Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. Don't worry; he is old and so are the Catholics who support him. Let's be patient with them as their time is running out. But most of all, let us pray for our priests.
   I wonder what this priest's prayer life is like.

   Posted By: Bee Jay

2. The strongest opponent to surrogacy and same-sex families I know is a lesbian who was adopted as a child. She says the extraordinary trauma of not knowing her biological parents has stayed with her despite belong reunited with her birth mother and natural sibling.
   She has a good relationship with both her natural and adopted families, but she feels that surrogacy and artificial insemination deprive the child of this vital sense of identity. My friend had rebellious teenage years, and now acknowledges that this was unfair to her adoptive parents, but her anger was so great. She is now 60 years old and still unsettled.
   This priest's ignorance will place more children and adults in psychological distress.

   Posted By: Cas

3. Every child, ideally, should have a mother and a father, reflecting not only thousands of years of tradition but nature itself. Nature discriminates in favour of mothers and fathers as protectors and nurturers of children.
   Homosexuals do not procreate naturally and for them to acquire children, either surrogacy or artificial insemination is required - or an overnight stand with a willing partner of the opposite sex. None of these 'arrangements' fits in with Catholic teaching.
   So, yes, the Church's stand is discriminatory - and rightly so. We live in a society which somehow views any form of discrimination as morally indefensible yet we all discriminate in one way or another all the time.
   We carefully choose our doctors and our car mechanics, we watch who our children play with and sadly,we sometimes need to be careful about which priests we take notice of.
   The exercise of careful and well- thought out discrimination is both necessary and right - unless it involves injustice, and in this case the injustice is perpetrated by the state as it breaks down the sacred institution of marriage.

   Posted By: Robert

4. Gays have been raising children for years! The kids have grown up healthy and loved - and 99% of the time they turn out to be well- adjusted and also heterosexual.
   Family is what you make it; being nurtured, loved and cherished. The gender of the parents is totally immaterial. As long as the Family is loving and the kids are healthy and happy, God bless the diversity!

   Posted By: Stanley J. Harris

5. Stanley Harris: I'm not sure how deeply you have spoken to children of same sex parents, but I have been involved with counselling young people for over 20 years and I have found that the most significant life event that creates deep problems, is the loss of relationship with a biological parent. Young people who have experienced separation between their biological parents, and for example, lose touch with their fathers, experience deep trauma. How then, will it effect thousands of young people, when they have no relationship with their biological parents... but two 'mummies' who may or may not be their real DNA family.
   I can predict: it will.

   Posted By: youth minister

6. It seems okay for a child to have a single parent of either sex, parents of both sexes why not same sexes - the issue is the upbringing and care of the child, heck nuns would look after children in orphanages and they're all women! - not all children with a mother and father in their life have turned out to be better children than those raised by a gay parent.
   I don't think there have really been any major complaints from a child raised by gay parents come to think of it.

   Posted By: Stephen

7. If only someone would knock some discrimination into these clerics.
   Diversifying families and blaming 'rednecks' for defending Church teaching and societal norms is pretty poor form.

   Posted By: James Knight

8. What a capitulation, and what muddle-headedness: individual and social good determined simply by what some people wish to do, or by what is deemed acceptable by media 'magisterium'.
   

   Posted By: John

9. 'The most important thing is that a child is loved and treasured and I can see no reason that this would not be the case if both parents were the same sex,' Father Stan Griffiths says. Maleny is indeed fortunate to have such an enlightened pastor. He will, however, attract the ire of commentators such as Bee Jay and his/her ilk, for voicing a Christ-like position as opposed to one that is misguided, harmful and ignorant.
   

   Posted By: Jeff Kevin

10. We would do well to ask as many children of such relationships what they think, learn something from
    their lived experience. We might get one hell of a shock.

    Posted By: david anthony davies

11. To those who say a child has to have a father and mother - are you also implying if a parent dies, divorces or runs away that they quickly get remarried or do suddenly your rules change?

    Posted By: Stephen

12. Father Griffiths, you are so very brave.I commend you for that.I commend you also for your compassion and commonsense.

