The Catholic option for 'yes' or 'no'

Thank you, Frank, for one of the most insightful comments on the legal implications of Same Sex Marriage in this country. Previously I had never thought we needed a well drafted and sensible Bill of Rights. These days I do.

The dilemma for those Christians, of any denomination, who vote 'yes' to same-sex marriage is separating their civil and religious beliefs. For those Christians who are homosexual and living in a committed relationship, perhaps the next logical step after being granted civil entitlement to marry is recognition of their partnership by their church. If the 'yes' vote prevails, would it be too fanciful to think that homosexual couples not currently churchgoers may at some stage want to commit to being Christians? What happens in that case? What is religious freedom all about? Big questions that ultimately will require an answer.

Perhaps the time has come, Frank, for Pope Francis to make a judgement particularly in matters of faith and morals. He is not slow on making judgements on his curia, his predecessors and world politics.

I too voted Yes. I had some internal unease about it, but wanted to have the same sex couples I know to have chance to have their relationship validated in law. It is difficult to know how religious freedom will be protected in Australia at a time when religion seems to be a convenient scapegoat for people's discontent. There have been some brazen anti-religion statements by Yes proponents. The tenor of the campaign on both sides has at times been questionable. When NZ and Aus are compared on this issue the difference in legal protection is not mentioned. Thank you Fr. Brennan for bringing this anomaly in to the public domain.

I will be voting YES.I am a Catholic and proud to be. I believe I should not sit in judgement,I will leave that to the Lord. I will support Love.Something this world desperately needs!

As a Catholic, I have voted 'Yes' as a matter of conscience. I also strongly support the need for a Bill of Rights and for the protection of religious freedom, but in my view this is a quite separate matter to the justice of marriage equality. I would not support religious freedom 'protections' that legitimised discrimination against people of different sexuality. Religious celebrants can already refuse to conduct joint civil/sacramental marriages for couples not meeting their religious criteria. So what's the issue? Do people really want to be able to refuse a retail service to people of different sexuality? That would be sexist prejudice.

It's ironic isn't it that Abbott, and others in the Coalition, who have been such strenuous opponents of a Bill of Rights, are now crying wolf about freedom of religion. I'd encourage ES readers to look at the NZ legislation to which Frank refers. You'll find it at < www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html >. It's difficult to see why Turnbull would not introduce similar legislation. It wouldn't, of course, satisfy the extremists on the 'no' side who are really not seeking freedom of religion but rather privilege to discriminate on religious grounds. And if it remained simply an Act of Parliament its provisions could be abrogated in the same way that those of the Racial Discrimination Act have been set aside, but without an amendment to the Constitution, it's the best that we can do.

If I understand the issue correctly, no priest, minister of religion or civil celebrant in Australia, is obliged to marry anyone if they so choose (at the moment this is a man and a woman). If the law is changed to allow same sex marriage, nothing will change for these people. What will change is that civil (public) servants whose job it is to marry people (straight or gay) will be required to do so as part of their job. Therefore, just as, for example, in Roman Catholicism, the Church is not obliged to marry divorcees within the Church, and is covered by freedom of religious practice, so too with same sex persons. Many keep missing the point that this is about civil, secular marriage in Australia, and nothing to do with the Christian Churches or other faith groups. Civil marriages outside the Churches and other Faith traditions has been happening for eons, and does not belong exclusively to these groups. From a theological point of view, God is above all of this, and love, which comes from God is too.

A splendid piece, Frank! I noted in my doctoral research the existence of a Religious Freedom Act which guaranteed NZ Catholic Schools the freedom to teach religion/s that Australian legilsation would need to enact if ever our Catholic schools here were to be integrated into the public sector, as all NZ's Catholic schools indeed are, in order to protect the rights of those who founded and suuport their provision. Thank you!

Freedom of choice. But what is it really? If all is for our choosing. Why make distinctions at all on any matter? I like to consider Jesus' view on marriage. He spoke of adultery, and having more than one spouse as not being the 'original plan'. He was very clear about gender being in the mix of marriage.  Saying when a 'man' marries a 'women', etc. When questioned by the Jews,  he 'again' mentioned the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To no doubt help make his questioners pay closer attention to what he was really saying.

Pam, you raise some very good points here. If I understand things correctly, just as the Catholic Church at the moment does not accept the remarriage of Catholic divorced persons within the Church, these people are nevertheless still considered part of the faithful, and are able to participate in the life of the Church, with the exception of the receiption of Communion etc. It would be the same for same sex persons who are married. The Church would not recognise their marriage as sacramental (within the Church) only civil, but they would be able to enter into the life of the Church as above. Any children they have would have a right to Baptism and full Communion within the Church.

I think there is little doubt that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality will remain intact. Pope Francis' 'Who am I to judge?' comment should best be seen in the same context as Jesus with the Woman Caught in Adultery and those lines 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone' (John 8:7). A priest in Melbourne who publicly championed the ordination of women was removed from office recently. A priest attempting to celebrate SSM would suffer a similar fate. Rome is not going the way of the official Anglican Church in the USA or Canada.

I'm a card carrying Catholic, have been for 75 years, go to daily Mass and have Jesus as my alpha and omega. I voted YES.

Wow a Catholic priest publicly supporting a change in the law that directly contradicts Church teaching and Catholic values. What would Jesus have done?

"There's no way the Turnbull government would legislate a human rights act." I find this position incomprehensible.

Very good.

1. Catholics refusing to accept magisterial teaching is an ancient phenomenon. But it has never altered realities. When many disciples walked away from Our Lord because his teaching on the Eucharist was too hard for them, He didn’t soften it to their tastes. So we can scoff all we like at the CDF’s presentation of doctrine, but in the end the Church is not a democracy. 2. Despite the hosannas to religious freedom and conscience accompanying the ssm regime in New Zealand, 22 applicants for an independent marriage celebrant license have so far been refused because they will not, on grounds of religion or conscience, conduct ssm services. Celebrants who belong to recognized church organizations and religions are not so effected. Get that? If, say, you’re an atheist who just thinks on common sense grounds (as many do) that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, you can’t get a jersey as a marriage celebrant in NZ. Moreover, function centres are bound to host ssm services, or risk litigation under the Human Rights Act. Sound familiar? 3. So contrary to Fr F’s assertion, the New Zealand Bill of Rights has done little or nothing to safeguard freedom of religion and conscience with respect to ssm. This is hardly surprising: the right to life is solemnly enshrined in the NZ Bill of Rights. Big help that - the NZ unborn in are slaughtered with as much indifference as they are here. All the lofty words in the world, engraved in solid gold, will mean nothing if one can interpret them at will. In these Pythonesque times, Catholics should thank God we have a CDF to remind us and all mankind that hens are hens, eggs are eggs, Stan can’t become Loretta, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation and raising of their children. Oh, and that there is only Catholic "option" here. It’s a serious sin to vote “Yes”.

Much appreciated Frank. I was talking with a friend yesterday and wondered out loud at why we had not hear from any church people in New Zealand. This is a telling point.

I appreciated seeing the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality in the past 50 years so clearly documented in your article. With such a dogmatic position on a issue of human complexity and the drive for human intimacy, it is no wonder that our faith community is so polarized in this important conversation at this time. However your article provides clarity around the issue and insight which could help us move forward together. Thank you!

Australia does not have the same safegaurds for religious freedom as NZ as Fr. Brennan points out. In this plebiscite we are voting in the dark. The only provision we have see in draft legislation was for religious practitioners. The celibated like Fr. Brennan will not be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. We have seen no safegaurdas at all for individuals of faith. We have already seen the push in Aus for radical gay sex education in schools (Safe Schools). As has happened overseas, the rights of mums and dads to protect their children from such harmful education will be taken away. We've seen the aggression of the gay lobby groups already in the yes campaign.The only sensible option for a Catholic parent like me is to vote no. I'm not confident at all that my rights to raise my kids Catholic in a Catholic school that will be allowed to continue to teach God's plan for human sexuality intact will be protected in a SSM Australia.

