Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. 'Please dont call it marriage'. However, the Archbishop also backs the French Bishops' call to oppose homosexual unions!
   No problem Archbishop - this is a civil/State matter and does not involve our Catholic belief.
   But do not try to enforce Catholic teaching on the rest of the population!

   Posted By: Peter M

2. The misinterpretation of Archbishop Paglia's statement is pretty typical of the way this subject is discussed in general.
   Personally, I'm almost afraid to say I oppose the redefinition of 'marriage' in Australian law.
   The instant response, even from people who know me well, is to accuse me of homophobia and opposition to the civil rights of homosexual people.
   This happened to the Archbishop in reverse!

   Posted By: Joan Seymour

3. Joan is quite right. To oppose the redefinition of marriage is certainly not homophobia.
   The two things are quite separate issues. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to think that way any more. It is important that we do more than skim the surface when speaking of issues that can have the effect of changing our culture so profoundly.

   Posted By: Margaret McDonald

4. It's interesting how often controversial comments by high-ranking Vatican officials are often withdrawn soon after, usually under the guise of being misinterpreted by the media.
   Could there perhaps be another reason?

   Posted By: Bill Brady

5. The promotion of homosexual rights has largely proceeded all along with the distortion of language, from gay to marriage.
   Regrettably, Joan Seymour's and the Archbishop's experience is not now uncommon.
   The upshot, among other things, will be the credibility of law, its makers and the democratic process itself.

   Posted By: John

6. To quote Peter M: 'But do not try to enforce Catholic teaching on the rest of the population!'
   Nobody is enforcing anything. The Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to state its position on a matter that impacts morality and traditional beliefs and values.
   In fact it is duty bound to express what the Church believes is the correct definition of marriage - a definition that has the backing of thousands of years of experience and support.

   Posted By: deric davidson

7. Thank you for the re-print of this fine priest's comments.
   Yes to civil, humane rights for all couples; no to homophobia; no to 'gay marriage', a misnomer.

   Posted By: Dr Susan Reibel Moore

8. I don't think the Archbishop's defence of homosexuals as fellow human beings was misinterpreted.
   His honourable statement to the effect that all human beings are children of God, that we are all brothers and sisters under God, has implications for all of us - especially for Christians, who are expected to love one another as Christ has loved us, even unto death.
   When it comes to sexual attraction between human beings, it is true that most societies have drawn up rules and customs that govern how this sexual attraction shall be exercised.
   One particular aspect of heterosexual attraction is that in most cases it results in the procreation of children.
   This in itself raises the need for social santictions. Hence states (advanced or primitive) have marriage laws/customs/taboos.
   But what of those cases of heterosexual marriage that don't produce children or can't? Are they to be denied state sanctioned marriage rights?
   Marriage as a social construct comes prior to producing children. It recognises that a couple can vow before the community that they want to live together and love one another for the rest of their lives.
   One way out of the limiting 'marriage" to heterosexuals is to recognised two types of marriage - heterosexual to be renamed matrimony indicating that the female hopes to become a mother (mater) and homosexual or one that doesn't want to have children naturally to be renamed partnimony (from "partner" which seems to be a politically accepted non- gender specific term).
   

   Posted By: Joe

9. It appears that anything we disagree with is not authentically democratic, according to some of these posts.
   The last persons to enforce this line of argument were Hitler and Stalin, while the Church teaching followed closely after, until human rights and freedom of conscience were enshrined at Vatican II.
   Beware, dear fellow Catholics, those who would want to roll back these bedrock conditions for the expression of faith and return us to Savonarola and the dungeon.

   Posted By: Michael Furatdo

10. Michel Furtado: Democracy is abused when language as a vehicle for truth is abandoned in favour of language as a tool of ideology.
    Comparisons to Hitler, Stalin and Savanarola in this context are risible.

    Posted By: John

11. Giving the moment we are living in (where it seems to be a race among nations to accept civil marriage between persons of the same sex), I think that the Catholic church should consider to re-denominate the sacrament of marriage.
    Then, civil law will give some status to the union of two (or more, who knows) people, but we catholic will have a xxx where we decide to join our lives with other person of the opposit sex till the death separate us with God being between us.

    Posted By: Pablo

12. I suppose it would be more convenient for many Catholics if homosexual couples wishing to marry would just agree to calling it a 'civil union' and stop being a nuisance in wanting to marry.
    But we're all God's children and we know He loves us.
    Many heterosexual marriages do not all want to have children for various reasons.
    Why should same sex marriages be seen as having an injurious effect on heterosexual marriages? I've not heard a convincing argument yet. It just seems very mean spirited and unChristian.
    

    Posted By: Mary Maraz

13. The definition of marriage as only a male-female union is about biology, not bigotry.
    Refusing to call a same-sex union a marriage is not a criticism of the gay life style!
    Refusing to call a same-sex union a marriage is about not displacing the historic reason for the existence of the institution of marriage with a new and incompatible public purpose for marriage.
    We need to face the stark reality of the choice that lies before us.
    Secular marriage cannot continue its existing public purpose of uniting each child with its own birth parents and at the same time promote respect for same-sex unions.
    The future purpose of marriage will be either one or the other.

    Posted By: James Harris

• » 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. US nuns hope for Sister-friendly Pope

   Now that the Vatican has begun its search for a new leader of the Catholic Church, American nuns are hoping that the next pope will be a little more sister-friendly, reports Women's Agenda.
   

2. Changing world requires fixed-term Pope, says Geelong priest

   Pope Benedict's shock resignation should usher in a new understanding of the role in the modern world, according to Geelong Catholic priest Fr Kevin Dillon, reports The Geelong Advertiser. He said he hoped a cardinal with strong pastoral experience would become successor and that the time might be right to consider limiting papal reigns to set periods.
   

3. Catholics in outback NSW rejoice at news that diocese will stay

   Catholics in Broken Hill have welcomed news that the Wilcannia-Forbes diocese will no longer be split up, reports the ABC.
   

4. Resignation is great timing for new book on the Vatican

   The Pope's shock resignation has boosted interest in all things Catholic just as veteran Vatican journalist John Thavis is about to publish a behind-the-scenes look at the faith's fabled nerve centre, reports Reuters on Yahoo7. The Vatican Diaries goes on sale just one week before the pope steps down, and the author talks about what is in it.

5. Standing ovation for Pope in emotional farewell address

   Pope Benedict was greeted with cheers and a standing ovation in an emotional farewell by thousands of followers at two of his final public appearances. Benedict, seen by the public for the first time since announcing his resignation, looked tired but healthy as he began his General Audience in a big Vatican audience hall, followed by a Mass in St Peter's Basilica, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.