CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. Thank God for the voice of sanity drom +AB Mark Coleridge. He is a great man!
   More people who understand the real meaning for and of life need to seak up to prevent the degredation of society.
   Once again governments are practising social engineering without a vote from the people... it's kind of fascist.

   Posted By: Boanarges

2. I have a feeling that there is a lot of momentum behind legislating for same sex marriage. By opposing it outright, the Church puts an outlandish amount of fuel on the fires behind those pushing this agenda. But then what is the Church supposed to do one must wonder? The answer is simple and so clear: Love transcends all (including the current in vogue concept of monogamous marriage) AND gender. Unfortunately, people are not all born the same with the same inclinations. As an example, where do people with ambiguous gender stand, who are they allowed to marry? Are they required to undergo a test to see which is their predominate gender (like the poor runner recently) and then marry someone who is opposite to their predominate gender? How absurd!
   It's all about love people! If you love someone, you will be with them in every facet or a proper and full relationship irrespective of gender or religious rules or laws on same sex marriage. By failing to understand this, the Church is doing what the Pharisees did in Jesus day, punish and persecute those who are different.

   Posted By: John

3. The homosexual/ media push for same sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to normalise their aberrant behaviours. Marriage has always been a divine institution following the design of our bodies.
   It is that divine blessing which homosexuals seek to destroy in their quest for self acceptance. They care not for the damage done to what is a sacred, to a protective and functional family unit, nor to the children brought into it, or to the wider community or even the health system.
   If that were not the case, Homosexuals would be 'happy' leaving their behaviours a private matter.
   When they'd cried out "stay out of our bedrooms" it was always going to be a dishonest one way street. Similarly after wanting "tolerance" for their destructive behaviours, now they don't want to tolerate any opposing view even though that's where the majority of the community stands.

   Posted By: Chris Saidou

4. Well said, John. I totally agree.

   Posted By: Jeff Kevin

5. Even I stand corrected on this matter by Archbishop Coleridge. His explanation of the principles of justice involed in this matter, to both, marriage as it stands now and to homosexuals and lesbians is worth detailing here. I have copied it from the full article on the Archdiocesan web site:
   "It is wrong to deny justice to homosexual people. But justice concerns rights and duties; and in this case we are not talking of the right of some to which there corresponds a duty for all. We are talking of a desire – something which some may want but to which they are not necessarily entitled. In this case, the kind of civil union desired by some undermines the common good, which is served only where marriage between a man and woman is identified and supported as unique and uniquely important for society. For a government to confuse desires and rights is bound to lead to bad law; the same is true when a government focuses upon the individual at the expense of the community as a whole."
   

   Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

6. To John and Jeff: If you want to contribute to a Catholic blog discussion it might be a good idea once in a while to say something Catholic. Yes, it is all about love - love God, Christ, the Church, her moral teachings and each other. What both of you are effectively advocating is the love of sin - homosexual/lesbian behaviour is sinful and has been so regarded since the days of the Apostles. Let us not practise a false love that convinces people with same-sex attraction to engage in sinful practices. Take another look at the Gospels and see that Jesus was about conversion - he told sinners to "go away and sin no more." I read none of this in your respective contributions.

   Posted By: Michael Bernard

7. New Social Movements (NSM) should be questioned because counter right movements are important to political survival.
   The current gay NSM is overstated, and it is not clear that the future belongs to their success.
   Its fight resembles the old labour movement and it's not so new anymore.
   The divisions in modernity may now spring from objective moral truth being replaced with a moral relativism, creating a “clash of cultures”, which may exacerbate over time.
   Gay "marriage rights" in Australia will open up a power vacuum, and this would give the Liberals (or another One Nation paradigm) an excellent wedge issue lever.
   Marriage between a man and women, with the associated benefits which have been won with much sacrifice and pain, need to be protected.
   To coin a phrase from Clinton "It’s the economy stupid". As marriage brings children and from this flows society, prosperity and continuity.