Australian Catholics looking for guidance on how to respond to the non-compulsory non-binding postal survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on behalf of the Australian Government on the question: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" will be out of luck. ABS is not asking for my vote. It is asking for my opinion. Not for any specific ABS purpose but because the government is too spineless to change the Marriage Act so that homosexual couples can have the same legal recognition as heterosexual couples. This survey is an Australia-wide Opinion Poll. Yes or No?. Unlike most Public Opinion Polls there is no gradation like: On a scale of 1 t0 10 do you think Same Sex Marriage would make Australia a more inclusive society? Despite the limited Yes or No quesiton proponents of the No case write tosh like this. "While the debate about the redefinition of marriage is occurring it is possible that your commentary about marriage will be protected as political speech. Come 15 November, particularly if a 'yes' vote occurs, you will be out of luck." (Catholic Weekly, 24 Sept 17 p 23) Good luck, Australia! Your opinion counts.

Australian politics are complicated and fraught enough without any need or benefit in dragging in questions of whether we're be better off with a (politically alterable) Bill of Rights. I'm not a lawyer but the existing Constitution seems to me pretty clear in its two relevant questions on the matters being canvassed in the current "Campaign" about the "Same-sex marriage" survey. Thus I simply do not see why a change in the civil and legal definition of “marriage” has the slightest bearing on religious freedom. Section 51 of the Constitution clearly gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws concerning “Marriage” and “Matrimonial causes”. This is bald and clearly stated; there are no caveats or qualifications about this power. Furthermore, Section 116 strictly prevents the Commonwealth from passing any act which precludes “the free exercise of any religion”. Taken together these seem to me to allay Dr Brennan’s concerns. I don’t see, at all, that any further legislation is necessary. Were “marriage equality” to be legislated, this would be a purely civil matter, without any influence on the prerogatives of the churches.

Thank you Frank for an informative commentary. The recent decision by a Presbyterian Church in Victoria not to allow the marriage of a couple in that church because the couple supported Marriage Equality shows the freedom of religion already in place for religious institutions. Given this Government will never legislate a Bill of Rights (would not really guarantee much anyway unless it was in the Constitution), questions of religious freedom may end up being decided by the High Court in its interpretation of Section 116 of the Constitution. It will be legalistic and expensive but at least would give a clear legal guidance. I voted “yes” simply because Marriage Equality is a matter of rights and equality and I have not yet seen a good reason to vote “no”.

A person's sexual orientation is not a choice, it is not a mental retardation. It is an integral ingredient of such person's nature. And is it not religious belief that God created all equal? And, yes, I believe in the right for religious freedom. But should there not also have the right for non-religious freedom? Thank you Fr. Frank.

Considering Pope Francis has said that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, that this is a Truth, and that Truth should be defended, shouldn't his fellow Catholics say, 'No' to the survey?

In 2015, the Australian Law Reform Commission concluded a detailed assessment of traditional rights and freedoms— encroachments by commonwealth laws. Though the commission found “no obvious evidence that Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws significantly encroach on freedom of religion in Australia”, it did recommend that “further consideration should be given to whether freedom of religion should be protected through a general limitations clause rather than exemptions”. In February this year, the parliament’s select committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill unanimously reported: “Overall the evidence supports the need for current protections for religious freedom to be enhanced. This would most appropriately be achieved through the inclusion of ‘religious belief’ in federal anti-discrimination law.” Dean Smith who has drafted his own Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 was a member of that committee. His bill does not deal with many of the contested religious freedom issues. Professor Carolyn Evans , Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Melbourne has told the parliamentary committee investigating freedom of religion: “We need a more comprehensive human rights act. I have been saying that for a long time. I do not have any naive assumptions that that will change quickly. It is part of the problem. We have cherrypicked a couple of rights which have been given a very strong status, and others have been given a lesser status in various ways. The danger at the moment is that various religious groups say, 'We need a religious freedom act,' then the media say, 'We need a media protection act,' and you could end up multiplying the problem rather than resolving it. To me it makes sense to incorporate it all into a single act. That would not make the need for discrimination law simply disappear, because that is a very specific set of issues, particularly around employment and some core services. Ensuring all Australians have access to those fundamentals is still important. That is why I argue for a human rights act that includes not only religious freedom but other rights as well.”

With all due respect for you high position, No, Fr Brennan, it is a moral choice which most Catholics thankfully are clear about as they no not deal with the legal stratosphere as you do, and can simply listen to what was taught in the Bible. You can't twist this issue into a pretzel, and into a 'yes' vote. No parliament, no Joint Standing Committee can alter the reality that marriage is between a man and a woman. Other unions are possible, but they do not have the uniqueness of marriage.

Professor George Williams has told the parliamentary committee: ‘We are also dealing with a series of policy debates, including on same-sex marriage, which are also raising questions about the proper balance between religion and other interests. It is particularly important in these debates that we are informed by a strong standard that does provide for protection of freedom of religion.’

I am old and Catholic and voted 'no' I don't want to have to call myself 'married' if the definition of 'marriage' is going to have no reference to children. I toyed with the idea of all Catholic married people divorcing, but the requirement for a twelve month separation seems to make that impractical. i think my objection to the definition that we seem to expect will be the lack of reference to children rather than the inclusion of homosexuals.

With all due respect to you, John Carmody, I think Frank, as both a lawyer and a priest, is probably ideally placed to see where religious liberty and amending the Marriage Act may cause serious conflict. We tend to think that religion is protected by Common Law, but if SSM comes in, this may prove not to be the case. I suspect, if the government chooses to introduce a Bill of Rights to protect religious freedom and to prevent the state from interfering with churches, people on the 'No' side in parliament like Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann will be a lot more involved. They won't leave it to the likes of Dean Smith and Warren Entsch. There are marriage conservatives who support the 'Yes' case on civil liberties grounds but don't want to see their Church forced to conduct SSM or get out of the marriage game altogether.

In response to Thomas Amory's second comment of 25 Sept, firstly, thank you for your reply. I acknowledge and respect the Catholic Church's doctrine on marriage. The point I was attempting to make, probably clumsily, was 'how would it feel to be a homosexual couple as part of a Christian community'. To be accepted and loved, I would hope. Their civil marriage would enable them to feel an equality in society, but they would need to accept some provisions of inequality in the church. While understanding the church's position, I feel for them, I certainly do.

I've posed this question before and would like someone to answer it: Why is SSM the only moral issue the church chooses to seek legal protection from through religious freedom laws? Does the church also uphold the integrity of its tradition by claiming the right to discriminate against people living in de facto relationships, re-coupled divorcees or people living promiscuous lifestyles? (And is this obsession with sexuality the only thing left to fight for since the death of Christ 2000 years ago?) And, secondly, if the church is granted exemptions, does that religious freedom extend to people like the childcare centre manager who sacked a Christian employee for opposing SSM?

There is an anthropological consideration which I think is prior to whether one is religious or not, and other than whether we have a bill of rights that might protect freedom of religion. The phenomenon is that as human we wager on what is worthwhile in life, what in the end is life's 'ought to be' as we see it, what in the end will be seen to have been properly humanising. An examination of the symbolic structure of sexual expression in sexual relations between a man and a woman on the one hand, and on the other between two of the same sex, will reveal some overlap of commitment, but a radical difference in humanising potential when it comes to mutual procreation and parenting. I will be voting no, to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, while agreeing same sex couples are entitled to pursue rights, and rites, as they see fit, or worthwhile.

Interesting to see, via the comments section, how many people have quite a negative perception of the churches' concerns about religious freedom. The issues here are are very serious, and they're not primarily about 'freedom from' obligations under anti- discrimination legislation. They're about 'freedom to' - especially freedom to practise our beliefs, and to teach them to our children. In teaching the church's marriage laws, for example, may we still tell our children that sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman? That families with good opposite-sex parents have advantages for the children? These freedoms will not be lost immediately upon passing of SSM marriage legislation, but without inbuilt protection, challenges will be mounted (not necessarily by LGBTI people per se). This is not a reason to vote No - I will be voting yes to civil registration of gay unions because heterosexual couples have this right and so should gay couples. It's just something we should be aware of, and not let the issue be dismissed as irrelevant or perverse.

Georgie, Can you please tell me how you would arrive at 'What Jesus Would Have Done' on this issue? Unlike proponents of the tautological slogan 'Love is Love', I don't find the nature or requirements of "love" to be self evident.

We've participated in wars and sent our own citizens to die in foreign lands, and yet only now that people of the same gender want to marry, we decide we need protection with a bill of rights?

