Days When I Appreciate the Certainty of the Catholic Faith

[jmcrae]

Nor should you be required or expected to do so if it is in violation of your religious beliefs, just as no one is required or expected to perform a marriage ceremony for someone who has been divorced if that is against the teachings of their religion.

The problem with that is, if one identifies oneself as an Anglican, it is presumed that one’s religious beliefs conform to Anglicanism rather than to Catholicism, or the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren, or Campellite Restorationists, or Fundamental Baptists.

I think that if it ever came to a court case, Rev. North would lose, since his personal beliefs don’t actually conform to the religion that he professes in this one area. A homosexual couple coming to him for marriage would have the right to expect him to give them a same-sex blessing, since the Anglican Church does not officially disapprove of them.

I would find it difficult to be an Anglican, at this stage in history, since I would be always trying to explain how it is that my beliefs around sexuality don’t actually conform with what the Anglican Church is currently teaching - even if I agree with everything else that they teach.

With the issue of conscientious objectors, the objectors actually had to belong officially to a religion that forbids warfare, before they could be exempted from the draft.

They couldn’t just suddenly become a conscientious objector out of nowhere (even if they had always personally believed that war is wrong), if they were Presbyterian or Catholic, since both of these religions admit the possibility of a just war, and require that we perform our duty as citizens of our country, even when it might be personally uncomfortable.

I’m thinking that the same would apply with regard to same-sex marriage. Catholic priests would be exempt from performing them because it is contrary to the official teachings of the Catholic Church, but someone of a different religion who just didn’t want to do them wouldn’t be able to get out from under it, I don’t think.

 

[Zooey]

There are some days when I appreciate the moral certainty derived from the Magesterium and scripture as opposed to moral relativism.

My ecclesiastical superior (non Catholic) and I were dialoguing about the issue of homosexuality and blessing of same sex marriages. My opinion was that I support some sort of civil recognition in order to protect the rights of those couples (pensions, inheritance, right to property in a seperation, next of kin rights and so on). Those relationships are their right in a free society and I respect that and have nothing against them. However, marriage is a unique, beautiful and sacred blessing founded by God for a man and a woman. The church is held to a higher standard than secular society and we should live that out with love and respect. I could not bless a same sex union.

He replied that he tries to take a middle ground and feels there is some deep & insidious part of humanity that comes out in attempts to subjugate, demoralize, and defeat
others. He ends by thanking me for the dialogue and saying that he just checks his clothes when he leaves in the morning to make sure he has not mixed any fabrics for fear of stoning (ie he referred to Levitical laws and compared non approval of blessing homosexual marriages to antiquated Jewish laws).

I don’t think there is much debate over this issue in the RCC. I am not in any way implying that we should violate someone’s rights, treat them badly, etc. In fact I believe in their inherent dignity and need for societal protection in certain areas. I have good relationships with gay people BUT that is different than endorsing something through a sacrament that I feel that God has called upon us for a different response to. Neither would I endorse siblings marrying one another, or an adult mother and son, polygamous relationships and so on whether between consenting adults in mutually respectful relationships (without chance of procreation in the case of close relatives). God has called us to higher standards.

Any way, I think I stepped in it but felt I needed to speak my conscience respectfully regardless of consequences.

Rev North

This is a terrific post. Bless you for the clarity with which you expressed it.

 

[mark_a]

I don’t think there is much debate over this issue in the RCC.

Oh, there’s plenty of debate amongst the laity and even some of the clergy, but none in the final Church authority.

I am not in any way implying that we should violate someone’s rights, treat them badly, etc. In fact I believe in their inherent dignity and need for societal protection in certain areas. I have good relationships with gay people BUT that is different than endorsing something through a sacrament that I feel that God has called upon us for a different response to. Neither would I endorse siblings marrying one another, or an adult mother and son, polygamous relationships and so on whether between consenting adults in mutually respectful relationships (without chance of procreation in the case of close relatives). God has called us to higher standards.

Sounds Catholic to me.

 

[Antwill]

In what way?

