In defence of traditional marriage

Last weekend, our Parish Priest, Mnsgr. John Boyle, invited Dame Marie Bashir, former Governor of NSW, to attend the vigil mass to thank her for her services. A most accomplished and distinguished lady, she showed up and was duly thanked during the mass. On my part, I must confess I didn't attend. I prefer Sunday mass at 7:30 or 9:00 am.

Anyway, I digress. Dame Marie was also quoted a few days later in support of gay marriage. The article written by Jonathan Moran of The Daily Telegraph noted in part: ‘Bashir said: “I feel very much in favour and supportive of that, for people to be happy and fulfil one another. Gay marriage is the way.”

Prof. Bashir added: “I wish there wasn’t so much talk about it, you know, let’s just do it.”’

Here's a public figure, not a politician, but a former medical practitioner, University Chancellor and NSW Governor backing something that I don’t agree with.

I note that the words “just do it” is a strong call to action which says forget discussion on  the subject and just change the definition of marriage to the union of two individuals, regardless of gender. I wonder if this is out of frustration or resignation that the proponents of same-sex marriage have just made it so hard for us to stick to our guns.

A few years ago, I wrote in defence of traditional marriage, that sentiment has not changed. The government of the day was toying with the idea, so I thought I would put something in writing. Now, with a change in the political landscape that same side of politics is proposing an Act of Parliament to change the definition of marriage.

After all if one is to believe the media, the majority of Australians are in favour of “Marriage Equality”. Hence, it now follows that the Marriage Act should be changed to remove “a union between a man and a woman” to one between two persons, of any gender.

As the LGBT movement would have you believe this is a matter of equality. Really? I put to you that it is not. Maybe, the movement means “sexual equality”, hence, two men or two women as a union is the same as that of a man and a woman.

Marriage is the bedrock of the traditional family. And, marriage is the start of a family. Thus, the pro-creation of children is part of this equation. The vow made by a man and woman during the marriage ceremony is also the protection of the children that result from the union.

Going back to the “equality” issue. A man and woman in marriage can naturally have children from that union. A same-sex couple cannot do so naturally. So, the confusion (or obfuscation) that the proponents of this change in the Act are trying to achieve is to make something natural into whatever. Hey, we can adopt, do insemination, so why not?

Again, really? From the not normal, we make normal. This doesn’t follow. Natural sexual complementarity and potential fertility is not the same, just because of changing the definition of marriage.

I admit, this is politicised, so it’s a matter of pleasing the electorate.

Well, I put up a higher call.

As a Christian, I consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 341,  p. 96).

And, just as important, we must not forget the consequences of re-defining marriage. Removing gender will mean that husbands and wives will be made to be wholly  interchangeable social constructs. And, here’s the rub. People who adhere to the natural definition of marriage will be characterised as “old-fashioned”, "bigots", or worse.

And, they will be made to answer to the law. As well, ministers of religion will be made to heel to the new definition and required to go against beliefs and teachings that their church has propounded for centuries. And, maybe end up in jail, as a consequence.

Note that this is not alarmism or muddying the waters. Look at other countries and you will see that these consequences are real, the Culture of Life Foundation article posted about this possibility in 2014. This is unfortunately now a fact and is manifesting itself in a number of countries, where the preaching against same-sex marriage is regarded as hate speech.

I read about clergy in Holland, France and Spain that have already been threatened with prosecution for “hate speech” for upholding their faith tradition on marriage.

Let's not forget that this change in the Act is the thin edge of the wedge. Taking the precedent, polygamous marriages have been permitted in Brazil. I also read about an incident in Holland where authorities were asked to allow polygamy, extending the equality thinking. There is also a push using equality and the new marriage definition to allow polygamy in other countries.

These are only some examples of the consequences of changing the Act. There are more, if you care to look into it further.

Another thought is the children in same-sex marriage. Is this a normal environment for children? I am sure that there are or probably have been normal adults growing from childhood in a home with same-sex parents.

However, the story of Katy Faust also comes to mind. She grew up in a home with same-sex parents and wrote a letter to Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court (equivalent to our High Court in Australia). Father John Flader includes her story in his latest post in defence of traditional marriage, as well as put forward more interesting points.

There are more considerations as to why we should stick with the current definition of marriage. I will just make one more point.

Finally, changing the Act will really only benefit a few. Mind you, a very vocal few. It is not about changing an age-old definition, but to quiet that minority who will benefit from this change. My thinking is so that they can now say “will you marry me?” instead of “will you civil union me?” Not a good enough reason to change not just traditional beliefs, but also Christian teaching and the bedrock of the unit of society that is under attack—the family.