In response to Joan Seymour, you’ve raised something of a tangential issue because we already have same sex parents raising families. But if Marriage Equality becomes law, parents could tell their children that in Australia there are different types of families. Some families have two parents of different sexes, some families have only one parent, some families have parents who have chosen not to marry and some families have two same sex parents. The important message is that all parents love their children, want what is best for them and, if you want to go down this path, that no one family structure is better than or superior to the others. Parents could also tell their children that some churches do not recognise same sex marriages and do not celebrate them while other churches do recognise and celebrate same sex marriages. Drawing on your example, parents could explain the differences between sacramental marriage in some churches and civil marriage in the wider community. This kind of open, honest discussion should be able to answer any questions the children may have.

John, "Love is Love" is paraphrasing of Jesus' attitude to purity laws and an obsession with the mechanics and outward appearance rather than the person's intentions. Certain foods or groups of people were considered unclean - but Jesus turned this on its head and taught that "It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes you unclean.” And, ‘These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me. It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!’”

Finally the untangling, the unraveling of the pretzel! Via the very wisely chosen words spoken by Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/like-parents-with-kids-samesex-couples-dont-qualify-for-marriage-archbishop-mark-coleridge-20170926-gyovm2.html Same-sex couples do not "qualify" for marriage just as parent and child, or brother and sister, cannot marry each other.

Gavin - marriage is not primarily about children - it is about cementing relationship. Children may come from marriage, they may not. when two people marry, they are not asked to commit - even in the Catholic Faith - to have children. What they asked is, that if they have children they will be raised in manner that supports justice and love. But - again - marriage is about two people publicly announcing their intended support to each other. Why do we not allow any 'two' people to publicly celebrate this.

I think, with respect, that Frank Brennan has probably answered John Carmody's interesting challenge, Edward Fido, in two lengthy explanatory posts. The point however remains that in a quality journal it should not matter that Professor Brennan's status is that of a lawyer and a priest, which is clearly announced in his authorial note. It also happens that, despite his modesty, John Carmody is a considerable scholar and biographer with an enviable reputation for contributing to the discourses of Catholicism and social justice. I would hope that Eureka Street especially values the interrogative posts of those who step out of the bounds of clerical admiration society membership and engage in healthy as well as informed discursive argument.

I have wrestled with what my answer would be and eventually voted NO, not as a Pavlovian response because I am a Catholic but because of the many articles I have read about what could be described as "unintended consequences", some of them as described in the comments above and some describing examples elsewhere and even in Canberra. The NT government intends to challenge the rights of Churches to choose to whom they would allow their properties to be used and there were many more examples. I read and saw on TV news that parliament was drawing up rules to govern the behaviour of people commenting on the views of those with whom they disagree. These would be only for the length of time of the plebiscite. Why?????? I am not saying that I agree with these laws of the parliament, but it seems inconsistent to me that the behaviour of people will change after the result is known. Niether do we know now as we are voting what these laws will be. Secondly, George Brandis has said, as have other MPs, that nothing will change if the yes vote wins out and is subsequently made law. The authorities in the N.T. disagree. They are quoted in their local newspaper as saying that the freedoms that religions currently enjoy will be curtailed in a number of ways, one example of which is that Church properties, including church buildings, will have to be available to anyone who wants to use them.

Can anyone think of another situation where Catholics are advised to vote/decide either way - yes/no - whatever - and yet the church still demands legal protection to exclude the people affected/benefited by the affirmative vote? If the issue is so grave that the church needs protection, shouldn't Catholics be clearly advised to vote no? There are many grey moral issues where it's possible to argue either way, but none I'm aware that would merit such an extreme response. Do any LGBTI people feel like invisible pawns in this tussle between politics and religion? Are our souls being used as bargaining chips?

My parents have been married for 52 years, my 7 siblings are all married (one now divorced). As a society we understand what "married" means. I don't know what is meant to be "civil unionised". I hope that the 15 years in my same sex relationship will grow to be many more. "Till death do us part" is a commitment I am willing to make. I certainly hope I can make it soon. Thank you to all the people who are voting "yes".

This is a well reasoned article. I agree with the position that Fr. Frank Brennan has defended here. I have been teaching moral theology and Catholic social teaching here in New Zealand since February this year and working in a parish. I have discussed the New Zealand experience after the legalization of same-sex marriage with my students and with parishioners. As Catholics they accept the teaching of the Church. They report no conflicts regarding freedom of religion. The legislation has not led to notable social conflicts. The Catholic doctrine of sacramental marriage has, of course, been upheld and lived within the Catholic community.

I appreciated Noel Macmaster's comment as he introduced an anthropological perspective to our consideration on the place of same sex marriage in our current society. For me he has clarified the distinction surrounding one of the major tension points in this decision; that is "'equal but not the same" As Noel said there is an overlap in commitment between heterosexual and homosexual marriage but a radical difference when it comes to procreation and parenting. Our challenge is how do we acknowledge and honour both the overlap and the radical difference so that both unions and different ways of expressing human maintain their integrity

Thank you, Aurelius, but I wonder how many who subscribe to the tautology "Love is Love" are aware of your exegetical rationalization that relies on scripture alone and ignores two thousand years of the Catholic Church's teaching tradition on marriage? Moreover, I'd have thought that both intention and action were relevant to the integrity of personal and social morality.

With all due respect to Father Frank and all the learned commentariat, I agree with you Alice. Didn’t G.K. Chesterton, in Twelve Ordinary Men, say something along the lines, ‘That if we want to do something unimportant like send a rocket to the moon, we gather a group of experts but, our civilization has decided that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. When it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary people standing around. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity’. I have been voting in Australian elections, plebicites, referenda since 1960. I consider this the most important matter to have come before the Australian people in my voting lifetime. Ordinary common sense; what I understand to be Catholic teaching; the precious, unique, biological nature of marriage between a man and a woman (and the upstream and downstream lineage connections, however imperfect); the experience in other countries where SSM has been enacted, all these things tell me that voting No is a vital gift to all Australians.

I must tell you, Michael Furtado, I had no idea who John Carmody is, probably because these days scholarship has split itself into so many subbranches that it is impossible for the average educated literate person to keep up with all of them. Unless you used your academic title and told us of your studies and expertise, you would also be a blank to me and many other educated readers of Eureka Street. Frank Brennan is pretty widely known in Australia, not just for his academic qualifications, but for the quite considerable practical efforts he has made in the real world on matters such as Aboriginal justice. I think it was perfectly in order to remind the unknown to me John Carmody of Frank's particular expertise. Perhaps for yourself that might be redundant, but ES is not an academic journal, although an extremely intelligent one. From experience at four different universities I am not sure that academics per se are all that practically intelligent. Some are actually pretty hopeless coping with real life.

Thank you Brian Johnstone for bringing this conversation back to the question at hand, this plebiscite has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of sacramental marriage which will go on whatever the result. It has everything to do with civil marriage for which religious arguments, either for or against, are irrelevant inappropriate.

I was heartened to read the comment by Brian Johnstone. Where social change is proposed it is almost impossible to conduct a laboratory-like experiment that would show the benefits and the dangers of the change. Even when a simple change like adding fluoride to a town's water supply is mooted all the evidence produced by dental experts is ignored or challenged on all sorts of spurious scientific, emotional, and even spiritual grounds. Human society is like that. So when a person of the standing of Brian Johnstone gives a real life example of the consequences of SSM legislation in New Zealand I am disappointed that there has been little reference to this successful social experiment by our Kiwi cousins. Perhaps there is no way to change the "We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan" attitude that prevails in Australian politics and in conservative religious communities. Make no mistake. This Postal Survey may masquerade as an Opinion Poll but it is a bare-knuckled pugilistic fight initiated by John Howard and advanced by Tony Abbott to mobilise conservatives against progressives. The happiness and the human rights of Same Sex Attracted couples are becoming more & more irrelevant.

I was interviewed by Kieran Gilbert on SkyNews this morning re: same sex marriage and the Catholic Church. There is no one Catholic position on how a citizen should vote in this ABS Survey. See https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/913173631303217152 Once the ABS survey is done and dusted, there will be a need for our politicians to do the hard work, considering how best to protect religious freedom in Australia. This is an issue not just in relation to same sex marriage. See https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/913171490756902912

Thank you, John - it seems we agree - that 'love is love' reflects the universality of morality (the intentions/actions involved are not the concern of LGBTI people alone)

Once you change the marriage law, there are legitimate questions about freedom of religion. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. See https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/913172349696053248

There are comments which will never be written and consequently not read on this issue, by people who may be uneducated, though not necessarily. Whose opinion is just as valid. There is a great movie: MR NOBODY about making' life choices', and 'end of life choices'. Voting yes or no or not voting is a choice we all are entitled to, including ALL belonging to religious denominations, Ginger. Have you seen the movie? Nemo's ( latin for: no man- no one) 'choice' towards the end of his life 'is not to choose'. Although, surrounded by a society that demands him to make a choice.I am very interested in knowing your opinion about this movie Dr Michael Furtado and that of John CARMODY. If you care to watch it and express one in regards. We cannot deny, in many life situations this is at times our only move as many chess players also know. And as many who are not voting either 'yes' or 'no' may also know, and wish to explain why, if they made the choice to do so, but don't.

