In The Not Too Distant Future…

[Holly3278]

A conversation in the not too distant future…

“Who was the man in the black suit sitting behind Father Miguel during Mass this morning?” Chris asked his father as they drove away from the parish.

He caught his wife’s worried look and quick nod before he answered his 13 year old son. “Well Chris, the National Department of Religion – you may have heard mom and I discussing this – has declared that effective immediately all religious groups must have one of their officials present during any kind of religious service. They are supposed to make sure nothing is said which will offend other groups or go against the new national laws on marriage, restricted worship and discussing God in public. We have been protecting you from the worst of the news, but…we think it is time you know the truth.”

integratedcatholiclife.org/2013/04/randy-hain-in-the-not-too-distant-future/

This article by Randy Hain puts forth a fictional discussion between a mother, father, and their son. As you can see from my quote of the article, the setting is a future United States of America where the government has increasingly eroded our freedom of religion. At the end of the article is some questions for reflection. I thought you all would enjoy this article.

If anyone wants to discuss the article then feel free to do so. I don’t really know what to say other than I do think such a future would be possible here in the United States if we Catholics and all people of all faiths do not stand up boldly to protect our freedom of religion which is already being chipped away.

 

[JimG]

It could be possible; although if this occurs, the parents might be reluctant to discuss these matters with the boy, since his school will encourage him to report any anti-government attitudes on the part of his parents.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Interested folks should read the books “1984” and “Brave New World”.

 

[Fairwinds]

I wish we Catholics didn’t have to resort to this kind of scaremongering.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I wish we Catholics didn’t have to resort to this kind of scaremongering.

Give it a few months, and it won’t be scaremongering any more.

 

[Fairwinds]

Give it a few months, and it won’t be scaremongering any more.

I understand why articles like that are written, but this doesn’t really help the public debate and defense of our Faith. frankly, its embarrassing.

F/

 

[losh14]

I never like to think in these kinds of scenarios. We’re not the first ones by any stretch - Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” is one example from a different perspective.

I wish we Catholics didn’t have to resort to this kind of scaremongering.

If they didn’t scare us so much, we wouldn’t. Consider the case of the Wildflower Inn, in Vermont, a resort run by a Catholic family that used to host weddings. Their policy was to tell gay and lesbian couples that such weddings are against the family’s belief, that they’d be happy to find them other arrangements and, if they like, still host the wedding on their site. This strange policy actually was approved by the Vermont Human Rights Commission several years before, but a lesbian couple sued in 2011. The Vermont Human Rights Commission reversed its earlier decision and the Wildflower Inn settled for $30,000 and the agreement to never host a wedding on-site again.

We have a fickle and powerful government, given to appeasing the will of the loudest, in charge of determining winners and losers. That does indeed frighten me. While I thik the narrative in the link is a little far-fetched, I don’t think it’s out of line for gay couples to one day sue the Catholic Church for refusing to conduct and recognize gay weddings.

Indeed, there’s two cases pending against a florist in Richland, Wash., a town of less than 50,000 people, for her refusing to provide florist services to a gay wedding. Story linked here:

yakimaherald.com/news/latestnews/1055784-8/states-case-against-florist-fires-up-gay-marriage-critics

One lawsuit is to enforce the State’s anti-discrimination laws:
In an unusual move last week, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued the florist in Benton County Superior Court, saying her refusal to serve customers Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed violates the state’s anti-discrimination law.

Such a violation, according to the lawsuit, triggers an automatic violation of the state’s Consumer Protection Act, which the Attorney General’s Office enforces and upon which this suit is based.

The other lawsuit is civil:
Last week, the ACLU of Washington said in a letter to the florist that it plans to sue her civilly on behalf of Ingersoll and Freed unless she publicly apologizes, donates $5,000 to a local LGBT youth center and stops refusing service to people because of their sexual orientation.

Here’s what gets me - discrimination in housing, employment, medical care, transportation, vital services like that should absolutely not be allowed because it prevents a person from participating in society. But can a florist say “I don’t want to do a gay wedding” or “I don’t want to do a pagan wedding” or “I don’t want to do a non-religious wedding”? I don’t think it’s remotely of the same caliber. Poor taste? Perhaps. Would her decision ruin her reputation and business? Maybe, though her voting district rejected the Wash. gay marriage bill by 3:1 so I imagine she has some sympathetic ears nearby.

