Catholics and the marriage equality plebiscite

The Archdiocese of Sydney, the Archdiocese of Hobart and the Diocese of Broken Bay have joined and are helping to finance the ‘Coalition for Marriage’. Other members of the coalition include the Australian Christian Lobby, the National Civic Council and the Australian Family Association. The Archdiocese of Sydney reports: ‘The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney is one of four lead members of the Coalition for Marriage. …The Coalition for Marriage is comprised of more than 80 groups from across Australia, representing over 3 million people and which, along with the Archdiocese, is led by the Australian Christian Lobby, Marriage Alliance, and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. It will be the leading voice in the campaign opposing changes to the Marriage Act.’ The approaches of the various archbishops can be found at: Archbishop Denis Hart, the President of the ACBC has issued a pastoral letter: http://melbournecatholic.org.au/Archbishop/Recent-Addresses-and-Pastoral-Letters/archbishop-denis-harts-pastoral-letter-on-same-sex-marriage Archbishop Mark Coleridge, the Deputy President of the ACBC has not issued a statement. Archbishop Fisher who says, ‘To vote with Pope Francis is to VOTE NO’: http://www.sydneycatholic.org/news/latest_news/2017/2017831_292.shtml Archbishop Philip Wilson: http://www.adelaide.catholic.org.au/__files/f/24376/Circular%20-%20Plebiscite%20on%20Marriage%20971%20150817.pdf Archbishop Tim Costelloe: http://www.adelaide.catholic.org.au/news-and-events/national-news/same-sex-marriage-postal-plebiscite?article=24473 Archbishop Christopher Prowse: http://cgcatholic.org.au/2017/08/same-sex-marriage-postal-vote/ Archbishop Julian Porteous has not posted any statement but his archdiocese is one of the members of the Coalition for Marriage.

Archbishop Coleridge has now issued his statement on same sex marriage. It is available at https://brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/towards-marriage-vote/

My comments on Lateline 11 September 2017: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4732751.htm EMMA ALBERICI: Frank Brennan, when it comes to this particular question of being able to accommodate religious freedoms, how do you balance that in your mind?  FATHER FRANK BRENNAN, JESUIT PRIEST: Well, I think we have got the predicament at the moment where we are dealing with what I would call an indicative-type plebiscite. And the question is, well, do you say "yes" to this, provided the Parliament does something? Or do you say "no," not until Parliament has considered these things? My own view as a citizen is to say: well, I think these are complex questions of religious freedom, particularly in Australia where we do not have a Commonwealth human rights act. And I think finding the balance on these things is very difficult. The Australian Law Reform Commission said it needs further consideration. The Senate committee said it needs further consideration. So for me, it's simply a prudential question: are these matters best thrashed out in the plebiscite campaign? Or is the plebiscite campaign one of saying, "We give the clearance to the Parliament to start the hard work?" And I opt for the latter.  EMMA ALBERICI: Because, of course, in the Catholic tradition, already when someone is a divorcee, they cannot expect to be married in the Catholic Church?  FRANK BRENNAN: Sure. Well, we are dealing, I think, with: you've raised questions about divorce law that were changed, no-fault divorce. All of those changes to the civil law, of course, Emma, meant that civil marriage came to be seen to be more and more different from religious marriage. And let's remember: we are dealing with a very changing social institution. I mean, at the time of Federation, just about everyone was married in Australia by a minister of religion. By 1999, over half the marriages being performed were by civil celebrants. Now, more than three quarters are performed by civil celebrants. And as I say - and it's not to be in any way derogatory about civil marriage - but it is basically, in legal terms now, a contract which parties enter into. It can be terminated on one year's notice and it's not necessary for the parties to have a commitment to bearing and nurturing each other's children, even if they have the capacity to do so. Now, those things are very different from the notion of marriage in my church tradition. And so the question is whether or not now there should be a further change to that civil law, while retaining religious freedoms.  ……… EMMA ALBERICI: Frank Brennan, where does the Bible sit on this question?  FRANK BRENNAN: Well, I don't see the Bible as being so relevant in terms of what the law should be, in that, for me: I mean, what the Bible teaches us, of course: I mean, take Paul's letter to the Romans, which we read in church just this Sunday. Paul said love is the only thing that cannot hurt your neighbour. So if we start with the idea of love and respect, of course we want to give respect to homosexual couples, as we do to heterosexual couples. And increasingly we want to give respect and accord the dignity to the children of unions which are of homosexual families, as well as heterosexual families. And so in that context, I think it's more about asking the question, regardless of what the Bible might say about notions of marriage - because let's remember, particularly in Old Testament times, you had polygamy; and definitely in Old Testament times the Law of Moses allowed divorce. And so you get into very difficult waters once you start trying to apply the Bible to the civil legal institutions in a pluralistic, democratic society. I think it's about: how do you give the respect to these couples? How does the civil law deal with the situation of increasing number of married homosexual couples coming from jurisdictions like the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand: how do we accord those sorts of things? And what I think the Bible injuncts us to do is to work on the principles of respect and dignity.  …….. JACQUELINE NINIO: I think any protections that are required are already in existence in the law and in the Marriage Act as it stands now. So I think we just need to say "yes" and change the law and everyone will find their way. EMMA ALBERICI: A brief comment, Frank? FRANK BRENNAN: The protections are clearly not there in federal law. I would say we should adopt the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Victorian Charter of Rights, which is about freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of belief and freedom of expression. So yes, vote "yes" but insist that these things have to be included in any legislation. DAVID OULD: Hear hear, Father Frank. EMMA ALBERICI: Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Frank, Ali, Jackie, David: appreciate your time, all of you. Thank you so much. ALI KADRI: Thank you very much. FRANK BRENNAN: Thank you. 

Sections 14 and 15 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act provide: 14. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including— (a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and (b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private. (2) A person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits his or her freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching. 15. Freedom of expression (1) Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference. (2) Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether— (a) orally; or (b) in writing; or (c) in print; or (d) by way of art; or (e) in another medium chosen by him or her. (3) Special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary— (a) to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or (b) for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

The statistics I quoted on marriages by ministers of religion and by civil celebrants are available at https://aifs.gov.au/…/marri…/marriage-australia-source-data…

Frank, Ought not we Catholics have enough confidence in our tradition, moral theology and our belief that some absolutes do apply in life to say respectfully to our fellow Australians that voting "No" is being truer to what is authentically human, both in an individual sense and in a societal one? Gerard

Gerard, I respect your decision to vote 'No'. On the issue of the ABS survey on same sex marriage, I am one of those Catholics who finds the two pastoral letters from Bishops Long and Wright particularly helpful. See https://catholicoutlook.org/bishop-vincents-pastoral-letter-sex-marriage-postal-survey/ And http://mnnews.today/aurora-magazine/september-2017/22595-law-and-social-change/?source=dio