Now You Can Be Sued For Being Catholic

[nordskoven]

Homosexuals make up one of the wealthiest demographics in the USA and the latest activist strategy is their wildly outspending home-spun politicians for little seats in various political venues. God, reverse this and give the people holy leadership. We are the people and we must be respected. Majority rule, minority rights. And so what if God is relegated to a black-box unknown symbol for the atheists? We can’t force faith. I wish God for them wasn’t reduced to some abstract, but atheists are protected by these inalienable rights from [God]. And as for Christians allegedly instigating violence against gays, gay-on-gay violence is at astronomical levels. Male-female marriage is pre-Christian. We’re promoting primal integration here, male and female bonding. What’s the big challenge of men+men bonding? Does the word “Freemason” ring a bell?

 

[Greg27]

There are different ‘rights’ and freedoms people have, not all of which are always compatible. Also, as with moral questions, some people believe that there should be some ‘rights’ (such as a right for gay people to marry in the same way as heterosexual people do) which other members of the community strongly oppose (as the Catholic Church strongly opposes recognising gay marriage legally).

This area is fraught with a lot of difficult questions, the main one being the sort of relationship religious beliefs should have with public and social life. This itself involves some very complex issues which are never resolved easily.

I think with religion, there are two matters; first is the right to hold religious convictions (or none) and act according to those convictions, versus the right of people not to be coerced into following religious beliefs and ideals they don’t hold.

The Catholic Church is very active in trying to ensure that its teachings are not just binding on Catholics but also society as a whole, in the name of the common good. The Church agitates strongly against abortion on the ground there is a common social good in protecting innocent life which extends to everyone by reason of being a creature of God. In a similar way, Catholic Bishops often speak out against gay marriage not just for religious reasons but also on the fact it allegedly threatens a key social institution that underpins society as a whole (heterosexual marriage).

The church does profess to respect religious freedom and conscience and also the autonomy of the state, the rule of law, and democratic processes. Yet this does become problematic when the church tries to enforce its beliefs and teachings (whatever they may be) on non-Christians and non-Catholics who do not share their moral or religious convictions.

Whatever a church’s stance on gay marriage or abortion, I don’t think the church has a right to try and make its teachings into laws that bind non-believers. If it demands freedom of conscience in religious matters, then the same rights have to apply to all in society, including the right to reject the church and its teachings without sanction.

I am perfectly happy for the Catholic church to hold its beliefs, communicate them, and discipline its own members as it sees fit (without breaking the laws of the state). But in my view it has no right to force its beliefs on non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians who don’t share its beliefs or adhere to its way of life, any more than Muslims have a right to force non-believers to follow Shariah law.

I am also happy for the Church to take part in the democratic law-making process, and make appropriate (name removed by moderator)uts into proposed legislation. But it has no right to interfere with the fundamental rights (such as religious belief or moral conviction according to conscience) enshrined in a democratic society.

 

[John21652]

Hi John 21652 . I really enjoyed reading your post # 54 . But each time I click on the link to “When Nations Die”, it only brings me to a blank page with a message that “internet explorer can not display the web page” .

… Any chance of providing another link ?

Thanks.

No problem. I have enjoyed your posts as well!

When Nations Die at Amazon’

An article called When Nations Die written by a Christian pastor who uses the title of Black’s book, as well as its contents, as a base for building an argument similar to Black’s.
Probe Ministries has done the same thing.

In When Nations Die, Black referenced an essay by British Army General Sir John Glubb titled The Fate of Empires, which can be read online through that link. Gubb also takes the reader on a journey through history and points out that decadence is " …a moral and spiritual disease…".

 

[John21652]

There are different ‘rights’ and freedoms people have, not all of which are always compatible.

That’s democracy for you! That’s why the rule of law is also very important.

Also, as with moral questions, some people believe that there should be some ‘rights’ (such as a right for gay people to marry in the same way as heterosexual people do) which other members of the community strongly oppose (as the Catholic Church strongly opposes recognising gay marriage legally).

There has always been a call for rights by someone or other. The thing is, in a Democracy, we always have to give up certain ‘rights’ because they conflisct with the whole of society.

This area is fraught with a lot of difficult questions, the main one being the sort of relationship religious beliefs should have with public and social life. This itself involves some very complex issues which are never resolved easily.

Take out the word “religious” and substitute the word “moral”. I believe that a shared moral belief is what prevents society from fragmenting into various interest groups demanding what ever it is they think suits them.

I think with religion, there are two matters; first is the right to hold religious convictions (or none) and act according to those convictions, versus the right of people not to be coerced into following religious beliefs and ideals they don’t hold.

Every society has the power of coercion. Without it, the state would disintegrate. The question has always been, when should the coercive powers of a state be used.If it is the case that religious beliefs, or non-religious beliefs threaten the stability of a society, may not the use of coercive powers be enacted for the preservation of that society?

The Catholic Church is very active in trying to ensure that its teachings are not just binding on Catholics but also society as a whole, in the name of the common good. The Church agitates strongly against abortion on the ground there is a common social good in protecting innocent life which extends to everyone by reason of being a creature of God. In a similar way, Catholic Bishops often speak out against gay marriage not just for religious reasons but also on the fact it allegedly threatens a key social institution that underpins society as a whole (heterosexual marriage).

There are also a lot of people who are not Catholics who beleive that moral issues are important to society. As I indicated in an earlier post, britain’s Lord Chief Justice Devlin called those shared moral beleifs the “glue” that holds society together. What you refer to as the “common good” represents more than just catholic teaching.

The church does profess to respect religious freedom and conscience and also the autonomy of the state, the rule of law, and democratic processes. Yet this does become problematic when the church tries to enforce its beliefs and teachings (whatever they may be) on non-Christians and non-Catholics who do not share their moral or religious convictions.

The Church does not have powers of coercion, so how can it enforce its beliefs and teachings on non-Christians and non-Catholics?

Whatever a church’s stance on gay marriage or abortion, I don’t think the church has a right to try and make its teachings into laws that bind non-believers. If it demands freedom of conscience in religious matters, then the same rights have to apply to all in society, including the right to reject the church and its teachings without sanction.

