How lame is that.
They shouldn’t even have to be “invited” to sign the petition. Every faithful Catholic obeying their conscience should be rushing to this petition to sign it. We need to take marriage back for Christ, we can’t just sit around and shake our heads and wait for something to change. Every time we’re given a chance to vote to make a difference, you must! If not you are being indifferent towards the sin gay marriage perpetrates (as I can probably count the number of celibate gay couples on my hand). And Christ calls us to a life of action, a life of active ministry, not of indifference and turning a blind eye on those who desperately need his light.
Catholic students asked to affirm the teachings of the Church. How is that a problem?
Because under-16s should not have been pressued to do this. Or indeed, done it voluntarily, as the petition makes it clear that only over-16s should sign. The UK Catholic church has issued a statement to say this yesterday.
Over-zealousness on the part of certain schools/teachers. I assume.
Here is the news release from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales
We reject the suggestion that Catholic schools have acted illegally. The Equality Act 2010 applies to all schools and we are fully supportive of the Act. It is central to Catholic teaching that all individuals should be treated with respect and dignity.
Catholic state schools have always been permitted by law to teach matters relating to sex and relationships education, including the importance of marriage, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church’s view on the importance of marriage is a religious view, not a political one.
The online petition itself makes it clear that people under the age of 16 cannot sign it. We will issue new guidance for our schools to ensure that they are aware of this.
catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News-Releases/Statement-Catholic-Education-Service-on-marriage
I, for one, don’t like pupils to be used by teachers or schools for political purposes one way or the other.
While I agree with the topic of opposition of the legal imprimatur of the homosexual simulation of marriage, and I would think it to be entirely appropriate for these pupils to be involved in actively opposing this scourge (with the consent of their families), it’s not appropriate for the schools to be actively SPONSORING this kind of activism.
In the case of a Catholic school, they should teach the moral principles of the situation and should discuss current events in light of those moral principles (thus teaching the kids how to apply those moral principles in their day-to-day lives), having school-sponsored petition drives, school-sponsored political protests, and so on, is inappropriate.
I sure don’t care for it when the left does it to promote their evil agenda. What, then, makes it OK when our side does the same thing?
I could see a school allowing a student-initiated and led petition drive. I could see the school allowing excused absences to participate in events. But that is a whole lot different than a school sponsoring the same.
I also keep in mind that most Catholic schools in the UK receive government funding. So that puts it in a different light than if a Catholic school in the US (which receives ZERO government funding) was to do the same.
Give me a break!
Church and State have two very different definitions of marriage and the sooner people come to accept this the better. For the State, marriage is simply an economic arrangement that identifies next-of-kin and inheritance rights, etc. It is purely pragmatic with with no spiritual dimension whatsoever. That’s the way it should be.
The spiritual dimension comes from the religious beliefs of the people getting married and **in a free society no religious view of marriage should be given preference by the State. **Objectively speaking, Muslim & Mormon views of marriage are as valid as those of the Catholic Church. As a woman, I would not want to defend my right to be my husband’s only wife against a State that promotes polygamy.
If you are so fervent about following Christ’s instructions about marriage, you should be up in arms about state sanctioned divorce not state sanctioned marriages.
I totally agree.
I agree with your point about two types of marriage. There are civil marriages and religious marriages. However allowing same sex civil marriage will ultimately lead to pressure for religious marriage and also force religious organisations and their employees to conform to this and recognise this type of marriage.
In terms of secular law, in France, a secular republic, less religious than the UK or the US, the highest secular court has rejected gay marriage because marriage is seen a foundation of the secular republic. Basically it links the father to the child, when the mother is obviously the woman who gave birth to the child. No spiritual dimension whatsoever. It’s a valid point. This unit is fundamental and with its erosion societies and republics tend to collapse.
The spiritual dimension comes from the religious beliefs of the people getting married and **in a free society no religious view of marriage should be given preference by the State. **Objectively speaking, Muslim & Mormon views of marriage are as valid as those of the Catholic Church. As a woman, I would not want to defend my right to be my husband’s only wife against a State that promotes polygamy.
