Thu 23rd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 22nd Oct 2014 at 18:57pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Seventy per cent oppose gay marriage, poll finds

By on Thursday, 8 March 2012

Seven out of 10 British people believe that marriage should continue to be defined as a lifelong union of a man and a woman, and more than eight out of 10 believe that children have the best chance in life if raised by their biological parents.

The results, revealed by a ComRes online poll of more than 2,000 people, arrive on the eve of the Government consulting on opening marriage to same-sex couples.

The consultation is due to be published on Thursday next week.

The survey, commissioned by Catholic Voices, a group created to put the Church’s case in the media, also shows majority support for civil partnerships.

In a briefing paper published to accompany the results, In Defence of Conjugality, Catholic Voices argues that the redefining marriage will impact negatively on future generations.

Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of Catholic Voices, said: “Our poll shows that the Government has no mandate to alter an institution which lies at the foundation of our society. British people believe that gay relationships should be recognised by the state through civil partnerships. But they are clear that marriage is a unique institution which needs to be promoted because of the benefits to children of being raised by a mother and a father. These results are a clear warning to Government that it is at odds with the public on this issue.”

  • Anonymous

    (so called) ‘Public opinion’ dictating morality – it seems that you can be quite the utilitarians when it suits you Catholic Herald.

    Lets add some more statistics shall we – 59% of people agree abortion should be legal
    and 98% of sexually active Catholics have used artificial contraception. 

    …following your logic because of the strength of public opinion on these issues they should be morally permissible.

  • Tridentinus

    The alarming and perplexing thing is that there should be
    any disagreement or debate on the matter amongst Catholics themselves. Because it
    pertains to sexual behaviour it is primarily a moral question upon which the
    Church’s teaching is infallible. I will try to spell it out.

    Now, throughout the whole of the Bible whenever sodomy is
    mentioned or alluded to it is unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms in
    both Testaments.

    From the founding of the Church by Jesus Christ, at all
    times and everywhere homosexual acts have been declared sinful, in fact as one
    of the very sins crying out to heaven for vengeance.

    The teaching of the Church concerning sex and marriage
    has been clear and consistent.

    All sexual activity is intrinsically and gravely sinful
    (mortal sins) unless it takes place between a man and a woman married to each
    other. Even within this wedlock, sexual intercourse must be open to procreation
    i.e. not impeded by any form of contraception.

    Any other sexual activity between husband and wife such as
    coitus interruptus, anal intercourse, the achievement of orgasm by one or both
    parties through masturbation, manual or oral or the use of sex-aids is
    proscribed together with normal intercourse and solitary masturbation outside
    the  marriage bond.

    The Church’s teaching on matrimony is also unequivocal;
    it can only take place between a man and a woman where there is no diriment
    impediment i.e. one which renders the marriage null and void. One of these is
    the inability of either party to have normal sexual intercourse.

    As a man cannot have normal sexual intercourse with a man
    nor a woman with a woman they can never be married and any sexual activity that
    occurs between them is always mortally sinful.

    Simple disagreement with this doctrine is not enough to
    excuse them from the consequences of their behaviour, only invincible
    ignorance. Practising homosexuals who call themselves Catholics generally
    cannot plead invincible ignorance because the Church’s teaching and
    condemnation is universally known.

    If despite this, if a person cannot accept the Church’s
    infallible teaching, here is what a recent Pope, Benedict XV (1914–1922) in his
    Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: has to say, “Such is the
    nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must
    be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which
    unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Such a
    person has therefore, having rejected a part of it, has rejected the whole Catholic
    faith.

    If this person persists under the guise of being a Catholic and accepted by their local Church as such
    and seeks to persuade faithful Catholics to their point of view and into apostasy
    then they compound the original guilt of their own apostasy.

    Any attempt by renegade clergy to permit or officiate at
    a so-called same-sex wedding would render them guilty at least of sacrilege along
    with anyone else who connived at and attended the ceremony. On top of this they
    would be also be committing grave scandal.