Of course it has the right to influence law making. The Church represents a large chunk of the population who have a shared morality, so why shouldn’t it express its opinion on moral and social issues? If you deny the Church that right, then you must also deny that right to every other representative group and organisation within the democracy.

I am perfectly happy for the Catholic church to hold its beliefs, communicate them, and discipline its own members as it sees fit (without breaking the laws of the state). But in my view it has no right to force its beliefs on non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians who don’t share its beliefs or adhere to its way of life, any more than Muslims have a right to force non-believers to follow Shariah law.

Once again, the Church can’t force its teachings onto anyone. It has no coercive powers. All it has at its disposal are the powers of reason and persuasion. Just like the Muslims, or Trade Unions, or even business lobby groups, or even education lobby groups. Will you tell them they must also shut up?

I am also happy for the Church to take part in the democratic law-making process, and make appropriate (name removed by moderator)uts into proposed legislation. But it has no right to interfere with the fundamental rights (such as religious belief or moral conviction according to conscience) enshrined in a democratic society.

Well, you really need to think a little deeper about these issues. In a democracy, where there is what you describe as *"…democratic law-making process…", *you would allow the Church to have an (name removed by moderator)ut, yet your entire thread is saying they can’t and shouldn’t have any (name removed by moderator)ut! How else in a Democratic society are they going to have an (name removed by moderator)ut? How is it interfering otherwise? I’d like to know!

By the way, go have a read of your own country’s Constitution. It actually mentions God. God was put into the Constitution by Christians, Catholics and Protestants, who drew up that document. Surely, in light of that fact, a Christian Church has every right to dedicate its efforts to protecting the moral and social values which it represents? As an Anglican, you should be saying “yes”.

 

[karoleck]

I know this is a degression from the main thread, but it does have a relevance on how seculization makes inroads into Catholic/Judeo cultures. Where I come from in Aussie land,it has always been a secular state ;but with an Anglican ruling culture(starting as a penal colony, mainly with an oppressed Irish Catholic sub-culture)

The European Union’s highest court has ruled on the highly controversial case of whether the display of crucifixes in Italy’s public schools violates the guarantee of religious freedom.

   The March 18 ruling has been largely eclipsed by violent events on the international scene, but it underscores the ongoing battle for European identity. On the one hand, there are those who argue that Europe, as Hilaire Belloc put it succinctly, is the (Catholic) Faith; there are others who claim that Europe should be patterned after the humanistic Rights of Man, as exalted by the French Revolution.

   The case, which originated in 2006, was ruled on by a lower court in 2009, where it was decided that crucifixes in public schools constituted a form of religious indoctrination forbidden by the protocols of the European Union. 

   The Italian government appealed the decision to the Grand Chamber of that court, whose 17 judges ruled in 15-2 decision in Strasbourg that lawyers for the plaintiff in the case, Soile Lautsi, had not proven that the presence of the crucifix in the classroom had any appreciable effect on students.

   The registrar for the Grand Chamber explained the judges' decision in part by saying that there was no evidence that "the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils."

   The believing Christian may be forgiven for having ambivalent feelings about this ostensible judicial victory. Has secularism been defeated, or has it triumphed so thoroughly as to make religious symbolism irrelevant?

   The Italian bishops are pleased by the court's decision but were quick to emphasize that the crucifix has a broader meaning to men of all faiths as a reminder of fundamental human rights: "...the cross can be valued as a symbol for non-violence and resistance to retaliation."

   So the crucifix will remain, but reference to its religious meaning will not be part of classroom instruction. The Grand Chamber's ruling is binding on all members of the European Union, but the terms of its ruling make it clear that the case before the court was not sufficiently supported by evidence. 

   The principle of secularization remains firmly in place.

One of the problems confronting Catholics who wish to protect God’s gift of marriage;as being between one man and one woman is that traditional Catholic Countries have only a veneer of Faith.This I believe is why places like Mexico,Spain and probably most of Catholic Europe have hostile secular governments.The faith was weakened, through a compromise of a “roll your own” type of religion; along with a lack of catechetical instruction from the pulpit.The majority of catholics got their “instructions” through the hostile secular press,T.V, and liturature.The moral values from "pop"and movie stars, as well as being bombarded with the advertising guru, who put wants before needs.St.John of the Cross warns that a compromise in our beliefs and lifestlye comes at a cost;this being that our intellects are darkened and our wills are weakened.

So the voting public are very easily swayed by futile reasoning and exchange the truth for a lie ;be it on "gay"issues,IVF,same-sex baby adoption,“safe” drug injecting rooms–the list goes on.Suddenly one day, these same people wake up to find that they voted in a hostile secular government ;supported a Court System with Laws that can put Catholics in Jail for their beliefs.

Since Cardinal Pells’name has already been mentioned in this thread,I will conclude with his words during a Thanksgiving Mass 18-10-2010 at St.Paul Outside the Walls Basilica on the occasion of The Canonisation of Mary of The Cross MacKillop—

—"Today we find it strange,the name she chose for her religious profession “Mary of The Cross”,which explains our preference for the title St.Mary Mackillop.We like to think of ourselves as positive and affirming.the temptation today in our materially comfortable lives is to downplay the evil and spiritual anguish around us,to soft pedal the costs of redemption and ignore the flaws in our own heart,the personal consequences of original sin.We are not born selfish and imperfect(so they say!).Nineteenth century Catholicism understood all this better than we do."St.Mary of The Cross MacKillop,pray for us.

 

[John21652]

I know this is a degression from the main thread, but it does have a relevance on how seculization makes inroads into Catholic/Judeo cultures. Where I come from in Aussie land,it has always been a secular state ;but with an Anglican ruling culture(starting as a penal colony, mainly with an oppressed Irish Catholic sub-culture)

The European Union’s highest court has ruled on the highly controversial case of whether the display of crucifixes in Italy’s public schools violates the guarantee of religious freedom.
…

   The principle of secularization remains firmly in place.