And yet we have the weight of the State and the considerable resources of the ACLU coming down upon a small florist. The State and the ACLU can’t help but look like bullies here, even if she comes off as a bigot.

 

[losh14]

Nor should we forget that Connecticut tried in 2009 to regulate the governance of Catholic parishes - specifically Catholic parishes in Raised Bill #1098.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Raised_Bill_1098

Fortunately, the bill was defeated, following a considerable public demonstration by Catholics and concerned Christians.

 

[Fairwinds]

I never like to think in these kinds of scenarios. We’re not the first ones by any stretch - Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” is one example from a different perspective…

obviously this lawsuit is bullying and it may resolve itself in some way that won’t get reported in the press. but getting from that incident to a unquestionably unconstitutional government office that supervises church services in progress is scaremongering and not helpful.

I understand that imaginary persecution (as from the OP’s article) is a tried and true way of rallying the troops, but … really.

 

[GEddie]

I’ll worry about it when I physically see it.

There is too much anxiety in my life already to worry about societal crises I cannot do anything meaningful about. The great adventure of human life ends with us all dead in any case.

Keep your prayer life, sacraments and penance up to date, and the rest will take care of itself.

ICXC NIKA

 

[losh14]

getting from that incident to a unquestionably unconstitutional government office that supervises church services in progress is scaremongering and not helpful.

I think that’s fair. Alright, let’s keep chins up and focus on fighting the good fight, leave the future ones for the days to come.

Keep your prayer life, sacraments and penance up to date, and the rest will take care of itself.
ICXC NIKA

Like my friend whose mother was just diagnosed with liver cancer. Alright, nuff distractions, time for prayer.

 

[MidnightSun12]

The other lawsuit is civil:
Last week, the ACLU of Washington said in a letter to the florist that it plans to sue her civilly on behalf of Ingersoll and Freed unless she publicly apologizes, donates $5,000 to a local LGBT youth center and stops refusing service to people because of their sexual orientation.

Here’s what gets me - discrimination in housing, employment, medical care, transportation, vital services like that should absolutely not be allowed because it prevents a person from participating in society. But can a florist say “I don’t want to do a gay wedding” or “I don’t want to do a pagan wedding” or “I don’t want to do a non-religious wedding”? I don’t think it’s remotely of the same caliber. Poor taste? Perhaps. Would her decision ruin her reputation and business? Maybe, though her voting district rejected the Wash. gay marriage bill by 3:1 so I imagine she has some sympathetic ears nearby.

And yet we have the weight of the State and the considerable resources of the ACLU coming down upon a small florist. The State and the ACLU can’t help but look like bullies here, even if she comes off as a bigot.

Actually, as Catholics, we are commanded to love our neighbours as ourselves. This means that we have a moral duty to have no part in assisting others in committing sin (most especially, grave sin). To supply flowers to a “gay wedding” such as the one mentioned above would be scandalous and could make the florist guilty of mortal sin.

Essentially, the florist had two options: 1) Avoid a civil suite by supplying flowers but deeply offend God and put her soul in grave danger of eternal damnation or 2) refuse to supply flowers and face legal consequences.

This, my friend, is the definition of persecution. It is no different then the Romans requiring christians to offer incense to the gods of Rome. In fact, the only difference between this situation and the one in Rome is that the punishment for dis-obeying the state in today’s world isn’t the death penalty (yet).

Many christians, however, will never see the ugliness of the coming persecution since they will betray our Lord long before risking their careers, freedom, lives. This is why our Lord says that many are called but few are chosen…

 

[cwltexas]

Actually, as Catholics, we are commanded to love our neighbours as ourselves. This means that we have a moral duty to have no part in assisting others in committing sin (most especially, grave sin). To supply flowers to a “gay wedding” such as the one mentioned above would be scandalous and could make the florist guilty of mortal sin.