    The Catholic Church is not an earthly society but a
    Divine one. Its raison d’être is firstly the worship of God and the salvation
    of souls. It is not an arm of the social services or a community of do-gooders.
    It can never be regulated by or subject to the civil power in the preaching of
    the Gospel and the mediation of Salvation through the Mass and the Sacraments
    of which Matrimony is one. 

    Another of the Sacraments is the Tribunal of Penance.
    Anyone guilty of any of the sins mentioned above or any other transgression whatsoever
    may reconcile him or herself to God and the Church as long as their contrition
    is genuine and they have a firm purpose to amend their lives, go their way and
    sin no more; such is illimitable mercy of God.
     

  • Anonymous

     aye it’s not easy being a Catholic.

  • Tridentinus

     

    The alarming and perplexing thing about this is that there should be
    any disagreement or debate on the matter amongst Catholics themselves. Because it
    pertains to sexual behaviour it is primarily a moral question upon which the
    Church’s teaching is infallible. 

    Throughout the whole of the Bible whenever sodomy is
    mentioned or alluded to it is unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms in
    both Testaments.

    From the founding of the Church by Jesus Christ, at all
    times and everywhere homosexual acts have been declared sinful, in fact as one
    of the very sins crying out to heaven for vengeance.

    The teaching of the Church concerning sex and marriage
    has always been clear and consistent.

    All sexual activity is intrinsically and gravely sinful
    (mortal sins) unless it takes place between a man and a woman married to each
    other. Even within this wedlock, sexual intercourse must be open to procreation
    i.e. not impeded by any form of contraception.

    Any other sexual activity between husband and wife such as
    coitus interruptus, anal intercourse, the achievement of orgasm by one or both
    parties through masturbation, manual or oral or the use of sex-aids is
    proscribed together with normal intercourse and solitary masturbation outside
    the marriage bond.

    The Church’s teaching on matrimony is also unequivocal;
    it can only take place between a man and a woman where there is no diriment
    impediment i.e. one which renders the marriage null and void. One of these is
    the inability of either party to have normal sexual intercourse.

    As a man cannot have normal sexual intercourse with a man
    nor a woman with a woman they can never be married and any sexual activity that
    occurs between them is therefore always mortally sinful.

    Simple disagreement with this doctrine is not enough to
    excuse them from the consequences of their behaviour, only invincible
    ignorance. Practising homosexuals who call themselves Catholics generally
    cannot plead invincible ignorance because the Church’s teaching and
    condemnation is universally known.

    If despite this, a person cannot accept the Church’s
    infallible teaching, here is what a recent Pope, Benedict XV (1914–1922) in his
    Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: has to say, “Such is the
    nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must
    be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which
    unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Such a
    person dissenting from the Church’s teaching has, having rejected a part of it, rejected the whole Catholic
    faith.If this person persists in purporting to be a Catholic wilfully seeks to persuade faithful Catholics to their point of view and into apostasy
    then they compound the original guilt of their own apostasy.

    Any attempt by renegade clergy to permit or officiate at
    a so-called same-sex wedding would be guilty among other things of sacrilege along
    with anyone else who connived at, promoted and attended the ceremony. On top of this they
    would be also be committing grave scandal.

    The Catholic Church is not an earthly society but a
    Divine one. Its raison d’être is firstly the worship of God and the salvation
    of souls. It is not an arm of the social services or a community of do-gooders although it does involve itself in society as a part of its mission of Charity .
    It can never be regulated by or subject to the civil power in the preaching of
    the Gospel and the mediation of Salvation through the Mass and the Sacraments
    of which Matrimony is one.  

    Another of the Sacraments is the Tribunal of Penance.
    Anyone guilty of any of the sins mentioned above or any other transgression whatsoever
    may reconcile him or herself to God and the Church as long as their contrition
    is genuine and they have a firm purpose to amend their lives, go their way and
    sin no more, such is illimitable mercy of God.

  • Tridentinus

    What a supercilious comment. You post upon here just to wind up genuine believers. You look down your nose at the reasonable, honest folk who take this question seriously and try to contribute to the debate. At the risk of being uncharitable I find the smugness of your smile nauseating. If you were a genuine Catholic or Christian you wouldn’t do this.