…

Karoleck, that’s a good post. This case has been discussed over at this thread and a link given to the proceedings of the court. Of particular interest is the opinion of concurring Judge, Bonello.

1.1 A court of human rights cannot allow itself to suffer from historical Alzheimer’s. It has no right to disregard the cultural continuum of a nation’s flow through time, nor to ignore what, over the centuries, has served to mould and define the profile of a people. No supranational court has any business substituting its own ethical mock-ups for those qualities that history has imprinted on the national identity. On a human rights court falls the function of protecting fundamental rights, but never ignoring that “customs are not passing whims. They evolve over time, harden over history into cultural cement. They become defining, all-important badges of identity for nations, tribes, religions, individuals”.
1.2 A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.

Judge Bonello also sent a mighty shot across the bows of the applicant in this case, a woman who wanted the Crucifix removed from state schools, one of which her own children attended, when he pointed out the hypocrisy of wishing to remove a powerful symbol of Christianity, whils her children’s schooling revolved around the school calender which, as he pointed out -

The school calendar apes the religious calendar closely – holidays double the Christian ones: Easter, Christmas, Lent, Carnival (carnevale, the time when church discipline allowed the consumption of meat), the Epiphany, Pentecost, the Assumption, Corpus Domini, Advent, All Saints, All Souls: an annual cycle far more glaringly non-secularist than any crucifix on any wall. May it please Ms Lautsi, in her own name and on behalf of secularism, not to enlist the services of this Court to ensure the suppression of the Italian school calendar, another Christian-cultural heritage that has survived the centuries without any evidence of irreparable harm to the progress of freedom, emancipation, democracy and civilisation.

Much of the argument before the Court centred around the long tradition of Catholicism and Christianity throughout Europe and how the roots of Christianity were enshrined in principles such as freedom and liberty. The hypocrosy highlighted by Judge Bonello extends to those who wish to trash catholicism and Christianity, whilst living in societies whose very Christian traditions gave the dissenters their freedoms and security.

The judgement is a triumph against the forces of political correctness which had caused the controversy in the first place. Although the court’s decision was made on secuIarist principles, it is a small bolster for Christianity in a Europe threatened by a growing secularism emboldened by large scale immigration and the riseing demands of minority group’s ‘rights’.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Indeed, if one were to follow the secular phenomenon of the Christophobe to perfection, to the letter, then they should probably choose an entirely different calendar - one totally disassociated from B.C and/or A.D.

Yet, as you so precisely measure John : The triumph is but a “small bolster” ; I might even be tempted to call it “lip service” when contrasted against the way abortion and gay marriage are currently enshrined ahead of God in this otherwise great country of mine.

If the moral character is the “glue” (or cement) of society, I consider the family to be the brick (or building block) of society . This is why homosexual (ahem) ‘marriage’ and adoption can have such a devastating effect when left in the hands of unprincipled judges… All knowledge - no wisdom ! They have no foresight .In their compulsion to be considered politically correct, they fail to weigh the long-term consequences. The more unstable the bricks become, the more unstable society (or the building) becomes.

I meant to post something affter that blip appeared on the screen but some of you guys are faster off the mark. Your posts are filling in a lot of blanks

I think I’ll go ahead and post what I was working on earlier anyway in the next post …

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thanks for the efforts to get the thread back on track karoleck. That was a really interesting post. It’s always edifying to read quotes from St. John of the Cross.

Any quote from Cardinal Pell at all is always welcome on this thread …:tiphat:

The recent blip we witnessed though, suggests it would certainly be helpful if those posting on this thread for the first time were to take the time and read the previous posts.

To reiterate :

…* Our focus in this thread is on identifying the deception in the methods presently being used to persecute the Catholic Church (who has always been a champion of human rights) under the guise of or in the name of human rights…

NeedImprovement:

…That being said, for the original objective of the thread, it is only necessary to establish two groups in reference here: Those who are simply gay, and those who are gay and actively engage in the gay militant agenda. However, the focus is not on them. It is on the deception being used to persecute the Church…

Admittedly, we have evolved somewhat from that initial perspective. I’m good with that…within reason. The panoramic perspective of the aforementioned topic/theme is expanding to encompass some compelling (name removed by moderator)ut from fellow members, providing us with a richer backdrop for understanding the situation: namely - that the Catholic Church is under attack ; that homosexual (ahem) ‘marriage’ is definitely one prong of that offensive; not an incidental one, but rather a direct affront on marriage and on the family. We are examining the tactics used by the militants. In this process it is necessary to accommodate various viewpoints which, in turn, enhance our overall understanding.

My own view regarding a remedy is the one the Church prescribes: personal holiness. It is always our individual efforts in this regard which count the most for change. Just as social sin is the product or sum of personal sin, so our own personal holiness is what will be our greatest contribution to the betterment of the moral fabric of society . And as far as personal holiness is concerned, I have to admit to living up to my user name on occasion.

It is my hope that we don’t see any more personal random expressions of dissent on this thread. Opinions of dissent (unsubstantiated and ambiguous as some are) against what we believe as Catholics serve no constructive purpose for this specific thread.

The title of this particular thread is not* “What do you think of same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’?”* . So it is a disappointment to see this thread being used as a vehicle to promote dissent against what the holy Catholic Church proposes as worthy of our belief. That dissent will never be compatible with this thread’s intention. It also is a form of attack. I should consider it more fortunate or appropriate if comments of that nature could be posted on another thread instead; so that they might not disrupt what we wish to do here.

We might also recall that several posts have already been removed earlier from this thread .

That being said, and returning to the deceptive language and tactics that we might even find ourselves unintentionally using at times, I believe we may have just recently been inadvertently given another excellent example. Have a look at this :

…(heterosexual marriage) …

Now, ponder it a little. That those two words should ever be put alongside each other, says a lot… an awful lot !

We need to remain aware of subtle prevarications too guys ; sometimes they can be the most erosive of all.

I’ve been viewing several articles which concur precisely with this outlook:

. … Suddenly one day, these same people wake up to find that they voted in a hostile secular government ;supported a Court System with Laws that can put Catholics in Jail for their beliefs. …

I hope to post more on it soon – as time permits .