**Essentially, the florist had two options: 1) Avoid a civil suite by supplying flowers but deeply offend God and put her soul in grave danger of eternal damnation **or 2) refuse to supply flowers and face legal consequences.

This, my friend, is the definition of persecution. It is no different then the Romans requiring christians to offer incense to the gods of Rome. In fact, the only difference between this situation and the one in Rome is that the punishment for dis-obeying the state in today’s world isn’t the death penalty (yet).

Specifically HOW and based on what focused teaching, dogma of the Church?

 

[MidnightSun12]

Specifically HOW and based on what focused teaching, dogma of the Church?

Based on the fact that the florist would be involved in the creation of a ceremony that expressly tells two people struggling with same-sex attraction that their commission of sodomy is OK (which makes the ceremony a scandal). When scandal is endorsing mortal sin, then the scandalous act (itself) becomes mortally sinful.

To quote the catechism:

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

A Catholic has a moral duty to have absolutely no part in such a ceremony. In fact, a Catholic even has a duty to make known their opposition to it to avoid a sin of omission when asked to participate.

 

[Fairwinds]

Actually, as Catholics, we are commanded to love our neighbours as ourselves. This means that we have a moral duty to have no part in assisting others in committing sin (most especially, grave sin). To supply flowers to a “gay wedding” such as the one mentioned above would be scandalous and could make the florist guilty of mortal sin.

Essentially, the florist had two options: 1) Avoid a civil suite by supplying flowers but deeply offend God and put her soul in grave danger of eternal damnation or 2) refuse to supply flowers and face legal consequences…

they could also get out of the flower business.

 

[cwltexas]

Based on the fact that the florist would be involved in the creation of a ceremony that expressly tells two people struggling with same-sex attraction that their commission of sodomy is OK (which makes the ceremony a scandal). When scandal is endorsing mortal sin, then the scandalous act (itself) becomes mortally sinful.

To quote the catechism:

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

A Catholic has a moral duty to have absolutely no part in such a ceremony. In fact, a Catholic even has a duty to make known their opposition to it to avoid a sin of omission when asked to participate.

How is providing flowers, in a business transaction, where you have no control over what they are used for, aiding, promoting, any such thing? This is beyond ridiculous, this person would not be paying for anything, supporting anything, engaging in the ceremony, nothing.

 

[MidnightSun12]

they could also get out of the flower business.

True, although I’m not sure that it would have helped this particular florist if their business was in operation at the time of being asked to supply flowers.

I do believe, however, that this should be seen as a serious warning to other Catholics who are in the floral business.

I Canada, we had a similar situation where the KoC were asked to rent out their hall for a “gay reception”. They refused and that got them a date with the human right’s tribunals:

lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/nov/05113006

These are times when the future saints and martyrs amoung us will start to be set apart from the goats.

 

[Fairwinds]

How is providing flowers, in a business transaction, where you have no control over what they are used for, aiding, promoting, any such thing? This is beyond ridiculous, this person would not be paying for anything, supporting anything, engaging in the ceremony, nothing.

as in…

PURCHASE ORDER

3,000 PANSIES FOB KAREN & JANET’s WEDDING

its obvious that to fill this order supports the lesbian wedding.

F/

 

[Fairwinds]

True, although I’m not sure that it would have helped this particular florist if their business was in operation at the time of being asked to supply flowers.

I do believe, however, that this should be seen as a serious warning to other Catholics who are in the floral business.

I Canada, we had a similar situation where the KoC were asked to rent out their hall for a “gay reception”. They refused and that got them a date with the human right’s tribunals:

lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/nov/05113006

These are times when the future saints and martyrs amoung us will start to be set apart from the goats.

a martyr, of sorts, would go out of business rather than supply flowers to a gay wedding party, if the florist believed that it would be a grave sin.

observe that no one is shooting florists. the government is saying, if you supply goods you supply them to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation.

F/

 

[cwltexas]

as in…

its obvious that to fill this order supports the lesbian wedding.

F/

Again, HOW, it in no way sanctions or approves anything, it is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION conducted by a business that is open to the public and solicits public business while using public facilities to make that possible, Police, Road Maintenance, USPS, Fire Dept, etc, etc.