Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Are we serious as about Marriage?



I can't help wondering if we are really serious in our concern about the redefinition of marriage in England and Wales, unlike the Scots. We had that letter sometime earlier this year by the Archbishops, which didn't really address the issue and was designed not to offend anyone. There was a half hearted suggestion to sign the petition for the Coalition for Marriage, which was marked by the absence of any Catholic bishop or senior member of the Church on its leadership, or even amongst its primary signatories. A few obscure statements from individual bishops, but for the most part silence.

Now, in the Tablet, what used to be Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and is now just called Marriage Care, Terry Prendergast, its Chief Executive has been reported, presumably in preparation for "Gay Marriage", that it is going to counsel gay couples.
The shocking thing is that Marriage Care appears in most diocesan directories, normally under the heading "Marriage Preparation". Its patron, possibly not surprisingly is the Archbishop of Westminster, presumable soon to be Cardinal Vincent Nichols.

Marriage Care is partly funded by the Church but also receives a large tranche of Government money.

Isn't it about time we have a group committed to Catholic teaching about marriage and sexuality, supported by the Bishop's Conference, that we can trust and rely on?

14 comments:

StevieD said...

Yes, it is. I have emailed the Nuncio about the use of my money to prepare homosexuals for marriage (among other matters) and suggest others do the same.

Dilly said...

You made an excellent post on this subject on 18/7/09, which garnered 49 comments, including a threat to report you to your bishop. How outrageous that this man is getting bolder. Unsurprising, though, since nothing was done about him then. I hope someone fron Protect the Pope sees this, and BTs it to the highest level. If you get any more threats about this, please make it known, as the tide is turning against this laissez faire fith column tactic.

Sixupman said...

The asset value of the various Catholic Marriage Guidance Councils, prior to consolidation into Catholic Marriage Care Ltd, was of the order of £800K or more. That asset base, plus the £215K from Clifton Diocese,is now at the disposal of a non-Catholic organisation. Further a priest and permanent deacon remain as director/trustees - the position of the "President", held by the incumbent of Westminster Cathedral is not currently known. The new outfit also uses church premises as well as some secular ones. According to the records, +++Murphy-O'Connor, then "President" instructed the CMC Ltd to bring "Gay" rights, et al, within the orbit of the organisation - "equal rights" legislation being the avowed reason.

The situation is a disgrace.

JARay said...

Some of you may well have seen Fr. Z's post about the Cardinal Archbisop of Lyons saying that Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. Here, in Australia, Senator Cory Bernadi was made to resign as Parliamentary Secretary to Tony Abbott because he made the same claim as the Cardinal in a debate in our Senate.
Well, take a look at this from the Brisbane Chronicle:-
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/12/01/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/
I know that it's old news, but so what! The facts speak for themselves.

JARay said...

Dare I add just a little snippet more?!
Hmmmmm.
The "marriage" between a man and his dog took place in....Toowoomba!
Perhaps some of you may recall that it was the Bishop of Toowoomba who was finally asked to hand in his resignation because of the abberations which took place in his diocese!!!

Sixupman said...

Regarding my earlier post, I find it was not +++Murphy-O'Connor, though then President, who ordered the change, but, it is asserted ".. the request of the English & Welsh Bishops (Conference?)... ". Probably Eccleston Square with a 'nod through' by their Lordships.

Question, leaving aside the so called independence of charities, who authorised the transfer of the assets to a, de jure, Non-Catholic body. As such has only taken place in the last few months, the paperwork records should be readily available.

Gpanoname said...

Marriage Care says "we specialise in helping couples – married or not – build and sustain strong, fulfilling, healthy relationships, and in providing support in times of relationship difficulty. Why? Because better relationships make for better lives, more stable families and a stronger society." (see their web site) Surely an organisation that seeks to alleviate the personal and social cost of failing relationships deserves some credit. Marriage Care lives and works, as we all do, in a society that may not be as we would wish it. That does not seem to me to be a reason for passing by on the other side.

Peter Lawson

JARay said...

Having just read the comment by Peter Lawson I must ask him to look again at the first post by StevieD.
Waht kind of a mealy-mouthed comment which says 'we specialise in helping couples-married or not-build and sustain strong, filfilling, healthy relationships....'
What kind of couples?
Heterosexual or homosexual?
No distinction?!

Gpanoname said...

JA Ray I have had another look at Stevie D's point. I reiterate mine that the Good Samaritan was not concerned with race and I doubt he was concerned with sexual orientation either.

momangelica said...

Gpanoname- Bonkers!

Gpanoname said...

Momangelica

Please say more....

Sixupman said...

Gpanoname is correct within the context of a "nuanced ..... understanding of the modern Catholic Church", insofar as such "understanding" complies with both the Catechism and Magisterium of Mother Church.

But MCL is not a Catholic Charity and, therefore, is not bound by any such adherence. MCL operates as a, de facto, arm of The State and as such would die-the-death were it not to follow the edicts of The State. To do otherwise would deprive it of the tax-payers largesse.

CMCL has morphed into MCL, which appears now to be running as a typical NGO gravy-train addict.

But what moral entitlement has MCL to the assets of a Catholic Charity which it appears to have legally sequestered.

Precisely, who has acquiesced to the transfer of circa £1,000,000 of cash and assets from a Catholic Charity to a Non-Catholic Charity? Perhaps the E&W Bishops' Conference and Eccleston Square might be prompted to elucidate.

The insiders who have infiltrated and CMCL and orchestrated the changes have been somewhat less than honest. If they were motivated to create an overarching charity,to which MCL appears to aspire, they should have created a charity of their own - from scratch. Instead they opted for a covert 'take-over' of an existing operation.

kfca said...

If you care to look at the lead signatories of the C4M Petition, you will note the name of Bishop Seamus Cunningham of the Diocese of Hexham.(This petition has now surpassed the 600,000 mark, and must continue to be encouraged regularly: ++Peter Smith stated earlier this year that Catholics have a DUTY to stop [the implementation of this threatened legislation], an imperative also expressed in the Bishops' letter.

Party strategists and MPs defending margional seats will only take notice of opposition to this proposed legislation, if such opposition is considerable and kept both current, pressing, and well-organised.

The absence of the names of any other E&W Bishops on this petition is a disgrace: the stance adopted by the Scottish Bishops within their own secular jurisdiction is nothing more than a stage in the path towards the fulfillment of their sacred duty in defending such a fundamental Law of God, and may their courage inspire others.

kfca said...

If you care to look at the lead signatories of the C4M Petition, you will note the name of Bishop Seamus Cunningham of the Diocese of Hexham.(This petition has now surpassed the 600,000 mark, and must continue to be encouraged regularly: ++Peter Smith stated earlier this year that Catholics have a DUTY to stop [the implementation of this threatened legislation], an imperative also expressed in the Bishops' letter.

Party strategists and MPs defending margional seats will only take notice of opposition to this proposed legislation, if such opposition is considerable and kept both current, pressing, and well-organised.

The absence of the names of any other E&W Bishops on this petition is a disgrace: the stance adopted by the Scottish Bishops within their own secular jurisdiction is nothing more than a stage in the path towards the fulfillment of their sacred duty in defending such a fundamental Law of God, and may their courage inspire others.