  • David Devinish

    That is straightforward enough, so let all Catholics who wish to do so abide by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church do so, but this does not apply to Non-Catholics, and the Catholic Church has no power to influence anyone else outside the church. Therefore, the question is: to whom do you appeal? If people have no idea or concern what Catholic doctrine says, why do you bother, because no one outside the church cares. Even people within the Catholic church do not care one jot what the church says. That is a statistical fact of life.

  • Mikecat10421

    And slavery. And persecution. In fact, it commands persecution as a duty to God – that, and the total extermination of non-Jews. Since Catholic doctrine does not change, it follows that the Bible sanctifies the Final Solution. For, if the Bible commands a FS to the Canaanite-Amalekite problem, and as it does so - what possible basis can there be for blaming Hitler for his Joshua-like activities ? Natural law clearly does not forbid the total extermination of a people, for Saul’s great sin was his failure to exteminate the Amalekites (see 1 Samuel 15). If God, acting through Samuel, could command the extermination of Amalek – where does that leave the validity of natural law ?

    Natural law, because it is founded in God’s character, therefore allows for the total extemination of a people. If OTOH God commands what is against the natural law – that does not support the idea that the natural law is a good basis for moral argument. Consequently, naturallaw arguments against hgay marriage are of very uncertain force. And a doubtful type of argument has no persuasive force.     

    STM that the arguments against gay marriage badly need to be revised & reconsidered.

  • Parasum

    It’s all too true that there is a big big problem here – the problem is partly one of education, or of its quality or absence; and partly one of imagination. There are more – for example, if people don’t mature in their understanding of Christian belief, one is left with people who are twenty or forty or 60 or eighty, who understanding of doctrine is that of a six-year old. This is rightly considered lamentable when it happens in people’s understanding of the sciences – and it is equally lamentable when people’s religious understanding is immature and childish. If people don’t grow, this is often partly their own fault – we cannot expect to be spoon-fed when we can feed ourselves. And we have no right to be lazy. Ignorance is often caused by laziness. People have to take responsibility for their ignorance – to pander to laziness is demeaning, not kind. If people do not try to grow,  then cannot expect to have a ripe understanding of Church teaching. This is harsh & very one-sided, but it needs to be said.

    As to the issues mentioned, they are all man centred & world-centred – IOW, they are such that they make impossible any understanding of these matters: the whole approach is wrong. I would guess the reason for that is the neglect of a Catholic philosophy – nothing is more  basic to our knowing than the philosophy  which informs & shapes how we perceive & analyse & assemble what we know. If our philosophy is  scientistic or materialistic, then from the outset it necessarily excludes all possibility  of our perceiving what is spiritual & not material at all.

    You mention various realities. But what is incredible about Heaven, or Hell ? For instructed & believing Catholics, these are not only not problems – they are less disputable than anything our senses can tell us about. One can be far mlore certain about God, than about anything else. What science is competent to deal with, is of no importance in comparison. The Christian universe is God-centred & Christ-centred – creation is an after-thought. 

    You mention Divine “intervention” – but this is a misconceptualisation of God’s relation tothe universe, though a very common one. It suggests that God is as it were “alien to” the universe, that He is trespasser in it. But unless it were upheld in all its being at every instant by His Wisdom & Purpose, it would not exist at all. It exists only because He has for His own good purposes “invented” it, & brought it into being from nothing.

    The Virgin Birth, or Virginal Conception to be exact, differs from other human conceptions only in that one humans usually involved has been left out. What God normally brings about through the human action of a begetter, is done without involving a human begetter, by the action of God in a way that does not involve a human father. What people forget is that *all* human conception & begetting is the work of God – but in every other case, it is done through two human parents. Most of God’s works in the natural order are done through created agents – having children is just one of these works.

    Maybe somone else can discuss the other things you mention.

