Bishops given 21 days to defend pastoral letter on marriage

[_Abyssinia]

HOBART Archbishop Julian Porteous has defended his right to explain the Church’s teachings on marriage following a notification that the distribution of a pastoral letter could be a breach of Tasmania’s anti-discrimination laws.
Archbishop Porteous today received notification that a complaint raised by a Federal Greens candidate that a booklet produced by the Australian Catholic Bishops, Don’t Mess with Marriage, and sent to Catholic schools in Tasmania had been viewed as a possible breach on the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
The Australian Bishops have also been named as respondents.

catholicleader.com.au/news/bishops-given-21-days-to-defend-pastoral-letter-on-marriage

 

[JonNC]

catholicleader.com.au/news/bishops-given-21-days-to-defend-pastoral-letter-on-marriage

Bishop Porteous has my prayers

Jon

 

[JimG]

Given the rejection of religious liberty, Catholic moral doctrine might become illegal in other places as well.

 

[peter26]

This is chilling.

 

[HCTC]

In my humble opinion, what Bishop Porteous does not accept or acknowledge is that homosexuality is not always a choice. Although I think that it is entirely possible that someone might choose to engage in homosexual acts, I believe that, generally, people who adopt a homosexual lifestyle do not do so as a matter of choice. Rather, in my opinion, homosexuality is the result of diversity in creation. Accepting that homosexuality, generally, is not a personal preference choice, does not preclude opposition to ssm marriage; but accepting that it is not a choice should make it easy to understand how vociferous opposition would “offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule” those engaged in ssm because such opposition denies their humanity - even if that is not the intention,

 

[JimG]

In my humble opinion, what Bishop Porteous does not accept or acknowledge is that homosexuality is not always a choice. Although I think that it is entirely possible that someone might choose to engage in homosexual acts, I believe that, generally, people who adopt a homosexual lifestyle do not do so as a matter of choice. Rather, in my opinion, homosexuality is the result of diversity in creation. Accepting that homosexuality, generally, is not a personal preference choice, does not preclude opposition to ssm marriage; but accepting that it is not a choice should make it easy to understand how vociferous opposition would “offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule” those engaged in ssm because such opposition denies their humanity - even if that is not the intention,

The Church, as far as I know, makes no assumptions whatever that any kind of attractions or temperament or ‘orientation’ is a choice. But a “lifestyle?” Any lifestyle is a choice.

 

[dmar198]

In my humble opinion, what Bishop Porteous does not accept or acknowledge is that homosexuality is not always a choice. Although I think that it is entirely possible that someone might choose to engage in homosexual acts, I believe that, generally, people who adopt a homosexual lifestyle do not do so as a matter of choice. Rather, in my opinion, homosexuality is the result of diversity in creation. Accepting that homosexuality, generally, is not a personal preference choice, does not preclude opposition to ssm marriage; but accepting that it is not a choice should make it easy to understand how vociferous opposition would “offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule” those engaged in ssm because such opposition denies their humanity - even if that is not the intention,

I think I must be misunderstanding you. It sounds like you are saying that people who enter romantic same-sex relationships don’t have a choice and have to do that. But I don’t think you can mean that, because it’s silly: anyone can choose whether or not they want to date someone or not. If a guy with same-sex attraction meets another guy, he doesn’t have to date him. What am I missing?

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t really understand what point of the law would require the Bishops to ‘defend’ the letter. Same sex marriage is illegal in Australia for many of the reasons explained in the letter. It does not meet the definitions of marriage by law.

There are no discriminatory ideas or words attached to homosexuality itself… in fact the letter is pretty much a defense of the value and rights of homosexuals as being equal to everyone else. Here is a link to the booklet… sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf

The good thing about the action, is that it has made the booklet very widely read outside the Church and if the action is dismissed, it will be a defining document in law.

I really can’t see how the action could be successful at all. My prayers go up for the Catholic Bishops and their defense though.

 

[HCTC]

I don’t really understand what point of the law would require the Bishops to ‘defend’ the letter. Same sex marriage is illegal in Australia for many of the reasons explained in the letter. It does not meet the definitions of marriage by law.

There are no discriminatory ideas or words attached to homosexuality itself… in fact the letter is pretty much a defense of the value and rights of homosexuals as being equal to everyone else. Here is a link to the booklet… sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf

The good thing about the action, is that it has made the booklet very widely read outside the Church and if the action is dismissed, it will be a defining document in law.

I really can’t see how the action could be successful at all. My prayers go up for the Catholic Bishops and their defense though.

Thanks for the link. I had not read the booklet.

 

[pnewton]

I really can’t see how the action could be successful at all. My prayers go up for the Catholic Bishops and their defense though.

Maybe this is a case where there is more news to the news industry than in reality. If there is no procedure or safeguard against frivolous complaints, then politicians may use the process to gain free press, which is what seems to be happening here.

 

[pnewton]

Accepting that homosexuality, generally, is not a personal preference choice, does not preclude opposition to ssm marriage; but accepting that it is not a choice should make it easy to understand how vociferous opposition would “offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule” those engaged in ssm because such opposition denies their humanity - even if that is not the intention,

So much for tolerance, which is usually a one-way street. You are probably correct, but what a shame that homosexual activist become so rabid over those who do not agree with some new, unproven psychological theory.

 

[CuriousMike]

SSM in and of itself is illegal in Australia.

However the Labor Government (Rudd) from 2007 onwards DID change a number of laws that remove all descrimination against SS couples/persons. Effectively, the country has SSM, but it is NOT called SSM.
(Wiki link - not the best source, but gives an idea: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Plibersek#LGBT_rights)

If people are fighting for mere words… Sheesh. That is disappointing. I see this like Intel trying to copyright numbers used to designate their processors in the 1990s.

And in all honesty - a lot of LGBT persons are not in any way religious. Why should a document explaining Church teaching be viewed as “offensive.”

If they don’t believe there is a God, why are His teachings hurting them?

I see this almost as Adam and Eve hiding from God in the Garden of Eden. They are afraid of being ‘found out.’ Its something of a bad analogy, but perhaps some others might understand what I’m attempting to say?

Please pray for Bishop Porteous - It sounds like he is in this for the good battle and is trying to give people the correct teaching of the Church, rather than the media’s wishy-washy “If two people love each other” rubbish.