Archbishop Porteous's article in yesterday's Australian
Posted by Margaret Anne on October 1, 2016, 4:44 pm
JULIAN PORTEOUSThe Australian12:00AM September 30,
In the present context of a possible plebiscite on changing the Marriage Act, increasingly we are being confronted with the proposition that to express disagreement with, or offer criticism of, certain positions on human sexuality is to be hateful. Those who dare simply to state that marriage is a relationship of lifelong sexual fidelity between a man and a woman, and no more, are labelled as haters.
This mentality involves a deeply flawed logic.
To say that a particular behaviour or action is not good for society or is morally wrong is not to promote hatred towards those who engage in such behaviour.
In philosophy, and indeed in law, there is an absolutely crucial distinction between people and their actions, or people and beliefs. We can fundamentally respect people, and the dignity of all human beings, while being critical of their actions or beliefs. To say that stealing is morally wrong does not inescapably mean that you are inciting hatred towards all thieves. To say that lying is morally wrong does not mean that you are inciting hatred towards all those who lie.
To incite hatred towards a person or group is to intentionally seek to demean a person or group by claiming they are worth less than other human beings or deserve less respect because of an attribute they have.
To hate, one needs to genuinely intend to demean the worth of others. This involves criticising who the person is instead of simply criticising what they do. The Catholic Church, and indeed all Christians, absolutely reject any behaviour, speech or actions that incite hatred. Criticism of particular actions or behaviour does not constitute incitement of hatred towards the person. Being critical of actions or beliefs is not in itself being critical of the person. This understanding is a fundamental presupposition of democratic government. Democracy requires disagreement in order to flourish; it requires that a range of views can be put forward in a respectful way that are critical of the beliefs or actions of others.
If expressing criticism of others’ beliefs or actions in itself is claimed to be inciting hatred then democracy would no longer be possible.
Christianity has always understood this distinction in its own approach when it speaks of condemning the sin while loving the sinner. Criticising particular types of actions, no matter how many times a person performs them, does not mean in any way that you are condemning the person.
Christianity first made the revolutionary claim that all human beings were equal in dignity, because they were made in the image and likeness of God, and that they retained this dignity despite how they acted. Of course, by acting rightly, they more closely embody this dignity. This was a radical claim in the ancient world that had not been made previously. No matter whether they were slave or free, woman or man, rich or poor, all were equal in dignity in the sight of God.
Those who accuse others of being haters simply for expressing criticism of a particular view of human sexuality are in reality promoting hate themselves. They are expressing hatred of anything that is critical of their point of view. They readily use tags and labels to accuse people of attitudes that they do not in fact have. They are unwilling to allow anyone who disagrees with them the opportunity to express their beliefs.
Christianity, on the other hand, is about presenting the truth in love. Love has been and always will be the way of Christianity. No one who authentically follows the teaching of Christ can hate. This is fundamentally incompatible with the way of love.
Love is not about an emotional feeling that simply accepts whatever actions people choose — it concerns seeking the good of the other in relation to the truth of the human person.
One cannot therefore love without proclaiming the truth and encouraging others to live according to the truth regardless of whether it will prove uncomfortable or inconvenient for some.
The Christian simply seeks to present what they believe is the truth in love. They do this for the good of the individual and society as a whole. It is crucial for democracy that we reject the notion that disagreement with or criticism of beliefs or actions constitutes hate.
Julian Porteous is the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart.
Re: Archbishop Porteous's article in yesterday's Australian
An increasing number of laity, clergy and prelates, including such prominent Church leaders as Cardinal Carlo Caffarra and the respected Austrian theologian Wolfgang Waldstein, have signed a declaration of faith to counter what they see as continued ambiguities over key moral Church teachings on marriage and the family. As of Sept. 28, over 1,800 Church figures, including many priests, pro-life leaders, and eminent scholars, had added their name to a “Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline”.[My bold]
The declaration, made public on Sept. 27 with an initial 80 signatories, was drawn up in response to “the confusion” over the Church's moral teachings and practice that the organizers say has “only grown after the two Synods on the family” in 2014 and 2015, and the subsequent publication the Pope’s controversial summary document on the synods, Amoris Laetitia. Behind the document are members of the Supplica Filiale (Filial Appeal) association who collected nearly a million signatures between the two synods, asking Pope Francis to clarify the Church’s teaching on “key issues of natural and Christian morality.”
In a Sept. 27 statement, the organizers of the declaration said there is an “urgent moral duty to reaffirm the immemorial teaching of the Catholic magisterium on marriage and family and the pastoral discipline practiced for centuries with regard to these basic institutions of a Christian civilization.”
“This grave duty,” they added, “becomes even more urgent in view of the growing attack that secularist forces are unleashing against marriage and the family.” Catholic doctrine and practice, they continued, no longer appear to be “the accustomed barrier” against such an attack, at least in terms of how they are now being presented.
The appeal document, backed up by the Church’s “crystalline and indisputable teaching”, centers around 27 statements “upholding those truths explicitly or implicitly denied or rendered ambiguous in the present ecclesial language.”
According to the signatories, what is at stake are “unchangeable doctrines and practices” concerning such crucial areas as “faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the respect due to this Sacrament”; the impossibility of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist “in a state of mortal sin”; the conditions of “true repentance that enable to receive sacramental absolution”; and the “observance of the Sixth Commandment” not to commit adultery.
Also at stake, the signatories continue, is the “most serious obligation not to give public scandal and not lead the people of God to sin or to relativize good and evil”; and the “objective limits of consciousness when taking personal decisions.”
The declaration comes after 45 Catholic scholars appealed to Pope Francis in July to “repudiate” what they see as errors in Amoris Laetitia. Other prominent scholars, such as philosophy Professor Josef Seifert, have also criticized parts of the apostolic exhortation which they argue could not only "easily lead to misunderstandings and consequently to abuses" but also are "opposed to God’s Word" and the Church’s moral teaching.
Here below is a summary of the declaration. The full text can be found here and a list of initial signatories here.{See website}