Now You Can Be Sued For Being Catholic

[John21652]

Cont.d

Cardinal Pell brought attention to existing International Human Rights Charters -

He explained that, “The rights to marriage, to family, the recognition of the family based on marriage as the fundamental unit of society, the rights of parents to determine the moral and religious education of their children and the rights to freedom of religion, belief and conscience are all recognized by the major international human rights agreements. The problem for the commission and those who share its world view is that human rights often stand squarely in the road of their particular secular agenda, a radical autonomy project which the extreme left, the anti-religious left is pushing … This is the main reason why these inconvenient rights have been read-down, reinterpreted and displaced by other, newer “rights,” such as those to abortion, euthanasia, anti-discrimination and same-sex marriage, and all they carry with them.”

In other words, the anti-discrimination agenda has been hijacked by the moral relativists whose very ideology is at odds with the basic human rights espoused in in international charters. This is what people need to realise. Basic institutions that have built our societies are at risk because they are being redefined by those with a leftist agenda. They seek to make equal those things which have never been equal and can never be equal. The danger as Pell sees it is that once implemented, national charter rights “gives judges and other decision-makers an enormous discretion to reinterpret, redefine or simply ignore human rights if there are more important priorities set by the government of the day.” Governments of the day in democracies are notoriously influenced by the noisiest groups of political discourse. Minority groups have learnt to make a lot of noise and so get the attention of a media already too ready to trivialise and sensationalise stories that involve matters that lie at the very heart of our societies.

On the 14th March this year, Cardinal George Pell drew attention to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He said that -

Under the ICCPR, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the few rights, along with the rights to be protected from slavery and torture, which cannot be suspended or limited, even “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation”. This does not apply to other important rights.

Those who seek to deny the rights of the Catholic Church and to denigrateand discriminate against those who are Catholics are overstepping the mark in terms of International Human Rights.

Pell also stated that

Like freedom of thought and conscience, religious freedom is not simply a private matter.

Religion and ethics is part of a social milieu. They cannot be divorced from the public sphere. As I wrote in a previous post, Britain’s former Lord Chief Justice Patrick Devlin, in his book The Enforcement of Morals, wrote that -

There is disintegration when no common morality is observed and
history shows that the loosening of moral bonds is often the first
stage of disintegration, so that society is justified in taking steps to
preserve its moral code as it does to preserve its government and
other essential institutions

As Pell said -

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Are Fundamental Rights

Without these, there can be no common morality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

NeedsImprovement
**
Perhaps someone would like to provide a pertinent teleological passage or two from the Gospels to help us complete the collection **

A passage or two? How about all of the Gospels?

While the Old Testament tells us about God’s teleological design long before we came to be (in Genesis 1), the Gospels tell us about how God wants us to see that design in a purpose-driven life. Having been made in His image and likeness, we are now in a position to intelligently design our own lives by accepting the gift of his redeeming grace and by echoing the prayer he taught us: “Thy will be done.”

“Love God and one another.” How can we better intelligently design our own lives than by following the Gospel lessons? All of them.

 

[NeedImprovement]

NeedsImprovement
**
Perhaps someone would like to provide a pertinent teleological passage or two from the Gospels to help us complete the collection **

A passage or two? How about all of the Gospels?

While the Old Testament tells us about God’s teleological design long before we came to be (in Genesis 1), the Gospels tell us about how God wants us to see that design in a purpose-driven life. Having been made in His image and likeness, we are now in a position to intelligently design our own lives by accepting the gift of his redeeming grace and by echoing the prayer he taught us: “Thy will be done.”

“Love God and one another.” How can we better intelligently design our own lives than by following the Gospel lessons? All of them.

Thanks for that post Charlemagne II … awesome, - If you need me for anything, just look behind you - I’ll be at the back of the class…

I was going to post something in conjunction with John 21652’s post which preceded yours, but it seems more fitting to wait a bit, and let your post stand out/sink in.

BTW, I noticed your signature quotes Blaise Pascal. One of my all time favourite quotes of his is:

• “The heart has its reasons, of which the mind knows nothing.”

Apparently he also had a great sense of humour as evidenced in several more of his quotes:

• “I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short.”
• “I maintain that, if everyone knew what others said about him, there would not be four friends in the world.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ah, another Pascal scholar! Things are looking up here! God bless.

 

[Peepers]

What I learned in my philosophy classes was that Teleos refers to the nature of the thing itself. What is it essence or purpose? For example, what is the purpose of marriage? That was the original point which appears to have been misunderstood, and which grew into a convoluted and bitter discussion. My first impression of this site is that there is not much room for alternate points of view. People attack each other and then congratulate themselves for driving the enemy away. I will keep reading to see if that is only this thread or it is common here. Please don’t attack me for pointing this out. It is merely my observation having arrived here.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Ah, another Pascal scholar! Things are looking up here! God bless.

