CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. Catholics are required to believe that marriage is between a man and woman, simple as that. (CCC 1601) Don't hold this view? Then the question that must be asked, What other Catholic teachings do you oppose? Oppose one, you oppose the entire deposit of faith, and you are not truly a Catholic.
   A disclaimer: most people do not understand the teachings of the church in many areas (I certainly don't know/understand everything) and while they think that they disagree with the church they probably just don't understand why the church teaches what it does.
   I hope that the Federal Government will repeal this Act.

   Posted By: Matthew A

2. I ‘m writing in support of the ACT Governments Same-Sex Legal Ceremony Bill. The media is speculating that the Rudd Government will overturn the Bill just as the Howard Government did when a similar Bill was introduced when it was in power.
   If the speculation is correct and Mr. Rudd behaves as did Mr. Howard then the question must be asked, what’s the difference?
   I am a practising Catholic but I do not believe that I have the right to dictate to others how to conduct their private lives. I also believe personal relationships, whether they are same sex or opposite sex, are the business of the individuals concerned and not that of Government and, I might add, nor is it the business of the Church.
   Catholics are not required to ignore conscience as some would have us do, or become mindless to the point that all [our] decisions are made by others - in this case the Church. The Church is not omnipotent and, as history shows, has made many mistakes.

   Posted By: Jeff Kevin

3. Jeff Kevin: “I do not believe that I have the right to dictate to others how to conduct their private lives...... personal relationships.... are the business of the individuals concerned and not that of Government and, I might add, nor is it the business of the Church.”
   Do you also apply this to drug abuse and trafficking, bestiality, polygamy, rape, pornography, masturbation, sexual and physical abuse of children, contraception, abortion, IVF, wife-bashing and other assaults, murder and all the other personal and private matters between individuals which do not directly and personally affect you or any other third party, the Church or the State? If not, why do you make a special exemption for homosexual sodomy?
   Yes, sadly the Church is not omnipotent (all-powerful) but I think you meant “omniscient” (all-knowing). As far as the Church’s infallible and unchangeable dogmas such as the grave immorality of homosexual sodomy are concerned, Catholics are bound to believe that the Church’s teaching is God’s omniscient truth and she cannot possibly make a mistake. If you do not believe this, you are not a practising Catholic. Regardless of anything to the contrary which you might claim that your uninformed “conscience” tells you. For one thing, if by "practising" you mean you go to Mass, then you are telling a lie every time you recite the Creed.
   

   Posted By: Peter G

4. Jeff Kevin: Public ceremonies with legal sanction are hardly matters of privacy. Think again.

   Posted By: Paticia

5. Just who in the Catholic Church would have us "ignore our consciences", Jeff Kevin? You show a very poor understanding of Catholic moral teaching, which requires we inform our conscience with the truth in the process of decision-making.

   Posted By: James

6. Jeff: If personal relationships are not the business of government, then what's the ACT government doing passing this legislation?
   Individuals are part of society, and eventually personal relationships between individuals affect everyone.

   Posted By: Lance Eccles

7. Jeff: If homosexual sodomy is "no business of Government" why do you "support the ACT Government's Same-Sex Legal Ceremony Bill"?

   Posted By: Peter G

8. In matters of Faith and Morality,I do not think we can choose to accept this or that teaching, because The Church has the responsibility to ensure that the teachings of Jesus must be adhered to, and God's Laws as well. In today's world of self-indulgent, opinionated,"educated", individualistic,self-absorbed people, the Church will always be criticised, ridiculed, trashed, demeaned, not only by non-Catholics, but, worse still, by those who call themselves Catholic. It is our responsibility to find out why the Church teaches whatever,and then,only then,are we able to understand the reasons for the stance the Church takes on certain issues,instead of constantly criticising it. Perhaps Research and prayer for the Church will lessen the number of "supermarket Catholics".

   Posted By: M.M.

9. By the way, Jeff Kevin, what about our mission to spread Jesus's word, and teachings.It is so easy to say,"my conscience says this or that" rather than standing up and being counted, or sitting on the fence! To support one's church is to walk with its founder, Jesus Christ!

   Posted By: M.M.

10. "The Church is not omnipotent and, as history shows, has made many mistakes."
    True, but God IS omnipotent (Don't you think?) And the church follows him (which, as a Catholic, you understand, don't you?)

    Posted By: Paul Keen

11. Ultimately, why does marriage/civil unions hold more meaning when it applies to heterosexual partnerships? If nothing more than an outdated textbook Catholic /religious definition? Why do we constantly feel threatened by the 'other'? Why the need to feel comforted by the exclusivity of certain rights? What entitles you to greater access of these rights n privileges? Higher IQ, greater personality, morality etc?
    Why is it so confronting than human rights should apply to all?

    Posted By: Merv

12. Merv: It's not a case of feeling threatened by the 'other', but a case of concern for the salvation of souls.

    Posted By: Lance Eccles

13. All the comments from this article and the one of yeaterday - mine included, indicate that there is much to be discussed in the nation about gender, realtionships, commitment and marriage.
    The action by the ACT Government and in particular the Greens is meant to do one thing only, stifle any genuine process of discussing the topics.
    By all means have the national discussion, a proper public consultation and then a referendum vote. I, as Catholic could live with the decision either way.
    If the vote is for marriage only between a man and a woman and same-sex relationships afforded the legal protections to protect and uphold the dignity of the individulas, then I would know my duty as a citizen and as a Catholic to work for the protection of everyone's dignity within that decision.
    If the vote goes for marriage to be a relationship of two people from opposite or same sex, then as a Catholic and as a citizen, I would know my duty, to work for the protection of everyone's dignity within that decision. That particular decision would have to be worked through very carefully by legislators especially with regards to children within the relationships. I remain unconvinced that, as a general rule, society can legislate for a situation which enshrines a same-sex parental relationship as one of the ideal for the raising of children.
    However, that said, mainly to demonstrate to other posters that I do not approve of the ways in which some posters are voicing their anti same-sex relationship recognition arguments, I would be thinking that the Rudd Government may just approve the ACT Govt's legislation (or something similar) as a way governing for all, keeping marriage for men and women, but protecting the dignity of those entering into same-sex relationships.
    By the way, the Church expects Catholics to work for the protection of everyone's dignity, regardless of whatever standing the individual is in the Church.

