‘Moral absolutes’ are just that |

‘Moral absolutes’ are just that

Father Jeffrey J. Noble’s view of Pat Buchanan’s column regarding the Synod of the Family (“Intelligent discussion overdue,” Nov. 1) shocks Catholic sensibilities.

Noble displays a temporal arrogance regarding “divorce and remarriage, gay marriage and all matters pertinent to family life in the 21st century.” Even a cursory examination of history reveals that divorce, remarriage and homosexuality are a part of fallen human nature. What do we moderns “know” now that the Apostles, church fathers and saints did not “know” in their respective times?

Buchanan points out the shocking language of the Synod, notably “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation” and the “gifts and qualities” of the homosexual lifestyle. Noble appears to embrace this scandalous language. What are these positive aspects, gifts and qualities?

Noble calls into question moral absolutes. Confusion does not center on the teaching of moral absolutes, but in the human response to that teaching.

Pastors of souls must first deal with God’s moral absolutes in our own lives, a difficult and even distressing reality, fraught with failure and forgiveness through God’s grace.

Individuals who acknowledge moral absolutes are well aware of the turmoil caused by fallen human nature and using the armor of grace to fight that turmoil. I pray Father Noble hasn’t given up the fight.

The Rev. James Holland


The writer is administrator of Transfiguration Parish.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.