You knew it was going to go there. You just may not have expected it to go there that fast.
But that’s not all. Not only are Christians unfit to parent if they believe homosex immoral, we are already hearing (across the Pond, but here soon enough) that Churches which will not perform same-sex “marriage” should be shut down by the State:
As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality. Such behaviour is not be [sic] tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all.
Given that Catholics are already having their consciences crushed by Caesar in the matter of contraception and smashed by Caesar in the matter of adoption, why should we suppose that Caesar will suddenly cease to make war on the Church at the doorstep of the sanctuary, particularly when he has made clear that he means to dictate to Catholics what they can and cannot believe about contraception and homosexual acts.
As Zac Alstin points out “The illusion that moral diversity is a viable social strategy is at its last gasp.”
It reminds me of the Maryland colony, the first colony in the new world to practice religious tolerance (and, not coincidentally, the only Catholic colony). That lasted right up to the moment that Protestants became the majority, at which point Catholics were ruthlessly suppressed. In much the same way, there used to be much mewling and crying for “tolerance” of homosexuality (which homosex advocates have enjoyed for decades). Now those same advocates want to make it punishable by law for so much as thinking that homosex is a sin, as well as to compel people, not to mind their own business (which people are eager to do), but to cheer for and celebrate homosexual genital acts. Anything less than that is now defined as something which should be criminalized and punished. Already punishment of churches for their sacramental theology of marriage is being floated in England. Soon the intolerant apostles of tolerance will try it here. Don’t think they will let the first amendment stop them. A legal culture that can concoct a “right to abortion” out of thin air can certainly cook up a right to force churches to perform gay “marriage.”
Comments
Post a Comment
Brrr. Creepy, very creepy. Why can’t they tolerate Catholics, or respect our diverse opinions?
According to the first link posted, even a gay rights activist doesn’t think this is right. I’m sure he’s not the only one. What this amounts to is moral slavery.
I imagine that the day may come when couples who wish to in a church that doesn’t marry same-sex couples, will be required to marry at the court house first, then follow up with their church wedding. As they do in France. And in Monaco.
My hope is that Catholic couples would treat the court house wedding as strictly a “business arrangement,” as if they were closing on a house, or going on a job interview. That they would show up wearing the clothing they would to a business meeting: tweeds and khakis - no flowers, no ribbons, no hats. That they would both carry portfolios or briefcases to the event. That they would spend all their time waiting before the ceremony with their noses in their blackberries. That their witnesses, if any, would be their parents, period, and they also attired in business or business-casual. No music, no cameras, not even camera phone pictures. Strictly routine, business. No kissing or celebratory atmosphere. No parties or dinners afterwards. Nor announcements.
After all, the Catholic couple going through the “wedding” at the court house won’t actually be *married*; they’ll simply be doing the swearing in to their state-issued marriage license. The wedding, and the marriage will come later, at Church. All the festivity and fun and photography would be directed to the Church wedding on the following day, or the following weekend.
The stomp of jackboots keeps getting louder and louder.
It is not hard to imagine, that just as we will be coerced to pay for Herod’s soldiers to slaughter the innocents via abortion and to fund birth control in all its forms for whatever reasons, that any other tenet of Catholicism that goes against the world (which is to say all of it), shall be stomped on in an attempt to water down our faith and practice of that faith until it is meaningless. That is what the enemy wants, to trap all of us in the amber of sin. We won’t be able to do those corporal acts of mercy if we don’t blaspheme. (See Catholic charities). Pray for mercy, pray for charity, pray for courage and every other gift of the Holy Spirit to pour into all of us. We’re going to need it.
Msgr. Charles Pope opined recently that the Catholic Church should simply cease collaborating with the state on things like marriage. The state’s definition of it is so different, after all. We don’t need couples to be married in the state’s eyes in order for them to have a valid marriage in the Church’s eyes. Maybe we need to start pulling back from recognizing the state’s right to do anything like this.
Hold on a second. If teaching traditional Christian morality “could conflict with the welfare of children”, then how long can it be before the state takes protective custody of children, removing them from Christian homes (I mean *genuine* Christian homes, not ones where politically correct and fashionable morals are given a Christian gloss).
it’s logically unavoidable.
I doubt that Muslims will allow homosexual ‘marriage’. One wonders if England will attempt to force them to do so.
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Just kidding of course not! What, do you think they are THAT suicidal?
Ammo up! I have my rosary right next to my .30-06.
But Christ Himself foretold that is what happens if you stand for truth: See the Gospel; for Thursday of the 29th week of ordinary time. (to-day OZ time).