   Posted By: Eamon Hatley-Smith

8. John: I'm afraid you are mistaken.
   It is God who has designed human nature in both its male and female expresssions and marriage itself. If ever there were a self evident truth, it is surely that male and female complement each other. Any orientation which is contra this most basic of human institutions is disordered.
   It is easy to speak about "love" but love must have form and content and must be in accordance with the natural law. We are in danger of substituting this law with a law of our own making. Will we go as far as the likes of Peter Singer who would appear to advocate sexual relationships inter species? How far will the ludicrous nature of "political correctness" and so called "tolerance" take us before we exercise some common sense.
   I'm not too sure if you are Catholic or not, but if you are, I'd invite you to read John Paul II's Theology of the Body and St Thomas Aquinas on the natural law.
   As Boanarges stated, thank God for the voice of sanity in the person of His Grace, Archbishop Mark Coleridge.
   May God's grace be poured about upon our Country.
   Aquinas

   Posted By: Aquinas

9. Chris: I have to say I find myself totally disagreeing with just about everything you have said on this topic.
   How can gays destroy God's blessing? They represent 5-10% of the community; I have never understood how they could possibly undermine the other marriages of the other 90-95% of the community who are heterosexual.
   I see them for what they are: they are human beings who find they are attracted to members of the same sex. It is in their make-up as is our attraction to the opposite sex.
   It is really time the Catholic Church took the lead and put homosexuality on the agenda for a whole-Church examination. I assume you believe it is already settled and there is nothing to discuss. But even if there were no new understanding of St Paul on homosexuality (and there is, for examination) there is still the matter of the Church's teaching on invincible ignorance which states "there is error but no sin".
   I have to say I find your attitude toward gays (whom you seem to automatically consider dishonest) part of the problem instead of the solution.
   So, yes, I am calling into question the responses of those posters (usually Catholic) who:
   1. think all they have to do is quote Church teaching (or the bits that reinforce the way they see it) and
   2.then dismiss those not following it and
   3. judge them to be in bad faith (dishonest)-all in God's name, of course.
   Mike Yates

   Posted By: Mike Yates

10. John: Please explain in what way two Australian homosexuals of the same sex who "love" each other, are currently not able to "be with them in every facet or a proper and full relationship"? There has been no suggestion by the Church or by anyone else, that such people must be forcibly separated. You are inventing false charges against the Church.
    And homosexuality is not hermaphroditism.
    As for "momentum", in every jurisdiction that I know of where the people have been allowed a free democratic choice in the matter, the people have voted to enshrine in legislation the obvious and natural definition of marriage, as being between a man and a woman. Including in the trend-setter state of California (despite an unprecedentedly vicious campaign to the contrary).

    Posted By: Peter G

11. A few points: 1) Aquinas: 'John Paul II's Theology of the Body and St Thomas Aquinas on the natural law' - Wrong! Up to 90% of certain species sexual behaviours are homosexual.
    2) Chris: 'protective and functional family unit' - where have you been living?
    3) Michael: 'Let us not practise a false love' - Wrong! there is nothing false about loving someone of the same gender. Having experienced a very fulfilling homosexual relationship, I should know it's not false.
    4) Aquinas (again): Yes, I am a practicing Catholic and in a homosexual relationship.
    5) Peter: 'trend-setter state of California' - Where have you been living, why then did they vote in a Republican Governor? That comment undermines everything else you said.
    Any further questions?
    With my warmest regards
    John
    

    Posted By: John M

12. Michael Bernard: Are you God to judge who is more or less of a Catholic? Seriously, pray for just a bit of humility and a bit less arrogance.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

13. Fr Mick: You quote from a particularly disingenuous attempt to define the boundaries of a needful debate.
    On what basis is same sex right (within a secular state) to equality based merely upon "desire"? Why is this imposed upon same sex alone? What magical act is it that transforms hetereosex relationship into "right"? Who has defined this? And why should all accept this ? How too is the "common good" undermined by the legal recognition of same sex relationships?
    Show how the very bases of the biases are expressed, and show too with data the realized doom in those countries in which same sex relationships are legally recognised.
    
    Or are the high sounding words merely disguise for actual deep and ideological prejudice?