  • Parasum

    Having faith in God has nothing to with any silliness about monopolising God. What matters, is that we have received a Divine revelation from God, for the entire world. The Church’ s message is universal and mreant for the entuire human race. Someone, somewhere, sometime has to receive it – and this revelation is the self-disclosure of God in Jesus, “under Pontius Pilate”, in Palestine. The gift of God’s self-Revelation in Christ, if it happens at all, necessarily happens at a certain point in history, in a certain place, to certain people. If God is to be “God-with-us”, a man like us in all things but sin, a purely revelation is ruled out. If God is to be one of us, He has to be as localised as we are, & as time-bound as we are. IF people want God to be fully human, they cannot fairly complain when one of the results of His being fully human is that He  is born in culture X & not in culture Y.  

  • Parasum

    “This is a sad message and demonstrates just how little the catholic church has changed over the years and how far removed it is from contemporary logic and reasonableness.”

    ## Such an approach also suggests lack of confidence in the validity of the Church’s teaching.  Which is a strange complaint from a traditionalist – but let that pass.

    If the teaching of the Church is all totally valid, no objections to it can possibly upset any of it, for none can possibilly have the least force. If parts of it are wrong, or inhumane, or misconceptualised, or in need of revision, or poorly stated – discussion and criticism helps these inadequacies to be brought into the light, which helps the self-knowledge & health of the Church. The Church has nothing to fear from seeing the true state of what it teaches – right or wrong, the Church can only be strengthened by criticisms, whether of doctrines, practices, structures or anything else in it. And that can only be good for the Church’s mission. Refusing to be criticised only makes the Church look defensive, unconvinced of its own message, afraid of criticism, and afraid of being seen in the light. How is any of that a help to the Church ? A Church that can’t take criticism is a Church that has little faith in God. And that is sad.

  • Parasum

    viz. – with a dot – is an abbreviation for Latin *videlicet*

    Unless the magazine Viz is called after a wholly  different Viz, which is entirely possible.

    Any use to you ?

  • Parasum

    “”Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but mustbe held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, whichunless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.””

    ## That is an old & venerable approach to the act of faith – but it is of questionable validity. It’s too abstract and essentialist to be entirely convincing. Human life is neither abstract nor essentialist, but is concrete & dynamic. That theological idea mistakes logical validity for reality.

    The idea of the ontological unity & indivisibility of the act of Divine faith may convince metaphysicians – but Biblical faith was historical; it was formed by the events of Israel’s history as the People of God. To base our relation to God only on our side of it, is to forget that friendship with God – & that is what communion between God & man is, a friendship – is dynamic, something that allows for doubt & darkness & questioning (look at the Book of Job !), and most important of all, something that is guaranteed, not by man or what man does, but by what God does, in us, & for us. It is not a human-only monologue – but a life-long  between God & man.  

    A purely abstract, essentialist faith that either existed in its entirety or not at all could never have given us the anguish of  Jeremiah, the refusal to be reasonable & orthodox of Job – they had a living faith, which was a stormy faith becuse of the pressures they were under, a faith which was despite apperances. The Catholic idea that faith & reason are never contradictory does not do justice to Biblical faith – to believe that a despised rejected, accursed, unclean & crucified felon was the Lord of Glory, was not reasonable at all – it was triumphantly unreasonable. The metaphysical definition of faith entirely leaves out the fact of people’s experience of God, Who helps them to have faith even if their faith is no greater than a mustard-seed – something undeveloped that does not include all that the  mustard-plant does. Biblical faith is not this metaphysical abstraction.   

    Besides, “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” – the Church’s teaching on the indelibility of the sacramental character conferred in Baptism ensures that. No-one in the Church has the power to separate a Catholic from the Church in every way.

    “The Catholic Church is not an earthly society but a Divine one.” This borders on what might be called ecclesiological Monophysitism. It’s like saying that because Jesus is a Divine Person, He has no human nature, but is purely Divine. That is not Orthodox Catholicism, nor should it be. By parity of reasoning, neither is the Church purely Divine – it is human as well. Besides, given the state of human nature, a Church that the State is not permitted to check for any reason whatever is a Church that is lawless & a danger to society – with events like those that thave recently happened, the State has to have the means to defend itself against a corrupt Church. Clericalism and priestcraft & ecclesiastical tyranny are not good in any way. Especially as the worst kind of corruption is the corruption of what is best.  

