Catholic Truth readers see nothing wrong with gay marriage.
Catholic Truth Scotland has flattered me by placing a prominent, front-page link to my recent post on Archbishop Vincent Nichols’ Balanced, Sane Response to Gay Marriage”, using it to introduce their on-line poll.
Go ahead, vote. When I did, I found the response was that
So: 13% see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and a further 73% say “all of the above” - they see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and also believe that the bishops are afraid of unpopularity, or have skeletons in cupboards.
All told, 86% 0f CTS readers see nothing wrong with gay marriage (and, truth be told, neither do the majority of all Catholics, in Scotland, the rest of the UK, Australia or the USA ). But coming from CTS, this result really is a surprise. Still, it’s good to see CTS publicising widespread Catholic support for equality and inclusion.
Catholic Truth readers - doomed to hell?
An article in the November edition alleges that Fr Graham Bell, a Catholic priest in Saltcoats, Galloway, has told his congregation from the pulpit that readers of CTS are doomed to hell.
A shocked reader rang us on 4th August to tell us that a priest of Galloway Diocese, ministering in one of the seaside resorts that had, hitherto, been my favourite haunt on the Ayrshire coast, had publicly stated during Mass that morning that all who contribute to and read Catholic Truth are going to Hell.
Is he right? Some moderate or progressive Catholics might be inclined to agree, but I dissent. Fr Bell is far too harsh in his judgement. CTS and its readers are surely not bound for hell - only the looney bin.
When I see articles in it attacking the Scottish bishops for their laxity in opposing gay marriage, or the Catholic Herald, for not being sufficiently orthodox in supporting orthodox Catholic families, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Progressive Catholic News in Catholic Truth Scotland.
There is in fact good material to be read in CTS, if you approach it selectively. Ignore the lunacy - some of that is fun, but of no real consequence. Look instead, for the more progressive church news. (Clue: look for the howls of outrage. That’s where you’ll find it.)
I was pleased to learn that Bishop Murphy of Kerry had invited Professor Tom Groome to address a Religious Education Congress in Kerry.
Bishop Murphy of Kerry, invited Professor Tom Groome, a pro-“gay”, prowomen’s ordination former priest who rejects Catholic doctrine on papal authority and just about everything else,to “educate” his priests and teachers during a Religious Education Congress in Kerry, 7-9 October.
CTS may be horrified, but in support for gay Catholics and women’s ordination, and in questioning Vatican doctrine on papal authority, Groome is not alone. A sizeable proportion of professional Catholic theologians, and the majority of ordinary lay Catholics, would agree with him. CTS is scandalized that he has a mandatum from the Archbishop of Boston - but it is the reactionaries, not Mr Groome, who are out of step with the Church.
I was also greatly encouraged by a letter, prominently displayed, which makes an important point about orthodox Catholic doctrine. This letter had been sent by the superior of a community of religious sisters to the distributors of “Rescue”, an anti-abortion magazine. In the letter, Sr Margarita Byron expresses concerns over its overtly homophobic content:
the latest “Rescue” magazine had a photo of people holding a banner saying that homosexuality is sinful. It isn’t. It’s a fact. You and the magazine’s editors are, no doubt, of the opinion that homosexual acts are sinful. That being so, that is what should have been clearly conveyed. It is too easy to be careless with unjust and hurtful speech.
I would be grateful if you would no longer deliver “Rescue” to our home.
Sr Bryant is correct. Catholic teaching is clear that there is no sin in “homosexuality”, and that Catholics are to avoid all forms of violence or malice, in actions or in speech. But the letter is presented as if this simple Catholic orthodoxy is somehow an example of scandal among congregations of religious women.
No wonder that Fr Bell has suggested that readers of Catholic Truth Scotland are doomed to hell.
What an amazing misreading of our opinion poll ( and just about everything else you mention from our newsletter). Unbelievable . The opinion poll was asking why THE ENGLISH BISHOPS refuse to condemn “gay” marriage and the possible reasons were that THE ENGLISH BISHOPS think nothing wrong with it, THE ENGLISH BISHOPS fear being unpopular THE ENGLISH BISHOPS have skeletons in their cupboards, THE ENGLISH BISHOPS are guilty of all of these (and more!) reasons why they are failing to do their duty by condemning the legalisation of homosexual unions, dressed up as marriage. Get it now, Sugar Plum?
A visitor to our website emailed to alert me to the link with your coverage of our opinion poll (no longer active, by the way, because we wanted to canvas views on that other scam, Medjugorje - don’t tell me, you’ve been cured of some deathly disease or the Medjugorje “Lady” has confided to Ivan that she wants “gay” marriage legalised - gimme strength!) and I am totally amazed at how completely confused you are about everything. Also, you could use some help with your reading and writing skills. “Father Graham Bell” should be “Father Graeme Bell” to name but one glaring error. There are others but I’m a busy gal about town and I’m just about due to set out for my nightly pubbing and clubbing spree.