    Posted By: Mark

14. Dear John: You have a common misunderstanding of the natural law.
    Natural law does not mean "biological law" or laws of behaviour that we see in species other than our own.
    Natural law pertains to human nature and employs formal and final causes. That is: it pertains to what humanity essentially is and what it is directed towards. Natural law prescribes the way we are to behave in accordance with our nature: that is the way God designed us.
    I repeat my earlier assertion: there is no more self evident truth than man and woman are created for each other. One simply must look at their anatomy to discern that. Two men cannot unite sexually nor can two women. It's frankly fairly obvious.
    May we heed the wisdom of Christ's Church and the not misguided spirit of the age.
    Aquinas

    Posted By: Aquinas

15. Mark: Please read Achbishop Coleridge's statement again, particularly "It is wrong to deny justice to homosexual people. But justice concerns rights and duties; and in this case we are not talking of the right of some to which there corresponds a duty for all..." And "The marriage ceremony is more than a formal recognition of a relationship between two people. It is a formal recognition that this particular relationship between a man and a woman is uniquely important to society as a whole,".
    These quotes from the Archbishop would answer your final question, in the negative.
    The definitions concerning marriage go back thousands of years and a short campaign, no matter how much the popular support is for it, has not yet shown anything other than what the
    Archbishop has stated, that it is a question of desire, not rights.
    The matter needs to go to the High Court to clarify the 'rights v desire' matter.

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

16. John: The rightness or wrongness of homosexual relationships has nothing to do with the nature of animal behaviours. Unless, of course, you are willing to extend the same courtesy to rape, and child-murder: Many animals (Ducks for instance) engage in rape, and others frequently kill off either their own children or those of other males of their own species. That proves absolutely nothing about the moral acceptability of rape, or child-murder.

    Posted By: Adeodatus

17. John M: I didn’t invent it, it is a household phrase constantly used by US journalists and commentators of all political stripes, that California continually sets the trends which other US states and other countries follow. This has nothing to do with the fact that it has frequently elected Republican governors throughout its history. Your erroneous picking up of this minor incidental point and failure to respond at all to my substantial points, speaks volumes.
    “Practicing [sic] Catholic” does not refer to someone who goes to Mass on Sundays and acts contrary to God’s law the rest of the week. Dante places such hypocrites in the lowest depths of Hell.

    Posted By: Peter G

18. Michael Bernard: Jesus demands you 'to love your neighbour as yourself’; I think he meant not to say hateful about another person and hurtful things that invoke further isolation and demonization of another, isn’t your lesbian and gay sisters and brothers made in God’s image. Jesus also commands you to give all your possessions to the poor, the marginalised and the displaced; go now- he commands you to do all that!

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

19. Aquinas: I agree with you. It should be obvious but the point that gays take is not and they simply will not budge from their view of human sexuality. Only with the grace of God, if they had the humility to be open to it, would help them see the natural design. Unfortunately, humility is very rare today.

    Posted By: Markodan

20. Mike Yates: "How can gays destroy God's blessing?" Simple. God's blessing is both at an individual level and community level, where the liberal and selfish slippery slope has been well oiled.
    2 Church's teaching on invincible ignorance which states "there is error but no sin". Huh? Catholic teaching is to inform one's conscience and when that is done properly the conscience will unite with the teaching Church. This is not the sort of issue I'd suggest where one could look at the facts honestly and still believe Homosexual acts are not a grave depravity. Emotions/ lust etc may be handicaps but that does not remove accountability.
    I cannot believe you can call for the Catholic Church to take the lead on this topic. They've been doing it especially since the sexual revolution which promoted this depravity. She wont change her teachings ever especially after her experience with homosexual priests practising pedarasty.
    My final para explains why their lobbying is dishonest - coz its hypocritical; they're after much more than just wanting to commit homosexual acts in private.
    John M:"...'protective and functional family unit' - where have you been living?..." The facts are global. Look at where disfunctional unholy marriages end in divorce etc compared to that of *practising* Catholic marriages. Its chalk and cheese and only one serves to protect the offspring indeed all those within the family unit. Your perjorative question has no merit.

    Posted By: Chris Saidou

21. What else is new in our generation today?
    If a person wan'ts to do something silly like this to their live, that is their decision. But in God's kingdom or God's palace and in God's name, why bring sex conversations in to the church in the first place when we are there for Christianity and rejoicing with God and each other.
    No need for this sort of thing to be brought into churches to talk about. Go to a doctor; they are the ones who studied for this kind of happening, not God or our church.

    Posted By: fr donald thomas

22. Fr Mick: 1. All you have done is reiterate without justification. Bp Coleridge is simply playing with terms as with a word game. You and he need to justify why the justice owed to gay and queer people in any way impacts upon "duty to all". How does a civil recognition effect the religious sensibilities of the tribal?
    2. Apart from just saying it, why is the relationship between man and woman so unique "to society as a whole"? What on earth does that mean? Why such elevation given the state of so many marriages anyway? People "marry" for all sorts of reasons. Are these to share the same elevated status? All you and Bp Coleridge do is erect a non-sequitor. You still need to justify the claim.
    3. Do you actually know the enormous variety of definitions of marriage over the "thousands of years"? Don't just spout platitudes, do some actual research, and you will find practices that do not conform to your tribalist understanding.
    You have explained nothing, simply repeated unfounded assertions.

