‘New law will compel churches to offer same-sex marriages’

[Rence]

You’re right that the Church won’t do it, but that doesn’t preclude the State from requiring it. I was thinking about this last night during our Pastoral Council meeting. A woman has brought her dog to Mass a few times. Father talked to her, and she said it is a service dog. He asked her to bring documentation, and she stopped coming. She’s back, so Father asked for documentation.

Why is this relevant, you ask? Another Council member relayed the fact that a person with a dog was turned away from Mass at our Cathedral. It was a service dog, so the Archdiocese was fined $50,000. What sort of penalties will the State try to enact for turning away a gay couple seeking “marriage?”

If the State compels churches to perform gay “marriages,” in a demand for “equality,” will the Church go underground?

You’re comparing turning away a person’s service dog to requiring priests to marry homosexual couples? The Archdiocese should have been fined $50,000 for refusing a service dog. It’s a service dog and they are allowed everywhere unless it interferes with the operations of the 'business". The Church isn’t a business, and service dogs don’t interfere with anything that happens within a Cathedral. I’ve seen many service dogs accompany their charges to Mass and it was no big deal. Hopefully, your cathedral learned from their error. They should also know how this lack of compassion and understanding yet again reflects back on the Church. Remember that everything we Catholics do, and don’t do, reflects back on the Church.

 

[saveusfromhell]

You’re right that the Church won’t do it, but that doesn’t preclude the State from requiring it. I was thinking about this last night during our Pastoral Council meeting. A woman has brought her dog to Mass a few times. Father talked to her, and she said it is a service dog. He asked her to bring documentation, and she stopped coming. She’s back, so Father asked for documentation.

Why is this relevant, you ask? Another Council member relayed the fact that a person with a dog was turned away from Mass at our Cathedral. It was a service dog, so the Archdiocese was fined $50,000. What sort of penalties will the State try to enact for turning away a gay couple seeking “marriage?”

If the State compels churches to perform gay “marriages,” in a demand for “equality,” will the Church go underground?

i don’t know about underground, but when you have many people prepared to die rather than turn away from the true teachings of the church it means the state has a large battle on its hands. By the way i’m not alking about terroist acts.

 

[Publisher]

This is just paranoia. The State in the US doesn’t even recognize Sacramental marriage, and the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics. The two are completely separate. The priest doesn’t even have to sign the marriage license. It’s not part of the Sacrament. If ever there is a day, which probably won’t happen, that priests are required to marry gay couples in order to fulfill their obligations acting as justices of the peace, they can simply not do them for anyone, and the result will simply be couples bringing the license already signed in city hall with them to the Church wedding. Seriously, find something else to stress about. Catholics living in Islam are truly under attack. Americans are not.

Yes it is…but many will use “scare tactics” to sway rather than speak Truth…it is not just paranoia…it is a false premise and fear mongering.

 

[Publisher]

Theophorus;9223689:

well If the church didn’t actually do stuff like book burning I of course wouldn’t have bought it up. but we can see by these types of incidences that Education and scholarly research don’t matter much to a Christian, if they did they wouldn’t have burnt books. Thus I don’t see the point of naming any books cause frankly you would just dismiss them as your spiritual ancestors did.

if you don’t believe that there in the past has been some form of same sex unions in various cultures thats your choice to believe it or not. the evidence is there. it can be found on the net, in books, in universities etc.

each culture and religion has a right to exist. if some religions believe that homosexuality is fine what right to do u have to try and impose your standards on them? you people have no right!

what you believe in the privacy of the your churches and in your homes in find. but stop trying to impose it on others, and stop pretending you live in a nation that’s first duty is to impose religious truth on it’s people. that is not the role of any modern democratic nation… democracy ended your monopoly on tellign everyone what to do. if you dont like it then go live in the middle east. but the govt does not answer to you people.

 

[rlg94086]

You’re comparing turning away a person’s service dog to requiring priests to marry homosexual couples? The Archdiocese should have been fined $50,000 for refusing a service dog. It’s a service dog and they are allowed everywhere unless it interferes with the operations of the 'business". The Church isn’t a business, and service dogs don’t interfere with anything that happens within a Cathedral. I’ve seen many service dogs accompany their charges to Mass and it was no big deal. Hopefully, your cathedral learned from their error. They should also know how this lack of compassion and understanding yet again reflects back on the Church. Remember that everything we Catholics do, and don’t do, reflects back on the Church.

Of course the issue of service dogs is not the same as gay “marriage.”

I’m not saying the person with the service dog should have been turned away. I’m commenting on the State’s ability to use force and fines to enforce laws. If homosexual “marriage” becomes a law to enforce supposed “equality,” then the State could force churches to comply.