    Posted By: JFH

13. The interest and welfare of the children concerned should be the overriding objective in considering a change to the pertinent laws. Homosexual rights should not over-ride the rights of families or children in the surrogacy and adoption Acts of Parliament.
    Homosexual or lesbian couples are unsuitable role models for bringing up normal children, particularly with regard to a child’s character formation. Children would feel alienated socially by being identified as having same-sex ‘parents’, and could be expected to be subjected to ridicule when attending school or child group activities. Children would be subjected to values that apply to a very small minority, i.e. about 2% of the total population. There would be a risk that the children also would become homosexual. This is supported by research studies that establish that homosexuality is not genetic or innate , and that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality. There would be a risk that the children could be exposed to abuse, eg from paedophilia of either or both ‘parents’, or members of their circle.
    

    Posted By: Ray

14. Many aspects of the new theology clearly are demonstrating that even some priests studiously put the preferences of same sex 'couples' ahead of the rights and dignity of children.
    Children continue to have their dignity undermined under both surrogacy laws and the worldview of homosexual activists apparently backed up by clueless new 'theologians'. Such worldviews are anti-Christian.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

15. Sadly Father's 'spirit of Vatican 2' way of thinking clouds his judgement.
    I grew up not knowing my Father and not living with my Mother. Although I grew up with loving grandparents there was a huge, dark hole in my life. I suffered because I didn't have traditional parents.
    Social engineers beware, you're creating a whole generation of sad, disconnected people.

    Posted By: Julie-Ann

16. I would like to support and applaud Fr Stan’s comments about this new legislation not damaging the institution of marriage but simply broadening the definition of family. Allowing same-sex couples to have children is just another example of how the definition of the family is diversifying. We should be celebrating as Christians who promote the central place of family in society. I agree with Robert that injustices have been perpetrated by the state. This injustice is performed when any government breaks down the sacred institution of marriage by limiting its definition. This limiting is achieved by continuing to deny same-sex couples the right to be loving parents. For the issue is about the love a child’s parents provide, not the sexuality of the parents.

    Posted By: Alex

17. Thank you, Father Stan. I wish the church had more priests like you. I thought the church was founded by a guy called Jesus. A man who came to this earth to teach us about loving others and treating others as we we want to be treated.

    Posted By: Gina

18. Father Stan Griffiths appears a true man of God unafraid to speak reason, compassion, and factual understanding in face of the hate and hysteria that usually spews from the mouths and fingers of worshippers of prejudice and hatred.
    He and others stand in stark contrast to worldly values that legitimate prejudices. Too often Christianity has become nothing more than a legitimation for oppression, and for Catholics in particular the table of the Lord has become over turned and an ugly table of exclusion devoid of charity has taken its place.
    Unable to base ideology of exclusion upon the Gospel, many turn to vague appeals to a static and idolatorized 'Natural Law', or the many God's of exclusion. However, as they have failed to ground their hatred in the Gospel, I'd like to see actual evidence-based data showing that 'gay' people are not equally worthy of being parents as 'straight' people. Enough of the ugly hatred posing as faith, show the legitimate data.

    Posted By: MJ

19. My first encounter with a lesbian couple caring for children opened my eyes. They were foster-parents and took the most disabled and handicapped children whose natural parents, with the best will in the world, were just not able to cope.
    I can't see Jesus refusing to allow them near children. Perhaps finding out if such parents actually bring up these children to be normal, well-balanced and loved children is what we should be concerned about.
    I admire the guts of Fr Griffiths for standing up with where I suspect Jesus would be standing on this issue. There is mounting evidence that homosexuality is simply part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality. If so, it is God's problem for making them so, not theirs or ours.
    Well done, Father.

    Posted By: Frank Purcell

20. I've read research (Boston-based, if I recall) that looked at children raised by gay parents. No difference was found from those raised by heterosxual parents in any of the key developmental areas.

    Posted By: Marie H

21. Ray: If homosexual parents are unsuitable role models then what about the reverse - parents of homosexuals - do they become unsuitable? Remember majority of homosexuals are from both gender parents - what proof is to say that that homosexuality develops if you're parent is gay?

    Posted By: Stephen

22. Support you right to comment but don't agree with you. Pretty weak to call those who oppose 'rednecks'.

    Posted By: Mike

23. Ray: The risk of sexual abuse and/or exposure to pornography is no greater with homosexuals than with heterosexuals. I thought the jury was still out on the balance of cause of our sexuality. Both environment and genetics play a part. However, our values are profoundly influended by our total environment, and not just the family.

    Posted By: Elizabeth

24. This priest surely deserves to have his priestly faculties suspended if not withdrawn. His stance is contrary to the Teachings of the Church - he is capable of leading many people astray and if he is being supported financially by the Church. Does this not constitute fraud?