    Posted By: Mark

23. Shouldn't we as a Church be having a conversation about homosexuality in itself. How much of our attitude is derived from a time when primitive people favoured heterosexual unions for the survival of the species.A Darwinian approach admittedly but it would make sense in a culture where life was far less predictable than today.

    Posted By: Bill Brady

24. Archbishop Coleridge is totally right. Some readers also have consistently good judgement on various articles, especially Michael Bernard, Chris Saidou, Peter G, Aquinas, and some others, and it is very encouraging that you do not give up on right truth, especially on a Catholic website. There is only one true criteria of whether something is right or not, and that is how God sees it, and that is applicable to everybody on the earth, whether they believe there is a God or not.
    Regarding Mike Yates comment that“it is time the Catholic Church took the lead”. Well it already has, for 2000 years and has not wavered from what Christ inspired St Paul in Romans 1:26-28, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Why would just some of 1Cor 6:9-11 eg regarding robbers etc, be inspired by Christ, but the remainder of that verse, ie fornicators and sodomites, why would that not also be inspired by Christ?
    In relation to Mike Yates saying that “even if there were no new understanding of St Paul … and there is…”(understanding). Understanding by whom? and if that were substantially different, that would infer that Christ withheld the Holy Spirit from St Paul and the biblical scholars and Popes and saints for 2000 years – and that is not the Christ we know, who would not mislead the Church on a serious issue that jeopardises people’s souls. One relevant Vatican document is “CDF Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” of 3 June, 2003.

    Posted By: B. Carlans

25. Comment to John M: You referred to animals and “up to 90% of certain species”.... Whose science is that? Because if that was really true, it must be a recent problem, because they would wipe themselves out and not perpetuate their species, which is opposite to the way God created all living creatures to do, including humans. Also some species, including humans, are altered by gender bending chemicals especially in rivers. Documented examples are that some male alligators and fish do not develop as fully male and consequently do not behave as a normal male, because chemicals block testosterone in the foetal stage, and they remain partly female.
    Anyhow, whatever animals do is irrelevant, considering it is normal for many of them to kill and eat each other, so clearly animal activity is no model for right human behaviour. I don’t think anybody is advocating that people emulate animal practices.

    Posted By: B. Carlans

26. Mark: In response to your three assertions.
    Our present laws on marriage have developed from Roman Civil Law, over two thousand years. Yes, there have been other attempts during that time to alter and add to the laws, some bringing greater understanding, some, sadly, particularly with the matter of divorce, problems which we still grapple with today. This present campaign is one which will substantially alter the foundations of those laws. That some nations have already enacted the change, or, in some cases, added a category for same-sex relationships, our nation does need to address the situation.
    But the best way for good law to be enacted is through providing a good foundation for that law. The Commonwealth Government and State Governments have, over the past few years, laid that foundation with various laws. Even the Churches encouraged such laws which recognise the dignity of people entering unions which do not fit that of marriage, campaigning for their protection, as individuals, in law, and of course, giving legal protection to children in those out-of-marriage laws.
    It is not tribalist, or platitudinal to want to protect the way - established over thousands of years, of law making, nor is it so for believers in marriage to want to protect the foundations that underpin that asset of society.
    On a twenty-four hour clock of human history, the present desires of us all for everyone to have justice in these matters would occupy only a small amount of time. That analogy is not used in a disparaging way, but as an illustration to say 'hold on, what are we doing here, what do we want to do here?" How we go about making the laws and what they contain will be our contribution to human history.
    I sincerely believe that a majority of people want to protect marriage for what it has become over the thousands of years and I also sincerely believe that a majority of people would want to protect homosexuals and lesbians and others from vilification and injustice, but not at a cost of causing more problems for marriage. Populist campaigning (like the ACT Government and the Greens ) and web sites like this can only raise some of the issues involved. There are many other parts to law-making which need to be involved before the best-fit laws can be enacted. That is what I believe Archbishop Coleridge is saying and I support him.