God bless, and thanks for the posts.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thanks for the efforts to get the thread back on track karoleck. That was a really interesting post. It’s always edifying to read quotes from St. John of the Cross.

Any quote from Cardinal Pell at all is always welcome on this thread …:tiphat:

The recent blip we witnessed though, suggests it would certainly be helpful if those posting on this thread for the first time were to take the time and read the previous posts.

To reiterate :

Admittedly, we have evolved somewhat from that initial perspective. I’m good with that…within reason. The panoramic perspective of the aforementioned topic/theme is expanding to encompass some compelling (name removed by moderator)ut from fellow members, providing us with a richer backdrop for understanding the situation: namely - that the Catholic Church is under attack ; that homosexual (ahem) ‘marriage’ is definitely one prong of that offensive; not an incidental one, but rather a direct affront on marriage and on the family. We are examining the tactics used by the militants. In this process it is necessary to accommodate various viewpoints which, in turn, enhance our overall understanding.

My own view regarding a remedy is the one the Church prescribes: personal holiness. It is always our individual efforts in this regard which count the most for change. Just as social sin is the product or sum of personal sin, so our own personal holiness is what will be our greatest contribution to the betterment of the moral fabric of society . And as far as personal holiness is concerned, I have to admit to living up to my user name on occasion.

It is my hope that we don’t see any more personal random expressions of dissent on this thread. Opinions of dissent (unsubstantiated and ambiguous as some are) against what we believe as Catholics serve no constructive purpose for this specific thread.

The title of this particular thread is not* “What do you think of same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’?”* . So it is a disappointment to see this thread being used as a vehicle to promote dissent against what the holy Catholic Church proposes as worthy of our belief. That will never be compatible with this thread’s intention. I should consider it more fortunate or appropriate if comments of that nature could be posted on another thread instead; so that they might not disrupt what we wish to do here.

We might also recall that several posts have already been removed earlier from this thread .

That being said, and returning to the deceptive language and tactics that we might even find ourselves unintentionally using at times, I believe we may have just recently been inadvertently given another excellent example. Have a look at this :

Now, ponder it a little. That those two words should ever be put alongside each other, says a lot… an awful lot !

We need to remain aware of subtle prevarications too guys ; sometimes they can be the most erosive of all.

I’ve been viewing several articles which concur precisely with this outlook:

I hope to post more on it soon – as time permits .

God bless, and thanks for the posts.

 

[karoleck]

Thank you NeedImprovement for your kind comments.I have been reflecting on what you were trying to convey about the type of tactics used to vilify and attack catholic believers.What struck me today, when I was viewing the notice boards at a local secular university was that they are all trying to grab hold of the minds and hearts of young students.

Our Lord Jesus warns us in the Scriptures “that where your treasure is,there is your heart”,now I would say that a lot of catholic youth attending secular universities (and perhaps catholic as well) have fallen away from the practise of their Catholic Faith. St.Augistine writes that our hearts are made for God and they cannot rest,except in Him.So something else needs to take up this emptiness and the students are open to every moral vice and Godless ideas.The main finacial supporter of the Students Diary,with an advertisment on the first page–is an abortion provider–they know where the demand of their services will come from–a target market…

These same pupils are sometimes the very tools that the devil uses to attack the Catholic Church and it’s teachings on marriage etc.Think of Catholics like Hitler,Joseph Stalin(ex-seminarian),the priests behind Liberation Theology,Germain Greerer-(educated by religious Sisters)are just some that come to mind.So the attack is not only from without; but the smoke of satan within.I too fall short every day to some degree in my striving towards holiness.

A missionary priest used to include in one of his regular sermons , the observation of Shaw, who was reflecting after the destruction caused by the great world war.He said that **the wars of the future will be a battle of ideas–and the victims will be the minds of our children.**I just thought that this idea should see the light of day;before you start on what the tactics are.I remember reading a prolife book in the early seventies,I think it was called The Politics of Abortion and in it were all the right positive terms that prolifers should use.Similar to the examples of the terms you used by the “gay” movement to confuse the issues, as dealing with rights.After reading Fr.Harvey’s liturature I always use SSA (persons with a same sex attraction–you are addressing humans whom Jesus died for ,not an ideology )

Anyway NeedsImprovement press on–

 

[paedagogo]

I doubt that anyone can be sued anywhere for saying that they disapprove of homosexual unions, whether civil union of marriage. If that is going on, then the plaintiff could be subject to a counter-suit for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

If “hate speech” is going on, which I certainly hope is not the case from an official of any church, that can be a different matter.

I do not consider myself to be a Catholic. I was baptized as a catholic and attended church and catechism until the age of 9. Later as a teen, I was confirmed in the US Episcopal church.

One of the themes I gather from this thread is that there are some who believe that Catholic moral values should inform our laws, and the failure to do that somehow will degrade our society, and also that the failure to do that is some form of “reverse discrimination.”

I doubt that anyone on the “gay rights” side of the issue would want to impose their own views on Catholics. This is the puzzling part of the discussion to me. It seems that the standard is not being applied equally. If Catholics are allowed to observe their own religious and moral tenets, why do they not think that others should have the same right?

To use another controversial, but perhaps less inflammatory example. I was at an Episcopal service officiated by a female recently. Obviously, it will probably be some years or decades before the Catholic church progresses to this point. Perhaps is never will. But I doubt that any Catholic person would deny the right of that Episcopal congregation to have female clergy.

Even though not the mainstream in Christian ideology, there are scholarly refutations of the Catholic translation of the bible, including the passages which are taken to condemn homosexual acts and homosexuality. From a secular point of view, these interpretations have no more, and no less validity than the Catholic view. Our government is secular.

It is well known among anthropologists and sociologists that non-religious societies, and various religious societies, all pretty much come up with the same moral codes for getting along and perpetuating social order and harmony. There is no reason for a non-Catholic to believe that the Catholic view is better than any other. This is not a criticism of that view. Merely an observation from a secular perspective.

Not all Christian moral views share the procreative impetus of the Catholic view.