    Posted By: Margaret O'Hagan

25. My son is gay and his son (my grandchild) is no different to my other grandchildren. Sometimes, I think he may even be more compassionate, but then again, so are his fathers; they're both deeply compassionate people, so there really nothing surprising about any of that. What is still surprising however, is how the church and people who call themselves Christians continue to sanction violence and the usage of spiritual, language and emotional violence against same-sex couples and their children - that is truly a war against ‘Family Values’. Hate is not part of my family’s values.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

26. I am saddened to see any priest make such a public statement because it reveals a great lack of understanding of the nature of family and the needs of children.
    In saying this, I am not saying that same sex individuals are not loving and kind individuals but their chosen lifestyle means they have voluntarily turned their backs on the natural path to having a family and because every child deserves and needs the balance of a male and female model in their parenting.
    We already have children having problems because there is no father or mother figure in their life due to divorce or single parenthood and we want to expand the problem?
    This is not to say a single parent can't be a caring loving parent but they would be the first to admit it is much harder and lonelier without the help of a loving spouse.
    Same-sex attracted people could do volunteer work as Big Brothers or Big Sisters if they want to help children or volunteer at the local school to help in reading or after school programs.

    Posted By: Honoria

27. My godson is the son of lesbian parents and is now a terrific, stable and happy thirty-something, very happily married to a lovely girl. This is just one story - but statistical evidence doesn't seem to support the idea that it's a minority story. I'm a bit surprised by some of the arguments here regarding separation from biological parents etc - they would seem to be suggesting that adoption might not be a good thing, whether or not the parents are same-sex. Do you really mean this?

    Posted By: Joan Seymour

28. 'There would be a risk that the children could be exposed to abuse, eg from paedophilia of either or both ‘parents’, or members of their circle.'
    Ray, why do you think that gay parents love their children any less than heterosexual parents? Do you not seek to protect your children at all costs?It seems to me that you are implying they are all prone to paedophilia. You would be outraged if I were to suggest that all Catholic clergy are prone to Paedophia? Obviously they are not. Paedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing.

    Posted By: JFH

29. Honoria: There is so much to Unpack in the things you've said. For example: Terms like 'Chosen Lifestyle', 'nature of family' and 'parenting models'. What do you mean by them?
    Because in any given time, they can mean anything to a very narrow view to a very broad inclusive model. Your assumptions in those rhetoric of exclusion are highly problematic.
    For example: Are children coming from single-parented homes highly deprived? Are children not deprived, even if they come from abusive dual-heterosexual coupled homes?

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

30. Dear Margaret O'Hagan: Our Cardinal George Pell openly teaches and campaigns against the Pope's stance on Climate Change and the church’s teaching on ecological care. Should he then also have his faculties withdrawn?
    
    

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

31. Michael Webb: We've had lesbian and gay Catholics in our parish for as long as I remember. To discriminate categorically against your sisters and brothers - who you do not even know - is a form of blasphemy in God’s name.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

32. Honoria: What person volunteers their sexuality? If you have a child and they're gay, are you going make him be like the bear who'll dance because he's forced - and this is a gay person talking and did not 'volunteer'; my sexuality and what difference does it make a big brother to parenting it's still caring for children isn't it?

    Posted By: Stephen

33. If natural law as a basis for moral discernment and conduct were to be rejected, as some posters here evidently desire, on what grounds shall we reject forms of immoral human conduct such as racial prejudice, genocide, paedophilia etc.?

    Posted By: John

34. 'Secular-Catholicism' is sadly another sect of the Catholic Church. Secular-Catholics can’t really be discerned from the rest of the population because, quite frankly, there is no difference. Their belief systems are exactly those of the general population. No salt. No yeast. No difference.
    What exactly 'informs' the belief system of 'secular Catholics’? Is it the teachings of the Catholic Church? Obviously not, as in the case of this priest, his views are not that of the Church. What then 'informs' their beliefs? Is it their own personal viewpoints? This seems closer to the truth. It is the crux of secular-humanism: My point of view is as valid as yours. My experience is 'truth'.
    Catholicism isn't secular humanism. Catholicism depends on systems of teaching and centuries of discernment about what is 'true' and moral. God bless this priest, but let no one believe that he is acting in faithfulness to his calling as a priest of the Catholic Church.

    Posted By: c.d.