Fr Frank, I am astounded and now more concerned than ever to read your statement that 'Once you change the marriage law, there are legitimate questions about freedom of religion.' You have endorsed, precisely, the primary argument of the No campaign that it will be too late once the Yes vote is in to argue for all the safety nets you have enumerated. Brian Johnstone tells us, based on the NZ experience, that there is nothing to worry about, that everything will be better than fine. Forgive me for being dubious. Is it seriously contended that once the Parliament gets its SSM it will give half a hoot about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or ''legitimate questions about freedom of religion'? I have voted NO, in part, precisely because of the very issues that FR Frank has raised and because I don’t share this faith in our politicians on these issues. It will be all too late after everyone has let the horse bolt. The YES campaign has been dogmatic that any talk about 'freedom of religion' and other 'unforeseen consequences' are red herrings. They argue that it’s only about ‘Love is Love’.

Bb, I can understand your being dubious. These are matters of political and prudential assessment. You might be interested to know that Fr Brian Johnstone C.SS.R is one of Australia’s pre-eminent, most experienced moral theologians. He is now emeritus professor of moral theology/ethics at the Catholic University of America. His CV is available at http://trs.cua.edu/res/docs/faculty-pages/johnstone/johnstone%20CV%2008.pdf

I voted YES. I think the world has been far to cruel for far too long to same sex people. More love and respect.

Ginger Meggs, Legalizing same-sex marriage could, in fact, have very much to do with the ability of Catholic institutions - for instance, schools - to exercise freedom of religion in relation to what is taught. Brian Johnstone's relatively recent experience in New Zealand is not typical of other overseas experience in this matter

On Brian Johnstone to Frank Brennan and Frank Brennan to Brian Johnstone: I would prefer a larger sample than the one Brian presents; it seems to be a few seminarians/students and parishioners. There are enough comments here to suggest we need further discussion more than an argument from authority.

'Once you change the marriage law, there are legitimate questions about freedom of religion'. Why the 'if, then, else?' relationship Frank? Why would changing the civil marriage law suddenly require a revisiting of religious freedoms? The civil marriage law has been changed many times before and yet there has been no question of it undermining the freedom to practice or teach one's religion. No priests have been prosecuted or sued for refusing to marry divorced parties. No priests have been prosecuted or sued for teaching that divorce is wrong in the eyes of the Church. What makes you think that priests will be prosecuted or sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples or teaching that such marriages are wrong in the eyes of the Church? You seem to make a big deal of NZ's Bill or rights, but what protection does it give? 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference'. Do you really think that is significant in terms of the ready acceptance of marriage equality in NZ? Do you really think those freedoms will be at risk here 'once you change the marriage law'?

In responding to the survey, we need to discern, in the context of the Scriptures, the meaning of our prayer: 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven'.

First just to remind 'no' voters, SSM is not being made compulsory! That might sound trite, but it is worth keeping in mind in this debate. Second, yes there are religious freedoms and other human rights issues to consider, as they must be - if need be - after the SSM issue is legislated - as it must be - if human rights are to be recognised for non heterosexual people. Religious freedoms can be dealt with afterwards, and separately, but should not be allowed to contaminate the SSM debate before us today. Third. We are asked to consider the civil rights of all here in Australian civil society, not just those of the heterosexual community. We are not asked to revise the Catholic sacrament of marriage within the Church - neither its application nor its integrity, nor its sacramental status. As I said: SSM is not being made compulsory at law, just available ... for those who seek it. We're not asked to approve their marriage sacramentally, just to recognise it as their right legally.

I was very pleased to hear Archbishop Coleridge telling David Speers this evening: 'Of course, it's possible to vote "yes". It depends why you vote "yes".....As a Catholic, you can vote "yes" or you can vote "no".' He's voting "no", and I'm voting "yes".

this is one hell of an article and I agree with fr frank that they should do it right now and get it over with and not hurt too many people

Pam, I share both your hopes and concerns as to the how readily the welcome mat would be extended to same-sex married couples turning up to St. Wherever's Catholic Church of a Sunday morning. Thomas A replies that such couples could be included "except" that they would be ineligible to receive the Eucharist. With all respect, Thomas, you say that as if it is a minor thing, though I'm sure that is due the limits of Internet communication rather than to actual sentiment. To be denied access to the Eucharist is to be denied the very life and heart of the Church. Little else matters does it? Not in comparison to such a loss surely? It would be a little like being invited to a wedding and asked to sit outside looking in while the important guests were being served. I voted "Yes" and I hope that one day my sacramentally married same-sex family members will be able to join me at the table of the Lord in our Catholic Church. Yet, in reality, I know that I will not see that day in my lifetime. So, my family is looking elsewhere for where we might worship, since some Christian churches have already laid out the welcome mat to those who are gay.

So glad that you exercised your democratic right to vote Yes in this postal survey Fr Frank. What I don't understand is why you go further and publicly advocate for the Yes vote? As Chris Howard commented, the Pope's directive on this is clear http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/03/pope-says-marriage-can-only-be-between-a-man-and-a-woman-and-we-cannot-change-it/ What about Papal Authority? A Catholic's duty to evangelise? Yes I live in a pluralistic society but I did not vote for or condone some of this society's laws. And I certainly do not acquiesce to these (or any future) laws which are in direct conflict to the teachings of the Catholic church.

BPLF and Pam, BPLF, I was not meaning to suggest that same-sex couples, married or otherwise should be excluded from Communion. On the contrary, as a Catholic who is gay with a partner of over 30 years I do not accept the Church's teaching on witholding Communion from anyone, including divorcees. In my view after studying theology at masters level, I have come to the conclusion that no human being, Pope or otherwise has the right to withold communion from anyone if they come to the table seeking a deeper relationship with Christ and God. Period. The sooner the Church gets its head around this the better, and the more it will be acting as Christ in the world. I understand your considering finding another denomination to embrace. I too want inclusivity not exclusivity. The Baptists and Uniting Church in some places in Australia are already making changes to this effect. To paraphrase Archbishop Desmond Tutu: 'We are all God's children - black, white, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim... and athiest. In God's family there are no outsiders: all belong.' Best wishes to you both and yours.

The debate on same sex marriage is becoming increasingly ill tempered with all sorts of accusations flying fast and free. I don't always support Gerard Henderson, who, neither being an academic nor the possessor of a PhD, having bypassed those and formal politics to speak his own mind without fear or favour, has the street smarts to know how politics and government work. His article in today's Weekend Australian 'Commentary' section 'Yes vote a plunge into the great unknown' endorses the views in this article. There are many people, myself included, who will vote 'Yes' purely and simply on the grounds of civil liberties and bringing the law up to date with modern realities. This 'Yes' vote does not necessarily connote an endorsement from a religious point of view of SSM. Indeed I should be very keen for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to continue their teaching on sexuality and marriage without bigotry. The bigotry I fear is that of the neo-Trotskyite political Left who wish to impose highly contentious teachings and practices on all schoolchildren through such vehicles as the misnamed Safe Schools Program. I think when people with the legal smarts like Frank and George Williams talk about a Bill of Rights being necessary to protect religious freedom they are on target.

For Catholics considering whether and how to ‘vote’ in the ABS survey, there are four distinct preliminary questions which need to be sifted: 1. what constitutes a sacramental marriage? 2. what constitutes a marriage recognised by the Catholic church? 3. what constitutes a marriage in the natural order? 4. what constitutes a marriage in civil law? I see the ABS survey as relating only to question 4, and that's why I am voting 'yes'.   I had previously favoured civil unions but both sides , including our bishops, ruled that option out back in 2012. From there, it was ‘all or nothing’. We have reached the stage when it is inevitable that Australian law within the next five years will recognise same sex marriage.   The issue for consideration is about how that is best to be achieved, while maintaining the discussion and clarity about preliminary questions 1-3, while enhancing the protection of religious freedom, while enhancing the standing of the Church, and while enhancing the respect and dignity of all, including those couples who are wanting to live faithful, perpetual same sex unions - and their children.