Let's leave what has worked for centuries alone and not redefine something just to please a few and cause many things we may not have considered. Let's keep marriage a sacred (read solemn, if you prefer) union between a man and a woman.

Let's not cheapen the abortion issue

It was a surprising essay from our parish priest, Fr. John Boyle, this week. Headline is “Prime Minister Reignites Abortion Debate”. He starts by saying how he has supported the prime minister. He applauds her as the first female prime minister, but has really freaked out at the speech she gave to her womens’ supporter group “Women for Gillard”.

His issue was on brining up abortion. His words were “she has to go!” He notes how she has put gender at the centre of the campaign leading to the September 14 election. He is specially unhappy “of her attempt to gag me [Fr John] from commenting on the rights of the unborn by claiming that ‘abortion again become the plaything of men who think they know better.’”

He continues: “abortion is not a plaything. Such a gender based statement  is a further sign of her divisiveness. It further erodes her support by alienating the Catholic vote and such provocation will mean every bishop in the country will...come out with what will appear as anti-Labor rhetoric.”

It’s a sad day when nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond the reach of politicians who want to cling to power. Now, this includes the topic of abortion. I believe that the PM is clutching at anything that can help her stay in the Lodge. This now includes abortion and letting men decide about how women behave. She has lashed out at men in suits and blue ties.

Funny that the following day Kevin Rudd wore a blue tie. Hmm.

But, I am not here to discuss politics. I want to put forward the Catholic point of view vis-a-vis abortion. And, now as a man who wants to defend the rights of the unborn, I am one of those faceless men who wants to control women’s right to abortion. Really?

First of all, I cannot and will not change a person’s free will. The will to decide on a course of action. It is a God-given right and cannot be taken away. Now, of course, it has to be limited. Otherwise, we all just do what we damn well please. Take someone else’s property, maybe trash it, run red lights, speed, take illegal drugs and so on.

Now, I speak out for the powerless unborn child. Tony Abbott has posited the point made popular by Bill Clinton, abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Notwithstanding his Catholic upbrining and his beliefs, Abbott should know that abortion is not acceptable to the church. I can only surmise that this is a politicians answer. Again, the free will thing cannot be undermined. But, also what about the unborn child? His or her rights.

What about the sancitity of human life?

I just want to voice my sadness, added to that of our parish priest, that abortion is made a play thing of politics. The fact that this is more than anything a state’s issue and not a federal one doesn’t downplay the person who put it up and used it against faceless men (read the likes of Tony Abbott) and you have a crazy sideshow to how cheap human life can be.

Yes, it is now just another pawn in the political mess we are in. I am tempted to add the loss of lives in the boat people issue, but I won’t go there.

I suppose, we should really do what we can only do. Other than vote for the right of a child, pray for these people. After all, He did say, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Me thinks they do and they just don’t give a toss.

You decide.

The announced Royal Commision: some thoughts

My first post on this blog was a result of my frustration at the lack of knowledge of “Catholic” politicians. Not knowing basic tenets of their faith, they unknowingly mouth out stuff against their own faith.

And, it’s on again. This time with the announcement of a Royal Commission on Paedophilia in churches and so on.

Listening to a talkshow, one got the feeling that as it this has to do with protecting children, the Seal of Confession should be dispensed with. The radio host I was listening to talked over a Catholic woman who rang in defence of the Seal. Another “Catholic” who called previously in support of breaking the Seal was given a fair hearing.

And, we have some “Catholic” politicians calling for the Seal to be broken, as well. To be fair, Ted Baillieu is one exception.

Now for some of my thoughts.

These sort of enquiries/commissions can end up as witch hunts. Already murmuring in some sectors call for just concentrating on the Catholic Church. Again, a voice who spoke in defence of the Seal is Andrew Bolt, a non-Catholic. Not only when interviewed did he think that it should be kept sacred but also in several blog posts.

He’s already labelled the effort as a possible witch hunt against the Catholic Church.

Okay, we all love our kids, so we should protect them anyway possible. And, the crime against children is abhorrent, made worse by the status of the perpetrator, be he a priest, religious, person in authority or an older relation. But, destroying an important character of the sacrament is going too far. Yes, the sacrament—one of seven that Jesus Christ instituted while he was on earth.

We heard cries of the “law is above religion”. Well, there is separation of church and state. Religion is not above the law but works with it and is on another plane. After all, did Christ not mean that when he said to give to Caesar (the emperor), what is Caesar’s (the emperor’s) and to God what is God’s. (Ref. Mk 12:17, Lk 20:25) The seal of confession is recognised in law in the UK and many commonwealth countries, in that what is disclosed therein one cannot use such information as evidence. I am not a lawyer, so this is way over my head, suffice to say that there is pretty much common acceptance of the principle, the Irish effort to do otherwise, notwithstanding. And, many countries respect this principle as well.