Not a scholar Charlemagne II - but most definitely a big Blaise Pascal fan

What a vibrant intellect Pascal had … almost as if he knew the “secret of longevity” -

 

[NeedImprovement]

NeedsImprovement
Bump !

**
Perhaps someone would like to provide a pertinent teleological passage or two from the Gospels to help us complete the collection **

A passage or two? How about all of the Gospels?

While the Old Testament tells us about God’s teleological design long before we came to be (in Genesis 1), the Gospels tell us about how God wants us to see that design in a purpose-driven life. Having been made in His image and likeness, we are now in a position to intelligently design our own lives by accepting the gift of his redeeming grace and by echoing the prayer he taught us: “Thy will be done.”

“Love God and one another.” How can we better intelligently design our own lives than by following the Gospel lessons? All of them.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Bump !

NeedsImprovement
**
Perhaps someone would like to provide a pertinent teleological passage or two from the Gospels to help us complete the collection **

A passage or two? How about all of the Gospels?

While the Old Testament tells us about God’s teleological design long before we came to be (in Genesis 1), the Gospels tell us about how God wants us to see that design in a purpose-driven life. Having been made in His image and likeness, we are now in a position to intelligently design our own lives by accepting the gift of his redeeming grace and by echoing the prayer he taught us: “Thy will be done.”

“Love God and one another.” How can we better intelligently design our own lives than by following the Gospel lessons? All of them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

**My first impression of this site is that there is not much room for alternate points of view. People attack each other and then congratulate themselves for driving the enemy away. I will keep reading to see if that is only this thread or it is common here. Please don’t attack me for pointing this out. It is merely my observation having arrived here. **

Not sure how to deal with this without offending you.

This being a Catholic forum, we are pretty confident in our beliefs and like to congratulate each other on defending them well against all comers.

Also, it’s a debate forum, so egos will get bruised now and then.

If yours has been bruised already, welcome to the club. But if you want to really know what a bruised ego feels like in a discussion forum, go to any atheist chat group and tell them you are a Christian. Unless you are rather accommodating to their point of view, you will get a real drubbing far worse than anything you will get here.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What I learned in my philosophy classes was that Teleos refers to the nature of the thing itself. What is it essence or purpose? For example, what is the purpose of marriage? That was the original point which appears to have been misunderstood, and which grew into a convoluted and bitter discussion. My first impression of this site is that there is not much room for alternate points of view. People attack each other and then congratulate themselves for driving the enemy away. I will keep reading to see if that is only this thread or it is common here. Please don’t attack me for pointing this out. It is merely my observation having arrived here.

Peepers, the difference between Catholicism and many other religions (such as non-Orthodox branches of Judaism, such as most non-Catholic Christian sects), is the existence of moral absolutes in the Roman Catholic Church. By contrast, many other religions embrace a relativistic understanding of morality, by which (1) moral guidelines are upheld, but individual dissent from those is tolerated; (2) moral guidelines are broad and general, allowing much variation within a framework or comprehensive set of standards; (3) the moral positions of that faith tradition have changed over time, looking very different in 2010 than they might have in 1960.

I don’t know about your characterization, “bitter,” but the Catholic Church’s teaching on the purpose of marriage within God’s design and within the order of the universe is a stable teaching and not optional for practicing Catholics. And you will find that on the core moral teachings (those on sexuality, on murder and other Life issues) there is not the wiggle room you might expect in your own faith tradition. Posters can become hardened in their positions when it is clear that what is being encountered is (1) a troll with a covert or overt agenda, from any religion or no religion, or (2) a non-new Catholic --whether currently practicing or not-- who is proclaiming heterodox moral positions and/or frankly exhorting others to follow such heterodoxy in clear contradiction to published Church teachings, (3) someone from outside Catholicism who is misinformed about Catholic moral teachings and/or wishes to undermine those.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers, the difference between Catholicism and many other religions (such as non-Orthodox branches of Judaism, such as most non-Catholic Christian sects), is the existence of moral absolutes in the Roman Catholic Church. By contrast, many other religions embrace a relativistic understanding of morality, by which (1) moral guidelines are upheld, but individual dissent from those is tolerated; (2) moral guidelines are broad and general, allowing much variation within a framework or comprehensive set of standards; (3) the moral positions of that faith tradition have changed over time, looking very different in 2010 than they might have in 1960.