To put is succintly: Because it goes against **natural law (nature) **the recognition and validation of same sex partnerships and non-marriage heterosexual partnerships are going to result in the continued erosion of the family unit, which will lead (and has lead) to the consequence of the degeneration of society.

 

[KarenNC]

I think that if it ever came to a court case, Rev. North would lose, since his personal beliefs don’t actually conform to the religion that he professes in this one area. A homosexual couple coming to him for marriage would have the right to expect him to give them a same-sex blessing, since the Anglican Church does not officially disapprove of them.

Marriage laws do vary from state to state, but I am not aware that there is currently a law in this country that requires any clergy person to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. The law certainly allows it, but I don’t believe that it requires it. There is no legal “right” to a religious marriage for anyone, only to a civil one.

In NJ, for instance, a public official who performs marriages is required to also perform civil unions, but clergy are allowed to decline. state.nj.us/health/vital/faq.shtml

I can see that it might raise a question within a clergyperson’s denomination if they acted contrary to the teachings of that denomination, but I don’t see any foundation for a court case. Are you aware of court cases involving clergy who refuse to marry someone who has been divorced, an interfaith couple, or an interracial couple when other clergy of their denomination do so?

 

[KarenNC]

Very nice style you have. Turn the tables and try to make it about me and my religion. I suggest you start a new thread if you want to discuss my role in the world.

You are the one who introduced your work behavior into the conversation. There is always more than one side to any story. I said that it would be interesting to hear that side as well.

P.S. I really didn’t think the picture needed anything to be explained.

You put up a post about activities at a gay pride parade in NYC last weekend, involving a cathedral in NYC and claiming that this shows the hatred that you believe the gay rights movement in the US (the topic of discussion up to that point) has toward the Catholic Church and that they only desire confrontation. You append a picture of people holding a rainbow banner in front of a cathedral in a large city and burning a religious flag. I find it a little hard to believe that it was not meant to at minimum strongly imply that such events were happening in the US, possibly in the NY parade you were discussing, rather than happening in another country on another continent 4 years ago. Given the tag showing the source of the photo, the original was clearly identified as what it was.

At minimum, your effort at communication was very poorly executed if your intent was other than the above.

 

[BelFarfalla]

He ends by thanking me for the dialogue and saying that he just checks his clothes when he leaves in the morning to make sure he has not mixed any fabrics for fear of stoning (ie he referred to Levitical laws and compared non approval of blessing homosexual marriages to antiquated Jewish laws).
.

Rev North

here is something shedding light on the mixed fiber laws…

aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/Wool_and_Linen_=_Shatnez.asp

 

[Verisimilitude]

I guess I find it strange that sometimes even holding traditional Christian values with love and acceptance you can get accused of being some sort of religious bigot. I know the RCC gets that all the time.

For that very reason I rarely if ever refer to myself as Christian anymore. I am Catholic. The tradition is Catholic. The values are catholic. Get it?

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Very nice style you have. Turn the tables and try to make it about me and my religion. I suggest you start a new thread if you want to discuss my role in the world.

You are the one who introduced your work behavior into the conversation. There is always more than one side to any story. I said that it would be interesting to hear that side as well.

P.S. I really didn’t think the picture needed anything to be explained.

You put up a post about activities at a gay pride parade in NYC last weekend, involving a cathedral in NYC and claiming that this shows the hatred that you believe the gay rights movement in the US (the topic of discussion up to that point) has toward the Catholic Church and that they only desire confrontation. You append a picture of people holding a rainbow banner in front of a cathedral in a large city and burning a religious flag. I find it a little hard to believe that it was not meant to at minimum strongly imply that such events were happening in the US, possibly in the NY parade you were discussing, rather than happening in another country on another continent 4 years ago. Given the tag showing the source of the photo, the original was clearly identified as what it was.

At minimum, your effort at communication was very poorly executed if your intent was other than the above.

You are 100% correct. I did not make myself clear.

This is the Pride Parade - NYC 2007.



