Caroline Farrow on Question Time

Do watch Caroline Farrow's brave and concerted defence of traditional marriage against its redefinition by the UK Government. It is 40.00 mins in.

Well done to her for standing up for marriage and the teaching of the Church.

You can read Caroline's account of her evening at Question Time here.

News just in. After her performance on Question Time, Caroline will be on ITV News, I believe, at 6pm and 10pm tonight.


viterbo said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ok so let's get this right:
This is the 'Catholic' teaching being defended?

a] Catholic marriage is not about love it's about children and all those couples who can't conceive are lesser second-rate spouses in a reluctantly permissible but third-rate relationship?

b] we don't necessarily oppose gay adoption BUT WE DO oppose adoption?[the arguments used were identical to Polly Toynbee's argument as to why abortion is better than adoption!]

c] we don't oppose civil partnerships?

d] that we really believe this will lead to , let alone that we should care about, the disestablishment of the Church of England?

or Ivereigh's doozies this morning
that although we promise our spouse and Christ to be gracefully accepting of children should they arise - we can marry without wanting them and deliberately not having them!!!??
...and that technically Our Lady & St Joseph were not really married?!!

NEWS TO ME Laurence!

Now I certainly don't mind anyone taking a stand and defending Catholic teaching.

But I certainly DO MIND when it's not Catholic teaching but many uninformed others [within or without the Church] do believe it....
The Bones said…
Hi Paul, I agree with your points, but let us at least commend a Catholic who has put her neck on the line for marriage and the Church.
Neck on the line?

When a Catholic misrepresents Church teaching on marriage by saying it's about children there comes the natural response 'well you allow the infertile and menopausal to marry so what's the difference between them and homosexuals'?
And Catholics are seen as being unjustifiably discriminatorily homophobic and hypocritical.

When someone in distress is opting for adoption only to be [inadvertently] told - by a Catholic - just how cruel it is - depriving a child of its natural rights and dignity...

When we were forced to close down our sdoption agencies due to gay couple adoption and a Catholic says they are not 'per se' against gay adoption...

and when we repeatedly hear non-opposition to civil partnerships despite Pope Benedict and the Conference of bishops ordering us to STRONGLY oppose them?

We have problems...problems aggravated and compounded because Church teaching is being transmitted shabbily and shoddily and many who just might possibly have listened to the real cogent, coherent arguments the Church produces - will now close their ears - thinking they already know what we have to say on the issues and we're just simply wrong...

It doesn't promote dialogue or discussion or discernment - it strangles it before it even starts...
The Bones said…
Yes Paul all very true, but there was much in Mrs Farrow's defence of marriage which was laudable and praiseworthy.

That you overlook that is plain sad. Sorry, but that's the truth from where I'm sitting.

Perhaps when Question Time is in your town you'll stand up and be counted in the manner you see fit.
gentlemind said…
"When a Catholic misrepresents Church teaching on marriage by saying it's about children there comes the natural response 'well you allow the infertile and menopausal to marry so what's the difference between them and homosexuals'?"

What does this mean? Caroline used the term, "Child-centric", and that seems to me to be a very good way of describing the unique importance of marriage.
What I see as just plain sad is a car-crash being depicted as a brave heroic struggle by a lone voice against a mob...

But I suppose my real underlying motive must be simple animosity and jealousy - not the fact that I witnessed with increasing incredulity 4.000 years of Judaeo-Christian teaching on marriage circling the plughole and being made a laughing stock...
Delia said…
I'd like to hear what Paul would have said in that situation. Seriously. I'm getting confused now!
Dennis F said…
Well done to Caroline... except her arguments were contradictory and an attempt to put a more acceptable spin on catholic teaching, and she got trashed by her respondents!
The Bones said…
I think if St Thomas Aquinas was in the room, no matter what reasoned argument is put in front of these people, he'd still get 'trashed by his opponents'.

Both natural reason and faith are being rejected here. Only the dewy eyed delusions of the perversions of 'love' are much evident.

As long as gross evil is being backed up with claims of 'love' (see assisted suicide) you can say anything nowadays.
blondpidge said…
The truth is that marriage is a child-centric institution. The audience laughed at that simple statement of fact as well as another simple assertion of biology namely "where there is a child there is a mother and a father somewhere". The fact that these are seen as contentious statements should tell us much.

Question Time is a political programme. A theological treatise would have be inappropriate on that forum. People are so ignorant that (and I've done 3 media interviews today) any theological reference is responded to with non sequiturs about shellfish.

To convince someone biblically you need longer and a different format. Incidentally local C of E vicar Gavin Ashendon was on the radio earlier on a 1:1 basis. Given 15 minutes to chat with his mate the radio presenter, he did a beautiful job. As have some of the other CVs like Fiona O'Reilly & Fr Edmund Montgomerie today. 1:1 or 2:1 where you have a civilised interlocutor makes all the difference.

But given I've just had my mum on the case telling me that I shouldn't have said anything because I recklessly endangered my safety & my family (she is really worried) when Dimbleby asked who disagreed, maybe I should have sat on my hands?
gentlemind said…
Very well said The Bones. We did not witness truth being represented/misrepresented. We witnessed people who believe that nothing can be true (except the belief that nothing can be true). It's like asking Cassius Clay to land a punch on the jaw of that undefeated boxer, "Thin Air".
The Bones said…
I think you did well, Caroline. I dread to think how I would have responded in the same situation - not so eloquently as you I am sure.

