Mon 28th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Mon 28th Jul 2014 at 14:59pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Letter signed by 1,000 priests: same-sex marriage will restrict freedom of Catholics

By on Monday, 14 January 2013

Mgr Keith Newton celebrated mass at the church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory(Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

Mgr Keith Newton celebrated mass at the church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory(Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph arguing that same-sex marriage will restrict the freedom of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage.

The letter, signed by eight bishops, four abbots, the leader of the ordinariate, and 1,000 priests, warned MPs that proposed legislation would signal a return to penal times in that it would erode the ability of Catholics to “participate fully in the life of this country”.

It said the legislation would “have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship”.

The letter also suggested the safeguards of the law would be “meaningless”. It ended with a call to MPs “not to be afraid to reject this legislation now that its consequences are more clear”.

The full text of the letter is available here.

  • GratefulCatholic

    homos is a simple contraction, don’t be so petty and precious. This is a serious matter; that for which God destroyed Sodom, notwithstanding Abraham’s pleadings.
    GC

  • JabbaPapa

    Right, so let me get this straight — you’re denying that Catholics have any right to say and teach what we think, are you ?

    And simultaneously claiming that our exercise of free speech is an “indoctrination” (as if your own views weren’t themselves indoctrinated ones) ; and that this political campaign to destroy the nature of marriage as we understand and teach it is somehow (? how ? magically ?) transformed into a “restriction” against the “freedom” of others — notwithstanding that civil unions in the UK are *already* virtually identical to a civil marriage, so that it’s hard to see what restrictions upon the freedoms of homosexuals you’re talking about ?

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who will see that opinion as being irrational.

  • JabbaPapa

    It’s the advocates of “gay marriage” who are fixated on sex — indeed, it’s the entire focus of their campaigning.

    Marriage OTOH is NOT about sex.

    Otherwise, your claim that priests do not engage in the other activities that you mention simply demonstrates your ignorance of the activities of Catholic missionaries worldwide, including thousands upon thousands of priests…

  • Sweetjae

    Sex is an important part of Marriage.

  • liquafruta

    With respect of course I must disagree with you. All we have heard from the hierarchy for months – Cardinal O’Brien, Bishops Smith and Egan et al and now from the 1000 priests – concerns sex whichever way you look at it. When have they ever, as a cohesive force, spoken out about any of the issues that I mentioned? BTW I am not at all “ignorant” of the work of Catholic missionaries. Why do you feel the need to be so aggressive by using such terminology? I had a cousin who served as a priest for many years on the missions in the Philippines and we corresponded regularly. These 1000 priests are not Catholic missionaries. This is supposed to be a discussion forum not a slanging match.  

  • liquafruta

    They probably have other more important things to worry about like ministering to their parishioners both straight and gay.

  • H Pooler

    You don’t get the point do you??

  • ambita80

    Two things spring to mind for me:

    (1) “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what
    they are doing.”

    (2) “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is
    God’s.”

     

    I do see JohnLee, KJ’s etc. point of view, though I don’t
    think that there really is such a thing as secular morality because the quality
    of something being ‘right/wrong’ should be timeless – clearly this cannot be
    the case with earthly politics where governments which come and go have the power in the first
    place to make/change policies as they please or how people please… just as Pilate had the power to crucify Jesus.  Morality does not exist if there is no fixed, timeless authority behind it.

     

    If I were asked to vote for/against same-sex marriage, I
    would vote against it based on my religious faith.  But nobody has asked me!  And I can’t help but feel that just as God
    does not impose his will on us, we are not in a position to impose our will on
    others who do not share the same religious convictions, although we of course
    have a right (and duty) to voice our opinion “with gentleness and reverence” in
    the words of St Peter.

     

    It seems to me that arguments based on God’s revelation are
    futile in Western Society; I would like to hear more arguments relating to
    logic, science, law and just plain common sense.  If we cannot manage this then it will be
    extremely difficult to defend the Christian stance on marriage.

