I refer to your editorial and Michael Clifford's column of last week, both highly critical of Cardinal Seán Brady's address to the Céifin Conference in Ennis on 4 November last.Cardinal Brady spoke on the theme: "The Family as the Foundation of Society", see www.catholicbishops.ie, in which he emphasised that:
» the prospect of a married couple establishing a happy, loving and stable family home in Ireland today has never been greater.
Our challenge is to help women and men rediscover the joy of marriage, the life-long fulfilment it can offer, especially those who are reluctant to make a long-term commitment; and,
» the priority of the family over society and over the State has to be reaffirmed. The family does not exist for society or the State, but society and the State exist for the family.
One would have presumed that The Sunday Tribune would welcome open debate – from all quarters – on this very important topic for society concerning marriage and family. In the interest of the common good Cardinal Brady has a pastoral responsibility to inform the conscience of the Catholic faithful in Ireland on matters of such significance.
Your columnist states that the Church "doesn't seem to take serious its role in promoting marriage as part of its rite". He also accuses the Church of seeking "to impose their personal beliefs on everybody, irrespective of the consequences for society or any notion of fairness". It is contradictory to suggest that the Church does not take seriously her role in promoting marriage and at the same time censure the Cardinal for defending the Church's position on marriage.
The article also suggests that Cardinal Brady is unaware of the faith of couples who wish to be married in Church and undertake pre-marriage courses. This proposition simply doesn't stand up. Throughout their ministry priests pastorally support couples and especially as the latter prepare for the Sacrament of marriage. Cardinal Brady makes reference to this in his address, part of which is quoted by Mr Clifford.
Furthermore, it is not for any individual to call into question the faith of another. We cannot be aware of what may be a deeper, perhaps even unconscious or anonymous, faith within a person. Our Church views pre-marriage courses as an opportunity for catechesis or re-evangelisation. To stop a couple having a Church marriage denies a chance to evangelise.
The article accuses the Church of wanting "to discriminate against those who offend them". This is not true. Cardinal Brady recognises that a diversity of family forms support the fundamental human activities of care, intimacy and belongingness. In spite of this it is appropriate that our Constitution guard with special care the institution of marriage. This in no way prevents the State offering support to individuals in other family units.
Indeed protection for people in caring relationships of long term dependency – for example elderly siblings – is entirely just. By limiting support to relationships that are presumed to be sexual the State is being unjust towards those living in established relationships of dependency.
Your paper's reaction to the Cardinal's address suggests that the Church can only take public stances as long liberal sensibilities are not offended. But prevailing orthodoxies should always be open to challenge and that includes editorial positions. The Church lives with this reality every day. A pluralist society, such as ours, deserves no less.
Martin Long,
Director,
Catholic Communications Office,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: ST)