Paul raises interesting points which I am sure are important for the Church's presentation on marriage in the public forum.

I think we should oppose civil partnerships.

I think we should raise the alarm over the disestablishment of the CoE, because clearly it is something people are not considering as a bi-product of the legislation.

We should oppose gay adoption because of the child's needs for the best we can give them and because they should not be raised in a sexually confusing and unhealthy, unnatural environment in terms of their development.

But, I take my hat off to you, since I doubt I could have come up with anything half as coherent as what you said. God bless and well done.
Anonymous said…
No, you were right to contest the absurd, evil lies. You are doing a service to God, His Holy Church, and your husband and children. God bless you.
Anonymous said…
We have no choice in reason or in Faith but to oppose any purported public recognition of or conferral of status upon, intrinsically evil relations. To purport to recognise persons of the same sex to be two "mothers" or two "fathers" to an innocent, defenceless child is an even greater evil, egregious beyond reckoning. We are all responsible to varying degrees when our lawmakers permit, and promote such terrible abuse of a child. We have a duty to protect children from such abuse. Has reason and all recognition of objective truth become anathema in this degenerate society?? Truth, justice and charity outlawed!!
Patricius said…
"I'd like to hear what Paul would have said in that situation. Seriously."

So would I.

I wish I had just one half of the nerve of someone like Caroline.
If someone could do better then all I can say is "Go on! Do it!"
The Bones said…

i don't doubt your motives are good but let us not overlook the good mrs farrow did in speaking out at much personal risk to herself
Donna D said…
She did not do well because she comes across as insincere, which she is - totally insincere. She said Catholics have no objection per se to gay adoption but then was seen grasping at straws to find spurious objections to it. NOT CONVINCING AT ALL.

Theology is not some abstraction, it is rooted in the truth of human experience. Blaming the audience for not being receptive is nonsense, it was the message that was poorly delivered.

Marriage is a child centric institution is not the authentic teaching of the church. Notice that the few references to children during the marriage rite are optional.
The Bones said…
Theology is not rooted in the truth of human experience.

Theology is rooted in the truth of God.
blondpidge said…
Actually Donna I did not mention the Catholic position or expound it.

I said that sexuality does not preclude being a good parent. I stand by that remark. Being of a certain orientation does not make you unable to parent a child well, however it does perhaps make your environment less ideal than others, namely a heterosexual one with the complementarity of both genders.

Is it better that an abused child languishes in a care home or has a stable home, with a supportive parent who is emotionally, financially and logistically invested in their welfare, even if they are same sex attracted?

As for my insincerity. You can see into my heart now and know that I don't mean what I say? That's some skill you have there and precisely what Our Lord warns against. Judging others' hearts,

I went on Sky news today outside Brighton Town Hall. I didn't actually want to do it, I felt sick with fear and pressure, but I went ahead because as my husband reminded me, that I am one of the few with a platform to be able to oppose what's happening. All the training in the world does not make it any easier to speak on this subject, especially in a place like Brighton.

My hope had been to train as a teacher or midwife once my youngest was 4. I have effectively kissed that goodbye, once I am googled but maybe like you, they'll realise that I didn't really mean it.
Anonymous said…
A person who suffers with a recurring attraction to persons of the same sex can seek to live a moral life in thought, word and deed, and particularly with the graces of Faith can overcome any disordered temptations. He can live a moral life if he chooses to - as with us all.

However, two men or two women engaging in sexual relations ought not to be allowed to adopt a child together as "two mothers" or "two farher". That is evil, obscene, an affront to God and abuse of a child. A child ought to be raised by his natural mother and father, or if that is not possible be adopted by a married mother and father, his grandparents. If that is not possible (which it would as there's an excess of married couples seeking to adopt, due to the killing of children in utero), then an orphanage is best. Defend our children from such abuse. The thought of an innocent child (picture one's own child) being subjected to being reared by two men or two women in a perverse sexual relationship is heartbreaking. Who would allow his child be put in such a longterm cruel situation from which he has no escape, exposed to depravity and taught that it is good? I cry to think of innocent children abused in this way, with the collusion of society.
Dennis said…
Caroline - I said that you came across as insincere because that's how you came across. I don't need to look into your heart to make comment on how you appeared. You tried to hide your offensive beliefs but avoided answering the comment directly and saying bland things. Everyone could see what you really believed and that you were struggling to avoid expressing it explicitly. Your comment about gay parents was evasive and petty. The women after you was quite right in stating the facts that most children brought up by gay couples have contact from both biological parents.

No one asked you to hang out around the registry office today and make comments to the tv cameras.
The Bones said…
Caroline said what she said, why imagine you can see into her heart? She was clearly motivated not by hatred of homosexuals and lesbians, but the PROTECTION of children and their healthy development.

How can you possibly imagine that bringing up children in the atmosphere of unnatural sexual relationships could possibly be good?

The Bones said…
Comments are closed on this now. If you want to talk over this with Caroline, you'll have to do it in some other forum.

Popular posts from this blog

So Now That We're All Saying What We're Thinking...