I understand the societal integrity view which has been advanced. However, this is a controversial view in academic circles, which tends to align itself with conservative moralists. For every expert who advances that view, there are an equal number who reject it. While it may be advanced as an argument, there is no real sense that it is a valid one. There are many who would hold an opposing view, and base that view on strong evidence.

So, getting back to the origin of this thread. What would give a religious leader the right to make pronouncements, other than to express his opinion as a moral expert within his religion? Obviously, he should not, and probably cannot be successfully sued for doing such a thing. But, going further, what influence may such an individual have on the politics of a secular state, other than making his pronouncement?

The gay rights issue is strongly felt on both sides. I would say it boils down to a teleological argument: what is the inherent meaning and purpose of marriage? As there will never be agreement on this question, the two sides are bound not to ever agree.

The Mormon church and the Catholic church joined their resources in California to fight the advancement of gay marriage. They were cautious in how the set up their organization, hoping to stay below the radar of legal authorities. Their detractors point out that they broke the law, and should lose their tax exempt status now. Obviously, the two churches disagree.

But this point pertains to the question of the “law suit”. Where is the line between political activism, and religious discourse? I am not sure where that line is. I can say that any organization which pursues a purely political agenda, should not be provided the tax breaks of a religious organization. However, I am not willing to say that a religious organization should not have its views represented in the political process.

These are not easy questions to come to terms with in a society as diverse as our own. The same sword which might deny gays their rights, could be turned on religious groups to deny them their rights? Where would the justice be in that?

 

[karoleck]

Since this thread is about the tactics used to undermine the Judeo/Christian moral codes; to the point of catholics being sued, for expressing their obligations to promote a good social moral order ,within a society.I would suggest that your postings provides a good basis to start from.You use spurious arguementation;your type of “reasoning” is what secular humanists are trying to enshrine in the Law Courts.So now to the points you raised-I will not respond to your homosexual references !!(you have the the Teachings of The Catholic Church which has already been stated in this thread)

I doubt that anyone can be sued anywhere for saying that they disapprove of homosexual unions, whether civil union of marriage. If that is going on, then the plaintiff could be subject to a counter-suit for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

(1)The facts are that people already have been sued;in this country a christian couple were sued for refusing their private holiday camp to people who’s immoral lifestyle offends them

If “hate speech” is going on, which I certainly hope is not the case from an official of any church, that can be a different matter.

(2) Fact-Church Leaders do not use “hate speech”–they do as private voting citizens,make statements to support and uphold public morality.

I do not consider myself to be a Catholic. I was baptized as a catholic and attended church and catechism until the age of 9. Later as a teen, I was confirmed in the US Episcopal church.

(3) Fact-you are entitled to call yourself whatever you wish–I certainly concluded from your postings that you do not live out your Baptism as promised by your God-parents on your behalf!

One of the themes I gather from this thread is that there are some who believe that Catholic moral values should inform our laws, and the failure to do that somehow will degrade our society, and also that the failure to do that is some form of “reverse discrimination.”

(4)Fact–Catholic’s believe in following the universal natural moral code written in their hearts and that for a good functioning of society the laws should be based on the Ten Commandments.

I doubt that anyone on the “gay rights” side of the issue would want to impose their own views on Catholics. This is the puzzling part of the discussion to me. It seems that the standard is not being applied equally. If Catholics are allowed to observe their own religious and moral tenets, why do they not think that others should have the same right?

(5)Fact–Secular evil forces are imposing their views(and trying to inforce them into the Laws of The Land)

(6)Fact-You have been given by God the gift of free will;He hopes that you will use this freedom to Know,Love & Serve God here on earth and be happy with Him in Heaven for all Eternity.Whilst you have the :right" to refuse to Obey God’s Will;commiting a mortal evil is an abuse of this freedom and society suffers accordingly.

To use another controversial, but perhaps less inflammatory example. I was at an Episcopal service officiated by a female recently. Obviously, it will probably be some years or decades before the Catholic church progresses to this point. Perhaps is never will. But I doubt that any Catholic person would deny the right of that Episcopal congregation to have female clergy.

(7)Fact-The Catholic Church follows the teachings of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.It follows the Traditions handed down from St.Peter,right up to the present time.Catholics believe that they hold the fullness of truth,others like you said hold other views which in the end weakens the unity of Christians who have no other option but to follow Christ and the apostolic revelation of the mystery of salvation.

Even though not the mainstream in Christian ideology, there are scholarly refutations of the Catholic translation of the bible, including the passages which are taken to condemn homosexual acts and homosexuality. From a secular point of view, these interpretations have no more, and no less validity than the Catholic view. Our government is secular.

 

[karoleck]

Continued posting.
It is well known among anthropologists and sociologists that non-religious societies, and various religious societies, all pretty much come up with the same moral codes for getting along and perpetuating social order and harmony. There is no reason for a non-Catholic to believe that the Catholic view is better than any other. This is not a criticism of that view. Merely an observation from a secular perspective.

(9) Fact-Yes, most Judeo-Christian and in fact any lovers of truth accept a natural moral code of conduct–some to a greater or lesser degree.I would have thought that sacrificing babies to applease the ‘gods’ as happened in the early mexican culture,before Our Lady of Guadalupe appearance puts a spanner in your conclusion!! Catholics are not interested in who’s view is better;but what is Truth–Herods question!!

Not all Christian moral views share the procreative impetus of the Catholic view.

(10) Fact-But that does not make their views correct!_

I understand the societal integrity view which has been advanced. However, this is a controversial view in academic circles, which tends to align itself with conservative moralists. For every expert who advances that view, there are an equal number who reject it. While it may be advanced as an argument, there is no real sense that it is a valid one. There are many who would hold an opposing view, and base that view on strong evidence.

(11)Fact- there is a saying "Pride goes before a fall"Jesus loved the hearts of little children because the “Kingdom of God,belongs to such as these”.I wonder if you too belong to the “learned and the clever” that Jesus condemned?The evidence of history points to the falacy of societies that adopted evil;starting from the Roman Empire,Nazi Germany,Communist Russia!!you are right in reminding us of this,thank you.!

