This letter appeared in the Telegraph signed by a thousand English priests:
Sir, After centuries of persecution Catholics have, in recent times, been able to be members of the professions and participate fully in the life of this country.
Legislation for same sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship.
It is meaningless to argue that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the opposite view at the same time.
The natural complementarity between a man and a woman leads to marriage, seen as a lifelong partnership. This loving union – because of their physical complementarity – is open to bringing forth and nurturing children. This is what marriage is. That is why marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. We urge Members of Parliament not to be afraid to reject this legislation now that its consequences are more clear.
The signatories are here.
Its ever so interesting , seeing the names that aren’t there!
The letter represents 25% or so of the RC clergy in our islands. As Father Ray Blake points out on his blog, the signatures were collected over Christmas – which is a pretty busy time from priests – and there are probably many who would have wished to sign but overlooked the letter.
I think you will find that quite a lot of priests (a dozen I have had contact with since yesterday) didn’t know this letter was going around. I would certainly have signed it, as would the others I have spoken with who were unaware of its existence.
When I looked at the names, I saw that a lot of of my fellow diocesans weren’t on it from Salford Diocese, for the not unreasonable reason that we didn’t know about it.
So, no Mr Williams, it isn’t interesting for the reasons you appear to think.
I believe the Emancipation Act was enacted in or about 1827–’recent times’ indeed! When will they get the chips of their shoulders and realise that all Christians except the dodgiest liberal ones will be in similar difficulties?
Dear Dr McColl:
The short title of the Act of Parliament to which you are probably referring is the Catholic Relief Act of 1829. As you may also be aware, there are still minor legal disabilities directed at Catholics on both the UK and the Australian statute book.
The point is not one of “having a chip on our shoulders” but of the importance of defendng the faith and you will recall that from the 1530′s onwards several hundred Catholics made the ultimate sacrifice for their faith. In case you are unfamiliar with that you can look at the list: Catholic Martyrs.
Further, as with the various provisions removing the legal disabilities of women, discrimination does not end with legislation. I’m certainly old enough to remember law firms where I worked which refused to admit women to the partnership and chambers where a “papist” would not get a seat.
What you might more properly be concerned about, is that the proposed UK legislation is perhaps the final denouement of the Erastian relationship between the mother church of the Anglican Disunion, the Church of England and the UK parliament which determines the law and doctrine of the CofE.
The attack on marriage as historically understood is an attack on one of the fundamental building blocks of society. Is the CofE doing anything to oppose? No, the bandwaggon in General Synod is rollling. The state church is going to follow the state. So if we do not speak out, who will?
Do you suppose that the so-called “continuing Anglican jurisdictions” will have any influence on the outcome, whether here in the UK or in your dominion? I very much doubt it.
So, perhaps one point to take home from this, is that the lack of Christian Unity diminishes the power of tthe Church to influence public policy. It is a great pity that there were some in the TAC in Australia (of which you are or were the Chancellor) elected to maintain youselves in schism for what doubtless seemed to you to be good reasons.
I don’t care what you think, Mourad. I am amazed, however, that you should take interest in the affairs of the TAC at all.
Dr McColl
Did no-one at your law school every tell you never to use the words relating to astonishment or amazement in correspondence? There are two reasons why one should not: (1) a professional should never be surpised by what others do (2) astonishment or amazement is all too often the precursor of enlightenment.
Given Our Lord’s prayer for unity reported in John 17:21 I would like to see all Christians reconciled to our Holy Mother Church and in particular those who adhere to ecclesial bodies which came into being as a consequence of the forced nationalisation by which the Church in England was cut off from Rome and transformed initially by schism and later by heresy into the Church of England.
So, while you may not care what I think, I, and millions of other Catholics, care for what you think and we’d like you to come home.
Yes, too bad Britain never adopted the all so liberal religious policies of the Spanish Empire!
Dr McColl,
it is bizarre that a document you agree with should invoke such a remarkable response; I work in government service and can tell you that old attitudes are still extant and I have myself been equated with ‘foreign-ness’ despite my family being completely English (and Roman Catholic) on my mother’s side.
We are not allowed to be the head of state in our own land (nor, indeed, yours) and our Newspapers often include columnists demanding that our voices not be heard on matters to do with abortion, marriage or embryo research because we “get our orders from an old man in Rome.”
The only chip appears to rest on your shoulder.
I agree, and this from someone who once not only was an enthusiast for Anglicanorum Coetibus, but resigned as one of the “politburo” of “The Continuum” blog due to its vitriolic negative response to AC. See (May 2009):
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-sandra-mccoll.html
for her joining; I cannot, however, find her “valedictory,” although I remember reading it at the time.
I did, however, find this:
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2010/02/diagnosis-of-drtighe.html