I don’t know about your characterization, “bitter,” but the Catholic Church’s teaching on the purpose of marriage within God’s design and within the order of the universe is a stable teaching and not optional for practicing Catholics. And you will find that on the core moral teachings (those on sexuality, on murder and other Life issues) there is not the wiggle room you might expect in your own faith tradition. Posters can become hardened in their positions when it is clear that what is being encountered is (1) a troll with a covert or overt agenda, from any religion or no religion, or (2) a non-new Catholic --whether currently practicing or not-- who is proclaiming heterodox moral positions and/or frankly exhorting others to follow such heterodoxy in clear contradiction to published Church teachings, (3) someone from outside Catholicism who is misinformed about Catholic moral teachings and/or wishes to undermine those.

I’m not here to bash anyone. Just to learn a few things, and maybe make some friends. In reviewing this thread it looked like folks were not hearing each other as it got personal between them. If I ever get that way, then please tell me to take a time out.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

**I’m not here to bash anyone. Just to learn a few things, and maybe make some friends. In reviewing this thread it looked like folks were not hearing each other as it got personal between them. If I ever get that way, then please tell me to take a time out. **

Be glad to. But since you have emphasized your point so vigorously, you don’t look much like a candidate for flying off the handle.

When the discussions get personal, it is usually for one of two reasons:

Some people come here to taunt Catholics, and some Catholics will give as good as they get.

The second reason is that some “Catholics” here will not be making arguments consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is a problem that really irritates me, because many visitors to this web site are looking for the Catholic point of view and can be easily confused by Catholics who don’t know what the Church teaches or are in real rebellion against what the Church teaches. Let’s face it, some Catholics (and even some Protestants?) have been catechized by the world rather than by Christ.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I’m not here to bash anyone…

People attack each other and then congratulate themselves for driving the enemy away. I will keep reading to see if that is only this thread or it is common here…

 

[NeedImprovement]

Perhaps reiterating the thread’s objective for those who don’t read it might help”

The purpose of this particular thread is not debate or dialogue about same sex unions… we are past that point. Cardinal Pell made that clear – transparently clear. We’re primarily concerned with comparative analyses on the deception being used by the gay militant/activist antagonists who attack and persecute marriage, the family and the Catholic Church . Some of us (Catholics) who have been following these trends and strategies can no longer be duped by an accusative tone anymore (that would include guilt trips and criticisms). If your intention is to argue against the truths proposed for our belief by the holy Catholic Church, please take your comments elsewhere – those type of comments are inappropriate and I dare say, unwelcome on this particular thread; besides, that’s “old hat” for us.

We are wise to the antagonistic deluge of propaganda emanating from the gay militant/activist camp. We have a responsibility to reveal these tactics first, to each other , and then to our fellow Catholics who are being buffeted into a state of confusion by all the tactics, ambiguities, equivocations, prevarications, half truths, slurs, finger pointing , guilt trips, dissent against the truth and any other methods we may come to indentify as this thread progresses.

A reminder – don’t get fooled guys : Look for the accusatory tone (sometimes it can be so nicely camouflaged) and (only a suggestion here) we’d probably find it more beneficial for the thread to not respond to such accusatory comments . I think we’d best take our cue from the readership of the thread and try to keep it on track.

 

[NeedImprovement]

We’ll take it up again from John21652’s most recent :

Cont.d
…As Pell said –

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Are Fundamental Rights

John has pointed out in a more comprehensive context, what was established at the beginning of this thread when the Australian Human Rights Commission delivered it’s paper beginning with the statement -

John21652:

“The compatibility of religious freedom with human rights is the subject of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area.”

Cardinal Pell saw right through the way those words were arranged :

“Let us spell this out,” said the Cardinal. “The clear meaning of these words is that religious freedom is not a human right and may not be compatible with human rights.”

He’s telling us to “wake up” and smell the,… well… I don’t believe it would be factual to say “coffee” in this instance. Perhaps we might borrow the fitting descriptive provided by openly gay La Trobe University professor Denis Altman (it’s in one of the posts) and try that last sentence again (hint – the word represented by asterisks rhymes with ” wrap”) :

I believe Cardinal Pell is telling us to wake up and smell the “self indulgent ******** .”

Not only does Cardinal Pell know what he’s talking about, he is speaking directly from the heart of the holy Catholic Church. Religious freedom is a human right according to all the Constitutions, Charters, and to the holy Catholic Church … Oddly enough, the only one’s saying religious freedom is not a human right are the Human Rights Commissions … Go figure !! What a glaring contradiction ! What an oxymoron (I’m tempted to say “emphasis on moron” here…but I won’t).