     

    For some reason this makes me think about a dancing
    competition; does the legalisation of same-sex marriage mean that we’ll now
    have same-sex couples on ‘Strictly Come Dancing’?  Will people still watch?  Yes, although with varying levels of scepticism;
    after all, will people really take seriously two men dancing the ‘Viennese
    Waltz’?  One of the wonderful things
    about these beautiful dances is that we see the complementarity of masculinity
    and femininity; I view marriage in the same way and despite the legalisation of
    same-sex marriage, I believe that deep down even those who claim to be
    indifferent will feel the same way.

     

    So what can Catholics do apart from writing to their MPs?  Well, charity begins at home (the most
    important starting point) and I don’t believe that I will be thrown into prison
    for teaching my daughter the Catholic faith. 
    As KJ says, we ‘acknowledge same-sex marriage exists (in the legal
    sense), explain what it means and then relate the Church’s teaching on the
    subject’.  If we can continue to pass on
    our faith to our children, whilst setting an example of treating ALL
    people with dignity, respect and generosity, regardless of earthly politics, and
    of course setting a good example of how marriage should be, then I believe we
    are ok – I have faith in God over that.

  • Danny

    Please would someone tell me, How same-sex marriage will destroy marriage?   I keep reading Marriage will be destroyed, but not how it will; I would have thought if people wanted marriage that would strengthen it.   Or is the church aware it’s losing it’s power over world governments?
    The church can continue preaching same-sex marriage is wrong, but then it’s up to the individuals informed conscience to make the final decision.(as Vatican ll)

  • JabbaPapa

    That’s right, “part of” — not its definition and sole raison d’être

  • JabbaPapa

    Is the Church hierarchy to be blamed for this Government engaging in ideological warfare against the Church teachings in question ?

    Do you honestly think that the statements by these priests are anything other than a reaction against this political agitation ?

  • JabbaPapa
  • liquafruta

    I fear that I get the point more clearly than you imagine.
    Blessings.

  • Tridentinus

     Patronising, enigmatic posts like yours make no contribution to this debate.

  • TheBlueWarrior

    To your first paragraph, are you asking a rhetorical question or are you really interested in an answer? 

    Part of the answer to your question “How same-sex marriage will destroy marriage?” is demonstrated in your statement about “informed conscience” in the second paragraph.  You have turned the definition of “informed conscience” on its head to the point that your statement is a fundamental negation of the true nature of the “informed conscience.”

    Here’s the true definition of informed conscience from the the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    1783 Conscience must be informed and moral
    judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.
    It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the
    true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of
    conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to
    negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and
    to reject authoritative teachings.

    Bottom line:  Words have meaning, the meaning conveys a concept; change the meaning of the word, you fundamentally alter the nature of the concept.  For the last 50 years so many people have been caught up in this negation of “informed conscience” that it has led to flawed prudential decisions on a grand scale. Especially when exercised by the “movers and shakers” in society that ought to have known better.

  • Tridentinus

    Exactly the response one would expect from someone simply wanting to throw a spanner in the works rather than engaging in logical debate on the subject in question.
    Your ‘more important’ matters have been and are still being addressed by the Catholic Church although the media do not deem them important enough to report.
    The subject of this debate is same-sex marriage, please, stick to this.

  • Tridentinus

    Exactly the response one would expect from someone simply wanting to
    throw a spanner in the works rather than engaging in logical debate on
    the subject in question.
    Your ‘more important’ matters have been and
    are still being addressed by the Catholic Church although the media do
    not deem them important enough to report.
    The subject of this debate is same-sex marriage, please, stick to this.

  • http://twitter.com/alangnixon Alan Nixon

    No I am not, Catholics can teach whatever they want, but they do not have a right to force other people to abide by their specific doctrinal rules. Marriage does not belong to Catholics, Christians or the religious for that matter. This is evidenced by the fact that 2 Atheists can be married (hence removing any link between marriage and religion). 

    Many people are not Catholics and many do not agree with the barbaric notion that 2 people of the same sex are wrong for loving each other. Marriage is a right currently extended to all consenting adults (no matter what their religion or cultural background) , except homosexuals. 

