Last Friday (23 November, 2012) I phoned up the Sean Plunket Morning Show on NewsTalkZB to add my bit on whether or not churches should get dispensation from having to marry two people of the same sex, if the same-sex marriage bill by Louisa Wall passes, that is.
Please excuse the first 10 seconds or so. I was told that I'd have to wait 5 minutes, so when they put me on within 30 seconds or so of waiting, I was not ready, to say the least. LOL, anyway, Sean Plunket was very good and jumped in and gave me a chance to recollect myself by introducing the subject.
Speaking is not really my thing, I prefer the time to think that is available in blogging. However, I've been thinking I'm going to have to practice speaking on the radio, because there are so few Catholics that do it. And the ones that do, fall into the camp of being pretty much heretics, which is not a good look, really.
I talked about the need for churches to get dispensation, though I didn't get to the crux of the matter, which is how do you make churches marry people they don't think are suitable and then what do you do when they don't comply, because there will be churches that will not comply (Catholics most, definitely will not marry two of the same-sex). Is New Zealand ready for what will be in effect, the real beginning of the persecution of the Christian faith.
What I did say was that changing marriage to include two people of the same sex is redefining the word, marriage. Just like calling black, white, or deciding that we want to start calling cats, dogs.
Sean then asked about divorced people not able to be married in the Catholic Church. Here, I gave a bit of my own experience with regards to being married to a divorced man, who had to get an annulment from the Church before our marriage could be seen as valid. I didn't get into too much detail here, so listening to the conversation again, I can see that Sean assumed that the annulment happened before we were married. Except that it didn't. I was a non-practicing Catholic who came back to the Church six years ago, and then in order to be in good standing with the Church and be able to receive the Sacraments, had to live as brother and sister with my husband until his previous marriage was considered to not really have happened (that's the annulment), and there was always the possibility that the Tribunal would find that his previous marriage was valid and we'd have to live as brother and sister permanently. It was incredibly stressful, and just coming to terms with all of that started around the time that I left the Sir Humphrey's blog, and was completed two years later.
I also talked about how the Church doesn't discriminate against gay people (men or women, even though I only gave the example of a man), that they can get married in the Catholic Church, just by following the same rules as every other man. That is, to find a willing woman that can marry him, and therefore not be divorced or closely related to him (or underage, should have added that in!). That finding a willing man does not make it marriage, that goes back into redefining words. My 11 year old said of Sean, that he sounded a bit like a child, when he kept asking, but why?
I managed to finish with the fact that marriage existed before the State existed and even before the Church existed, though I did agree that the Church had a right to define what marriage was.
It's hard work talking on the radio, and even though Sean Plunket does annoy me with his liberal opinions, he is a good interviewer. He did let me talk, even though he disagreed with me and I didn't feel attacked, like other talk show hosts have made me feel when I put forward an opinion that was radically different from theirs (thinking Danny Watson in particular here, when I phoned up about computer use for children). Funny thing was, my brother expected me to phone in when he heard the subject, and so wasn't surprised when I came on the radio. I certainly don't enjoy doing it, but I think will have to do more of it.
I think you did well vocally. Thanks to the rushed nature of talkback formats, the first 10secs could also sound like he interupted you rather than you stumbling. Nothing lost anyway.
ReplyDeleteI have a question: why didn't you tell him the answer to his "why" at the end? Why can't the Catholic church marry two men?
A few years ago now I was told why, or at least one version of it. It's not secret information, but I'm not a Catholic. From my outside perspective, it seemed like not the sort of thing one should wave around for no reason. What's your angle? Would you need special permission from leaders of your church?
The information I was told explains that Catholic Theologians have an exceptionally good reason. If this reason was published though, I somehow doubt the media and general public would take it seriously or accept that it also undermines their own argument. It couldn't be made into a soundbite and people who have no respect for religion while saying they do would be exposed when they talk about tolerance of religion. They don't have to like what Catholics say, but if the reasoning is sound, according to theological concepts, there is no argument.
I am a little suspicious that Plunket's and others invitations to speak for the defence of your religion and people might turn into tricks to undermine faith. They have nothing to lose, even if they lose. They'll just shift the goal line.
I agree that writing and talking are closely related, but different.
Hi WRT,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the vote of confidence!
In regards to why I didn't answer his why, I wasn't prepared to answer that question in a way that would have made sense to him. And no, I don't need special permission to disclose the why, thought I am curious as to what you were told about it.