As I mentioned last night the Catholic Bishops have published a leaflet on marriage yesterday. Except it’s not really about marriage is it?
The full contents are now available to read on their website.
There is loads of stuff in this to poke holes in but let’s not forget that the church are trying to change the message from the mess they have been in for years – well some of them are anyway – it’s no mistake that Diarmuid Martin was not around at the launch of this yesterday – I don’t think he supports the publication or the contents given his previous statements on it.
And the last paragraph is very interesting
What should I do?
Contact your TD or a member of the Seanad.
Write to, email or text your local media.Debate the issue.
These are important matters about marriage and the family and about respect for freedom of conscience. These proposals should not go unchallenged.
“Debate the issue” – is that why the PR has been published on a downloadable pdf and there isn’t anywhere on their site to debate the issue. Like a blog perhaps!
Ridiculous – they think they’re untouchable and that they can just release this nonsense and presume that us, their little sheep, will just follow and not question it.
Of course they don’t want to debate the issue, there isn’t any plausible and real argument for a refusal to accept the civil partnership bill.
This morning’s Women’s Hour on BBC Radio 4 this morning had a debate on civil partnership versus same-sex marriage (it’s the first item on the programme). The issue was the denial of access to civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples, but it was a point made in the debate that made me go “Thank you GLEN so much, for your insightful strategy. Not.”
I detected a hint of what will come when the Civil Partnership Bill becomes law and campaigners then move to have the ban on same-sex marriage lifted. One of the panelists on the programme used the fact that gay campaigners had sought civil unions to meet their needs, particularly where inheritance wwould be an issue. The message was clear: the gay community’s leaders had not sought equality, therefore it isn’t needed.
They aren’t so stupid to really want a debate are they?
Surely “the issue” is how utterly devoid of moral authority the institution has become and how the present generation of old men has destroyed the church rather than ameliorated the situation. Not only has the church committed abuse against children and covered it up, the present leadership of the institution has sought to obfuscate the State, avoid admission of guilt, shift the blame to ‘families’, etc…. what a wonderful exemplar of moral leadership for young people to follow!
Oh this is too easy!
In the Irish Independent today David Quinn claims that christians will experience some sort of racism stemming from how the Government will treat them after the introduction of Civil Partnership. Racism? Really? Are serious? Separate toilets for Christians?
He terms this as the “price” christians will pay for this legislation … mind you he also regard the leaflet and statements by the bishops as being the beginning of the institution’s fight back… hmm … “Something, something darkside…” (title of Family Guy spoof on Star Wars)
The faux concern over “civil status” appearing on documents is laughable, considering that much of this has vanished from non legal documentation anyway due to concerns over its possible use to discriminate under existing equality laws. (Sort of a don’t-ask-don’t-tell response.)
My worry here is that civil partnerships will be used as a convenient way of distracting Ireland and the world from the very serious concerns over the churches failure to be accountable for its part in protecting those raping and torturing children in its care. The knee jerk reaction to Archbishop Martins efforts to be accountable and the Vaticans lip service to the issue are already embarassing and its unsurprising that the church looks for something else to whip.
No single bigger threat to the family was the grotesque pricing out of the family out of residential property during the celtic tiger, yet the church remained almost silent. And are they deadly serious when they worry about protecting one vulnerable group over another? Surely that is done by policies such as welfare ones on a day to day basis without a whisper from the church in opposition? Besides, siblings etc who live together already have some de facto legal protection. The thing about church halls is sheer rubbish and invented by a vexatious interest.
Fascinated by the analysis re: Diarmuid Martin and the rest of the hierarchy…this site is si well-known for insightful ecclesiastical analysis it must be true.
stick to what you know dear and leave the complicated stuff for others…