    There is no right for a religion to force their specific doctrines on to a population (Anti-homosexual bigotry in this case). There is a right for individuals to have access to the same social services equally, especially when they are as universal as marriage (remember that Atheists and any other consenting pair of adults can get married, in any way they wish).   

    Civil Unions are a cop-out designed to exclude consenting adults from the same social services/rights as other consenting adults. Marriage does not belong to the religious and therefore the religious have no right to decide what a marriage should entail, that is up to the consenting adults in the particular marriage contract.

  • JabbaPapa

    Catholics can teach whatever they want, but they do not have a right to
    force other people to abide by their specific doctrinal rules

    That’s NOT what you said.

    But you seem to think that Catholics MUST be forced to obey the specific doctrinal rules of atheists.

    How, exactly, are any non-Catholic homosexuals being “forced” to obey the doctrines of Catholicism ? Do you have ANY material examples of this ?

    Marriage does not belong to Catholics, Christians or the religious for that matter

    The argument against “gay marriage” is societal, political, philosophical, and cultural — the religious element of this argument certainly exists, particularly in that it constitutes an attempt to force a new definition of marriage upon the members of various religions even though we cannot *possibly* and will never accept it ; but the crux of the argument is that such a redefinition is that it constitutes a utopianist attempt to destroy one of the most central core elements of human freedom against the centralised politicicist control of individuals by politicians and governments.

    EVERY single totalitarian utopian ideal, including this latest one, seeks to destroy the family as the founding element of human society — because they always require that the only meaningful relationship in that totalitarianism is between the individual and the State.

    Individual human dignity is, by nature and IN Nature, only ever fully expressed within a healthy society founded upon the natural family environment. This is because this is the underlying socio-biological reality of our species. Particular political and social arrangements are transient by nature ; they come, and they go. The family, as the basis for human existence and human welfare, both collective and individual, is the constant reality of mankind.

    The destruction of this basis for reasons of crass political expediency and transient ideologies is oppressive, destructive, totalitarian, and utopian. It is ultimately unrealistic, and it should be shunned and rejected for these reasons.

    The religious element of the argument against “gay marriage” is informed by these philosophies — NOT the other way round.

    The underlying fact of the matter is that NOBODY is in any way preventing homosexuals having meaningful relationships with each other. Those claiming the opposite are just LIARS.

    Many people are not Catholics and many do not agree with the barbaric
    notion that 2 people of the same sex are wrong for loving each other.

    Nonsensical and insulting misrepresentations of Catholic teaching are not impressive.

    There is no right for a religion to force their specific doctrines on to a population (Anti-homosexual bigotry in this case).

    bla-bla-bla ; except that it’s perfectly OK in your mind to force atheistic doctrines upon Catholics, isn’t it …

    Civil Unions are a cop-out designed to exclude consenting adults from
    the same social services/rights as other consenting adults.

    RUBBISH !!!

    In the UK, they are functionally equivalent to civil marriage, with the only real exception that they are not recognised religiously.

    Well whoop-de-doo, you cannot FORCE Catholics or members of ANY religion to recognise “gay marriages” in the religious manner against the teachings of these religions.

    Religious services and sacraments are also NOT “social services”, nor are they “rights”.

  • liquafruta

    You are perfectly correct and this is the most logical and coherent summing up of the situation I have read so far.

  • liquafruta

    My logic in this matter has been expressed by Danny with whom I heartily concur. “The spanner” of which you speak  is a genuinely held view of a baptised and confirmed Catholic with a mind of my own:
    Please would someone tell me, How same-sex marriage will destroy marriage?   I keep reading Marriage will be destroyed, but not how it will; I would have thought if people wanted marriage that would strengthen it.   Or is the church aware it’s losing it’s power over world governments?The church can continue preaching same-sex marriage is wrong, but then it’s up to the individuals informed conscience to make the final decision.(as Vatican ll)