Well it should depend on the WISH of the PEOPLE who make up the given country. If the majority is Christian and it wishes to retain marriage as between one man and one woman for spiritual reasons or because their pastor told them so, they should have that right. If on the other hand they cede that to their representatives to make that decision on their behalf without any care either way, you would be correct. All governments are ultimately answerable to the people. If people want religious marriage ONLY then the minority should conform.
If you are so fervent about following Christ’s instructions about marriage, you should be up in arms about state sanctioned divorce not state sanctioned marriages.
Well this thread is about same sex marriage and not divorce. So I don’t see how that is relevant.
That’s absurd. Catholic priests do not need to perform civil marriages in order to marry two people in the Catholic Church. Performing the sacrament and signing the legal papers are separate authorities derived from separate sources (i.e. God vs Caesar). The worst that can happen is that priests would loose their authority to perform civil marriages, which means a couple married in the Catholic Church would have to get their papers signed by a justice of the peace in order for their marriage to be recognized by the state.
In terms of secular law, in France, a secular republic, less religious than the UK or the US, the highest secular court has rejected gay marriage because marriage is seen a foundation of the secular republic. Basically it links the father to the child, when the mother is obviously the woman who gave birth to the child. No spiritual dimension whatsoever. It’s a valid point. This unit is fundamental and with its erosion societies and republics tend to collapse.
A DNA test is a far more objective measure of paternity than a marriage certificate. If a baby is the product of adultery your solution would deny the biological father any say in how his child is raised. Let’s say the “husband” is a sadistic abuser (hence the adultery), based on this medieval line of reasoning, he would have the power to heap a range of subtle abuse or neglect on this child as its legal “father”. Lets get out of the Middle Ages and use science to our advantage when we can.
Well it should depend on the WISH of the PEOPLE who make up the given country. If the majority is Christian and it wishes to retain marriage as between one man and one woman for spiritual reasons or because their pastor told them so, they should have that right. If on the other hand they cede that to their representatives to make that decision on their behalf without any care either way, you would be correct. All governments are ultimately answerable to the people. If people want religious marriage ONLY then the minority should conform.
Equal treatment under the law is not open to referendum in the United States. It is a fundamental right of every adult citizen. According to traditional Mormon teaching, dark skin was a sign that a person was the descendant of those who rebelled against God:
And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5:21) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism
Mainstream Mormonism has backed off from this since, but it’s still in their scriptures. The Constitution protects non-whites from religious beliefs that have no basis in objective reality. I believe that marriage between one man and one woman is a good thing - but that doesn’t mean I have the right to impose that belief on anyone else.
If it were possible to create a utopia where every child could have one parent of each gender that would be great, but it ain’t gonna happen. I see no reason why the government should add an addition burden upon the families of children who are already disadvantaged by denying them the legal privileges that go along with a civil marriage.
Well this thread is about same sex marriage and not divorce. So I don’t see how that is relevant.
The one thing Jesus had to say about marriage is always relevant to any discussion about the integrity of the sacrament or institution on a Catholic forum.
I agree wholeheartedly.
As Catholics we should oppose the State legally affirming behavior that will result in people suffering eternal damnation we should fight it every legal way we can and enlist our children in the fight when possible We can not hide behind a misunderstanding of the role of Faith in our lives nor can we idly sit by while people endanger their immortal souls by claimIng it’s none of our business.
The C4M Petition was explained to an assembly of Sixth Formers, which comprise of students between the 16-18 age group.
What bothers me is that some pupils at a Catholic school would “bristle” over the matter. Most surprising really as St Philomena’s, like Coloma, is not known for CINO pupils.
You can’t keep people out of Hell at the point of a gun. Jesus didn’t do it and nor should we.
It is not about sectarian beliefs. It is about the natural moral law and common sense.
Who said anythIng about forcing anybody to do anything at the point of the gun. The question at hand is should Catholics oppose changing the definition of marriage to encompass greviously sinful behavior? The answer is of course we should, as should our children.
If I were Muslim, Sharia law is “natural moral law” and having four wives is just common sense (if I can afford them). Your statement does nothing but prove my point.
I am at a loss as to what Sharia law has to do whether Catholics should oppose changing the definition of marriage to embrace disordered, sinful behavior. The only ones trying to impose anything in this case is the people trying ti impose their repugnant definition of marriage on the rest of us. As Catholics we should oppose this with every fiber of our body and soul.