So, getting back to the origin of this thread. What would give a religious leader the right to make pronouncements, other than to express his opinion as a moral expert within his religion? Obviously, he should not, and probably cannot be successfully sued for doing such a thing. But, going further, what influence may such an individual have on the politics of a secular state, other than making his pronouncement?

(12)Fact–by the very right of being moral leaders who also are leading citizens in our society.He or she can influence and guide voters to avoid voting for candidates who endorse evil policies.What great moral leadership does the Dali Lama set–so much that the Communist Government in China wishes the Western Governments to silence him!The press does the same ,when ever the Holy Father Pope Benedict visits any country,their true colour come out.Why?Because the secular press does not like to hear the Pope speak upholding the Moral Truth Principals.

The gay rights issue is strongly felt on both sides. I would say it boils down to a teleological argument: what is the inherent meaning and purpose of marriage? As there will never be agreement on this question, the two sides are bound not to ever agree.

(13)Fact-you simplify this arguement by holding that there are two sides,both of which have equal weight,this is spurious as the majority of the population get married!Your voice is a loud minority one within society;Ipray to God that this will always remain as such!Christ institued Marriage as a Sacrament–a means of providing Divine Grace to the man and wife.

The Mormon church and the Catholic church joined their resources in California to fight the advancement of gay marriage. They were cautious in how the set up their organization, hoping to stay below the radar of legal authorities. Their detractors point out that they broke the law, and should lose their tax exempt status now. Obviously, the two churches disagree.

(14)Fact-You are argueing that Churches should be silenced by the threat of a Tax Exemption! The devil values riches and wealth;Christ rejected this temptation from the evil one.I hope and pray that the Church leaders will not cower from this unjust threat.

But this point pertains to the question of the “law suit”. Where is the line between political activism, and religious discourse? I am not sure where that line is. I can say that any organization which pursues a purely political agenda, should not be provided the tax breaks of a religious organization. However, I am not willing to say that a religious organization should not have its views represented in the political process.

(15)Fact-I know that you are uncertain where to draw your “line” but Catholics do–“Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and to God what belongs to God”.Our line in the sand is very clear indeed!

These are not easy questions to come to terms with in a society as diverse as our own. The same sword which might deny gays their rights, could be turned on religious groups to deny them their rights? Where would the justice be in that?

(16)Fact-"Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbour"and"The just man,often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures,is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct towards his neighbour"Catholic Catechism 1807

So the just man has an habitual right thinking;thank you for showing the readers of this thread an example of a wrong way of thinking–I pray that persons with your point of view never get into a position of power that will ruin society and persecute believers in the process,May God Bless You with His Truth.

 

[karoleck]

Just finishing on the point I was making about the idea of a void in peoples hearts, who have rejected the teachings of Christ.(in my post before responing to the above poster).Christ in todays Sundays’ Reading in the Fourth Sunday of Lent,tells of Christ healing a blind man.Now we are not physically blind,so what is the point of it all?It is obvious that Christ is teaching about healing of our spiritual blindness.Remember how Our Lord accused the High Priests of blindness,;they were not physically blind ,but blind to Him;The Saviour sent to redeem them of their sins,as promised long ago by the prophets.

I bring this theme up because Catholics who are striving for holiness and are living out their Baptismal promises are not blind to the truth.Hence Catholics do not need a Masters Degree to behold truth and recognize falsehood when they see it.This notion is called “the sense of the faithful”'in other words the Holy Spirit confirms the Teachings of Christ in their hearts.Simple, uneducated Catholics can smell a stinking rat when they smell one!

In other words the tactics that secular worldly people use to dress up their immoral lives does not cut any ice with them.That is why in the end,when morally evil persons get into power,they use any means to silence the reproving prophet,be it a good political or church leader and even a humble group like The Catholic Family Association
So the tactics used are usually targeted at spiritually blind people; as they are the only ones who will swallow the bait,hook,line and sinker!

But the tactic they use is what a great Australian Catholic Lay Leader called Bob Santamaria(R.I.P.) refered to the salame effect(Italian sausage).In other words they change the laws little by little;similar to taking small slices of salami from a whole.The person thinks,well what the heck,this person only wants a small slice,so why fight it–just give in and before long the salame is gone!.That is what the secular Godless are doing within our society;just changing our laws little by little.

 

[paedagogo]

karoleck -

you or i, or anyone else CAN be sued for nearly anything. however, the case may be dismissed, lawyers may be disciplined, countersuits may be won for the filing of frivolous lawsuits. I have done it, and prevailed on the grounds of a frivolous filing.

The moral bases of society is not Christian, or Catholic, unless the society in question is a Christian society.

Such is not the case with the United States. You may assert that my reasoning is somehow flawed because you detect a humanist bias. However you don’t know my religious beliefs. In any event, humanism is consistent with most religions. It is only the idealogues who are too narrow minded to see that.

Do you put yourself in that group? It is not one to be proud to be affiliated with.

In general, ideologues are dangerous and closed minded people, and I am not merely referring to Christians who fall into that sort of trap of intellectual lethargy which inevitably results in moral turpitude disguised as moral correctness. This happens with any practitioner of any ideology, when minds are closed.

Denying humanism is to deny the sweep of history, including to deny its influence on the sense of moral justice which the modern Church has embraced when it is at its best. Indeed, the Church played a significant role in western thought through the Renaissance, which reflect both wisdom and its opposite, at times.

Certainly, the Church has been strongly influence by many of the political and social movements of the past few centuries, and has often been a positive force for social change in the world, as those humanist movements have changed the Church as well.

It is easy to resort to labels picked up from Fox News, and similar sources. Be wary of that trap.

 

[paedagogo]

There are different ‘rights’ and freedoms people have, not all of which are always compatible. Also, as with moral questions, some people believe that there should be some ‘rights’ (such as a right for gay people to marry in the same way as heterosexual people do) which other members of the community strongly oppose (as the Catholic Church strongly opposes recognising gay marriage legally).

This area is fraught with a lot of difficult questions, the main one being the sort of relationship religious beliefs should have with public and social life. This itself involves some very complex issues which are never resolved easily.

