“There has been a bit of mischievous talk in newspapers, or Catholic newspapers I should say, and subsequently on websites I understand - I don’t spend a lot of time looking at them."
- His Grace, the Archbishop of Wesminter, Vincent Nichols
Lol I wonder what that means. I think it's very bad taste to assume people are lying. John Smeaton taught me to always take what clerics say at face value and not read in mental reservations or read out any lies - to do anything else is disrespectful.
It's a shame that he doesn't read the blogs a lot. They're a pretty important influence on the Church in this country now, I'd say.
Also it's a shame because if you look beneath the angry veneer of the big few widely read blogs, there's a lot of love, concern and respect for +Nichols and the others. The anger and frustration is about accountability and transparency in teaching the Faith. The anger's nothing to do with the men, and indeed if/when it comes to it the angry people on the internet, the professional thorns in the sides etc - they will be the first and loudest to defend the bishops and perhaps even to die for them if it comes to it. If any of the other bishops are reading this, we DO love you.
Ioannes! (to indicate that this is Paul bigging up his dad)
I am so pleased the Archishop has better things to do than to read the purposely mischievous interpretations of his words in defence of Catholic marriage. It is amazing how unsupportive and critical so many Catholcs are of their fathers in God. The way they seek any means of tripping them up, claiming any attempt to reach out to those in difficulty as an assault on the Faith. The scribes and pharisees are certainly alive and living in the blogosphere.
Our Lord said to the scribes and pharisees that they locked up the kingdom of heaven to others and did not walk in themselves.
I would argue that people who distort the truth or mislead others about what is gravely sinful, what could lead to a person's damnation, such as active homosexual relationships are doing exactly that.
The question is still - who does the judging? In the Catholic church we don't behave like Protestants and take our interpretation of the law into our own hands. Instead we accept authority, knowing that the Holy Father has placed our Archbishop in his position and will, no doubt, be counselling him should that be needed. Gash comments, by those who show a propensity to find fault, lead many more astray than any possible interpretation of the words of the Archbishop.
Fred: I suggest you read the comments on William Oddie's blog. I think you will find that they are not attacking +VN's support of marriage but the very ambiguous statements he has made about civil partnerships. There seems to be a consensus from one extreme to another - from queeringthechurch.com and the Tablet to conservative or traditionalist Catholics that somehow he has given the thumbs up to civil partnerships which most people see as sexually active. I believe that in doing that he is undermining his very laudable aim of supporting marriage.
But Fred when there is an apparent direct conflict between what the Papacy is saying through the CDF and what the Archbishop is saying what does one do?
The CDF wrote in 2003:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.
The Archbishop instead of opposing those homosexual unions appears to be saying that they should be recognised as showing commitment.
...I might have ruffled a few feathers on Dr Oddie's blog by suggesting there is possibly a conspiracy against His Grace by those who recommended that he follow this "CPs are ok" line...
'Anonymous' comments will not be displayed. Please use your name or a pseudonym. If you wish to comment then I ask that you maintain a measure of good will. If you are unable to do so, then please go elsewhere.
Lol I wonder what that means. I think it's very bad taste to assume people are lying. John Smeaton taught me to always take what clerics say at face value and not read in mental reservations or read out any lies - to do anything else is disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame that he doesn't read the blogs a lot. They're a pretty important influence on the Church in this country now, I'd say.
Also it's a shame because if you look beneath the angry veneer of the big few widely read blogs, there's a lot of love, concern and respect for +Nichols and the others. The anger and frustration is about accountability and transparency in teaching the Faith. The anger's nothing to do with the men, and indeed if/when it comes to it the angry people on the internet, the professional thorns in the sides etc - they will be the first and loudest to defend the bishops and perhaps even to die for them if it comes to it. If any of the other bishops are reading this, we DO love you.
Ioannes! (to indicate that this is Paul bigging up his dad)
I am so pleased the Archishop has better things to do than to read the purposely mischievous interpretations of his words in defence of Catholic marriage. It is amazing how unsupportive and critical so many Catholcs are of their fathers in God. The way they seek any means of tripping them up, claiming any attempt to reach out to those in difficulty as an assault on the Faith. The scribes and pharisees are certainly alive and living in the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteFred,
ReplyDeleteOur Lord said to the scribes and pharisees that they locked up the kingdom of heaven to others and did not walk in themselves.
I would argue that people who distort the truth or mislead others about what is gravely sinful, what could lead to a person's damnation, such as active homosexual relationships are doing exactly that.
The question is still - who does the judging? In the Catholic church we don't behave like Protestants and take our interpretation of the law into our own hands. Instead we accept authority, knowing that the Holy Father has placed our Archbishop in his position and will, no doubt, be counselling him should that be needed. Gash comments, by those who show a propensity to find fault, lead many more astray than any possible interpretation of the words of the Archbishop.
ReplyDeleteFred: I suggest you read the comments on William Oddie's blog. I think you will find that they are not attacking +VN's support of marriage but the very ambiguous statements he has made about civil partnerships. There seems to be a consensus from one extreme to another - from queeringthechurch.com and the Tablet to conservative or traditionalist Catholics that somehow he has given the thumbs up to civil partnerships which most people see as sexually active. I believe that in doing that he is undermining his very laudable aim of supporting marriage.
ReplyDeleteBut Fred when there is an apparent direct conflict between what the Papacy is saying through the CDF and what the Archbishop is saying what does one do?
ReplyDeleteThe CDF wrote in 2003:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.
The Archbishop instead of opposing those homosexual unions appears to be saying that they should be recognised as showing commitment.
...I might have ruffled a few feathers on Dr Oddie's blog by suggesting there is possibly a conspiracy against His Grace by those who recommended that he follow this "CPs are ok" line...
ReplyDeleteOn WOMAN'S HOUR yesterday, awkward moment when one of the Catholic Voices was reminded by the presenter of +Vincent's support for civil partnerships!
ReplyDelete