    “Any attempt by renegade clergy to permit or officiate at a so-called same-sex wedding would be guilty among other things of sacrilege along with anyone else who connived at, promoted and attended the ceremony. On top of this they would be also be committing grave scandal.”

    ## Jesus had a record of committing scandal – as is plain from the Gospels. He *is* a scandal, by being crucified – which had a very high “yuk factor”, as St. Paul notes in Corinthians 1. So the argument that X causes scandal is of doubtful weight. It’s an argument for respectability & the status quo – things for which, to judge from the gospels, Jesus cared little, if at all. The Church has got itself into a truly horrendous mess  precisely because it covered up many crimes in order to avoid scandal. Hiding scandals only works if one is sure never to be rumbled.  But the Church has been rumbled – & now it has to deal with the reproach that it has covered up crimes instead of letting justice take its course. Its attempts to avoid scandal have exploded in its face, and made it look like a monster of deceit & injustice. Is that really desirable :( ?

  • Anonymous

    This is nonsense — the only sense whereby the Old Testament “approves” of slavery, is that it’s not as bad as genocide.

    Of course there’s slavery as a punitive measure against criminals — but trot along to many US penal institutions to see this form of it in action even today …

  • Harry McCracken

    What you have written is valid and I understand it because I was brought up in a strict catholic household and strict catholic school. Can you help me with this conundrum: Near where I live there is a Lenten poster outside a Methodist church that says: “Jesus Christ died for our sins: repent for you know not the day or the hour when the master will call you”. I understand what this means but a group of young teenagers were mocking the PosterOne young girl said “What the hell (she used another expletive) has Christ dying got to do with me pinching a quid from my mothers purse, or my stepfather ‘trying it on’ with me when my mum is out at bingo? I am not being flippant or disrespectful, but are these not the people the church should be trying to reach, rather than being so concerned about it’s precious doctrine.

  • Lagos1

    But polygamy is concurrent marriage.  Not ideal as the various Bible stories show.  But the institutionalisation of a relationship between a man and a woman none the less.

    However, the Bible has never extended the idea of marriage to that of relationships  between two men.  Which is hardly surprising because they are not the same thing.

  • Gerry Walsh

    Please do not worry. What does it matter if Mr Teigitur and Charles Martell are the same person, I do not think that they dominate the website. I accept that their views are just as valid as those of anyone else, but their points of view are hardly earth shattering and their ill thought out, insensitive rhetoric are unlikely to change the opinions of many people. Let them be, and respect “their right to be wrong”.

  • daclamat

    You’re so kind. So perspicacious. Have you done the Ignatian exercises yet?
    Ubi caritas et amor. I don’t find homosexual practical expressions of affection particularly tasteful, but since God our Father has created their pleasure giving “equipment” I don’t feel qualified to impose my views. Pace exponents of the natural law argument. ever since lightening conductors were deemed contrary to the divine will, one may beg to differ.

  • mitsy

    If Spain and Portagul can accept gay marriage why can’t the UK… this is not even a Catholic country.
    The church also says there is no such thing as divorce and people that aren’t married can’t remarry, yet thankfully the law of this country makes it possible.

  • Tridentinus

     

    I appreciate that the Church has no control over what non-Catholics
    believe, what I do not understand is “even people within the Catholic church do
    not care one jot what the church says.”

     

    How can such people consider themselves to be within the Catholic Church when
    they reject whole chunks of its doctrine because it does not fit in with
    their lifestyle?  Surely this is
    self-deception? Non- Catholics are at least honest in that in their rejection
    of some or all Catholic teaching they do not claim to belong to the (Roman)
    Catholic Church.

  • Trockfield

    It will happen eventually, and will be endorsed in law.  You will just have to put up with it, although – as I presume it cannot possibly affect you personally – I am at a loss to understand your objection.

  • Trockfield

    I get all my information, views and values from one book as well; mine is ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

  • Trockfield

    I bet you sniggered just a little bit when you read it though?

  • Jane Brady

    I did not read it and I have no idea what it looks like. I asked one of my students what it was and she told me. Your vulgar insinuation denotes your fervent Catholic principles: Just make it up as you go along regardless of whether it is true or not. That is why the Catholic Church in it’s final state of dissolution. Martin Luther, Henry VIII, John Knox, Oliver Cromwell and others could not have done a better job that you and Catholic Herald’s “The Holy Bunch” are doing.