Well said, Greg. The crux of the issue here is the growing diversity of our culture, and the increasing knowledge and awareness in the areas of social and personal psychology. This progress is coming into conflict with some traditional religious views which tend to evolve more slowly.

Some reading this thread would say that it is about the erosion of the moral fabric of our society by the rejection of moral values. Others would say that inclusion and granting of rights is an furthering of our moral integrity as a society. These opposing views are not likely to be reconciled. Hence the heated debates, and seeming intransigence of opposing points of view.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that some moral arguments, such as this one and abortion, are teleological in nature, and therefore reasonable people will simply disagree, with no hope of finding a middle ground.

In terms of governance, in the secular world, this creates some real problems. How does one satisfy these divergent views? Each side would say that the other side should not be accommodated, and would feel that view strongly.

I just learned today that the Mung and the Mormons among the most rapidly reproducing in our population. By 2050, 20% of the US population will be foreign born, many of whom will be non-Christian. In addition, atheists are coming out of the closet, and their numbers are growing rapidly. It is a democratic society, and great strains are being place on us to meet the “rights” of every citizen.

The change in media, such as this forum, has also served not to silence the 5-10% groups in our society, as well. A few decades ago, there was no voice for most minorities. The conservative face was W.F. Buckley and a few church officials. Now it also includes a great diversity who only recently had no voice, especially in a two party political system.

I suspect that one reason that parliamentary systems have been able to be inclusive more efficiently, is the diversity of representation in their legislative bodies, which is absent in our system. When governance is by coalition, then more views are represented.

 

[John21652]

The moral bases of society is not Christian, or Catholic, unless the society in question is a Christian society.

Well, isn’t that stating the obvious?!

Such is not the case with the United States.

The notion that the United States is not Christian is a false one. It might be less Christian than it once was, due the the rise in other faiths, the rise is the numbers who are self declared atheists and the rise of your so called humanist philosophy. However, the fact remains that the institutions that define the United States are profoundly Christian in nature. Not until those very institutions are overturned will the U.S cease to be a nation with a Christian based heritage.

You may assert that my reasoning is somehow flawed because you detect a humanist bias. However you don’t know my religious beliefs.

Well, your profile says your religion is “undecided”, so I guess we do know your religion! If you have a humanist bias, then your religion is focused on man himself. That is not only arogant, but dangerous, because humanism is the bedrock of moral relativity.

In any event, humanism is consistent with most religions. It is only the idealogues who are too narrow minded to see that.

If you are referring to secular humanism, then that which you assert here is false. Secular Humanism is the antithesis of religion. If you are asserting that religion is an ideology, then you are trashing countless millenia of philosophical reasoning and denouncing the moral objectivity of Catholicism in particular.

Do you put yourself in that group? It is not one to be proud to be affiliated with.

So, have you come here to tell Catholics, or Karoleck in this case, that his religious beliefs represent little more than an ideology? Like Marxism? Like Communism? I’ll explain a little as I go further, but classical humanism has been a large part of Christianity for millenia. This certainly seperates the Church from any notion of it being an ideology.

In general, ideologues are dangerous and closed minded people, and I am not merely referring to Christians who fall into that sort of trap of intellectual lethargy which inevitably results in moral turpitude disguised as moral correctness. This happens with any practitioner of any ideology, when minds are closed.

Here you are so full of contradictions it’s hard to know where to start. Firstly you suggest that ideologues are dangerous and close minded people. Next you assert that Christians who fall into intellectual lethargy are closed minded people, thus ideologues and therefore dangerous. I would have thought that intellectual lethargy would lead to a collapse in ideology. After all, to confine oneself to an ideology does require a degree of intellectual rigour, does it not? You also assert that intellectual lethargy results in moral terpitude, disguised as moral correctness. I’d agree with the first part of your assertion, because, after all, moral terpitude, described properly as moral behaviour outside the community norm, does indeed require a degree of intellectual lethargy. However, for you to assert that moral terpitude is moral correctness is a contradiction, unless one totally redefines the meaning of ‘correctness’. Morals are either, by definiton, correct, or they are non-existant and behaviour is considered as immoral.

Denying humanism is to deny the sweep of history, including to deny its influence on the sense of moral justice which the modern Church has embraced when it is at its best.

The modern Church has not embraced modern Secular Humanism. Why would it? In fact, the secular humanism that has slowly eroded the Christian principles of western society has lead to self indulgent minority groups that seek to further subvert the intellectaul, philosophical and theological foundations of society even further.

Indeed, the Church played a significant role in western thought through the Renaissance, which reflect both wisdom and its opposite, at times.

The Renaissance included the rise of humanist philosophy in Catholic Universities and was responsible for the breakaway movements such as Lutheranism. The Protestant principles are now breaking up into a moral relativism which shows their flawed theology. The Catholic Church has stood firm against the moral relativity that results. However, the principles of individuality which humanism claims as its own were basic tenets of Christianity long before the humanists claimed them. If there was a great to come from the humanism of the Renaissance it was the Catholics who pushed these so called humanist principles into the political sphere, men such as Thomas More.

Certainly, the Church has been strongly influence by many of the political and social movements of the past few centuries, and has often been a positive force for social change in the world, as those humanist movements have changed the Church as well.

Classical Humanism was embraced by the Catholic Church as part of its very early devlopment and it gave rationality to the basis of Christianity. However, at least since the Enlightement, humanism has gradually desended into a pit of moral relativity which is undermining the shared morality of the Christian West. It is classical humanism which is what seperates Catholicism from any notion of ideology, as intimated by you earlier.

It is easy to resort to labels picked up from Fox News, and similar sources. Be wary of that trap.

The media is often the tool of groups with an agenda that is in conflict between the prevailing morality and thus it purveys a secular humanism that is at odds with any objective exploration of what moral values are and their worth.

 

[karoleck]

Well, isn’t that stating the obvious?!

The notion that the United States is not Christian is a false one. It might be less Christian than it once was, due the the rise in other faiths, the rise is the numbers who are self declared atheists and the rise of your so called humanist philosophy. However, the fact remains that the institutions that define the United States are profoundly Christian in nature. Not until those very institutions are overturned will the U.S cease to be a nation with a Christian based heritage.