35. The young of the human species need protection much longer than that of other species Society says a minimum of 18 years before it is willing to recognise them as adult.
    Research into troubled damaged adults reveals a high proprtion of people who have had a difficult or non existent relatioship with one or both parents. Children who grow up without a father figure inevitably look for one to fill the gap and it is vice vera if they lack a mother figure.
    What has this to do with anything? It shows that the model of a faith-filled, faithful marriage between a man and a woman is essental to the development of the human race.God designed the male and female body to complement one another and the result of the sexual act would be to create a new life and given that this new life needs a long period of protection from a mother and father it is common sense to see the wisdom in the sacrament of marriage.

    Posted By: Bernadette

36. Stephen: There is a big differebce between being a Big Brother figure for a child and being a father figure. A father figure models manhood and how to relate to women for a child.
    A child does not need two father figures but one mother figure and one father figure. It is confusing for children when this balance is missing.
    Same sex attraction is a great spiritual challenge but God's grace is amazing and I believe every same sex attracted person who strives for chastity is on the road to sainthood and I have no doubt many of you will be in heaven while I languish in Purgatory for a long time. God Bless you.

    Posted By: Honoria

37. Those who support gays often state that Jesus would support them as there is no place in the Gospel where Jesus condemns gays.
    What about his stance on marriage? Jesus made it pretty clear that full sexual expression should take place only within marriage, otherwise it is fornication; St Paul states this very clearly too.
    Though most people these days ignore that ruling, even Fr Griffiths obviously, it still is a sin. This is not discrimination or hatred towards gays, it is a sin for everyone who ignores the Gospel message.
    Though many normal families fail in the upbringing of children, the majority do not. There are so few same-sex families for there standard to be lower, they have something to prove. Increase this amount and you can bet we will see an increase in the number of poor same-sex families as there are of normal ones. It is an insult to normal families who are loving and caring to state that same-sex families are better, talk about reverse discrimination and hatred.

    Posted By: Dan

38. TJ Lawson: Why do you persist in your campaign to alter the Church's teaching against same-sex marriage? You are only kicking against the goad. Church teaching on faith and morals can never change. No matter how long you or I will live the Catholic Church will continue to teach what it has for 2,000 years; namely, that same-sex relationships and activity are morally evil.
    Irrespective of the spirit of the world, the Spirit of Christ will continue to maintain the Church in this teaching. As for discrimination, it is actually a good thing. Choosing good over evil always involves discrimination and Catholics and all people of good will should discern and call same sex relationships for what they are and always will be - inherently disordered and mortally sinful.

    Posted By: Michael Bernard

39. Stephen and Stanley J Harris: Even if your speculation is correct [that kids from homosexual parents have grown up normally + the research shows the opposite] that is no argument for homosexuals to arbitrarily overturn the absolute, fundamental rights each child has to a Mother and Father.
    Same again even if they feel that what they have is good or are well intentioned; that is not enough for moral men. What authority can such homosexuals claim? Because they can? Because it *feels* right? Because they want it to legitimise their aberrant behaviour? Thus the child has become a pawn, a commodity.

    Posted By: Chris Saidou

40. Gina: “…I thought the church was founded by a guy called Jesus. A man who came to this earth to teach us about loving others and treating others as we we want to be treated.”
    Jesus said that God made them male and female, to be united as one. He also said if you love Him keep His commandments.
    Please read:
    1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Romans 1:26-27; and don’t discount St Paul as less authoritative than any other book in the Bible, unless you want to ignore the Bible in toto.

    Posted By: Chris Saidou

41. MJ: Too often people try to mould Christianity into what they want for themselves. Yes, the table of the Lord has become overturned (cf money changers in the temple) by those want to oppress the rights of children, to have them arbitrarily excluded from having a Father and Mother.
    Read the Gospel. The above quotes are clear and that list is by no means, complete. Homosexuality is a well- documented disorder, intrinsically evil and you should not ignore the Church’s experience with pederasty.
    You talk of oppression yet ignore the oppression of sin. You ought to realise also that the Church suffers much just to help homosexuals realise their wrongdoing repent and again be re-united with Christ and His Church.
    Your quip about idolatorized 'Natural Law' is a nonsense indicative of an ignorance of what is Natural Law and/ or idolatry.
    Finally it is not up to Christians to show the data; it is for your side to do that before usurping the rights of defenceless children for selfish or political gain.