Here are the words inscribed on Cardinal Pell’s heart ; which need to be inscribed on our hearts as well:

**DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965 **

(…)
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.



3 … There is a further consideration. The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.

 

[karoleck]

Thankyou NeedImprovement for your calm but strong posting to get this Thread back on track.
One of the methods that the Evil one uses is the idea of freedom;our beloved Pope John Paul 11 in his speach Philadelphia,October 1979,he said—
“In today’s society,we see so many disturbing tendencies and so much laxity regarding the Christian view on sexuality** that have all one thing in common/B;recourse to the concept of freedom to justify any behaviour that is no longer consonant with the true moral order and the teachings of the Church.Moral norms do not militate against the freedom of the person or the couple.On the contrary,they exist precisely for that freedom,since they are given to ensure the right use of freedom.Whoever refuses to accept these norms and to act accordingly,whoever seeks to liberate himself or herself from these norms,is not truly free.Free indeed is the person who models his or her behavior in a responsible way according to the exigencies of the objective good.”

In Pope John Paul’s Letter to Youth 15,1985 he points out how the Evil one uses groups of people, living immoral lifestyles to be accepted as "normal"within society.
"–The strategy which the Evil one used and continues to use is that of not revealing himself,so that the evil implanted by him from the beginning may receive its development from man himself,from systems and from relationships between individuals,from classes and nations–so as to become ever more a "structural"sin,ever less identifiable as “personal"sin.In other words,so that man may feel in a certain sense"freed"from sin but at the same time be ever more deeply immersed in it”
I would love to quote so much more from our saintly Pope John Paul, the Great–maybe some other time.**

 

[Peepers]

I am not Catholic, but I would concur that John Paul II was a great man and spiritual leader.

 

[karoleck]

I am not Catholic, but I would concur that John Paul II was a great man and spiritual leader.

What you have expressed ,is generally the effect that this holy person had on the world stage in general.I hope that you will also come to understand his wisdom and his teachings.He will be beatified by Pope Benedict on the first of May.Here is quote of John Paul 11 in regard to this subject,taken from Redemptor Hominis,12.
“Feedom and Truth”
"Christ himself linked freedom with the knowledge of truth.“you will know the truth and the truth will make you free”(Jn.8:32)
In my first encyclical,I wrote in this regard:“These words contain both a fundamental requirement and a warning with regard to truth as a condition for authentic freedom,and a warning to avoid every kind of illusory freedom,every superficial unilateral freedom,every freedom that fails to enter into the whole truth about man and the world” another quote-

"Freedom can therefore never be construed without relation to the truth as revealed by Jesus Christ and proposed by his Church,nor can it be seen as a pretext for moral anarchy,for every moral order must remain linked to truth.St.Peter,in his first letter,says:“Live as free men,but do not use your freedom for malice(1 Pt.2:16).No freedom can exist when it goes against man in what he is or against man in his relationship to others and to God”(Philadelphia,Oct 3,1979)

So **Peepers **can you see how this man said from the beginning of his Pontificate warning us back in 1979 of what will occur --an attack on Catholics! I quote John Paul again----

“A society that has lost its higher religious and moral principals will become an easy prey for manipulation and for domination by forces which,under the pretext of greater freedom,will enslave it even more”
“Yes,dear young people,do not close your eyes to the moral sickness that stalks your society today,and from which your youth alone will not protect you.How many young people have already warped their conciences and have substituted the true joy of life with drugs,sex,alcohol,vandalism and the empty pursuit of mere material possessions—
Something else is needed:something that you will only find in Christ,for he alone is the measure and the scale that you must use to evaluate your own life.In Chrst you will discover the true greatness of your own humanity—Christ has the answers to your questions and the key to history:He has the power to uplift hearts”.(Galway,Sept 30,1979)

 

[John21652]

“A society that has lost its higher religious and moral principals will become an easy prey for manipulation and for domination by forces which,under the pretext of greater freedom,will enslave it even more”
…(Galway,Sept 30,1979)

I’d like to draw your attention to an address given by Cardinal George Pell back in 2005. His nationally televised address was to Australia’s National Press Club, Canberra, on 21 September 200. The title of his speech was The Dictatorship Of Relativism.