Well, your profile says your religion is “undecided”, so I guess we do know your religion! If you have a humanist bias, then your religion is focused on man himself. That is not only arogant, but dangerous, because humanism is the bedrock of moral relativity. If you are referring to secular humanism, then that which you assert here is false. Secular Humanism is the antithesis of religion. If you are asserting that religion is an ideology, then you are trashing countless millenia of philosophical reasoning and denouncing the moral objectivity of Catholicism in particular.

So, have you come here to tell Catholics, or Karoleck in this case, that his religious beliefs represent little more than an ideology? Like Marxism? Like Communism? I’ll explain a little as I go further, but classical humanism has been a large part of Christianity for millenia. This certainly seperates the Church from any notion of it being an ideology.

Here you are so full of contradictions it’s hard to know where to start. Firstly you suggest that ideologues are dangerous and close minded people. Next you assert that Christians who fall into intellectual lethargy are closed minded people, thus ideologues and therefore dangerous. I would have thought that intellectual lethargy would lead to a collapse in ideology. After all, to confine oneself to an ideology does require a degree of intellectual rigour, does it not? You also assert that intellectual lethargy results in moral terpitude, disguised as moral correctness. I’d agree with the first part of your assertion, because, after all, moral terpitude, described properly as moral behaviour outside the community norm, does indeed require a degree of intellectual lethargy. However, for you to assert that moral terpitude is moral correctness is a contradiction, unless one totally redefines the meaning of ‘correctness’. Morals are either, by definiton, correct, or they are non-existant and behaviour is considered as immoral.

The modern Church has not embraced modern Secular Humanism. Why would it? In fact, the secular humanism that has slowly eroded the Christian principles of western society has lead to self indulgent minority groups that seek to further subvert the intellectaul, philosophical and theological foundations of society even further.

The Renaissance included the rise of humanist philosophy in Catholic Universities and was responsible for the breakaway movements such as Lutheranism. The Protestant principles are now breaking up into a moral relativism which shows their flawed theology. The Catholic Church has stood firm against the moral relativity that results. However, the principles of individuality which humanism claims as its own were basic tenets of Christianity long before the humanists claimed them. If there was a great to come from the humanism of the Renaissance it was the Catholics who pushed these so called humanist principles into the political sphere, men such as Thomas More.

Classical Humanism was embraced by the Catholic Church as part of its very early devlopment and it gave rationality to the basis of Christianity. However, at least since the Enlightement, humanism has gradually desended into a pit of moral relativity which is undermining the shared morality of the Christian West. It is classical humanism which is what seperates Catholicism from any notion of ideology, as intimated by you earlier.

The media is often the tool of groups with an agenda that is in conflict between the prevailing morality and thus it purveys a secular humanism that is at odds with any objective exploration of what moral values are and their worth.

:thumbsup:You have shown up how this expert in “teleological” reasoning(doctrine of final causes) is really a follower of a lost cause–secular humanism.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

So, have you come here to tell Catholics, or Karoleck in this case, that his religious beliefs represent little more than an ideology?

…

The media is often the tool of groups with an agenda that is in conflict between the prevailing morality and thus it purveys a secular humanism that is at odds with any objective exploration of what moral values are and their worth.

Great post, John. Also karoleck’s point by point deconstruction of the poster paedagogo’s assertions.

Just adding here in reply to his statement*I doubt that anyone on the “gay rights” side of the issue would want to impose their own views on Catholics. *
Given his very recent join date in this forum and post count, he would not have read yet enough of threads and posts on the subject where gay rights advocates have participated. Gay rights advocates do want to impose their views on Catholics. They want the Church to stop teaching that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and/or want Catholics to stop believing or speaking about it.

Btw, this thread over at Catholic News,

Priest Accused of ‘Anti-gay indoctrination’ for Teaching Catholic view of Homosexuality in Class

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548805

is an indication how LGBT organizations wish to silence Catholic teaching even in a Catholic school!
,

 

[John21652]

Great post, John. Also karoleck’s point by point deconstruction of the poster paedagogo’s assertions.

Just adding here in reply to his statement*I doubt that anyone on the “gay rights” side of the issue would want to impose their own views on Catholics. *
Given his very recent join date in this forum and post count, he would not have read yet enough of threads and posts on the subject where gay rights advocates have participated. Gay rights advocates do want to impose their views on Catholics. They want the Church to stop teaching that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and/or want Catholics to stop believing or speaking about it.

Btw, this thread over at Catholic News,

Priest Accused of ‘Anti-gay indoctrination’ for Teaching Catholic view of Homosexuality in Class

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548805

is an indication how LGBT organizations wish to silence Catholic teaching even in a Catholic school!
,

InSearchofGrace, thank nyou for your kind words and prescient post.

You are right in seeing that the LGBT organisations wish to silence Catholic teaching. The same moral relativity is now loose and working its evil in the United Kingdom. In 2007, the rights of a Christian couple who wanted to foster a child were trampled by the champions of homosexuality. Read this articel, Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality.

Excerpts from the article include -

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have complained that the rules force them to overturn long-held beliefs.

"They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings.
“How can I do that when it’s totally against what I believe?”
Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Now fast forward to February 2011, still in the U.K. High court judgement suggests Christian beliefs are harmful to children..

That article tells us -

In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK. The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

And the Court stated -

That there is a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Yet, as regards fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”

One renowned social commentator described the decision as The Judges Atheist Inquisition.

These British cases portend what lies in store when a society gives in to the myth of so called ‘social equality’ demanded by moral relativists and the gay lobby in particular. Their ultimate triumph is the silencing of Christian values and ethics and the raising of what has always been considered as abnormal to the staus of normal and more. They do not seek equality. They seek power and the issue of ‘rights’ is the smokescreen.

In direct answer to the title of this thread is another 2011 British case where a Christian couple refused a room at their B&B to a homosexual couple. The Christian couple were successfully sued because they adhered to their Christian principles.