Same-sex marriage law
SIR – After centuries of persecution, Catholics have, in recent times, been able to be members of the professions and participate fully in the life of this country.
Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will 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.
It is meaningless to argue that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the opposite view at the same time.The list of signatories is given on the Telegraph Letters page.
The natural complementarity between a man and a woman leads to marriage, seen as a lifelong partnership. This loving union – because of their physical complementarity – is open to bringing forth and nurturing children.
This is what marriage is. That is why marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society.
We urge Members of Parliament not to be afraid to reject this legislation now that its consequences are more clear.
The third sentence makes an important point when it says that it is meaningless to say that we are free to teach our beliefs if we are also expected to teach the opposite view at the same time. The question of teaching something as true is at the heart of the debate over the freedom of the Church to teach. The Metropolitan elite want to pretend that they do not teach anything as objectively true but that they respect everyone's views. Any first year Philosophy undergraduate could see that this is incoherent since the principle of relativism is itself taught as an absolute truth which nobody may deny.
As Damian Thompson observes, this is not just a letter from traditionalists, but from priests across a wide spectrum of views within the Church. I found it very encouraging that priests who I thought might have just ignored the letter (that's all they had to do) took the trouble to sign it and post it in to the organisers. I am proud to stand beside them. This issue, and the firm and clear witness of our Bishops in the matter, has united the Catholic Church in our country. Congratulations to the young and dynamic priests who organised this highly significant act of witness.
Now would be a good time for Mr Cameron to start listening to the strength of opposition to his foolish and dangerous proposal. If he doesn't, those who hold influence in his party would be well-advised to bring him in for an "Interview Without Coffee."
16 comments:
I, too, hope that there’s a mechanism for others to sign. I see my Bishop, all three VGs and over half the Cathedral Chapter of my diocese amongst the signatories and yet I have, today, spoken to eight priests of my diocese who were not approached, all of whom would have signed. I also note that there are over 800 permanent deacons in England and Wales (this legislation doesn’t apply to Scotland (which has its own proposals) or Northern Ireland) and not one of them appears to have been asked to sign. I am one of them and would welcome the opportunity to publicly indicate my support.
I, too, hope that there’s a mechanism for others to sign. I see my Bishop, all three VGs and over half the Cathedral Chapter of my diocese amongst the signatories and yet I have, today, spoken to eight priests of my diocese who were not approached, all of whom would have signed. I also note that there are over 800 permanent deacons in England and Wales (this legislation doesn’t apply to Scotland (which has its own proposals) or Northern Ireland) and not one of them appears to have been asked to sign. I am one of them and would welcome the opportunity to publicly indicate my support.
A-PARTY-OF-TWO
There are some couples
O, so nice
As nice, as nice
Can be
They have their weddings
Roses and rice
And plan forever
Just "we".
Everyday
A-party-of-two
A-party-of-two
No more.
They know the latest
Things to do
That pleasure their skins
And each pore.
"What need for seeds
And eggs take space
We desire to be
In lust -
Our lives are erotic
Never neurotic
In cholesterol-free
We trust."
Some of these couples
Are Bob and Rick,
Some are Michael
And Sue
No matter their genders
Each has his trick
Of blending secretions
Like stew.
Much money they'll save
On themselves these few
From their vows 'til their graves
They'll live well...
But because their intent
Was a-party-of-two...
Alone they'll be seated
In Hell!
Deo Gratias! The Vanguard soldiers.
Thank you for signing the letter, Fr Tim, and thanks to your brother priests, too.
Like you, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the signatories! Well done them.
Thank you, Fr. Tim, for signing up to this, and for your witness to the Truth in this matter as well as many others. God bless you and reward you for your faithfulness!
This is a modest, clear, truthful exposition of the position that same-sex-marriage is a contradiction of the meaning of what marriage is all about. I believe that the word is "an oxymoron".
We are fortunate in that here in Australia, for the second time, marriage has been upheld as being between a man and a woman excluding all others. Even quite a few atheists supported this view, not least, one of them being our Prime Minister!
Under the proposed legislation (both at Westminster and Holyrood) we are to be coerced into exposing our children to homosexualist proselytism, propaganda, from the day they enter primary school, and, if some have their way, perhaps even before that. And this despite the fact that we are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto. The most relevant provisions are:
Article 8:
(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life…
Article 9:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom... to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(2) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief shall be subject only to the limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 12:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to form a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Protocol No.1, 20 March 1952
Article (2):
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
Get that last: the State shall respect the right of parents! But in the interests of approximately 1% of the population — IF AND ONLY IF you accept that the (largely publicly funded) homosexualist advocacy groups like Stonewall and the Equality (?) Network represent the views of all homosexuals, which they don’t — we are now told that parents have no rights in respect to their children’s social, philosophical and religious education, all of which are encompassed in sex education. But Peter Tatchell does!
In 2009, Australia’s most famous draft dodger informed readers of the Guardian that “Good quality sex and relationship education... should start from the first year of primary school onwards, with age-appropriate information about love, emotions, relationships and the physical changes they will experience at puberty.”
Twelve years earlier, his message to that same audience was even more worrying. Then he vouchedsafe: “While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful” (Guardian, June 26, 1997).
Welcome to a Brave New World!
Cameron listen? Not a snowball's chance in hell!
Fr., the BBC apparently have not covered the massive march in Paris against same-sex-marriage legislation. Censorship?
During the week it was reported in the national press that 'Whitehall' was raising an 'Act' to reduce the Age-of-Consent to 14. Also the adult-child-"love" relationship as being OK is being resurrected.
In the main our current crop of politicians are not to be trusted and that includes Cameron. We are in the age of career politics without principle of foundation.
Father,
If you know any of the young priests who organized this letter campaign, would you please ask them to do a follow-up in order to garner more signatures? From comments I've read, many priests knew nothing about this campaign and have said they would gladly have signed the letter if they had known. I suspect there are at least a few bishops who agree with that sentiment.
I, too, had wondered how signitories to this letter had been gathered. Because, had the opportunity been presented to me, I would have signed it. Unfortunately, the first I heard about this letter was in The Telegraph blogs.
You might like to correct your link to the letter, it should be http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9798725/Penal-effects-of-same-sex-marriage-law.html
I was disappointed to find only a minority of the Ordinariate priests known to me among the signatories. Can I assume that was because others didn't know about it?
We need to make the campaign wider and get every person who believes in marriage and the family unit of society to raise their voice to David Cameron. This social re engineering of society. This indoctrination of false ideas to destroy the family and meaning of marriage must be stopped. To usurp the word marriage to a homosexual union is outrageous.
Mr Grumpy - thanks for the proper link. I have put that in now.
Nothing can be assumed from anyone not being on the list. this was a major project done with limited resources and it is impossible to get a complete mailing list for all priests - they did their best.
Interesting to see the wording of Article 12 of the Human Rights Convention. When that was written, it clearly meant that men and women had the right to marry each other. For several decades afterwards, anyone who suggested that it could be stretched to mean that people of the same sex could marry would have been regarded as loopy. But now we will be told in all seriousness that it can be read in that sense. Is that honest?
Post a Comment