  • Tridentinus

    Catholic marriage will no longer be the same as civil marriage; in as much as both presenty recognise it to be a contract between a man and a woman primarily for the founding of a family and for the mutual well-being of the spouses. As such, the Catholic Church recognises civil marriages between baptised non-Catholics as valid and therefore indissoluble.
    When or if the State changes its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions then civil marriages cannot under any circumstances be considered by the Church as valid as such unions will only be as simply ‘legalising’ sinful sexual activity for its own sake. Neither can the State recognise Catholic Church alone marriages as they are not registered thus excluding Catholic spouses from the civil benefits of the marital status, taxation, pension rights. inheritance, etc. It would also render their offspring illegitimate as far as the State is concerned.
    Can the Catholic Church, if it is to remain true to its Founder allow the civil Registrar to register a marriage in Church when the type of union he, as the State’s representative, is registering is one which open to anyone regardless of sex and specifically condemned by the Church as gravely sinful
    If the Catholic couple marry in the Church and then in the Registry Office in separate ceremonies in order to avail themselves of the civil benefits of matrimony could this be construed as acceptance of the State’s definition of marriage and that in itself mortally sinful and also a scandal.
    The idea that a Catholic can make up his own mind as to whether he believes or rejects the teaching of the Church according to his conscience is a modernist myth which was falsely attributed to Vatican II. Primacy of conscience has always been defined as informed conscience, i.e. conscience which has been informed by the teaching of the Church.
    The sole reason for being a Catholic is to save one’s soul which is what God in His Goodness and Love wills for all His creation. I have always found it difficult to understand the mentality of someone who wants to be  a member of the Catholic Church yet has the arrogance to disagree with most or even any of what it declares to be necessary for Salvation. I can only describe having ‘a mind of one’s own’ in the context you use it as a mind independent of the ‘Mind of God’.
    I

  • Tridentinus

     Catholic marriage will no longer be the same as civil marriage; in as
    much as both presenty recognise it to be a contract between a man and a
    woman primarily for the founding of a family and for the mutual
    well-being of the spouses. As such, the Catholic Church recognises civil
    marriages between baptised non-Catholics as valid and therefore
    indissoluble.
    When or if the State changes its definition of marriage
    to include same-sex unions then civil marriages cannot under any
    circumstances be considered by the Church as valid as such unions will
    only be as simply ‘legalising’ sinful sexual activity for its own sake.
    Neither can the State recognise Catholic Church alone marriages as they
    are not registered thus excluding Catholic spouses from the civil
    benefits of the marital status, taxation, pension rights. inheritance,
    etc. It would also render their offspring illegitimate as far as the
    State is concerned.
    Can the Catholic Church, if it is to remain true
    to its Founder allow the civil Registrar to register a marriage in
    Church when the type of union he, as the State’s representative, is
    registering is one which open to anyone regardless of sex and
    specifically condemned by the Church as gravely sinful
    If the
    Catholic couple marry in the Church and then in the Registry Office in
    separate ceremonies in order to avail themselves of the civil benefits
    of matrimony could this be construed as acceptance of the State’s
    definition of marriage and that in itself mortally sinful and also a
    scandal.
    The idea that a Catholic can make up his own mind as to
    whether he believes or rejects the teaching of the Church according to
    his conscience is a modernist myth which was falsely attributed to
    Vatican II. Primacy of conscience has always been defined as informed
    conscience, i.e. conscience which has been informed by the teaching of
    the Church.
    The sole reason for being a Catholic is to save one’s
    soul which is what God in His Goodness and Love wills for all His
    creation. I have always found it difficult to understand the mentality
    of someone who wants to be  a member of the Catholic Church yet has the
    arrogance to disagree with most or even any of what it declares to be
    necessary for Salvation. I can only describe having ‘a mind of one’s
    own’ in the context you use it as a mind independent of the ‘Mind of
    God’.

  • JabbaPapa

    Rubbish, marriage is an inviolable Sacrament of each spouse before God.

  • DragonbearEssex

    ‘Homos’, ?? ‘HOMOS’??!! Methinks you are a homophobic catholic

  • DragonbearEssex

    Piffle. Poppycock. Balderdash.