But do not despair; He will be with us till the end of time.
Exactly my thought, knew it was coming, but a little surprised how fast.
@Tim J - I have no doubt the weapon of removing children from Christian homes will be tried. We all have to prepare ourselves to suffer greatly, and also to refuse to give in.
To be fair to the MP he didn’t actually say that Churches which will not perform same-sex “marriage” should be shut down by the State. He said that they should not be allowed to conduct marriages. But you can bet that once so-called gay ‘marriage’ has been legalised the next campaign will be to totally separate the civil and religious ceremonies so that those who want a religious ceremony will have to go through two ceremonies.
It was interesting to read the comments in PinkNews about the MP’s suggestion. One person made the point that the MP is an atheist. So we can see where he is coming from.
I totally agree with Marion’s comment. Those people who are forced to go through an extra (civil) ceremony should show it very little (if any) respect.
This same topic was discussed over at Fr. Z’s some time ago. Several of his UK correspondents noted that in Britain, non-Anglican weddings aren’t recognized by the state unless a civil registrar is present to witness the vows. (Anglican clergy have authority to act as registrars for weddings they perform.) What this MP is proposing, most likely, is that registrars not witness wedding ceremonies that are not also open to same-sex couples.
If that occurs then the result would be that Catholic couples would have to go to the registry office (the British equivalent of being married by a justice of the peace in the US) to have a civil wedding before they had their Church wedding. Or, I suppose, they could choose to marry ONLY in the Church and forgo the legal rights and privileges of marriage; in the eyes of the state they would be no different from a cohabiting couple.
An error in the beginning is an error indeed.
Catholics and all traditional peoples should simply boycott the Marriage License process. It began as a racist endevour in the first place and has continued its bigoted march into the 21st century.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt as trained rifleman and sergeant in two wars over 8-years while in the Marine Corps, it is to seize the iniative in battle and construct hasty ambushes to keep your enemy on their toes. It’s time we go assymetrical. The powerful have grown in number and territory, and this affects their ability to react in a timely manner.
If a system is setup where cities and towns are no longer bringing fees and states are not raking in their sales taxes it will hit them in wallet. Back to barter system. Let Caesar keep his coin!
The MP who demanded churches be forced to marry gay couples is very confused about the nature of marriage. It seems that confusion applies to his own marriage as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309280/Tory-MP-Mike-Weatherley-discovers-wife-Carla-70-time-prostitute.html
I pray for their children.
So long as we have the First Amendment, which Britain doesn’t, we have a lot more lattitude to determine just how far any court can rule in situations like this. Our Founding Fathers remembered well what happens when the rules of the road concerning free speech aren’t put in clear black and white sentences.
My wife and I were refused a wedding in a catholic church because of not making all the classes. Their church, their rules. I’ve no problem with that. They will always be able to not marry people. My question is though, when did the states give churches/ministers permission to do a legal function? What will hurt the church more is the appearance of discrimination when the Methodists will do them along with other denominations but Catholic churches won’t. Westboro babtist church will be grouped with yours but you can say about anything you want to.
Another commenter wrote, “I totally agree with Marion’s comment. Those people who are forced to go through an extra (civil) ceremony should show it very little (if any) respect.”
I appreciate the kind remark about my comment from earlier today. I would hope that Catholic couples would not fail to show the proper respect that citizens should display in transacting any legitimate government-related business, whether applying for a driver’s license, registering to vote, or concluding the civil portion of their marriage.
These are all purely business transactions and my hope is that would be treated by Catholic participants as strictly business. Respectful, but business-like. All elements of celebration, romance, gathering, festivity, music, flowers, and frills would be reserved for the Church wedding alone. The civil ceremony would be treated as a pure technicality.
The gay activist cited in the story has more common sense and moral sense than the UK Politician.
There’s a lot to worry about here, but I think the Hove MP story will come to nothing.
I don’t think it’ll be possible to compel churches to marry same-sex couples, as such compulsion would fall foul of article nine of the ECHR, which says manifestation of belief can only be limited if it’s necessary to do so. I don’t even think pressure will be applied to the Church of England, which is bound by Parliament, as to do so would be a massive step towards disestablishment, which would in turn undermine the entire British constitutional settlement.
I suspect this’ll be fudged in the end, and a clue as to how lies in the MP’s last substantive paragraph, when he says ‘I suggest that it makes little difference if unions are called Marriages, Civil Partnerships or some other term (such as simply “Unions”).’ In terms of legal reality, civil partnerships are marriages. This whole debate is about symbolism, and is certainly not about equality. Gay couples already have equality in the UK.