“We are now in the 21st century, the seal is archaic.” Sacraments were instituted by our Lord for all time. It’s only been two millenia since their institution and archaic they are not. They are living instruments of our faith that will be with us ‘til the end of time. Much as some lefties would have us believe otherwise.

The sacred trust of the penitent and confessor is really akin to client-lawyer privilege, or patient-doctor confidence. The penitent is assured that his sins will not be broadcast to the world. Likewise what a client or patient makes known to his lawyer/doctor. Not only that, in this sacrament, the priest stands in the place of our Lord. So, the sacred nature of the sacrament is even more so, when you put God in the confessional.

As example, the much referred story of St John Nepomucene, confessor to the queen, who would not divulge what he heard in confession to the king (Wenceslaus IV), despite being tortured and in the end killed by drowning on 20 March, 1393. He kept the secret of her confession to his grave.

And, so it is. I see many priests ending up in jail rather than disclosing what they have learned in confession, should the Seal be broken by legislative fiat. A sad day that will be.

There are other points I wanted to discuss, including the prerogative of a confessor to refuse absolution. But, let me end with this thought. If anything the person who will most probably confess is the victim.

A priest I speak with regularly suggests that when this is made known to a priest, he will suggest a talk outside the confessional. There, the priest can make suggestions not bound by the Seal. And, I posit that a paedophile who confesses his/her sins will need to have a firm purpose of amendment to merit absolution. Also, that person can be made to report his/her crime to the police as part of the penance.

So, considering all of these points, do we really want to break the Seal of Confession? Break the sacrament Christ founded, kill all sense of secrecy we now enjoy and destroy our trust in its secrecy, I don’t think so.

The Catholic Church: A version from Bishop Fulton J Sheen

A great preacher and catholic apologist, Servant of God, Fulton J Sheen, former Archbishop of Rochester, NY, has put many words to print and even more over the airwaves.

I came across the following text from the website of St Malachys church in NYC. It's worth a read and some contemplation.

What Is The Catholic Church?
 by Bishop Fulton Sheen

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

Marriage Sunday: Let's hear it for Marriage

You have to hand it to our Parish Priest, John Boyle. He really is good with his homilies. To introduce Marriage Sunday, inter alia, he referred to the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, as a single parent. It's a twist on that oft told story that I never considered.

While he (Fr Boyle) spoke mostly on the parable, which was after all the gospel, he did speak about Marriage and its sanctity.

Many marriages, regretfully, end in divorce or separation. But, that doesn't mean that the state (or rather the vocation to wedded life) is finished, or not something today's singles strive for.

It is still the best state for a family and for raising children.

I must admit that the Same Sex Adoption bill passing through NSW Parliament is a win for those pushing to have same sex unions recognised as "marriage". And, like many things which the normal order of things has been changed for various reasons, political correctness included, it's a slipper slope we now encounter for those who want to keep the millenia old definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

At the risk of offending my friends who are in same sex unions, I must nail my colours to the mast. Marriage should still be that, a union between a man and a woman.

In the political arena, we can take some consolation that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do not want to introduce a bill to recognise same sex unions as marriage. Well, so far.

After all Labor now has the Greens on their loose coalition and one of their platforms is to have same sex marriages, we can only wait and see.

And, if I remember that Senator Bob Brown in an effusive mood, after announcing the "coalition" with the Labor government, expounded on some of things not agreed on with the latter. One of these was same sex marriages. And, he said that it’s time has come, citing as an example what is already law in Catholic Spain.

I wonder if he has referring to the 15th century under the rule of Isabella and Ferdinand, referred to as “Isabel, la católica” and “Fernando, el católico”, respectively. As, the current Madrid government is separate from the Catholic Church's heirarchy. And, the law was passed by that government against the Church's wishes.

Well, we live in interesting times. The present "hung parliament" and the current government still has to get rolling and whether the Greens will push this agendum together with its environmental agenda is still to be seen.

If we still consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9), let's hear it for Marriage. Let's support those who plan to marry, are married and especially those that aspire to the sacrament of Matrimony.

After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church p. 96).

So, to those in the state or about to step into the state of marriage, hear, hear.

Catholics believe in reincarnation...what?

The current federal election has been very tempting to commment on. However, I have refrained from doing so, until today.

A throw-away line in a morning news program really got me thinking about a number of things. The line was in relation to Tony Abbott's saying that "Work Choices" was dead and buried, in fact cremated.