  • liquafruta

    It is significant that you use the word rubbish in this post. I would never use such a word to describe the deeply felt convictions of others. Your opinions are not rubbish and neither are those of people who may disagree with you. In my opinion as a baptised confirmed Catholic, Danny is right.

  • liquafruta

    Then that would be between individual Catholics and Our Blessed Lord.The days of the Inquisition and Tomas de Torquemada are happily over. Pax. 

  • http://twitter.com/alangnixon Alan Nixon

    “But you seem to think that Catholics MUST be forced to obey the specific doctrinal rules of atheists.”
    No, I don’t. I do not believe that allowing homosexuals to marry is forcing anything on Catholics as they do not have to be involved with the marriage in any way. The marriage is a private thing, between two consenting adults. In what way will that force “Atheist Doctrine” on Catholics?
    “How, exactly, are any non-Catholic homosexuals being “forced” to obey the doctrines of Catholicism ? Do you have ANY material examples of this ?”
    By denying homosexuals the right to get married (via the law), you are denying these people a civil right due to your particular doctrinal thoughts on marriage and the family. That is forcing homosexuals to obey the doctrines of Catholicism. 
    “Well whoop-de-doo, you cannot FORCE Catholics or members of ANY religion to recognise “gay marriages” in the religious manner against the teachings of these religions.”
    There is no need to do this, no pair of consenting adults should really have to care about what any other religion thinks of their marriage, because they do not belong to that religion. The marriage is between these adults and has nothing to do with any other doctrine. Why should a Hindu have to care what a Christian thinks about their marriage? Likewise why should homosexuals have to care about what homophobic people think about their marriage. Only the law needs to recognise the marriage, the other eyes mean nothing.

  • JabbaPapa

    you are denying these people a civil right

    ???

    In other words, you think that everyone should be forced to accept the atheistic doctrine that this proposal constitutes a “civil” “right”.

    due to your particular doctrinal thoughts on marriage and the family. That is forcing homosexuals to obey the doctrines of Catholicism.

    Not that this is in any way accurately descriptive of my position (I HAVE pointed out to you what the basis of my opposition to these proposals is, and it is not religiously motivated) — but I can’t help but notice your double standards.

    On the one hand you talk about doctrines being imposed by group A upon group B as a bad thing, but then you deny that the imposition of doctrines by group C upon group D can be viewed as bad ?

    You have simply illustrated that this entire proposal will only cause strife and disagreement — and that some people will suddenly be classified as criminals for no good reason at all.

    Furthermore, your doctrinal views are NOT a case of material discrimination which is what I asked for, given that such hypothetical homosexuals have a civil union mechanism at their disposal in the UK that is 99.5% identical to civil marriage.

    The 0.5% concerns religious questions ONLY.

    There is no need to do this, no pair of consenting adults should really
    have to care about what any other religion thinks of their marriage,
    because they do not belong to that religion. The marriage is between
    these adults and has nothing to do with any other doctrine.

    Your characterisation resembles the active anti-religiosity of Stonewall militants not in the slightest.

    Likewise why should homosexuals have to care about what homophobic people think about their marriage.

    Right, so everyone opposed to “gay marriage” for no matter what reason is a “homophobe” ???

    And then YOU have the gall to complain about people imposing their doctrinal views on others ?

    Here’s a picture of one million “homophobes” in Paris :

    https://twitter.com/McNaposeb/status/290526648422514688/photo/1

  • Tridentinus

     I’m sorry but I don’t see where the Inquisition and Torquemada fit into this debate at all.

  • Max

    I urge these same 1000 Priests to sign a letter to stop the Murder of our elderly  people that is happening every day in hospitals in the U.K. Some so called Doctors getting a bonus for putting the elderly people  on the Liverpool Death  Pathway. The Church really needs to do something about this before any more Christians are Murdered .  Brave Doctors are speaking out  doing their best to get the this  stopped . The Church MUST DO SOMETHING.

  • Danny

    You keep quoting the ‘catechism of the catholic church’ but you do not enlighten me buy answering my simple question.   Buy the way the catechism is not infallible. 