 

[rlg94086]

i don’t know about underground, but when you have many people prepared to die rather than turn away from the true teachings of the church it means the state has a large battle on its hands. By the way i’m not alking about terroist acts.

Agreed. It would be a major upheaval - possibly revolution or civil war. I pray that it doesn’t come to that.

 

[mommamia]

Discrimination based on race is illegal, yet some (very few, but some) churches won’t allow mixed race couples. A Baptist church near us won’t pick up black kids on their bus. They are legally allowed to do these things, because the church has the right to decide what are grounds for membership.
You can’t discriminate based on sex, but nobody has forced the Church to ordain women.
The problem is, some folks don’t want anyone to be able to join same sex couples period.

Some of you have a scary definition of freedom. Freedom to only act as others see fit is not freedom, and anyone who thinks it is is no better than a Muslim insisting on sharia law.

Again, the Church needs to worry about her own house.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Again, the Church needs to worry about her own house.

as it does, so why are you here?

 

[saveusfromhell]

As this article is about the UK and the UK has already gone down the road of stopping the catholic church of being involved in adoption agencies because it doesn’t recognise gay marriage,It seems only a short step to the government there forcing the church to have women priests gay marriage etc etc. i have never heard of the red herring you brought in about race.

Yes your definition of freedom seems to be, freedom as long as everyone agree with your principles.

the Church needs to worry about her own house

The church doesn’t spend it’s time kicking people out; as Jesus said don’t put out the flickering flame. It leaves people to decide if they want to be part of the one true church.
Even in excommunication it is to teach not to extinguish.
you misunderstand this as weakness

 

[Theophorus]

Discrimination based on race is illegal, yet some (very few, but some) churches won’t allow mixed race couples. A Baptist church near us won’t pick up black kids on their bus. They are legally allowed to do these things, because the church has the right to decide what are grounds for membership.
You can’t discriminate based on sex, but nobody has forced the Church to ordain women.
The problem is, some folks don’t want anyone to be able to join same sex couples period.

Some of you have a scary definition of freedom. Freedom to only act as others see fit is not freedom, and anyone who thinks it is is no better than a Muslim insisting on sharia law.

Again, the Church needs to worry about her own house.

Britian(which the OP was refering to) already allows for same sex civil partnerships, the issuse is the Gov trying to redefine marriage, something they simply don’t have the power to do, in the same way they can’t redefine day as night(sure you can try and change the name but the reality will be the same) the church doesn’t have the authority to redefine it either.

Objective truths whether they only affect catholics or not has always been part of what the churches worries about. It’s not a control thing its a sanity(intellect in conformity with objective reality) thing.

I mean I could tell you that you can’t flap your arms and fly away, I wouldn’t be impinging on your freedom.

 

[mommamia]

I mean I could tell you that you can’t flap your arms and fly away, I wouldn’t be impinging on your freedom.

But if you tried to stop me from trying you would be.

Britain is different from the US… I have no idea what could happen there, as church and state are much more intertwined than here. I doubt that any Catholic priest would ever perform that ceremony, and I would stand behind his right not to.

But, it won’t happen here. Yes, I do think that same sex couples will be able to marry in more states in the future, but I don’t think that anyone will force the churches to perform the ceremonies.

 

[Theophorus]

But if you tried to stop me from trying you would be.

I can still point out the impossibility of what your proposing to do. That you don’t want to conform your intellect to objective reality is something I can’t change, but I can still point it out.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I hope and pray that Catholic Churches are not forced to marry gay people. There is no such thing as “gay marriage” except for in the eyes of the law. God does not recognize “gay marriage” as legitimate and neither do I. That said, I honestly think that if the law does try to force Catholic priests or deacons to marry gay couples then some civil disobedience is called for.

The Catholic Church will never marry gays. C’mon people! We will not be overcome by the gates of hell!

I’m a little fed up of all this political talk. There is no logical reason for a pro-contraception liberal, or a pro-homosexual marriage liberal to not only legalize this evil behavior, but to ALSO IMPOSE IT upon the Church. There is no logical reason. The only reason I can see, is that they want to defeat the Church. These are the forces of Satan, and they are diametricaly opposed to the forces of God.

Just as Catholics want to see abortion end completely, you don’t have to look too far on the internet to find an atheist that wants the Catholic Church to close its doors once and for all. Do y’all really think the pro-contraception, pro-gay marriage crowd doesn’t want the Catholic Church to be destroyed?