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

27. Fr MacAndrew: What you say is true as far as it goes. But you omitted the vital fact that marriage (by definition the union of a man and a woman) has existed since the very foundation of the human race, and its unalterable status as essential to human society has been recognised in all cultures and civilisations throughout history (even though at some times and places it has been distorted by evils such as polygamy and forced marriages). It did not start with the ancient Romans.

    Posted By: Peter G

28. Dear John: Where would you be now if you had not been lucky enough to have a 'father and a mother'?

    Posted By: anne

29. Peter G: Yes, marriage, the union of a man and a woman, along with funery rites, are the two oldest rituals known to human kind.
    The legal protection of marriage, about which this issue is concerned, in our Western civilisation, began with the Romans (although various cultures and religious groups also had legal protection as well as religious protections for marriage).
    As Christians participating in this debate about whether the Laws about marriage can be, or should be, or shouldn't be, changed to include same-sex relationships needs to be argued from this perspective - the Civil Law. As Christians, we can talk all we like about the religious questions but since we, especially in Australia have been very apathetic to the shift in society which now sees a growing hostility to religion in public matters, we will only be talking to ourselves and people like the ACT Minister for legal affairs, Simon Corbell, can label all our talk discriminatory and even have the ACT Human Rights Commissioner warn that our Archbishop's explanation was 'approaching homophobia'.

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

30. Those of you opposed to same sex marriage seem to have confused marriage with the Christian religion.
    Marriage exists outside of religion. It has religious roots, yes, but no longer serves the same function that it once did. Would you support legislation that outlawed marriage between two athiests? Furthermore, it is not a Catholic invention, since the first marriage ceremony was Hindu. Why do you then attempt to control it as though it were owned by the Catholic Church?
    Also, since the Church and State are now separate, you have a social responsibility to avoid imposing your religious views via legislation.
    Besides, it is when people's lives are rubbish that they turn to religion. If what some of you are asserting turns out to be true, same sex marriage will ruin society and therefore more people will be unhappy, resulting in more individuals converted. However, if we take the examples of Canada and Spain, where same sex marriages are legal, it's fairly clear that society has not colapsed. But, there is every chance it will happen in Australia, or course, in spite of any and all evidence.
    Lastly, why do you continue to oppose homosexuality, as a sin, when you ignore so many other laws in the Bible? I think it's time the Church got out the old cherry picker and changed its mind on this issue, because you are losing more fans than you can afford. Religion is already in decline. Continue to oppose people trying to marry each other for no logical reason is only going to speed up that process, kids.

    Posted By: Tomas J

31. Peter G and Mick Mac Andrew: Abraham, our father in faith had 3 wives, Jacob had 2 wives, Moses had no problems with that and Jesus was single, unmarried, and no children. Many early popes had wives, mistresses, several in fact, and multi-mothered children; Is 'Marriage' as constructed by you really as dogmatic as you mystify it to be? God’s institution. As far as I remember in the 1960s, wives (women) are still considered men’s properties and inferior to manhood. Is that version God’s version of ‘Marriage’ or which is?
    "Marriage, the union of a man and a woman, along with funeral rites, are the two oldest rituals known to human kind". That entire sentence has so much anthropologically falseness to it. Can it not then also be said that the institution of 'Enemy-making' was founded by God because it is there from the start and the laws of how to kill were created later in the game?

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

• » 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. Concerns over effects of "Schoolies Week"

   Dr Dan White, executive director of Catholic schools in the Sydney archdiocese, is urging parents to consider encouraging their kids to participate in other ways than "Schoolies Week" to celebrate the end of school.

2. Church reiterates apology to institutional care abuse victims

   The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference reiterated its own apology to children who suffered in institutional care, as a national apology was made yesterday and news media highlighted tales of abuse from former victims.

3. Jesus was an asylum seeker: Bishop

   The Bishop of Port Pirie Greg O'Kelly is urging for proper perspective on the matter of asylum sekeers, pointing out that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were "technically asylum seekers fleeing to Egypt unauthorised."

4. Participation called for in National Church Life Survey

   Australian churches are being invited to take part in the fifth nationwide National Church Life Survey of churchgoers in 2011, which aims to help churches better connect with the wider community.

5. National apology to "forgotten Australians"

   Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull will apologise today to 500,000 "forgotten Australians" and former child migrants who grew up facing deprivation and exploitation in orphanages and homes.