Or, if you like, feel free to read the actual story about the cathedral incident.

nysun.com/article/57202

Both the picture and the story were meant to back up my assertion that the GLBT movement is confrontational towards the church. One item was not meant to reinforce the other. Either could have stood alone and still served the purpose. I apologize if it appeared that I was trying to say the picture was a NYC 2007 event, it was not. It was not my intent to mislead.* ***

 

[Vaclav]

I was flabbergasted by these politicians who were against gay marriage, but were unwilling to support the amendment because they didn’t think the issue was important enough to amend the Constitution for.

I would not support gay marriage in the Church, ever. Yet, I certainly do not believe that the Constitution of the United States should have such a ridiculous amendment. It would be the worst attempt at institutionalising morality since the teetotalers won their Pyrrhic victory.

It is true that radical homosexual groups do exist and do some horrible actions. Yet, is it fair to paint all homosexuals with the same broad brush? Probably no more than the popular “pedophile priest” stereotype.

Most simply want the legal rights that come with heterosexual marriage. Surely we don’t want laws that won’t allow same sex couples to live in the same house. As for acceptance, the youth of today accept homosexuality as nothing more peculiar than being left-handed. I’m not saying that’s right, but I don’t think that it is going to be a major problem for the homosexual individuals.

Looking at history, one can argue that the downfall of some of the greatest empires the world has known (notably the Roman empire) were brought down in large part because of the breakdown in the family unit.

That is one of the worst myths ever shoved down humanity’s throat. Rome was no more degenerate after centuries of Christianity than it was before converting. Much of that myth is based on three things:

1. Poor knowledge of Roman history
2. Anachronistic applying of modern standards to Roman times
3. Anti-Catholic Protestant revisionism

There were numerous variables as to why Rome fell, the “breakdown of the family unit” was not one of them. Don’t get me wrong, I think family is extremely important. I have one myself that I dearly love. Yet, it is not why the Roman Empire declined.

 

[holy_wood]

Hello people. Let me just say that I for one don’t care iof two guys or two gals love each other. As a Christian I pray for there immortal souls but otherwise it does not affect me.

Why should I care if Bob and Joe love each other? Why should they get benefits and protections when I don’t.

Why should Mary and Jack get them either? Its not like there Union has the potential of contributing something to my society that Bob and Joes “union” can’t right?
***(***If you could not tell I was being sarcastic)

---

Why can’t I marry a male cousin or my brother? There is absolutely no chance of copulation. Why can’t I do it if I* wanted* to?

Honestly people, what is the reason that we do not allow polygamous marriages? After all who is the government to say that my love for my 15 wives is not just a great for that guys love for his 1.

And if you think I am being rediculous, one hundred years ago the idea of a state sanctioned gay marriage would have sounded just as perposterous.

 

[Antwill]

I would not support gay marriage in the Church, ever. Yet, I certainly do not believe that the Constitution of the United States should have such a ridiculous amendment. It would be the worst attempt at institutionalising morality since the teetotalers won their Pyrrhic victory.

The good ol’ “we can’t legislate morality” card. Of course we can, and we do. What do you think laws are based on largely? Our Constitution is based on the Judeo Christian ethic. English common law, on which our judiciary system is based, was also based largely on the 10 Commandments. I’m willing to bet that if the Founding Fathers could have even imagined the possibility of gay marriage being legalized, it would have been one of the original amendments, if not in the actual body of the original document.

It is true that radical homosexual groups do exist and do some horrible actions. Yet, is it fair to paint all homosexuals with the same broad brush? Probably no more than the popular “pedophile priest” stereotype.

The Church scandal was horrific and there is no excuse for it and for how some bishops dealt with it. However, are you aware that roughly 80% of the cases would not actually qualify as pedophilia but would have been classified as homosexual cases because the victims were not prepubescent boys? (Again, not condoning it AT ALL). If the mainstream media wasn’t always after the Church and weren’t able to spin it as all pedophilia, they probably would have ignored a lot more of the scandal because most of the priests were actually homosexuals, not pedophiles. Attacking homosexuals would damage their agenda.