  • Danny

    Thank you for your supporting message; I’ve had a few messages from people quoting the ‘catechism of the catholic church’ but unable to give me any reason how or why same sex marriage would destroy marriage.   Again thank you.

  • liquafruta

    My observation about the Inquisition and Torquemada  was in reply to your words below:

    “I have always found it difficult to understand the mentality of someone who wants to be  a member of the Catholic Church yet has the arrogance to disagree with most or even any of what it declares to be necessary for Salvation. I can only describe having ‘a mind of one’s own’ in the context you use it as a mind independent of the ‘Mind of God’.”

  • John McCarthy

    I pray to God that these good and holy Priests may have the strength to stand firm.

  • Tridentinus

     I still don’t get the connection.

    All I was trying to express was the difficulty I have understanding how someone can believe him/herself to be a Catholic yet reject what the Catholic Church teaches that one has to believe in order to be a Catholic. To me this appears to be self-deception, pure and simple.

    By ‘the mentality’, I meant the intellectual exercise or the reasoning behind a conclusion which is intellectually absurd. It would be like, say, a conservative declaring him/herself to be a socialist whilst continuing to reject socialism. I am truly perplexed by this and would be grateful to you or anybody could explain it to me.

    The Inquisition or Ecclesiastical sanction of any kind never entered my head.

  • liquafruta

    Why then expend such energy in weighing up the worthiness of others to call themselves Catholics? Surely that is between them and their Heavenly Father. 

  • JabbaPapa

    the catechism is not infallible

    This statement is heretical.

  • Tridentinus

    There is I believe, in Ireland, a saying; ask a Kerryman a question and he will reply with a question of his own.

    You are imputing to me motives for my postings which cannot possibly be inferred from what I write, first the Inquisition now the ‘weighing up the worthiness of others to call themselves Catholics’.

    I don’t know how old you are and I wouldn’t dare ask but I am also a baptised and confirmed Catholic. The Faith was passed on to me by my parents, teachers, religious and lay and the priests of my Parish.

    I believe now well over 60 years later exactly what I believed at the end of my learning period roughly half way through my teens.

    The Catechism told me then that: Faith is the gift of God which enables me to believe whatever God has revealed. Nothing has occurred in the Church or the world since that has caused me to believe otherwise. So a sin in the 1st century is still a sin today because God said it was a sin all that time ago and will still be a sin a million years hence whether the world thinks it is or not.

    I am not a saint any means. I do not, however, try to find justification for my manifold sins by misleading my conscience. One can trawl through Church history and you will always find an obscure historian, philosopher or theologian who backs up your opinion against the infallible decrees of the Magisterium. Believe me, I have attempted to do this but can honestly say, I have never convinced myself.

    Regarding the Tablet article; Fr Boland who has Licence to teach Sacra Theologia gives no guidance to Catholics as to how they should approach or consider the question, save to say he is against it. Why?  He counsels, however, a charitable reaction. This ‘counsel’ would appear to neither condemn the sinner nor the sin. I am left in limbo by this article.

    I have posted and replied to you in good faith. However I feel that you have been toying with me, prancing around my questions and serious concerns for your own amusement and that of others.  Let others judge. Sorry if I am wrong, atque pax tibi.

  • liquafruta

    Then from your “limbo” let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I can assure you that I am not toying with you at all and this is a serious discussion on my part. Please do not feel ridiculed by these posts. For myself I am just trying to show you that there are Catholics who think differently to yourself and  perhaps these postings may make us all reflect further. There are some very intemperate and uncharitable views expressed on here and I hope any of mine have been neither of those things. There is a need to express dissenting opinion where one feels one has to follow one’s conscience to redress the balance of the discussion. Both my parents came from County Kerry by the way. My father was a medical doctor who spoke exactly as he found and was not afraid of expressing his opinions especially when he had to treat a young boy who had been sexually assaulted and severely beaten in an Industrial School named after St Joseph by a member of a well known religious order. He told me that it haunted him all his life.   Pax domini sit semper tecum.