    Posted By: Chris Saidou

42. This poor padre has lost the plot.
    
    

    Posted By: Skye

43. . Society and the Church need more than what anyone might 'suspect Jesus would do' on issues of serious moral and social consequence. Moral reason, informed by natural law, sacred scripture and tradition, is required.
    The 'What would Jesus do?' mentality, especially that accompanied by emotivist self-endorsement, as a standard response by Christians on public issues would effectively close off the Church from moral discourse with thinking non-believers, and restrict us to inconclusive, unproductive speculation, and/or a fundamentalist subjectivism. As one contributor put it well recently: Jesus would most likely do exactly as I want him to.
    This is no foundation for universal moral truth and practice, the desire for and necessity of which is evident in any demand or declaration of authentic rights, which presuppose for their very possibility natural law
    

    Posted By: John

44. The following is the teaching of the church according to the catechism 2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
    If you can accept this you are Catholic; if you can not, then you are not and should leave. I believe this was one of the teachings that Pope Benedict was referring to which he said would result in a 'smaller, purer' church
    

    Posted By: AlexP

45. For those with a penchant for deontological systems of morality like 'Natural Law', the onus is upon them to show that it is somehow expressive of the 'Eternal Law' or as a manifestation of God's nature (a logos), at the expense of other systems that are more malleable such as Virtue Ethic, Utilitarianism, or Consequentialist systems. What sort of God does that reveal? A fixed deity bound by cultural norms and syntax.
    'Natural Law' and the barren cruelties its adherents celebrate have been bizarrely elevated to a divine pedestal, but by whom?
    By what God's eye view? How many other human systems of belief are elevated to such a status, and to what purpose?

    Posted By: MJ

46. Chris Saidou: The Table of the Lord is not cross-referenced with that of the money changers in the Temple.
    The Table of the Lord is central to our faith, and it is in reference to every one of those scenes, in parable or otherwise, in which those that are last, those that are institutionally derided as 'sinners', or as 'unclean', are the ones given priority, whereas the institutionally righteous are the ones routinely sent away.
    The Table of the Lord is about a new priroity and inclusiveness, not about new worldly hierarchies and exclusions imposing themselves upon what is clear in the Gospels.
    Too many heart-hardened Catholics ignore this, setting up tables of privilege and exclusion, creating new 'sinners' and 'unclean' to deride and trample upon.How Gay people are treated is a key litmus test for Catholic faithful in particular, whether they truly do worship around the Table of the Lord in Eucharist, or another table of worldy vilification and worldy demarcations.

    Posted By: MJ

47. Alex P: Who knew that Catholicism was built upon such a fundamental(ist) doctrine? The ecumenical councils were obviously overlooking this key formulation.
    If the variation of the Donatist heresy is what the small and self- righteous new purists wish to base themselves on, well, they really have no idea of the very Tradition they seek to isolatively wrap themselves within.

    Posted By: MJ

48. One of the saddest things is the Catholic Church is all about rules - did it really move forward from Jewish tradition? Many of these comments do not show much love but rules, laws - you don't even look into a heart of a person willing to care for another as a commitment - that's a great love which we are all called to do.
    Isn't Jesus going to judge us for the good we have done and isn't caring for a child a good deed no matter the sexuality? Or would it be better for the to stay homeless, unloved and uncared for? which are you truly promoting?

    Posted By: Stephen

49. MJ: Last time I checked, God was the creator of the natural law therefore ipso facto it already has a divine pedestal. I don't think the human race would have grown much if there were only gays!

    Posted By: Dan

50. Dan: Do you even know what Natural Law is? You say that God created the natural law, but I don't think you appreciate the historical and intellectual shifts and slides from the actual origins of natural law in Greek thought to its elevation as God's law, to its use by institutions. I think what you and others mean to say is that the God which suits your own purposes, made in your own image, legitimates your particular codes of exclusion and righteousness.
    I really fail to understand what it is then that too many Catholics actually celebrate and worship at the Eucharist, gathered at the Lord's table, if so many are mentally shackled with ideologies of self-elevation and exclusion.

    Posted By: MJ

51. Thank you, TJ and Frank! Good to see there are still some decent Catholic folk out there.
    On a separate note. I really look forward to seeing the Catholic Chruch's hierarchy adopting a few disabled (or abled) children. I couldn't imagine my Bishop-to-be (or PP for that matter) as being sufficiently capable of changing a baby's nappy or emptying a bed pan -- let alone packing down a scrum with the Under 7's football team or taking his daughter to gymnastics training, and making sandwiches every day for a decade or more!
    However, I do respect the clergy and have kept my thoughts to myself about such matters. I look forward to the day when they are called to the Vatican to repent for the sins of our own time.
    It is a timely reminder of our Church's own record of care for children in past decades, especially given the Irish Bishops repentant pilgrimage to the Vatican in the coming week.