Forgive me Frank if your article and, especially, your 2 October post reminds me of Mark Antony's 'I come to bury Cæsar not to praise him' speech. You seem to say clearly that it's OK to vote YES for 'what constitutes a marriage in civil law' but then you go on in a way that could raise doubts in the minds of the faithful by saying that 'the issue for consideration is about how that is best to be achieved, while maintaining the discussion and clarity... , while enhancing the protection of religious freedom, while enhancing the standing of the Church, and while enhancing the respect and dignity of all... etc' Clearly that 'issue' ('how' rather than 'whether') has by your own reasoning nothing whatsoever to do with the question being asked in this accursed survey.

Fr Brennan said in 2010: “The State has an interest in privileging group units in society which are likely to enhance the prospects that future children will continue to be born with a known biological father and a known biological mother who in the best of circumstances will be able to nurture and educate them.” But by voting “Yes” to same-sex marriage, it seems to me Fr Brennan is now implying one of two things: 1. The State no longer has this interest. 2. Same-sex “marriages”, which, adoption aside, can only create families by breaking biological bonds between children and parents, are in accord with this interest of the State. How does Fr Brennan defend whichever of these propositions he assents to?

‘Same sex couples’ are already creating families HH, voting ‘no’ won’t change that, marriage equality will only strengthen them.

Is it not the case that following the legalisation of SSM in the UK, 12 small but respected Catholic adoption agencies were required either to close or secularise because their choice for children to have a mother and father (I think the same preference most of us would have expressed had we ever been given that choice) became discriminatory? I can't reconcile Frank's apparent acquiescence to an Australian bishops' 2012 ruling regarding 'civil union' with his argument regarding freedom of conscience. That is, why not continue arguing for civil union if this is the better option? Wouldn't this provide equal State rights and social rites & affirmations to same-sex couples, but provide the potential to differentiate the two institutions, and so absolutely preserve the church’s right to continue its teachings regarding the nature of ‘marriage’, and actions regarding what it believes are the best interests of children? Most of us are sceptical of politicians even regarding specific promises, so to believe a blanket ‘trust us’ in relation to religious freedom seems to me like a suspension of disbelief.

I went back and read the 2010 article HH. Interesting and I don’t know if Frank Brennan would have exactly the same views seven years later; he can speak for himself. Who of us has not changed in that time? Also interesting to read the comments, including a lengthy exchange between correspondents Alex Lewis and Hugh Henry, but I digress. If you must continue to talk about children (and this is after all only relevant to couples who want to raise children), it seems to me the State has an interest in ensuring the best interests of the child are protected, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. There is no evidence GLBTQI parents are less capable than other parents of providing a safe and loving family for their children and there should be no distinction in how they are treated by the State. A “no” vote in the informal postal survey won’t stop GLBTQI people raising children. That’s already happening. All it will do is deny those children the right to have married parents. Is that what you really want?

In 2003, the CDF (headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger) issued a restatement of its implacable opposition to civil unions and same sex marriage insisting: ‘When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.’ I think it’s time that our bishops abandoned this approach. I doubt that the CDF would make such a restatement in 2017. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Oh dear, Edward Fido; apologies for the delay in replying, but you miss my point, which is that well-known and esteemed clerics, whether Jesuit or not, are not necessarily the enlightened arbiters of God's revelation that some take them to be. Last year, when the Irish plebiscite result on marriage equality constitutional change was announced, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, publicly expressed his frustration that, despite 87% of the Irish having had the benefit of a Catholic education, such a large majority of youth had voted in favour of same-sex marriage. This is but one of many instances in which the clerical wing of our Church has misread the intention of the faithful, and among whom has been Frank himself, who on television once stated his opposition to marriage equality but support for civil unions. In a post-Vatican II era, when the People of God are expected to have a say, such a comment as Archbishop Martin's leaves us wondering if clerical Catholics have made much progress since the time of the Counter-Reformation Jesuit Saint and Cardinal, Robert Bellarmine, who was instrumental in sending Giordano Bruno to the stake for stating that the Earth moved around the Sun.

In view of the submission of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to the Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief being conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade that the right to freedom of religion or belief ‘has only limited protection in Australia’s domestic law’, there is a need to consider freedom of religion issues in the wake of a ‘Yes’ vote for same sex marriage. In 1998, the Commission had recommended the enactment of a Religious Freedom Act which would have basically enacted Article 18 of the ICCPR into Australian domestic law. In 2000, the Parliament saw no need for such legislation. In February 2017, the Commission restated its position: ‘For many years, the Commission has advocated for freedom of religion or belief to be a protected attribute under federal anti-discrimination law’. The Commission ‘remains of the view that the Australian Government should consider expanding the circumstances in which anti-discrimination law protects against discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion’. The Commission readily acknowledges that there would be tensions in resolving the conflict of rights were the right to freedom of religion to be more appropriately recognised in Australian law and it has sought to ‘highlight the complexity of balancing competing rights and report the concerns stakeholders have raised through the Commission’s work in this area’. Given the concerns that have been raised, especially by many of the advocates for the ‘No’ case during the postal survey, it would be prudent for government (and the parliament) to require the AHRC to conduct an inquiry on these matters, and if need be, report back again to the parliament on the desirability of a Religious Freedom Act or of amendments to discrimination legislation so that religious belief is not just an exemption from other grounds of discrimination or from general equality, ensuring that religious freedom is enjoyed appropriately by religious persons.

The Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill when reporting in February 2017 stated that ‘there was consensus in the evidence received that the right to religious freedom should be positively protected. The nature of possible protections will continue to be debated. The committee heard of various potential remedies to this issue, such as an anti-detriment provision or a distinct legislative instrument to protect religious freedom. Many witnesses submitted that the introduction into the Australian legal context of a protection for freedom of religion was regarded as being most appropriately placed within anti-discrimination legislation. Necessarily, this would require consideration of any future anti-discrimination laws interactions with existing state and territory provisions. It is however clear that should legislation be enacted to change the definition of marriage, careful attention is required to understand and deliver a balanced outcome that respects the human rights of all Australians if the nation is to continue to be a tolerant and plural society where a diversity of views is not only legal but valued.’ That’s the task that needs to be performed once a ‘yes’ vote is carried, as it will be on 15 November 2017.

I have always considered myself a committed rusted on Catholic. I voted "yes" enthusiastically. I also used contraception and am softening my stance on euthanasia. All the while becoming closer to God and an abiding peace. I attend Mass because Jesus asked me to remember him by partaking in the Eucharist and I love the gospel. I came very close to walking out a few weeks ago when a letter from the Arch was read advising me to vote no. The only requirement necessary for a ruling on whether someone else's relationship is not deserving of equal status to yours is JUDGEMENT. Something I was brought up by my Catholic parents to do but am trying so hard to not. If it is all about procreation, don't tell me all of those neat small families in pews are practicing the rythm method. One really has very little option these days than to be a cafeteria Catholic, or leave.

Since my appearance on Q&A (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4736569.htm) some have been querying my quotation of Archbishop Coleridge. Here in its entirety is Archbishop Coleridge’s response to David Speers on Skynews: ‘Catholics we’re a big mob. Anyone who thinks we’re monolithic does not know the Catholic Church. It’s like herding cats. Catholics are going to vote “yes”, some are going to vote “no”, some are not going to vote at all. Some are going to vote “yes” for one reason, some for another; ditto with “no”. To think of a Catholic vote all going one way is just naïve. Of course it’s possible to vote “yes”. It depends why you vote “yes”. It’s possible to vote “no” but equally it depends why you vote “no”. And we’ve seen some awful stuff on both sides of the debate, or all sides of the debate, because there aren’t just two sides As a Catholic you can vote “yes” or you can vote “no”. I personally will vote “no” but for quite particular reasons. But I’m not going to stand here and say you vote “no”; and you vote “yes” and you’re a Catholic, you’ll go to hell. It’s not like that.’

Thanks, Frank, for this clarification. I share your concern about being abused over the position you've taken on the Marriage Equality debate. It isn't the first time: I well remember the attacks you sustained during the land rights debates. However, it takes courage but also clarity to engage in these illuminatingly so that a way ahead can be discerned for protagonists on all sides to have their deepest fears assuaged. I'd like to ask you about one of these from both your perspective as a Catholic priest as well as in reference to your commitment to human rights and legal protections for vulnerable Church employees. Eureka Street has carried several articles on ME but the one that sticks out for me as unresolved is about what is to happen in the instance of a YES vote being carried and subsequent legislation for gay marriage being passed if a gay teacher in a Catholic school were to choose to publicly celebrate such a dispensation by getting married. Are you saying that the Church has a right to the extension of protections it already has, but which may be jeopardised, once marital arrangements for same-sex persons are recognised within the civil code?