  • lagos1

    Well I would advise you to widen your reading list then because you seem to be the only one restricting yourself to the one book.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    I wonder if you really believe that God would send someone to hell for masturbation?

    It’s this type of thinking that has screwed up so many people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    What about the Amalekites?  Saul is condemned for *refusing* to kille Amalekite women and children.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    David and Jonathan
    Ruth and Naomi
    The Centurion and his Pais

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    Consanguinity is already not a bar to marriage in the UK.

    First cousins can marry.

    So can the children of a two couples where each is composed of, to give an example Mr Jones A marries Ms Smith A, and Mr Jones B marries Ms Smith B.Such children are, genetically, as similar a brothers.

    Catholic canon law before Lateran IV, on the other hand, used to ban marriages of people descended from the same 6xGreat Grandparent.

    And lets not even get into the old rules which banned marriage where affinity was contracted; or between godparents and godchildren, etc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    Of course Catholics can disagree about moral rules.

    Have you never heard of probablism?

  • lagos1

    No, none of these are examples of the Bible extending the idea of marriage to same sex relationships.  

    However, we do clearly read of David marrying the woman Bathsheba and we do read of Ruth marrying the man Boaz.  We don’t read of David marrying Jonathan and we don’t have any indication that Naomi married the woman she regarded as her daughter, Ruth.

    As for the Centurion, we know absolutely nothing about whether his relationship with his servant was sexual or not, let alone any notion of “marriage”.  All we know was that there was affection.

    It is one of the sad aspects of the rise of homosexuality in our society that every same-sex relationship has to be viewed through a sexualised prism.

  • Anonymous

    it was a loaded question – get over it

  • Anonymous

    you have lost the argument, keep quiet and you might keep your dignity

  • http://cumlazaro.blogspot.com/ Lazarus

    That Catholics may disagree on some issues does not mean that, where there is clear teaching from the Magisterium, we should disagree. (And there is clear teaching on the nature of marriage and homosexual activity.)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4OG7JS2ZILKL6NFGZXBIGZOBR4 savia

    Natural law is not based on God’s character. It’s parts of the eternal law that we can know through human reason.

    The other is the human law, which is used to self-govern a people or nation. Slavery would fall under human law.

    A human law can be a bad law when it violates the natural law.

    There are different kinds of laws. Eternal, natural and human.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4OG7JS2ZILKL6NFGZXBIGZOBR4 savia

    I would recommend G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, if you are looking for an explanation of the Apostles Creed.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4OG7JS2ZILKL6NFGZXBIGZOBR4 savia

    It’s sad that you think so little of embodied persons. It’s through our bodies that we experience the world around us.

    It’s not the modern world makes too much of the body, it makes too little of it.

    God works through our time and space, which is why our religion is sacramental. 

    Sacramental theology is central to the Catholic understanding of the world.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4OG7JS2ZILKL6NFGZXBIGZOBR4 savia

    So nothing is objective. 

    Everything is just based on subjective thinking.What theists call God is the external world of reality that exists independent of people think.

  • Jack McFall

    I have great regard for GK Chesterton and I have read most of his work, I deeply admire his wit and panache of mystery and his flamboyance. I deeply admire him…. In his 62 years he spent only 14 years as a Catholic, and by then he had become ill, brought about (some say) by gluttony. He was renowned for having had an enormous appetite for rich food, as the poor starved. …Please explain to me what good me reading “Orthodoxy” is going to do. Why do you not explain it in a manner that I will understand, for example why do you not write a synopsis of Chapter 6 “The Paradoxes of Christianity”. Others my benefit from you contribution. I await your exposition on this doctrinal mystery.

  • Jack McFall

    If you have something valid to contribute, please do so. This meaningless rhetorical provocative style of communication is not worth responding to.

  • Love is better than hate

    The Catholic Church and it’s record of protecting paedophiles amongst
    it’s own and of stealing babies to put up for adoption amongst its own speaks for itself and that alone renders your views
    redundant.