  • Tridentinus

     Et cum spiritu tuo. When I digest  your reply I wiil anwer you.

  • JabbaPapa

    Danny is right

    Danny’s opinions are based on the heretical notion that the catechism “is not infallible” (as he has claimed elsewhere in the thread).

    It is rubbish to clam him as being “perfectly correct”.

    In particular, his opinion that individual decisions can trump Church teaching is a statement of open rebellion and heretical modernism against the Deposit of the Faith, and the Authority of the Magisterium.

    It is anathema to teach such things.

  • Danny

    When has the TRUTH been heretical?  Jesus said, “ The truth sets you free.”  Look for your own truth, not what others tell you.

  • JabbaPapa

    Look for your own truth, not what others tell you

    Modernism, in a nutshell.

    I find Truth in Revelation, not in any transient cogitations by myself or my contemporaries.

  • Tridentinus

    “For myself I am just trying to show you that there are
    Catholics who think differently to yourself and  perhaps these postings
    may make us all reflect further.”

    I am well aware that there are Catholics who think differently to myself I
    simply would like to know why.
    However, although you are obviously in favour or at least not troubled by
    same-sex ‘marriage’ you seem reluctant to explain your reasons for this. I have explained my
    position on the subject and why and how I arrived at that position.

    “I can assure you that I am not toying with you at all and this is a
    serious discussion on my part.”

    How can I not feel that you are not toying with me when in each of your posts
    you ignore the ‘serious discussion’ and admonish me for being hypocritical, ‘let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ and ‘in weighing up the worthiness of others to call themselves Catholics’ with the subtle implication that I am judgemental and lacking in charity (and before you suggest it, the cap does not fit in this ‘discussion’).

    I am sorry but I feel this conversation is going nowhere.

  • Tridentinus

    @ Liquafruta’s post 17 hours ago. I wouldn’t post in the reply box.

     “For myself I am just trying to show you that there are
    Catholics who think differently to yourself and  perhaps these postings
    may make us all reflect further.”

    I am well aware that there are Catholics who think differently to myself I
    simply would like to know why.
    However, although you are obviously in favour or at least not troubled by
    same-sex ‘marriage’ you seem reluctant to explain your reasons for this. I have explained my
    position on the subject and why and how I arrived at that position.

    “I can assure you that I am not toying with you at all and this is a
    serious discussion on my part.”

    How can I not feel that you are not toying with me when in each of your posts
    you ignore the ‘serious discussion’ and admonish me for being hypocritical, ‘let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ and ‘in weighing up the worthiness of others to call themselves Catholics’ with the subtle implication that I am judgemental and lacking in charity (and before you suggest it, the cap does not fit in this ‘discussion’).

    I am sorry but I feel this conversation is going nowhere.

  • Inquisator

    Well said.

  • Max

    I think that the murder of the elderly people in hospital is more important. THOU SHALT NOT KILL.. If the Bishops and Archbishops want to look the other way . Then I am asking the Priests to speak out I implore you . WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CONGREGATION.

  • Tridentinus

     Indeed, I agree with you wholeheartedly having reached a certain age.
    For decades the emphasis has been upon ‘young people’.
    The Church is encouraged to reach out to ‘young people’. The country is encouraged to reach out to ‘young people’. It would seem that ‘young people’ have inherited the earth. The Government actively encourages the cult of youth, forget the old for they are beyond the pale.

    The truth is that ‘young people’ are mostly, heavilly dependent upon ‘old people’; their parents and are likely to become more and more dependent as the credit-crunch bites.
    Cameron, Clegg and Milliband represent the ‘nouveau’ political parties, all of them still wet behind the ears compared with politicians of previous eras.

    When the Tories have deserted you, you have no hope.
    What would the Marquess of Salisbury, Prime Minister in 1901 think of David Cameron. I dread to imagine.
    The Labour Party are the party of Envy and Spite, full stop. Think back to 1997 to 2010. 
    When the Tories have deserted you, you have absolutely  no hope.