Unlike some commentators on same-sex marriage, Dr Michael Furtado recognizes that change in the current marriage definition inevitably carries impact beyond what is legally understood to constitute marriage; in this instance, its implication for Catholic schools. Should Dr Furtado's proposed scenario eventuate, it would involve a public and deliberate contradiction of formal Catholic teaching on both the nature of marriage and the authority on which this teaching is based. How could such a radical provocation from within be other than undermining of the integrity of the Catholic school's mission and the ethos required for its undertaking?

John, I think Frank Brennan addressed your concern about school teachings clearly on QandA last week with his example of the different church and state positions on abortion. When Marriage Equality happens I expect schools that have a mind to will be able to draw on the Caesar and God approach and explain how the legal definition of marriage differs from the church’s interpretation of marriage, in situations where there actually is a difference. It should not be too hard for young minds to understand that. To my much older mind the only good thing to come from the postal survey process and discussion is confirmation that there is no single Christian position on Marriage Equality.

Thanks, Brett & John, for reading Frank Brennan's silence so far on this matter in ways that do not satisfy my curiosity. Frank has consistently referred to the need to change the 'architecture' of human rights legislation in Australia so as to enshrine religious rights within a human rights framework, which is something that does not obtain at present. I ask, as Tony Jones did within the context of the Q&A program on which Frank appeared and stated this, why Frank seems to regard this as an urgent consideration after any presumed Marriage Equality legislation has been passed. While I endorse Brett's explanation, I am concerned, notwithstanding the employment of mixed metaphors, to know if Frank, like some who have two-bob each way, might be misread as hunting with the hounds and running with the hares on the Marriage Equality question.

Brett, To present Catholic teaching on marriage simply as an "interpretation" would be to diminish its status in a relativising way at odds with the Catholic Church's understanding of and responsibility for truth entrusted to Peter and the apostolic tradition by Christ, as well as the Church's affirmation of the objective reasonableness of natural law morality. The prior consideration, to my mind, is not that Christians differ in their views on same-sex marriage, but whether Christ's voice on faith and morals, which I take to be good and true for all, is knowable; and, if it is, as I believe it to be, which claims and practices are consistent with it. Further, I think the term "Marriage Equality" neither reflects nor respects the reality of significant differences between same-sex and heterosexual unions, and accordingly am sceptical of legal formulation that regards them as the same.

Dr Furtado, May I suggest you address your question on the case you raise to the bishops?

John, we will have to agree to differ on who is consistent with “Christ’s voice on faith and morals” and your unstated implication from that phrase that Marriage Equality is immoral. Catholic teaching on marriage is an interpretation. It may be based on knowable teaching and it may have wide acceptance in the church but it is still an interpretation. People with a different opinion may also subscribe to it being knowable and informing their opinions. I wonder how divorced people in and outside the church would respond to claims about the morality of their situations. Equal treatment under the law is what Marriage Equality is about. It isn’t about differences between heterosexual and GLBTQI couples, it is about equal access to the relationship itself. It is why civil unions that highlight differences are inadequate recognition of the relationship.

John, in the absence of Fr Brennan's reply to my question, I would agree that the matter will continue to dog Catholic school authorities. Of course, I suspect that the wiser and more discerning school principals drawn into such issues would, like Brett does, endorse the procedure that Fr Brennan has outlined in regard to addressing issues of sexuality within the context of the Catholic school. On the question of a married gay teacher coming out to his or her school, I am aware that such issues also exist and are carefully managed without recourse to unjust dismissal, so I imagine that no bishop would pronounce definitively on this question despite the threats of Archbishop Hart. It happens too that the instances I know about occur in religious institute schools and not diocesan ones, over which the bishop has more authority to exercise his will should he see fit to do so. I note too that teachers in religious institute schools are somewhat better protected in such matters by virtue of the higher and presumably better-educated socio-economic status of those parents who send their children to such schools and who would place teaching competence above matters of private relational moralities.

Yes, Brett, it looks like we will have to agree to differ on the distinction between the status of "interpretation" and "truth". Perhaps, at root, it's a matter of differing epistemologies and semantics, as well as faith: " . . . equal access to the relationship itself" begs the question of the identity of the relationship (viz. marriage) to which access is being sought. Michael Furtado, while acknowledging the complexities you note, I would regard a public declaration of opposition to Church teaching in a Catholic school, irrespective of perceptions supposedly conditioned by education or socio-economic status, as more than a matter of "private relational moralities."

Indeed we do differ John and nobody in this discussion has a monopoly on the truth (especially me). It is a matter of interpretation drawing on our education, awareness and experiences, in other words what we’ve learnt in our lives, as we all continually seek to know, or at least develop a better understanding of the mind of Christ. I don’t denigrate your opposition to Marriage Equality by saying I know the truth, because in its purest sense I don’t. But I strongly believe my support for Marriage Equality is not inconsistent with my faith. On a secular level the decision is clear. This survey is wrong and we should never have been put in the position of a public vote to extend the civil rights of the majority to another part of the population in the first place. Supporting Marriage Equality is simply the right thing to do.

John, these days quite a few teachers in Catholic schools are employed on the basis of their professional expertise rather than their commitment to a traditional view of marriage, and about half of which, including for Catholics, end in divorce. Ideally, of course, Catholic educators might be expected to conform with two sets of obligations, viz. the exercise of discretion as well as truth-telling. I think also that the Gospels, as I have been guided by Jesuit priests to apply them to my life, are for the real world, otherwise they would simply flounder on the rocks of canonical rules that fundamentalists insist upon in narrow formularised modalities. This means that beyond canonism , schools must exercise pastoral care, including respect for the civil marriage choices that teachers who happen to be gay might have available to them. Ordinarily, and as I have seen them applied, these freedoms are exercised discreetly but in full knowledge of a wise principal so that there can be no scope for gossip or blackmail. For you to regard such solutions as a public declaration of opposition to Church teaching in a Catholic school, is to grossly distort what I meant by "private relational moralities."

I agree that discretion is very important, Michael, but if there is a distortion in our discussion I think it would lie in a reduction to "canonism" of Catholic teaching on marriage, which contains a universal truth about we humans quite distinct from "private relational moralities".

And what might that universal truth be, John?

Michael, I'd recommend as a starting point The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part II, a.7, I, 1602-1605).

John, hasn't that question already been answered?..Pilate was speaking face-to-face with the Creator of the universe, Jesus Christ... “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. Though Pilate's wife had an inkling when she said, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered terribly in a dream today because of Him''. Christ is the Truth. The King of Life Eternal, and the destroyer of Death (Matthew 28:18). Not one proclaiming a system full of errors and sophism, the ideological dust of temporal power. Those who listen to Him the Truth ( Christ) belong to the Truth, and are called Christians : Of the Divine Redeemer, Divini Redemptoris-

John, you stated in your previous post: 'if there is a distortion in our discussion I think it would lie in a reduction to "canonism" of Catholic teaching on marriage.' Your subsequent reference to the Catechism refers me to a section, which fails to mention that the teaching on the sacramentology of marriage is relatively recent and, as such, alien to those who follow an imagined immutable source for the Church's teaching on marriage with origins that date back to Scripture, and which is palpably not historically true. Catholic teaching, as I was taught and know it, relies on a combination of reason and revelation and those who prioritise one or the other are simply guilty of imposing a kind of fundamentalism if not actual exegetical bias that distorts the fact that sacramental matrimony is still a moving exegetical site. Indeed, Pope Francis himself has said on several recent occasions that divorced persons should not be excluded from fully participating at the Table of the Lord, which includes reception of the Eucharist, an injunction that was specifically prohibited until recently and referred to as 'excommunication', which is the severest penalty that anyone who calls themselves Catholic would have to endure.

Dr Furtado: At least three elements of Church teaching on marriage as summarised in the CCC are constant in the Catholic tradition, and based on both revelation and reason: (i) God is the author of marriage;(2) marriage is between a man and a woman; and (3) the union of a man and a woman in marriage is part of God's creative purpose for human flourishing. The task of scriptural exegesis is to deepen, not change substantially, our received understanding of this perduring gift, institution and sacrament.