Luv n’ stuff…
Forgot to say that you have also completely misread the piece on Sister’s letter. We all know that there is no sin in the mere orientation towards homosexuality any more than there is any sin in the mere tendency to kleptomania. The point of the piece was to show how quickly these Sisters moved to be taken off the mailing list of a prolife publication because they objected to any hint of criticism of homosexuality, the sin of it, the lifestyle etc etc. Get it now, Sugar Plum?
After all, what are the chances of them there Sisters failing to renew their Tablet subscription? Eggsactly!
Of course there’s plenty more that you’ve misread (assuming you are not deliberately being provocative - as if) and I just don’t have the time to correct all such errors, but I don’t want you going about the place thinking we don’t know what the Church teaches about homosexuality cos we do, Honey Bunch, we definitely do.
YOU - on the other hand - would do well to watch the video we’ve posted online today. One very sound priest spells it out beautifully.
Luv n’ stuff…
Hope you enjoyed your nights pubbing, sweetie-pie.
As a one-time professional researcher, I would just point out that if your option was meant to convey that the bishops think there is nothing wrong, then that is what the option should have said. An elementary rule in composing self-completion questions is to avoid ambiguity.
As for being deliberately provocative - well, I’ve clearly succeeded in winding you up, haven’t I?
Now -
nightie night. Perhaps you’ll feel better in the morning.
Please, please tell me those comments aren’t *actually* from the Editor of CTS. I was just about to leave a comment about how much hope these kinds of posts give me when they show up in my newsfeed; and now I have to read insulting remarks addressed repeatedly to ‘Sugar Plum’? (Thanks, EditorCT, for at least leaving the rest of the moniker implied; perhaps God will count it as a very meagre measure of compassion.)
Terence, thank you for always striving to provide the positive side of the battle.
EditorCT… meh. I really have nothing to say to you, but if you’d like to grace me with an epithet of my very own, I’ll wear it proudly. I promise.
Julian, I call EVERYONE “Sugar Plum” “Honey Bunch” and other affectionate names - I’ve found, especially in debating, that it helps me avoid the temptation to call them by the less friendly names which may sometimes come to mind, such as “idiot” or “clown” or even worse, would you believe.
OK, Sweetie Pie? (Smile!)
ps true compassion is concern for the salvation of souls. Those who are “sympathetic” to our sinful state but shy clear of warning us of our spiritual danger, are far from compassionate. Comprenez?
I was one of the 73% of voters who agree that the bishops of RC Britain are afraid to condemn homosexual practices as they are afraid of becoming unpopular or think that here is nothing wrong with it and I agreed these things because I am ashamed of their attitude as they are there to speak out the truth and lead souls to heaven.They also may have skeletons in the cupboard.. you bet,what wth all the scandals in the church.
I like Catholic Truth because it is not afraid to teach the truth in the face of constant ridicule from people like yourself who do not use your God-given brain to see what is happening in this morally corrupt country of ours.
God help us if they allow same-sex marriage in Scotland. What an abomination and a perversion.
Economic and moral bankruptcy go together.
Thank you Bridgetta for your kind words about Catholic Truth (by the way, folks, it’s NOT Catholic Truth Scotland just Catholic Truth…)
Right, Julian. Seeing as you ask so nicely, I would love to tell you: “Those comments aren’t really from the editor of “Catholic Truth Scotland” - but I’d be lying. As far as I can tell, they are. Really.
I’m pleased that you appreciate my “striving to provide the positive side of the battle”. It doesn’t always feel like it, especially not with the nonsense spouted in opposition to marrriage equality, but I really do try to avoid simply getting angry over the bad news, and to promote the good. I’m glad that you noticed.
Terence, I’ve been expecting an apology for you for misrepresenting our poll. Please and thank you. I’m waiting.
And I’m totally shocked that you concluded your article by endorsing the view of Fr Graeme Bell that all who read and contribute to Catholic Truth are going to Hell. Unbelievable that any Catholic, let alone a priest, should make such a public statement. How can you endorse such a shocking statement? I look forward to your reply. Please and thank you.
Lambkins, I most certainly did not misrepresent your poll. You did an excellent job of that yourself, by presenting your result as “Nothing wrong with it”, and not “They see nothing wrong with it. As I explained before, the wording of research questions must at all times avoid ambiguity, and so must the presentation of results. If you do not do so, you must accept the consequences of people interpreting you words as they appear, and not as you intend.
Nor did I agree with Fr Bell that CTS readers are doomed to hell. On that, I was quite explicit:
Lambkins, I most certainly did not misrepresent your poll. You did an excellent job of that yourself, by presenting your result as “Nothing wrong with it”, and not “They see nothing wrong with it. As I explained before, the wording of research questions must at all times avoid ambiguity, and so must the presentation of results. If you do not do so, you must accept the consequences of people interpreting you words as they appear, and not as you intend.
It would never occur to me to condemn anyone to hell: it is not my habit even to judge, let alone criticize, another’s moral standards - only their viewpoints or reasoning. (Quite unlike some lunatic fringe Catholics, who regularly tell me on-line that I am destined for eternal fire, or even in league with demons (quite untrue, by the way)).