For what it’s worth, I’ve wrestled with this to some degree on my blog a few [url=”
http://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.com/2011/09/lesprit-de-lescalier-second-thoughts-on.html”]weeks[/url] back; I’ve since learned to condense my argument, to a point where at its core I’d take a line similar to this one.
Cut to bone of the matter. Satan now walks among us. These people and legislators have absolutly no intention of listening to reason or entertaining rational dialogue. Yes…we must continue to bear witness to the truth, but the time may have come where the world can no longer hold the weight of our sins. Only a fool cannot see that the final clash between the world and the remnant faithful is at hand. Rejoice!! For our Lord’s coming is at hand. Do not be caught asleep.
Be NOT afraid. God is with us in good times and bad.
Who knows what the future may bring. If they they leave us alone, praise the Lord. If they come after us, God will be our strength and it will give Him glory. We do well to be alert and fight for what is just and right, but do not be discouraged, and do not assume that all this is inevitable. Anyone seen the pro-life march in DC lately?
Trying hard not to pop off here.
This is why I am anti socialism, and anti the government being involved in dishing out social justice. FIRST - YES THE GOV’T NEEDS TO SUPPORT SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH POLICY, but no, they shouldn’t be giving the hand-out/up. Why? This. They make laws we all must abide by. Now they are the thought police telling us what we must find moral. How is this okay?
I’m not advocating the Church be the only source of social justice either, in fact I think every single citizen is responsible for social justice. I am saying that when it is all centralized this is the result.
Barry Setoro hates this country and Christians. You MUST defeat him next. Spend all of your time to defeat him. Vote Catholic and defeat Setoro.
dictate to Catholics what they can and cannot believe about contraception and homosexual acts
Technically, no one can ever dictate what one can or cannot believe. What they are trying to do is dictate what one can or cannot do. Even that is very difficult, and at best, one can only be coerced (often strongly and successfully) but not dictated. Just a small nit-pick about terminology.
As for the two-marriage system, that may have certain tax advantages. If I am sacramentally married, but not civilly, I suppose my wife and I could file separate returns, one taking all the itemized deductions, the other taking the standard deduction.
Heterosexual marriages are something we should celebrate.
Homosexual unions are something we might consider tolerating.
Silence eventually means approval when things get polarized. If you hate homosexuals, tell it to the world!
What a kidder you are, Johnno!
Seriously—hate homosexuals? Not. At. All.
Lump homosexual activity into the heap of other gravely sinful activities? Absolutely. Seek to preserve and strengthen marriage in its original configuration of one man/one woman, rather than bent into an unrecognizable mess? Definitely.
The 7:12 comment (me) is a different Margaret than the one at 3:30, btw…
The first comment actually is a pretty old idea for Christians. A Roman civil marriage was had at the land office, then a couple who happened to be Christian came to the Eucharist on Sunday and had their union blessed. It’s assumed by the Orthodox Church, where the wedding service has no wedding “vows” but only assumes mutual consent and the permission of the Bishop.
This type of stuff is where they lose the masses. Those that decide to force their evil agenda on others quickly lose credibility. They get brave because the masses grow silent - and they think the church is an easy target. However, the pendulum always eventually swings the other direction when the silent majority has had enough of having their rights trampled upon. How many dumb people have eventually learned this fact throughout human history. Just plain dumb.
Reply to Margaret - One problem with your idea is that the homosexual folks are not content with doing their own thing, but are insistent that we all agree that what they are doing is normal, or be forced to be silent if we won’t agree. Based on current actions of the gay lobby and their allies, clearly they will not mind seeing those who disagree suffer from marginalization, job loss, social exclusion, being labeled a “bigot”, financial exclusion, and abridgement of freedom of speech and religion. No tolerance for you, unless you are willing to violate your conscience and go along without so much as a peep! People are not thinking deeply enough about all the ramifications of the normalization of homosexual unions.
The gay lobby sincerely believes they are right - and they are free under democratic govts to try to convince others - but the problem is the desire to FORCE everyone to APPROVE of what they are doing. And this very tendency, to FORCE everyone to THINK as you do, or be silent if they don’t, is a clear sign that they are not in the right. When you’re right, you don’t try to control what people THINK or SAY. That’s called TYRANNY.
This is essentially moral rape. We are not allowed to say “no”.
What is the difference between calling someone a “Brownshirt” and calling the Pope a “Nazi” (Susan Sarandon)? None! Congratulations - you have won! You have reached her level of idiocy.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.