Most simply want the legal rights that come with heterosexual marriage. Surely we don’t want laws that won’t allow same sex couples to live in the same house. As for acceptance, the youth of today accept homosexuality as nothing more peculiar than being left-handed. I’m not saying that’s right, but I don’t think that it is going to be a major problem for the homosexual individuals.

I’ve never condoned banning homosexuals from living together or persecuting them in any way. However, to grant them equal standing with a heterosexual marriage does devalue traditional marriage. I feel the same way about granting those type of rights to non-married heterosexual couples. The traditional family unit is the building block of society. Doing anything to weaken its status weakens society.

As for the youth of today accepting homosexuality - that is proof that the agenda of homosexual and liberal groups is already well advanced. These groups are also pushing to roll back the age of consent to 13 (they’ve already succeeded in some Europeon countries), making any statement that characterizes homosexuality as wrong, disordered, or on less than equal status as heterosexuality as hate speech. There is a Catholic bishop in Bulgaria that is currently being prosecuted under hate crime laws in that country simply because he had the audacity to reaffirm the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is disordered. A pastor in the Sweden was sentenced to a month in jail for this same “offense.” There are attempts to get these types of “hate crime” laws on the books in our country right now.

That is one of the worst myths ever shoved down humanity’s throat. Rome was no more degenerate after centuries of Christianity than it was before converting. Much of that myth is based on three things:

1. Poor knowledge of Roman history
2. Anachronistic applying of modern standards to Roman times
3. Anti-Catholic Protestant revisionism

There were numerous variables as to why Rome fell, the “breakdown of the family unit” was not one of them. Don’t get me wrong, I think family is extremely important. I have one myself that I dearly love. Yet, it is not why the Roman Empire declined.

If you know so much about Roman history, then you know that there are many theories about why Rome fell, yet none is universally accepted. There are scholars who do argue that the degeneration of the family unit, wide spread contraception, and rampant homosexuality did contribute to the fall. Simply looking at the degeneration of American society in the 40 years since the “sexual revolution” is proof enough to me that these things could have very well contributed to Rome’s downfall.

 

[Hellisreal]

The mixed fabrics and fear of stoning for selling them is somehthing he does not understand.
I would like to see his biblical exegis on that.
If you are trying to defraud someone by using cheaper fibers in the product to make more profit, then you are committing a crime.
I wonder if he really understands the whole mixed fiber thing.
Oh well, not a real concern, considering everything else the man said.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Rev. North,

How is that singing voice of yours? Greek Catholics could use a few good priests… and marriage would be no impediment here.

Let us know when you have an interest…

Simple

You know…I am developing an appreciation for Orthodox worship. First read about it in college when Fr. Callum used one of Timothy Ware’s books as a text.

I have a bad singing voice though.

Rev North

 

[jmcrae]

You know…I am developing an appreciation for Orthodox worship. First read about it in college when Fr. Callum used one of Timothy Ware’s books as a text.

I have a bad singing voice though.

Oh, darn. I guess you’ll just have to go with the Latin Rite, then.

 

[Hellisreal]

Oh, darn. I guess you’ll just have to go with the Latin Rite, then.

Thank the Lord one of my Priests knows how to sing and chant.

But, I do see the humour in this.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

You know…I am developing an appreciation for Orthodox worship. First read about it in college when Fr. Callum used one of Timothy Ware’s books as a text.

I have a bad singing voice though.

Rev North

More properly (in this context) it would be called the Byzantine Liturgal family as Orthodox and Catholics both use them. If ever think of heading east - Maybe we would be a good destination. Catholic & Byzantine.

Oh, darn. I guess you’ll just have to go with the Latin Rite, then.

Would that it were so. We have more than a few priests who are not exactly concert quality singers. Chanting does not demand it, however.

Come on home Rev. North. We would do well with you here.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank the Lord one of my Priests knows how to sing and chant.

Our senior pastor is also an excellent singer, and he loves to sing the Mass.

Our associate pastor is not such a good singer, though - he usually just speaks the Mass. The few times he has tried to sing it, we all got lost on the responses - not sure what happened, there.