    Posted By: RT, Glenbook

52. A child can only be complete if it knows it origins. Surrogacy is a minefield of problems. It is even worse than adoption. If you think being cared for by loving people satisfies these children then you are all wrong.
    Go to this site and have a read.
    www.originsnsw.com It might just open your eyes as to the lifelong problems these children live with and how they learn to hide it all to satisfy those they love.

    Posted By: Sue

53. The premeditated creation of another human being with the explicit intent to sever that person’s biological links to one or both of his/her natural parents is nothing but a selfish act – the exact opposite of love.
    It is the intentionality of the outcome that makes the action so obscene. And yes heterosexuals (married and unmarried) who act in the same manner are equally guilty.
    In the Queensland Bioethics Centre’s submission to Parliament on the issue of surrogacy, the words of a woman who had been created through the use of donor sperm were quoted. She said:
    “I could not understand how the pioneers of AI had thought it possible to translate the breeding principles of animal husbandry into the more complex arena of human relationships and 'family building'. Why should the pain of childlessness of one generation take precedence over the needs and rights of the next?”
    Maybe Fr Griffiths and others like TJ Lawson might like to address her final sentence.
    I would suggest Fr Griffiths’ parishioners ignore his opinions and instead read the Queensland Bioethics Centre’s submission to the Queensland Parliament which can be found at the following website:
    http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/historical/documents/committees/SURROGACY/Submissions/Sub%2072.pdf
    The process that the Queensland Government followed in bringing about these unfortunate changes to surrogacy laws can be found at the following website:
    http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/historical/formerCommittees.asp?SubArea=SURROGACY
    

    Posted By: Colin

54. I'm heartened to think that for every person who expresses contempt for gays, there are two to support gays and to help them overcome the negative stereotypes flung at them.
    "I anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."1 John 4:20 -21

    Posted By: AJ

55. As I submit this comment, this article has already attracted 49 comments. Strangely, Mr Abbott's views on homelessness, the decision on Mary MacKillop's canonisation, and the Irish Bishops' meeting with the Pope about sexual abuse, have received hardly a comment. In terms of things we react to as Catholics, is there a message here?
    While I don't agree with many aspects of Fr Stan's views, we need to remember that the Church must deal pastorally with every person - gay, straight, married, divorced, etc - and do so in a positive way. Every person has a right to love and be loved - surely the teaching of Jesus.
    Let's be wary of simplistic solutions to complex problems in the life circumstances of so may of our fellow human beings, especially where sex is concerned (there are worse sins!).
    And in the meantime, priests and bishops worth their salt will walk the delicate and difficult path of acting pastorally towards those who seek their help.

    Posted By: Fr Marty

56. As stated correctly by AlexP, homosexual acts, and by implication, homosexual unions, are contrary to Church Law. Hence, Fr Griffiths is contravening Church teaching, and should be made aware of this by Archbishop Bathersby, and be disciplined.
    So many correspondents have supported Fr Griffiths on this web page. Notwithstanding that they would not be an unbiased sample, one still wonders as to why they seem to regard their viewpoint as more profound and correct than the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Their thinking has obviously been hijacked by the prevailing secular culture.
    The comments of an Anglican theologian on his own Church in Canada could as easily be applied to the Catholic Church in Australia, where it is threatened with ruination by attempts to "play catch-up with the culture" by adopting whatever is the in thing. Fr Griffiths apparently has been caught up in this secular wave.

    Posted By: Joe

57. Well said, Joe! And let's hope that Archbishop Bathersby is not quite as tardy in dealing with this priest as he has been in the past. Otherwise we might have to muster up some help from the secular press and the Cardinal!

    Posted By: Margaret O'Hagan

58. It is disturbing to read diverse retreats into an empty authoritarianism, demanding discipline against those that contravene 'laws'. Linked to this retreat into a retributive authoritarianism is the usual unaccountability, that what the magisterium teaches does not to be explained, and does not need to take account of developments in expertise, as if knowledge remains staticas if truth is mummified in place and time. The dire problem with such unaccountability of teaching (not that all teachings are of equal weight) is its qualitative resemblance to unaccountability in ministry. Just as those that are privileged in and by the institution thwarted accountability so to aid and perpetuate massive sexual abuse so too does the same privilege hide from accounatability by turning to "laws', 'authority'.It is the same stubborn and vindictive silence, it is the same expression of a culture which no longer knows how to preach the Gospel. Whilst such a culture is allowed to flourish, abuse will continue.