  • Love is better than hate

     Rubbish. This is a book that was written by men between 1700 and 5000 years ago. It is inconsequential to today, except to a bunch of nasty bigots who have used it through the ages to put down others. Like so many you pick and choose amongst the book to further your evil prejudices, yet you fail to follow the ‘teachings’ exactly yourself. You will eat pork, use electricity, work on the sabbath etc. All these things are forbidden either by written inclusion or by implicit exclusion, yet still you do them all. Yours is a vile god, an evil god, an intolerant god, a hypocritical god and so are you.

  • Anonymous

    Textbook example of a loaded question: (the question Catholic Voices asked)

    ‘Do you agree that marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman?’

    It is loaded because it does NOT ask 1 question. Rather it offers a whole package that needs to be agreed or disagreed on. In order to agree with same-sex marriage in the context of this question, you must also:

    disagree with marriage being a ‘life-long’ 
    disagree with marriage being an ‘exclusive commitment’
    (and it is implied) disagree that marriage should continue to be allowed between a man and a woman

    This is not a fair question by any means. Gay activists supporting same-sex marriages would even struggle to answer the question – as they too are likely to support marriage being ‘life-long’ and ‘exclusive’, and none have called for the end to heterosexuals being able to marry.

    The question which ‘Catholic voices’ was too scared to ask:

    ‘(agree or disagree) Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just civil partnerships.’

    Good thing it has been asked. Populus who supplies poll data to The Times found that in fact 61% agreed with the above statement. In direct contradiction to Catholic Voice’s ‘findings’.

    I was of the opinion that the Church was about truth – and not deception. Publishing the results of a biased poll with a loaded question – sold to us as facts – when all other polls I have managed to find show the exact opposite (I will show you all the polls at if you ask) – counts as either deception, or a colossal lack of research, either rendering you as inept as journalists.

    (I would hope that after reading my comment – you remove the article and publish an apology.
    Thank you, Paul)

  • Fifi

    Very well put. Chances of them removing the article though are zero.

  • ms Catholic state

    The West is sinking in its own sexual depravity.  Have you seen their inadequate birthrates?!  Hilarious ….especially for a sexually saturated people.  Secular societies aren’t going to be around long…..and that is the shape of things to come.

  • Hazel pratt

    Things change, we the congregation now accept married men as priests.  Humanity appears to be changing;  could this be due to environmental changes i.e. fluoride in the water, contraceptive pills for women, this will eventually enter the water chain.  Is this the cause for upsetting masculinity, and feminity?  If so, then in my opinion Gay Marriages should be allowed, being gay does not affect ones commitment to doing good and practising the faith.  They believe in commiting themselves to each other with “Gods” blessing.  Priests should allow Gay Marriages for their flock.  Just as we, the “flock” accept married men as priests.

  • Anonymous

    Very true – I find it disgusting that ‘Catholic’ journalists are peddling propaganda and twisting the facts to win their arguments. It boggles the mind.

    Its either ignorance or its a ‘ends justify the means mentality’ – otherwise known as utilitarianism – which they, and the Pope have been saying will bring the demise of society… Sigh. :( 

    I’m a touch bored of such blatant hypocrisy – it seems endemic here. 

  • Harry McCracken

    I dearly respect other peoples opinions, especially when they differ from mine as this produces a intellectual challenge and causes me to think deeper. Your facile and second hand drivel is not worth responding to. Others have pointed this out to you as I am doing now. You should take notice and examine your conscience.

  • Tridentinus

     Oh, dear, Paul. Consanguinity is not a bar to marriage in the UK. So  I can marry my mother, my grandmother, my aunt, my sister, my daughter, my grand-daughter and my neice, can I?

  • Tridentinus

     Until recently, where?

  • Londonite101

    I am a married practicing catholic who is blessed with a wonderful wife and three children. I cannot for the life of me understand the churches opposition to gay marriage. The christian faith to me is about justice, equality, love and forgiveness, exactly the qualities Jesus had in abundance. If we all had these qualities the world would be a much better place. Jesus never said one negative thing about homosexuals and how on earth can gay marriage be a threat to the institution of marriage.