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

14. Fr Mick: That all sounds nice, but I think you should not forget that the Divine law and the natural law will be wronged by this legislation and all of this 'recognising of same sex commitment'.
    You "as Catholic could live with the decision either way". I would say that as a Catholic I could not live with an outcome that [further] entrenches the redefinition of normality in favour of homosexuality.
    I fear that this struggle is like unto 1938 - appeasement will in the end avail us nothing.

    Posted By: Peter

15. Peter raises the issue of appeasement with regards to an acceptance of same-sex marriage legislation.
    Yes, I admit that any rapprochement could go that way, but as Catholics we remember our teaching that the sinner, to carry personal culpability, must know the gravity of the matter.

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

16. Matthew: I have yet to meet a Catholic who actually believes everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches (although I have certainly heard some speak as though they do).
    Other posters: I have to say there continue to be good reasons why (soon to be Blessed) Henry Newman observed and said: the Roman Catholic Church is the most beautiful and the ugliest institution I have ever encountered.
    I refer to the tone of some of the posters on this topic.
    

    Posted By: Mike Yates

17. G'day Mike Yates; My name's Paul. Nice to meet you. I believe EVERYTHING the Catholic church believes and teaches, because Jesus guaranteed that it'd be what he'd want.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

18. Mike Yates (and Matthew): It's always revealing when the newly appointed custodians of unctuous righteousness choose to defend the "sanctity" of hetereosexual marriage with such gusto that you would think such was the central message of Jesus of Nazareth, but are all too often utterly ignorant of the social justice teachings of the same Church they think they stand for, let alone the actual Gospel message. I presume Matthew that you worship on a single bench occupied by you alone?

    Posted By: Mark

19. Paul Keen: Jesus asks you to give all you have and own to the poor and the marginalised. Do you believe and follow that? Jesus did not anywhere in the Scripture establish the Roman Catholic Church as we know today by the way.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

20. A long time ago, say 2009 years ago, the world was a very religious place, there were gentiles & pagans those who still worshipped the Greek and Roman Gods and, of course, the Jews.
    Very much like today, they had their rules and regulations, they thought they were correct and everything they taught was right because they were charged with protecting the faith, which was received from divine inspiration – sound familiar?
    A comment was made on this post "Catholics are bound to believe that the Church’s teaching is God’s omniscient truth and she cannot possibly make a mistake." This is what was also taught 2009 years ago and for many millennia prior.
    So, just like the Catholic Church today, they preached the rules from the synagogues, from their soap boxes and on every street corner and from every tree. But were they right? Maybe sometimes, but often they were wrong. The solution = Jesus, the ultimate recalcitrant!
    I love my Catholic faith and the Catholic Church, but I will follow in Jesus' footsteps and challenge the authorities whenever they is in grave error. The Catholic Church is in danger of falling into “old ways again” – Keep the faith people and keep challenging, we will win!
    With warmest regards
    John

    Posted By: John M

21. Paul: You are a wonder. I'd love to have a conversation with you some time.
    I have to say though the second part of your statement is not entirely accurate. I know of nowhere where Jesus or the Church teaches that "Jesus guaranteed that it'd be what he'd want." He guaranteed the "gates of hell would not prevail against it" meaning it would and could not ever completely fail. That is my faith and I am sure it is yours also. But it would be hard to say (if I am understanding you correctly) that the Church would be what Jesus wanted. In fact, as Newman and many other faithful Catholics have said, including saints, the Church has been a mixture of the best and the worst.
    Mike Yates

    Posted By: Mike Yates

22. Mike Yates: Maybe you meant to say "I have yet to meet a Catholic who always acts as though he actually believes everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches"?
    John M: could you give an example from the Gospels of where our Saviour, as you claim, challenged the Jewish religious authorities and told the people that “they is in grave error”? As distinct from telling people not to imitate their practices “because they do not practise what they preach”.
    

    Posted By: Peter G

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Greens want Labor conscience vote on gay marriage

   The Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wants Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to allow Labor MPs a free parliamentary vote on gay marriage, to get a better picture of national sentiment on the matter.

2. Hockey "in defence of God"

   A decline is happening in the Christian faith from a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to shadow treasurer Joe Hockey. In a speech to the Sydney Institute tonight, he will also urge for religious tolerance and understanding.

3. Smart meters will hurt those who stay home: Vinnies

   Low income earners could pay as much as 40 percent of their fortnightly income on electricity with the advent of smart metering, and some households face an annual increase of $320 in electricity bills.

4. Woman jailed for conning priest

   The Victorian County Court judge Howard Mason sentenced confidence trickster Olivia Raymond to four years and eight months in jail for defrauding elderly priest Father Paul Kane of parish funds and his life savings.

5. Vic non-government schools win additional funding

   Catholic schools in Victoria are set to receive an additional $268 million in funding while private schools are slated to receive an extra $133 million under an overall $2.1 billion funding deal with the State Government.