    Posted By: MJ

59. I cannot believe the number of people who profess that they believe in a God of love, yet are perfectly happy with the concept of surrogacy, which reduces children to the level of commodity, to be bought, sold or given.
    It's not like adoption, where a mother or father must make the heart-wrenching decision to allow someone else to become a child's parents, as they are not able to provide care themselves, or where children have lost their parents through death. In such cases, someone must step up to care for children; it's only natural.
    This debate. however, has degenerated into a slanging match on homosexuality.
    Instead, I urge each and every one of us, Catholic and Protestant, Christian and humanist alike, to unite against the social crime of surrogacy, and put children in their rightful place as fellow human beings with as much right to a normal childhood as we had.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

60. MJ: Our faith is a Faith of reason.

    Posted By: Margaret O'Hagan

61. The origin of all truth, whatever its form or whatever the culture in which it appears, is God. Only an unthinking and self-defeating relativism confines truth to cultural boundaries.

    Posted By: John

62. 'The origin of all truth...is God'.
    And just how is this truth mediated, John? Or is it blindingly manifested in such a way as to make the means by which human beings normally understand redundant?
    Taking your position into the theological realm, would then make the Incarnation redundant. Why should God reveal as human? Why not just a blinding revelation? Such a position as you want to use so to legitimate a clumsy idea of authority and the ignorance it perpetuates has many ramifications if let loose in other arenas. Stop rushing to the barricades and actually think.

    Posted By: MJ

63. Actually Margaret, the faith that you profess is based upon Revelation, and the means by which that Revelation takes meaning is by flawed reason. The Revelation is inexhaustible, reason is inherently limited, which opens up the question of whether we worship our limited reason and its limited discourses, or regard them as tools by which to be open to the saturation of God?

    Posted By: MJ

64. MJ: Your phrase 'open to the saturation of God' is an interesting one. Who is able to have this happen to them? Two spring to mind: St Catherine of Sienna and St Faustina. Ever read any of their books?

    Posted By: Dan

65. 'Our faith is a Faith of reason.'
    Margaret, the impression I get from your cheering Joe is not that you're reasoning but that you're saluting official teaching, which is quite the opposite of reason.

    Posted By: AJ

66. Dan: I haven't, although I have meant for a while to read Catherine's Dialogues. Is the idea of saturation present in her writings?

    Posted By: MJ

67. There are already problems self- reported by the children of IVF and gamete donation regarding their lack of sense of a solidly grounded origin and identity.
    Some of these have a support group:
    http://www.tangledwebs.org.au/index.php
    There are good reasons for the Church's teachings regarding these issues.
    The priest seems to have little sense of the well-being of children created in these situations.

    Posted By: Arabella

68. To get back to the main point of this article, it is important to have statistical evidence to defend a position. Gays like quoting their own 'proof' but he is some worth considering:
    Gay activists claim that there is no difference between children raised in a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual household. However, essentially all studies that show that there is no difference have been criticised because of poor research quality.
    Despite the shortcomings, the studies seem to suggest that children raised in same-sex parents may be more sexually promiscuous and more likely to become homosexuals.
    In a review of all the studies that purport to find no difference between children raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of different sex, major methodological flaws have been noted.
    For example, the studies have very small sample sizes, biased sample selection, or lack of control groups. (P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Christian Institute. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2002)
    Despite the limitations of the studies of same-sex parenting, some differences are found. Children raised in same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually promiscuous and are more likely to become homosexual themselves. (Riggs SC. Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents. (letter) Pediatrics 2002; 109: 1193-4.)
    However, the main concern remains the inherent instability of same-sex marriages. In a Dutch survey, the average length of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. In the mentioned survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of relationships did not last 8 years. Furthermore, violence among homosexual partnerships is two to three times as common as in heterosexual relationships. Such an environment does not provide the stability required for raising children.
    Former homosexual Stephen Bennett who is married to his wife and has two children states: 'Granting homosexuals the right to marry or adopt children is deliberately creating dysfunctional families.'

