested that parishes need to have support systems for married couples through the first decade of marriage.

He also pointed out the problem of cohabitation, saying couples often seem "unaware that it is gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society."

The Pope lauded the bishops' efforts to promote marriage. And he observed: "In this great pastoral effort there is an urgent need for the entire Christian community to recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity. The integrating and liberating function of this virtue (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2338-2343) should be emphasized by a formation of the heart, which presents the Christian understanding of sexuality as a source of genuine freedom, happiness and the fulfilment of our fundamental and innate human vocation to love. It is not merely a question of presenting arguments, but of appealing to an integrated, consistent and uplifting vision of human sexuality. The richness of this vision is more sound and appealing than the permissive ideologies exalted in some quarters; these in fact constitute a powerful and destructive form of counter-catechesis for the young.

"Young people need to encounter the Church’s teaching in its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly, they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to its truth."

He called for support of young people "as they struggle to make wise choices at a difficult and confusing time in their lives" and recognized that society "increasingly tends to misunderstand and even ridicule [chastity,] this essential dimension of Christian teaching."

The Pope concluded by recalling that efforts to present the Church's teaching on sexuality "are ultimately concerned with the good of children, who have a fundamental right to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. Children are the greatest treasure and the future of every society: truly caring for them means recognizing our responsibility to teach, defend and live the moral virtues which are the key to human fulfillment."

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

It is pleasing to see this subject raised as this letter that was read out at parishes was mentioned by a couple of colleagues who are going through the motions of getting children baptised & placed in Catholic schools. One colleague complained about the time it took to be read out after they had sat through the Mass, the other expressed indifference to the subject

LOL! Indifference! That has closed down more places of worship than the KGB!

Laurence England said...

In fairness the Fr Radcliffe article wasn't read at the parish. It was distributed by the Priest after Mass with great enthusiasm. The Bishops' Pastoral letter was read as the homily, but the Tablet article was given to parishioners after Mass...instead of the Pastoral Letter which requires some study.

Florentine Friend said...

I know for a fact that Cardinal O Brien has been swamped with letters emails and messages of congratulations for his courageous stance on this issue- May God grant him even greater strength and a tenacity that befits his office unlike his English counterparts who seem to persist in refusing such graces from God.

New Friend said...

And I know for a fact that he has come in for a lot of criticism, to the point of ridicule, and that his arguments have been comprehensively destroyed.

However you won't, of course, find those in a Catholic blog or forum.

Mark Dobson said...

Hold the front page! A Catholic's views are criticised to the point of ridicule and his arguments "destroyed" by people who disagree with him!

New Friend said...

Mark

Yes, they were dissected and shown to be illogical. This wasn't criticism of an attitude. It was the destruction of the argument.

Mark Dobson said...

Surely you don't think I'll just take your word for it? As far as I'm concerned your credibility is subterranean after your "threatens the very existence of your Church" line. And it's not as if I had great faith in your reasoning before that.

New Friend said...

Mark

If you really want to read all the reasoning I am sure you can find it. There is plenty out there. Just visit the links to the humanist forums I have previously provided as a starting point. I could copy it all here, but don't think that is something which would be appreciated as it is quite lengthy.

In any case a quiet objective analysis of what was said ought to be enough.

I stand by my remark that "it threatens the very existence of your Church." If the reasoning elaborated on this subject was proven to be the true reason (and I fully accept it is but a theory) then the whole structure would be under threat. I do not suggest that Christianity would disappear, only that your Church would be changed beyond recognition.

Mark Dobson said...

I "have no desire to. I prefer to debate with real people who use their own words, and their own judgements".

New Friend said...

Mark

My words and judgements are my own. I have read the analysis and agree with it. That is my judgement. If you truly want to understand it the reasoning is easy to find, but if you prefer I will try to summarise it for you, but not now as it is too late here.

New Friend said...

Mark

There are two issues being interwoven here. Both are related, but not identical. One was a theory about what the true reason might be for the Church's attitude on the subject of extending the right of marriage. That is speculation and I suggest we set it aside for now.

Florence was commenting on the positive reaction to Cardinal O Brien's recent pronouncement. I responded that there had also been a lot of criticism.

Without repeating everything the Cardinal was suggesting that the extension of marriage could be compared to the re-introduction of slavery and that "No government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage". He also made links to Article 16 of the UDHR.

His comments caused outrage, and plenty of accusations of scaremongering, and raising the profile of homophobia but let us concentrate on Article 16 as everything else is just personal opinion :-

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Please read what it really says, and more importantly what it doesn't say. It says that men and women have the right to marry but not to whom they can marry. Everything else flows from that. There can be no doubt that the UDHR places no restriction on same sex marriage. Comments from someone I agree with :-

"The UDHR is concerned with the freedoms of people. To try to use it to restrict freedoms is ironic! The problem is that Catholicism (if I understand correctly) regard the union of a man and a woman in marriage as a sacrament. In other words that there is something holy about the relationship/institution, so any alteration of it is a defilement of their sacrament.

From what I understand, Catholicism regards civil marriages as merely a legal arrangement, and not as being a true marriage. They don't object, because they can't. But I think they would, if they could.

In some countries (France & Germany, I believe) a civil ceremony is a requirement, with a religious service as an optional extra. The legality and "sacredness" are entirely separate affairs. I have no more problem with them refusing to marry gay couples than I do with them refusing to pray to Mecca. That's not what they are about. But I have a huge problem with them trying to lay claim to civil marriage as a sacrament which over-rides its legal nature.

In some ways, it is strange, as marriage was not such a major part of the church, in England at least, until Tudor times. After all, weren't marriages conducted at the church gate, rather than inside?"

This means that the Cardinal's statement, being founded on a misinterpretation, has been comprehensively shown to be incorrect.

Florence said...

and I know for a fact that it doesnt matter how mcuh criticism his enemies and the enemies of Christ give him...."rejoice and be glad" said Jesus, "for your reward will be great in heaven!" when you suffer persecution for His sake.
This is THE truth that non beleivers, refuseniks and agnostics and those who mock Christ with their falsehoods can never grasp with out opening up their hearts to the grace of humility.