 

[mommamia]

I can still point out the impossibility of what your proposing to do. That you don’t want to conform your intellect to objective reality is something I can’t change, but I can still point it out.

Of course you can. And the Church should continue to speak out against same sex partnerships. But, if others want to do it, all we can do is pray and refuse to participate.

 

[Theophorus]

Of course you can. And the Church should continue to speak out against same sex partnerships. But, if others want to do it, all we can do is pray and refuse to participate.

Whether they should or not, civil government has the power to legislate for civil unions/partnerships, this is not the same this as either civil or sacramental marriage.
No government has the power to re-define marriage to make it something its not, anymore than they can redefine a square as a circle.

 

[DaniMetzinger]

The Catholic Church will never marry gays. C’mon people! We will not be overcome by the gates of hell!

I’m a little fed up of all this political talk. There is no logical reason for a pro-contraception liberal, or a pro-homosexual marriage liberal to not only legalize this evil behavior, but to ALSO IMPOSE IT upon the Church. There is no logical reason. The only reason I can see, is that they want to defeat the Church. These are the forces of Satan, and they are diametricaly opposed to the forces of God.

Just as Catholics want to see abortion end completely, you don’t have to look too far on the internet to find an atheist that wants the Catholic Church to close its doors once and for all. Do y’all really think the pro-contraception, pro-gay marriage crowd doesn’t want the Catholic Church to be destroyed?

They might want to impose upon the church because some of the most beautiful places in the world are Catholic Cathedrals and anyone with an eye for beauty would want to be married in one. However the point is mute, Catholics will never let homosexuals marry in their places of worship. The church stood strong against the use of contraception when the pill was introduced and it will be steadfast in this as well.

 

[PTL]

They might want to impose upon the church because some of the most beautiful places in the world are Catholic Cathedrals and anyone with an eye for beauty would want to be married in one. However the point is mute, Catholics will never let homosexuals marry in their places of worship. The church stood strong against the use of contraception when the pill was introduced and it will be steadfast in this as well.

And the definition of the Church is not only bishops and clergy, each Catholic is part of the body of Christ, you and I are the Church. That means each faithful needs to stand fast and do all he can to against anything violates the Church’s teaching.

 

[DaniMetzinger]

And the definition of the Church is not only bishops and clergy, each Catholic is part of the body of Christ, you and I are the Church. That means each faithful needs to stand fast and do all he can to against anything violates the Church’s teaching.

Exactly.

 

[CaptFun]

Lacking clear Biblical guidelines on how to properly conduct such a service we begin our search. Hmm. Not much. So far tradition recommends throwing stones instead of RICE. And before the ceremony instead of after. That OLD Testament is so strict.

Other highlights to come:

“If anyone knows any reason why these two should not be joined together - please inform the Diocese’s lawyers!”

“I now pronounce you … excommunicated!”

The choir sings “OY VAY Maria!” and “Here Comes the Pride” (parade)

Suggested Readings: The Destruction of Sodom; The 51 Bible verses containing the word “abomination;” The grisly deaths of Herod, Jezebel, or another enemy of God; and a Gospel where Jesus casts out demons.

Preceding all this would be a clerical labyrinth of technical requirements, classes, mandatory conferences, written tests, so Byzantine (apologies actual Byzantines) and devoid of logic that it will rival the Federal Government’s own avoidance mechanisms in its devious chicanery.

Fees, tribunals, rulings and hassles EVEN greater than STRAIGHT couples have to go through now. Training more complete than a Jesuit bucking for a college presidency ever dreamed of. 20 years - with hourly reviews ought to do it.

And just to be more multi-cultural - for THIS ceremony we could bring in our version of Mormon undergarments, an Amish poverty of technology vow, mock-Masonic rituals like blindfoldings, cursings, and participatory death drama “plays”.

Gotta make sure the “couple” is "ready’. Psychological testing? Fer sure, fer sure. And Anger Management (and rejection of the “case”!) if there are any complaints.

No hazing though. “Thank you sir may I have another” won’t play here.

A mandatory tithe from each person in the couple - and a prenuptual waiver for the Church in case of premature death owing to … well, you know. Which could be waived if the church, not the remaining spouse, is named beneficiary.

Like Confirmation of old, the Bishop could give the candidates a ceremonial blow on the cheek - with the crozier to make it more memorable and exciting.

And the piece de resistance would be lifelong UNION dues where the couples’ money goes to supporting – things the CHURCH likes but liberals don’t. The worse the better.

With luck no one involved will ever sin. Well, not mortally anyway.

Perverse fun aside. This law is an awful thing. And we (The Church) don’t really want to be in this fight.

But it does only take ONE side to start a war.