    Posted By: Dan

69. Honoria states a child does not need 2 father figures - isn't God Our Father and what about step kids, are they to disrespect the fathers in their life? I have more than one father and mother and they are good examples.
    Youth minister - you hear from people who have issues that's why they go to counselling.
    As for many others remember what is said in term to who is on the left and right those who do clothe the poor, feed the hungry, etc..... and you want homosexuals not to do this to children?
    Peter and Paul were human and also had their frictions when Peter would not sit and eat with the Gentiles - so as you can see they're human influences in the Bible it ain't 100% work of the Holy Spirit that the apostles did same would go with church teachings.

    Posted By: Stephen

70. Dan: Very disappointing! You not only selectively quote but utterly misrepresent, which then of course raises larger questions of the integrity of your stance.
    For example: the letter you refer to from the American Academy of Pediatrics (Pediatrics Vol 109, No 2 , February 2002 pp339-440) is actually a statement in affirmation of the need for legal recognition of same sex relationships so to provide a secure environment for children. It is the instability brought on by those governemnts and bodies of discrimination which is the direct cause of instability in some situations of coparent or second parent same sex adoption.Please note too that this same statement in support of legal recognition of smae sex relationships was further reaffirmed Feb 1 2010.
    But who would know this from your complete distortion of their paper? Who would know is someone who then actually reads the report to see how it was distorted.
    How can you misrepresent so blatantly? Do you seriously believe that such deception adds integrity to opposition to same sex relationships?
    As for your using a report from the 'Christian institute', please, what form it has. Does this really need comment?

    Posted By: MJ

71. MJ: Thank you for your correction, though your response is typical of gay supporters who refuse to accept any evidence contrary to their belief that there is nothing wrong with the lifestyle.
    This brings me to a story which I hoped gets posted. A few years ago a little, well-made video animation showed a sperm happily and eagerly swimming inside a body seeking out an egg to fertilise but gets to a point of intersection and does not know which tube to swim along. It is totally confused and why? Because it is inside a male body!
    Now you may think this was made by gay opponents to show that nature is confused by the gay lifestyle, in fact it was made by gays to advertise their festival! So they knew directly or indirectly that what they do is contrary to the natural purpose, in this case the sperm.
    I know I will not win any arguments here with gay supporters but I can only assure you of prayers in support of you as people who have been mistreated.
    I bear no hatred or bigotry, only love. If you read the Dialogue of St Catherine, be prepared for a shock; God asks much of his followers.

    Posted By: Dan

72. MJ: For Catholics, God's truth in faith and morals is, I believe, primarily mediated through the Church's witness to Christ in her teachings, and actions consistent with them.
    These teachings include the fact that God, while transcendent, is neither irrational nor incapable of being known by reason. Faith gives us access to greater, deeper and more intimate knowledge of God than reason unaided by grace can attain, and enables us, through Christ's merits and the power of the Holy Spirit, to live according to this knowing.
    As St Paul exhorts us: Have in you that mind which is in Christ Jesus.

    Posted By: John

73. Stephen: I ask your forgiveness if my views have caused you hurt or pain Jesus had a Father in heaven and the wonderful Joseph His foster father on earth.
    My concern is that in today's world children seem to be treated more and more like a commodity that people have a right to acquire and I do not mean to imply that all people who care for a child have this attitude. May God continue to bless you and yours.

    Posted By: Honoria

74. Well done Father Griffiths and Archdeacon Gowty!
    We need more leaders like you willing to speak God's real truth. One step in the right direction toward bringing about peace - not encouraging indifference and confllict. You have given our family a little bit of confidence in the church.
    Please don't stop encouraging a new perspective. It is desperately needed.

    Posted By: Tracy - Maleny

• » 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. Catholics rejoice at "woman of holiness", says Archbishop Hart

   Australian Catholics were jubilant last night at the Vatican's announcement that Mary MacKillop has become the nation's first saint. A ''deeply pleased'' Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said St Mary was a woman of holiness.

2. "A rare privilege", says nun who led campaign

   Australia's Sister Maria Casey, who led Mary MacKillop's sainthood campaign, was among those who attended last night's historic meeting in Rome. "It's a rare privilege indeed,'' she said.

3. Mary in Saturday's papers

   News of the October canonisation of Blessed Mary MacKillop features prominently in all Australia's metro dailies.

4. Mary "at heart of Catholic tradition", says Archbishop Pell

   Cardinal George Pell says Mary MacKillop ''stands at the heart of the Catholic tradition'', and that "she had a great ability to forgive."

    

5. Mary 'great Australian sheila' - Collins

   Commentator and former priest Paul Collins last night called Blessed Mary MacKillop a 'great Australian Sheila'.