Yes or No. To Hell or not. https://richardlaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/avoid.jpg Major modern history past 'wrong way dates'- we now regrettably know too well: 1517-1717-1780-1917. According to one conversation the children at Fatima had with the Blessed Virgin Mary- the majority of those who are in hell, are there for acts of impurity. Because the choices we make and/or lead others to make are not final, and yet because Hell seems to be, I personally prefer to believe the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who also said,"Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord, and they are not of God."

John, the Commandment is to love; not not to! Ask any Catholic theologian or Scripture scholar. That the Church defines how this is to be done is a separate point, which has indeed changed drastically over the centuries in response to changing contexts. Jesus did perform his first miracle at the wedding in Cana. This was 'read' much later as initiating something new. Even the Sacrament of Matrimony is of recent construction, since well into the modern period marriage followed the birth of a first child and had strong links with the laws of primogeniture and dynastic inheritance. Marriage was not identified as a Sacrament by the Church until the C12th. Even the teaching that spouses are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage is not without a revisionist dimension, since before that time, and well into the Christian era, women were commonly regarded as their parents' property and therefore without choice. Even the Church's teaching that married Christians must be open to the creation of new life and committed to conceiving and nurturing as many or few or no children as prudence and desistance from artificial contraception permit, has fallen by the wayside for the overwhelming majority of Catholics.

Dr Furtado, it would be interesting to know what criteria for change you expect to be met in matters of Church teaching. I am of the mind, following Newman's idea of the development of doctrine, that when pronouncing on faith and morals (as in the 12th century formal recognition of marriage as a sacrament to which you refer) the Church is making explicit was was already implicit in the apostolic tradition initiated by Christ. As I see it, one problem with positing same-sex marriage as a development in doctrine, as you evidently do, is that it is not continuous with the Church's perennial understanding of marriage as requiring the union of a man and a woman.

John, I think you would be on shaky ground quoting Cardinal Newman in defence of your position (which I'm glad to say appears to have softened a bit in respect of your novel admission of such a thing as doctrinal development) considering that Newman was in two minds about the papal infallibility dogma and its potential for exaggerated if not flamboyant abuse: www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_139_Nw-Infallibiity.html You are also egregiously mistaken about gay marriage never having been permitted by the Catholic Church. A relatively recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that the Catholic and Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. (John Boswell, "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, New York, NY, (1994).

Dr Furtado, ". . . shaky ground . . ." on Newman and papal infallibility? I wouldn't have thought so. As Avery Dulles SJ says in "Newman on Infallibility": "When the dogma was defined in 1870, he initially hesitated as to whether it was binding on Catholics. Soon, however, he overcame his doubts and became a leading apologist for the definition." (Fordham University: Theological Studies, 51, 1990, p.434). With regard to John Boswell's 1994 book, it should be noted that his thesis has been subjected to serious and widespread peer review and criticism from both Latin and Eastern rite scholars, particularly concerning translation, sources, interpretation and historical revisionism (for instance, cf Princeton Professor of Classics, Dr Brent Shaw's ,"A Groom of One's Own ", New Republic, July, 1994, and Dr Patrick Viscuso, New Oxford Book Reviews, December, 1994.) I note, too, that you do not address my question on the criteria you advance for change in formal Catholic teaching.

Oh, No John. The criteria you ask for have all been addressed by very many better than myself in all of the several articles and their attendant comments published by ES on this subject. They are, by way of summation: pronouncement by the papacy (Pope Francis has said: "Who am I to judge"!); acceptance by the Faithful (who have now voted by a majority of 2:1 in favour of gay marriage); the backing of seriously well-informed and discerning scripture scholars, canonists and theologians (not including the spectacularly outspoken - and perchance at some cost to themselves - Andrew Hamilton & Frank Brennan SJs as well as the Heads of Australia's two leading Jesuit colleges). I appreciate that defeat requires grace to mitigate one's disappointment at the voting result, but have you not a stool there to be so thoroughly miserable upon? ;)

....As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will be the coming of the Son of Man.…

Dr Furtado, the parties to which you refer may be part of a process that informs Catholic teaching on faith and morals, but they do not, per se, including the remark of Pope Francis that you include, constitute the Church's magisterium. On the understanding of marriage in formal Catholic teaching, nothing has changed. The plebiscite result, carried into law, will present significant questions, as Fr Brennan has indicated, for the exercise of religious freedoms.

John, I imagine Fr Brennan and our Catholic Educational lobby now feverishly at work responding to the Marriage Equality Bill, when it is known and passed, as it should, according to Frank. Thereafter, the Church has one or two trump cards up its jurisprudential sleeve that ought to be played to our joint advantage should the occasion arise. As the ultimate arbiters of Justice in The World, everybody with a Jesuit affinity would know that the one feature scandalously missing from the Australian Catholic school is its commitment to the Church's teaching that the the Catholic School is, first and foremost, for the poor and those most in need of support from the Church. In my research, I have mapped the various ways in which Australian Catholics have drifted ever further away from this injunction in our schools. Should any Australian government properly and at long last insist upon a non-discriminatory policy in religious schools towards the everyday reality that homosexuality exists in the natural world and has to be dealt with through educational and administrative processes that are beyond exclusion and/or denial, the time would be ripe to drop our exemptive dispensations and ask for fee-free, fully-funded Catholic schools.

Dr Furtado, I don't accept, as indicated in other threads in our discussion, the premise thtunderlies your proposal - a disconnect between Catholic teaching and school ethos. I question, too, your idea that same-sex couples are among the poorest and those most in need of the support of Catholic schooling. The campaign for the "Yes " case has been spear-headed by highly-paid members of the legal profession, Corporate CEOs, Media and Entertainment celebrities, career Academics and other well-heeled personnel - not the poor evident in most Catholic schools in Australia.

John, when you wrote: "The plebiscite result, carried into law, will present significant questions, as Fr Brennan has indicated, for the exercise of religious freedoms", you misrepresented Fr Brennan, who, responding to a question from ABC Q&A's Tony Jones, stated that it was not his intention to sneak in Bill of Rights on the heels of a Marriage Equality vote of which he thoroughly approved. Fr Brennan has many strings to his bow, one of which in ES has been Catholic school funding. Who knows what card tricks he may have up his clever jurisprudential sleeve! Whatever these are, both he and his brother Jesuit, Andrew Hamilton, as well as others here, have expressed their view on how homosexual marriage should be addressed in the Catholic school, and I would very much doubt that Fr Brennan would approve of Catholic teachers engaged in same-sex marriage in good faith being dismissed for that. So neither you nor I know at this stage what he means. You have also either misunderstood or misconstrued my intention in relation to the sacrifice that the poor have to pay in relation to Australia being one of the few countries in which Catholic schools charge fees.

Dr Furtado, can you explain why same-sex couples whose understanding of marriage is at publicly and assertively at odds with the Catholic Church's teaching on it should feel entitled to employment in a Catholic school committed to the development and practice of the Catholic faith? You are correct in saying that neither of us yet knows Fr Brennan's legal path through the entanglements for Catholic schools posed by legalization of same-sex marriage, but quite wide of the mark in failing to acknowledge his concern for due protection of religious freedoms. I wonder, too, how, should your proposal be adopted, Catholic schools would be distinguishable from their state counterparts? Would not entering such an arrangement come at the cost of independence, identity and integrity?

John, I have no knowledge of what Frs Brennan and Hamilton would say, in respect of the former's recently appointed membership of the Prime Minister's advisory group, beyond what both have already said in regard to the employment status of gay Catholic teachers and to which I have already alluded. However, Frank Brennan addressed about fifteen minutes of his remarks in a 50 minute long public oration last night at the Toowong-Auchenflower Jesuit Parish in Brisbane and, should you wish to corroborate my account, you are welcome to confirm it with him. Frank stated that the Church of the C21st was in a very different space from that presided over during the papacies of John-Paul II & Benedict. Once our Bishops had turned down civil unions, which had been the advice of Archbishop Coleridge to the Newman government, there was no going back on it, which it recently unsuccessfully attempted, as public opinion is hardly static and the pace of events overseas has subsequently shown. I would also remind that any attempts to strengthen the already strict exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation would have to address the shrill demands for sharia law in some circles, which public opinion would hardly tolerate.