There is one apology that is perhaps in order though, allied to the observation about making one’s meaning clear in formulating and reporting research questions, and it is this:
For not making it sufficiently clear, sweetie-pie, that the entire post was taking the mick, and not an attack on your integrity - I apologise.
Terry, chum, I’m back looking for that apology. Where is it?
And come to that, where are the other three comments? It reads “10 comments” up there at the top of the article, but there are only 7 below - were the other three just too near the bone for you?
Come on, we want an open, transparent society, don’t we? No censorship? Aza waiting our Terry. Aza waiting, for that apology and the missing comments. Like, NOW!
This might just be me, ‘cos I’m still young, but you’re making this an incredibly hostile environment, and I would like it very much if you stopped talking like that, please. I don’t really think it’s needed.
(Just in case it’s hard to tell via text, I’m not meaning to be sarcastic, or condescending, or anything like that. I am being sincere and trying my best not to phrase it in a bad way.)
That’s OK - I forgive you…
As I have already explained lambkins, there is no apology due - other than the one I have already given. I have no idea why there is a discrepancy between the stated number of comments and those displayed. I assure you, I do NOT censor comments - other than obvious spam. However, when comments turn hostile, as yours are starting to do, my approach is to publish, but ignore them.
I now understand why there is the discrepancy on the number of comments, and why you are still demanding an apology after I had explained there is none required. It’s not due to any censorship, as you assume, but to a misfiring in the Disqus comment system. The “missing” comments are my own - that I placed directly from the WordPress dashboard, and that Disqus has simply ignored, for its own peculiar reasons.
This is what I wrote, immediately after your first demand for an apology:
Lambkins, I most certainly did not misrepresent your poll. You did an excellent job of that yourself, by presenting your result as “Nothing wrong with it”, and not “They see nothing wrong with it. As I explained before, the wording of research questions must at all times avoid ambiguity, and so must the presentation of results. If you do not do so, you must accept the consequences of people interpreting you words as they appear, and not as you intend.Nor did I agree with Fr Bell that CTS readers are doomed to hell. On that, I was quite explicit:Lambkins, I most certainly did not misrepresent your poll. You did an excellent job of that yourself, by presenting your result as “Nothing wrong with it”, and not “They see nothing wrong with it. As I explained before, the wording of research questions must at all times avoid ambiguity, and so must the presentation of results. If you do not do so, you must accept the consequences of people interpreting you words as they appear, and not as you intend.Nor did I agree with Fr Bell that CTS readers are doomed to hell.It would never occur to me to condemn anyone to hell: it is not my habit even to judge, let alone criticize, another’s moral standards – only their viewpoints or reasoning. (Quite unlike some lunatic fringe Catholics, who regularly tell me on-line that I am destined for eternal fire, or even in league with demons (quite untrue, by the way)).There is one apology that is perhaps in order though, allied to the observation about making one’s meaning clear in formulating and reporting research questions, and it is this:For not making it sufficiently clear, sweetie-pie, that the entire post was taking the mick, and not an attack on your integrity – I apologise.
Forgot to say thanks for the apology I DIDN’T ask for - and for calling me “sweetie-pie”! That’s fairly made my day. Next time I’m nominated for the Bigot of the Year Award, I’m going to cite you as a witness in my defence, Terence, we’re now, officially, blog-buddies.
I’m very surprised to be saying this, but agreed. Blog buddies we are, lambchops.
Luv ‘n stuff
Terry
OK Terence, let me say that I accept your criticism of the wording of the poll. You are correct in that, ideally, the wording should be crystal clear so that there is no room for misunderstanding the question. Our software doesn’t allow for too many words, without looking untidy or unless the font is so tiny it is almost impossible to read. So (wrongly, as it turned out) I thought our readers would realise from the wording of the question, that the options referred to the people mentioned in the question - i.e. the English bishops. Hence, I presumed they would realise that we were asking the following:
Why are the English Bishops refusing to condemn “gay marriage”? Is it because (missing word(s) in parenthesis)
(they) think there is nothing wrong with it
(they are) afraid of unpopularity
(they have) skeletons in their cupboards
All of the above
The above is what was originally on the poll in preview. Using the desired font, the words were all over the place. The smaller font (I thought) was too small. So I chose instead to presume a certain level of (let’s not call it “intelligence” since I’m in a benign mood today) - a certain level of appreciation that I was pushed for space and had omitted “they”, assuming everyone would realise that I meant the English Bishops, i.e. “they”.
So, OK, I grant you, I was wrong to make that assumption. I should have opted for the smaller font!
Giant piece of humble pie duly consumed.
Allow me, then, to apologise to YOU for making any assumption at all of, er, “appreciation” on your part…
Well - thank you. And allow me to make one final apology - for any imputation of hostility on your part. I can now see what appeared to me to be petulance at an inadequate apology, was simply impatience at not receiving the explanation I had proferred, but was swallowed by Disqus.
Hostilities may now cease. I lay down my arms.