Pell describes what relativism is and what its symptoms are. pertinant to your post, he describes how the teaching of children today does not include the great literary texts with their broad sweep of history and tradition. He describes how -

In some schools the study of English texts as English language has been abandoned altogether for the lower secondary grades and replaced with a blancmange of English, social studies and comparative religion called “Integrated Studies”.
… children in many cases are engaged in analysing a variety of “texts” including films, magazines, advertisements and even road signs as part of critical literacy…

Examining how relativism in the form of school-based post- modernism proposes to make students into “agents of social change” makes it apparent very quickly that there is another agenda at work underneath it all. Generally accepted understandings of family, sexuality, maleness, femaleness, parenthood, and culture are treated as “dominant discourses” that impose and legitimise injustice and intolerance.

These dominant discourses are then undermined by a disproportionate focus on “texts” which normalise moral and social disorder. Too much time is given to narratives about sad and dysfunctional individuals and shattered families.

Pell is demonstrating just how the secualrisation of so called ‘moral discourse’ is now being rooted in the disjointed experiences of those whose morality has been shattered, or abandoned. Pell points out that secularism only survives by attacking Christianity and it does so despite living off the moral capital of Christianity! Secular moral relativism represents nothing and stands upon nothing except a deconstructed morality. As Pell points out, even human rights become incoherent, as this thread has shown.

It is interesting to come forward a few years and to read Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. In it, His Holiness tells us -

Truth, by enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things… In the present social and cultural context, where there is a widespread tendency to relativize truth, practising charity in truth helps people to understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful but essential for building a good society and for true integral human development.

Notice how he writes of the “…widespread tendency to relativize truth…” and an abandonement of assessing the “…value and substance of things…”. In other words, there is a tendency to make ‘truth’ whatever it is an individual desires and ignoring reality. That, in effect, means there is no ‘truth’.

Pell refers to this as “privatised religion”. He also gives glaring examples of how inconsistent and untenable this relativisation of morality can be. He writes of how relativism is rooted in “…each person’s right to define right and wrong for himself.”
That, of course, means there cannot be an integrated, whole society. Unless, of course, that society looks to the Courts to define what “morality” is. In a legal system, the only ‘truth’ can come from the loudest and most vocal protagonists of a particular, subjective, moral desire.

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope benedict refers to Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and of how it demonstrates a strong link between life ethics and social ethics. Benedict also refers to Pope JohnPaul’s Evangelium Vitae, which highlights how ‘truth’ can be turned on its head in the name of so called ‘individual freedom’.

Pell states that the new personal ‘morality’ is no longer grounded in an objective morality, or an objective reality. Catholicism has always espoused Natural Law, which, as Pell points out are those universal moral laws which apply to everyone who has a human nature. In post #3, NeedsImprovement draws attention to the secular desire that the Church not speak on political matters. Considering the conclusions drawn by Pell and two Popes, plus our own experiences in our secularised and relativised societies, it is imperative that the Church remain a repository of the search for objective truth and it is important that the Church remain as an educator within society so that the folly of moral relativity can be demonstrated. For its own sake, western society needs to be aware of this need. As Benedict shows in Caritas in Veritate, proper human development depends upon it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Several disappointing comments in response to the recent thread **Tory MP urges Cameron to crack down on churches that refuse to hold same-sex ceremonies ** …

; one , (a) sarcastically asking if all the catholic priests will be “jailed”

; another (b) calling it merely political grandstanding

To the first comment (a), I’m tempted to reply ” Duhhh !! … litigation dude: They sue people !”

To the second (b), I might endeavor to point out that political grandstanding almost always has an ulterior motive – to promote a particular cause . In the case of gay lobbying, particularly for legal (read “legislative”) recognition of their same-sex unions as being equivalent to marriage , grandstanding served as a most effective preamble. Let’s pray that some of our fellow members may have their eyes opened a little wider.

It would seem timely to get this thread back on the rails now, for those of us who don’t wish to simply wake up one day saying, “What happened ?” … much better to be aware of what is really going on behind the facade.

In order to be properly informed, we have to read things thoroughly and entirely – and even a second time. I personally love taking short cuts when reading , but in what we wish to examine on this thread, we can’t afford to just glance at it . Please have a look here first at the primary story linked to that thread.

Next, here’s the first excerpt lifted from it for observation .

My initial reaction is to pray for Fr Marcus Stock, general secretary of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales . He really doesn’t seem to be up to speed when he says :

“No other body can have the right to decide that activities contrary to the religion’s teaching may take place on its premises – to do so would be a flagrant breach of the right to freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights.”

.

Let’s go back to the very beginning of this thread - to the words of His Emminence Cardinal George Pell , who explains the current situation created by the undermining of marriage and the family by the gay militants and lobbyists this way :

“Let’s spell this out clearly, what you’re saying is… religious freedom is not a human right and may not be compatible with human rights.”

Fr. Stock, please call up Cardinal Pell and invite him over for tea . You men really need to talk.