John, I did NOT state that same-sex couples whose marital situation is at odds with Catholic teaching should feel entitled to employment in a Catholic school. I stated that existential realities and matters of conscience should be respected, and central to a discernment on this should be an attention to the honesty, human rights, context and integrity of all parties concerned, especially the circumstances of the teacher and the maturity and courageous witness of the principal in view of widely-agreed societal norms. In my view, these standards and values broadly reflect the position of Fr Brennan, who addressed an audience of about 200 Catholics in Brisbane last Thursday about the times in which we live as 21st Century Catholics. He stressed the importance of lay consultation and leadership and clearly stated that the clerical church was on the nose. He emphasised, quoting Pope Francis, that Rome did not have all the answers. He stated that the disreputable practice of reporting transgressors to Rome had come to an end and that the sacraments are for all people of goodwill rather than bound by canonical norms. In my view, fee-free Catholic schools would be highly distinguishable from their counterparts in following suit.

Dr Furtado, in your concern that pastoral care for staff in Catholic schools be met, I believe you underestimate the political resolve of same-sex marriage activists who claim that disagreement with their position is a denial of human rights and regard Catholic teaching on marriage as an exercise in discrimination (assumed to be unjust). Further, your observations and recommendations in relation to Catholic teaching and policy seem to be based more on social phenomenology than ecclesiology. And I can't say I'm prepared to make the assent in faith you require when stating that fee-free Catholic schools would be "highly distinguishable" from state schools. How could this be so if due autonomy in staffing and curriculum were were the price to be paid? Mother Teresa, whose pastoral solicitude and compassion were exemplary, warned emphatically against reliance on government funding of Catholic projects and institutions because of the enervating compromising of prophetic vision and practice entailed in such arrangements.

John, my concern for the pastoral care of staff is indivisible from my concern for parents and students as well as for society at large. It has nothing to do with your preoccupation with SSM activists. Human rights is not a Catholic-specific discourse and cannot be mediated differentially in case it collapses under the burden of the exemptions you place on it, just as God's love knows no boundaries and cannot be applied differentially, especially through the discriminatory sword that you wield. As for my alleged 'social phenomenology', I simply appeal to inculturation, without which we would become an elect, fortressed behind the seige mentality of fundamentalism and disengaged with a world which we are called to evangelise, as ES does in carrying this article and exchange. Regarding St Teresa, as a native-born Indian I'd caution against your universalist generalisations that brings Catholicism into disrepute: for many people, Catholic and Hindu alike, she was a goddess personified in a nativist context that had little resonance with the world of justice and peace. Incidentally, India is too poor to fund its Catholic schools so your closing warning simply cannot apply where Catholic schools would shut without funding and cease to evangelise.

Dr Furtado, I do, in fact, recognize that human rights' discourse is not "Catholic-specific", but recognize, too, that there is a very specific issue of the rights of Catholic parents, which, despite the breadth of your pastoral concern attested in your latest post, does not, to date, appear in your sustained Eureka Street advocacy on behalf of LBGTIQ people, particularly in relation to Catholic schools. I'd also say that it is a remarkably sweeping, and, to my mind, insupportable judgment to regard Catholic schools of the past and present, operating under the legitimate exemptions designed to secure their freedoms to pursue the mission integral to their founding - exemptions you wish to abolish - as "disengaged" from the wider world they are called to serve with the message of the Gospel. Moreover, the image of Mother Teresa as "a goddess personified in a native context" is hardly the common one associated with her name the world over; and, at least for Catholics, sainthood's qualities transcend the sort of cultural relativities to which you appeal. I might also add that the good Mother's admonition was delivered to Jesuits in Australia, which is the immediate context for our discussion of same-sex marriage implications.

John, my remarks about gay teachers in Catholic schools relate entirely to the topicality of the issue, as well as in terms of the very wide coverage given to it in ES. It has nothing to do with my wider and broader interests across ES's publication platform as the record shows. Your one-issue insinuation is accordingly misapprehending as well as unjust. As it happens, my specialist research is Australian Catholic School Funding, which happens to be uniquely different from that in any other OECD polity. Catholic schools are universally part of local, state or central government funding provision to the full extent of their costs in all other OECD countries, with the exception of the US, where they are in decline. In researching this topic at both Master's and Doctoral levels the one causal factor for my church respondents opting for non-government status and school fees was their fear of outside interference. As a result we now have less than 50% of Catholic children in our schools, which is a shockingly disproportionate ransom to pay for homophobia.

Dr Furtado, it is regrettable that we cannot find agreement on this issue.

John, agreement that suppresses the rights of some to live as God made them in order to honour the rights of others is no agreement at all because natural justice shows that one side exaggerates its claims, proposing that discrimination against homosexuals is based on a fiction. For many years, homosexuals were treated as if we did not exist, and when it became obvious that we did, being despised as perverts. Like you, I believe that we are all sinners, but even then homosexuals are treated according to the Catechism as disordered, which bestows on us a position considerably morally inferior to those with a disability, inferring that we are at odds with the moral order as it applies to human sexuality. In that regard, there are even Church agencies that, contrary to all evidence, champion 'reparative' therapies that claim to 'cure' homosexuals of our 'disorder'. Your focus on 'protecting' children from homosexuals in teaching ministry, presumably by screening teachers for sexual preference, counters all principles of natural justice and seeks to uphold a Church position that is as morally and pastorally bankrupt as it is ethically and theologically unsustainable. I wish you exceedingly well in grappling with your dilemma.

Dr Furtado, in the interests of clarity on our differences, I point out you are mistaken in presuming that my concern is about "screening teachers for sexual preference"; rather, it is about encouraging respect for the Church's teaching and its free and true communication in the Catholic school environment.

John, if that is what you authentically mean, there can be no difference between us. However, nearly all of your posts on this topic speak of excluding homosexual persons, who are honest about the way God made them, from teaching positions in the Catholic school. Such an attitude either supports the practice of deceit on their part or, as a more 'viable' alternative, the dismissal or exclusion that you have implicitly and logically espoused in respect of your position. To argue otherwise at this point is to engage in pedantry and deception of an extraordinary kind. All the several gay teachers in Catholic schools that I know, and who include priests, nuns, brothers and non-religious lay-persons, encourage respect for the Church's teaching and its free and true communication in the Catholic school environment and which includes the crucial question of freedom of conscience and its rights in all moral decision-making. I'm sorry if this is too complex and not untrammeled enough for you but the issue isn't black and white, as Pope Francis himself avows, and cannot be resolved by appeal to a notion of truth that denies the one side or the other, as theologically-literate Catholics would surely agree.

Let your Yes be Yes and your No. No everything else... Our human reasoning is not Black or White. But Christ's is. To see it His way for those who truly believe. Therein lies the challenge.

Dr Furtado, it seems to me that staff in Catholic schools who would choose to enter into same-sex marriage place themselves, ipso facto, in a stance of opposition to Catholic teaching that renders it untenable to claim they simultaneously support it. Such a choice would also effectively encourage the erroneous idea that Church teaching, if not entirely irrelevant to the formation and exercise of conscience, is subordinate to State law in conscionable decision-making. The reality of staff who would choose same-sex marriage is distinguishable from that of homosexually-oriented staff members who affirm that same-sex marriage contravenes the Church's teaching. It is the former whose suitability for a Catholic school staff is in question. Contrary to your assertion, I have neither said nor implied that homosexually-oriented persons should be dismissed or excluded from teaching in Catholic schools. I observe, too, that our differences in this exchange extend beyond this particular topic to the ideas of authority, governance and unity in the Church, as well as the nature of conscience.

John, you are right to observe that our differences in this exchange extend beyond this particular topic to ideas of authority, governance and unity in the Church, as well as the nature of conscience. My position, like that of most Catholics formed in the tradition of Vatican II, is drawn from 'Gaudium et Spes', which proclaims: "The joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of women and men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts". Such a proclamation proposes an entelechy that is radically discontinuous with the past and breaks with an ecclesiology that binds Catholicism to a mindset that pretends or affects to suggest that the Church has never stumbled or made egregious mistakes or, indeed, has had all the answers for all time, including those about the many new questions and understandings about homosexuality that were unknown until about a century ago and which form the basis of new cultural knowledge and breakthrough theological research that has no precedence in this instance in Church history.

Dr Furtado, thank you for your candour in affirming where our views differ; we might add to them the hermeneutic of discontinuity you espouse in relation to Vatican II. I suppose, if little else, our exchanges have raised the broader issue of the limits of pluralism in the Church. That will have to wait for another day. I wish you the blessings and peace of God with us in Christ Jesus.

And so do I, dear John!