The speaker said something along the lines that well, Abbott, who is catholic, believed in reincarnation, so who knows what can happen if electred. Wow. As a practising catholic, I couldn't believe my ears.

I didn't realise that we are supposed to believe in reincarnation.

Was the speaker talking about another religion. I don't think so. Abbott has always been fair game (as any politician is considered public property). And, the criticism of this man is not only about his past, but things like his "budgie smuggler" outfit. Not sure why this is a problem, as I believe he is a life guard and that's what life guards wear.

But, his religion is also considered fair game. Now, I personally think that the press should draw the line at faith (or lack of it). As an aside, I wonder why the PM's lack of faith is sacred. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Tempted as I am to comment further, I will refrain.

Going back to the line on reincarnation. A dictionary definition is "the rebirth of a soul in a new body". Did the speaker really think that this was part of Catholic teaching? Did he confuse the church with some other religion or belief? Or, did he mean "resurrection".

Ah, that word is in the last sentence of the Creed, recited during mass and is a prayer itself. Resurrection of the dead is a teaching of the faith. Something that we believe will happen on the last day.

Big difference. Resurrection is rising from the dead. It is not reincarnation, which is totally different.

Hopefully, it was just a slip of the tongue. Though the speaker had a law backgroundand should have known the difference.

Still let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Or should we? Stuff like this given out by the fourth estate is in my opinion not acceptable. Get your facts right before you report.

And, especially when it concerns something personal and important as a person's faith. One should be doubly careful.

The memo from the UK Foreign Office on the Pope: some thoughts

I was just reading some comments on the UK's Foreign Office memo on what the Pope should do on his forthcoming visit to that country. This was, in my opinion, not only insensitive by insulting.

According to Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph on his post the day after the memo was published (26 April, 2010):

Then I read the story and it turned out that this wasn’t, after all, a back-of-the-envelope note circulated at some boring forward planning meeting for the papal visit, as the gag about the Pope doing forward rolls seemed to suggest, or a bad-taste email to cheer up the office. These were “far-fetched” elements of a memo circulated to top civil servants around Whitehall, by members of the Papal Visit Team, along with an asking-for-it instruction: “Please protect; this should not be shared externally.” Hell, a note like that is tantamount to removing the little word “not” and begging for trouble.

And, he notes further:

It reflects, though, something of the mood of embarrassment in political circles about the Pope’s visit; you could sense it when the party leaders were asked about it during their debate. What we seem to miss in all this is that Pope Benedict didn’t just invite himself to Britain. Gordon Brown formally asked him to come when he visited the Vatican last February. Indeed, the Prime Minister wrote in the Catholic weekly The Tablet recently: “What struck me most that day was his personal kindness, for when he did me the honour of granting me an audience, he also insisted on welcoming my wife Sarah and our two boys. Naturally, Britain’s Catholics will feel a particular joy and pride in the Holy Father’s visit. My message is that that sense of joy should extend to people of all faiths and none.”

Then, a few days later when the leader of the head of the team in charge of the Papal visit was revealed, he notes that there are people in the Catholic heirarchy who are not happy with the visit and that "the Catholic Church in this country [the United Kingdom} is (a) not wildly enthusiastic about Benedict XVI, and (b) paralysed by political correctness."

Political Correctness, wow. If that's true, it's really sad that PC is so pervasive, common courtesy and politeness is now out the window.

Now, reflecting on the FO's memo and say the memo were on the visit of the leading Imam from a foreign country, I wonder what the memo would read. Let me posit this, probably super politically-correct to the point of being obsequous.

Thompson further said that "the four-strong FO team was led by a member of an ethnic minority and included a gay man. There’s nothing wrong with that: they could have done a fantastic job, particularly if the team had included a practising Catholic (perhaps from an ethnic community – they’re the ones who go to Mass these days). But they didn’t." He comments on the members of the heirarchy, especially a monsignor. I will not comment on that as this is not within the points I wanted to put forward.

If you, dear reader, had any doubt that the negative sentiment against the Pope, the Catholic Church and its members, including the heirarchy does not exists, please open your eyes.

The head of the FO team was put on other duties. I'm not sure if he was even reprimanded.

According to the Daily Mail Online post of 28 April:

Mr Noorani, 31, is far more senior than the Foreign Office has made out. Officials desperate to limit the damage have tried to play down his role, insisting he was merely a junior worker who acted without any authority.

But in fact Mr Noorani's title is 'Head of Papal Visit Team' and he is in charge of the staff preparing for the visit.

Until 2007, he was the press secretary at the British embassy in Moscow, trusted to handle delicate relations during the crisis over the poisoning of dissident Alexanda Litvinenko.

So, a high ranking FO member and no rebuke.

I am really stumped, what do you think?