Please help Australian Catholics

[SuperLuigi]

i would abandon ship on same sex marriage

we’ve been defeated (politically) on this issue

Last I looked, so-called gay “marriage” has no recognition there.

And defeated? How? Because some governments recognize it?

Just look at its supporters. They have to harass bakers, farmers and florists EVEN WHEN they have what they want legally.

They are STILL whining and fighting!

Does that sound like victory to you?

 

[anikins]

The Church you form isn’t welcoming to those who need us most. This isn’t about changing the church doctrine, this is about creating a society where people aren’t driven to suicide because they feel different or have made perhaps the wrong choice once in their life.

This!

(Post must be 16 chars)

 

[josh987654321]

This!

So it says your Catholic, would you vote yes or no in the same sex marriage plebiscite here in Australia? And do you support the Catholic Priest (heretic) who appeared on Q&A and said he would vote yes?

Thank you for reading

 

[anikins]

Trudeau is supposed to be Catholic, yet he promotes both same sex marriage and abortion.

This has little to do with the topic but I thought I would clarify: Trudeau was raised Catholic. He fell away from the church and returned briefly after the death of his brother. He talks about his religion seldomly and mostly when campaigning. Those who work with him and know him personally know he and his wife are both agnostic.

 

[josh987654321]

Those who work with him and know him personally know he and his wife are both agnostic.

Do all the voters know that? and before he ran for office? and you haven’t answered my previous question.

Thank you for reading

 

[anikins]

As the issue is for legal marriage and has nothing whatsoever to do with our sacrament of marriage I would vote yes. I am very much in favor for personal freedoms, including the freedom of religion, and the freedom from it.

 

[josh987654321]

As the issue is for legal marriage and has nothing whatsoever to do with our sacrament of marriage I would vote yes. I am very much in favor for personal freedoms, including the freedom of religion, and the freedom from it.

Thank you for proving my point. I figured as much.

On CAF we’re preaching to the choir

I don’t think so. If it’s any consolation, I cannot express how much I wish you were right. Unfortunately as you can see above we have saboteurs in our mist who don’t appear as if they would even hesitate in throwing us under the bus.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading

 

[anikins]

Do all the voters know that? and before he ran for office?

Canadian politicians do not usually discuss their religion or their lack of religion. Indeed, in Canadian culture it is considered to be very bad form to openly discuss your religious practices publicly. And proselytizing or pontificating about one’s religion would be considered unimaginably rude — even taboo — in Canada.

In addition to that, most Canadians simply do not care.

 

[OraLabora]

As you see, we are not under attack from without (not yet anyway) but here in the west we are under attack from within! So here is exactly where we need to be.

I still think evangelizing is the answer. Why? Well just look at the converts and reverts on CAF. Anyone converting, or returning home from the wilderness as I did, are often more on fire for the faith than Catholics asleep at the wheel. We often are the source of renewal. Sometimes we are too zealous and can turn off others, and I speak here from experience, but we take our faith seriously for the most part.

And while I believe we have a duty to lovingly articulate the truth on marriage, not to mention on life issues, morality and social justice, I find as I will soon enter into my 7th decade that I need to save energy and pick my battles. So I’m not going to battle over this issue. The war is already lost. The way forward for me now is to continue to witness by fighting my own war of internal conversion.

But if anyone asks I always am ready to explain that same-sex “marriage” is ontologically impossible, which is as much a physiological reality as a moral one.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh, COMPASSION! That is basically the keyword here!

If you say your Catholic and vote for and/or advocate same sex marriage, your not showing compassion, your showing heresy and treachery.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

 

[brian_custer]

i would vote no on same sex marriage

and i agree that the majority would vote the same

but the Courts will overturn the vote of the people, declare civil right violation and overturn the popular vote as per " law and equity"

 

[LittleFlower]

@josh987654321 You seem extremely bitter. Continually calling other Catholics who disagree with you traitors or heretics diminishes any legitimate point you may be making.

Kindness, and compassion.

 

[josh987654321]

You seem extremely bitter. Continually calling other Catholics who disagree with you traitors or heretics diminishes any legitimate point you may be making.

When people claim to be in communion with One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and then vote for things like same sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia, then yea, I stand by what I have said.

This marriage plebiscite, one cannot use the excuse that they are voting for a ‘lesser of two evils’ as they do when voting for certain politicians, there is only one question in this plebiscite and if they claim to be Catholic and vote ‘yes’ then they are indeed heretics and traitors.

 

[josh987654321]

but the Courts will overturn the vote of the people, declare civil right violation and overturn the popular vote as per " law and equity"

I would much rather they do that (I don’t believe they would, since we would overturn it one way or another with the will of the people behind us, the treachery alone would change the next election entirely), then have traitors claiming to be Catholic stabbing us in the back when we need them most.

God Bless You

 

[HarryStotle]

Marriage is defined by the state

I suppose what is important is what God actually endorses, not what any particular church congregation “believes,” or any state “defines.”

God’s will was clear for thousands of years, is embedded in the natural order and ratified by Jesus.

We can believe whatever we wish, but that doesn’t make it true.

If things were bad when the wood was green, things will get much worse as the wood dries. It is drying.

Don’t assume that because humans are moving in one direction en masse, that God will follow. He won’t.

Placing the state above God with regard to moral authority is a mistake. It was a malicious error when states such as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia tried and it is a mistake when democratic countries do it. Merely because a majority of fallen human beings declare something to be true does not make it so.

 

[HarryStotle]

@josh987654321 You seem extremely bitter. Continually calling other Catholics who disagree with you traitors or heretics diminishes any legitimate point you may be making.

Kindness, and compassion.

All virtues, even kindness and compassion, become vices when taken to either extreme. Too much or too little kindness or compassion can turn into an enabling or harbouring of evil, or a rigid and unmerciful self-righteousness. The important thing is to recognize when to properly be kind or compassionate.

 

[HarryStotle]

Marriage is defined by the state, at present 24 countries define marriage as a legal and civil right between two adults. Australia is likely to become the 25th country and others will follow. I have no problem respecting your church to define marriage the way it does just as I have no problem with Islamic countries that allow polygamous marriages.

And now the state in some locations is claiming that individuals have the right to proclaim their gender, or lack thereof, at whatever age and for whatever reason they wish, and no one, not even their parents, can interfere with that right.

It appears that, at least in those locations, the state views itself as omnipotent and omniscient, with the right to determine cosmic reality and to bestow that right upon its subjects – well, for now it is merely usurpation of power over biological reality, but who knows how far it will go when the state deems itself above all reality with absolute control over that reality?

Are you not, at least, a little hesitant and timorous with regard to your complicity with the state in declaring itself to be above God and the natural order?

Put another way, can the state possibly be correct when it claims BOTH 1) that individuals have NO control or any say whatsoever in controlling their sexual urges and attractions and yet, at the same time, 2) that individuals have full control over determining their gender, contrary to all biological facts? The fact that the state can be so irrational and inconsistent ought to throw just a little bit of pause into your willingness to allow the state such all-consuming authority, no?

At bottom this isn’t a battle between the Church and state, although many would like us to believe that. It is a battle of reason and common sense against sheer force of will to power. The fact that profoundly irrational and contradictory claims are being made by the subjects of the state on behalf of the state is an indicator that sound reason and thoughtful consideration are being bound and gagged at the city gate.

 

[frobert]

We can believe whatever we wish, but that doesn’t make it true.

I could not have said it better.

 

[frobert]

Are you not, at least, a little hesitant and timorous with regard to your complicity with the state in declaring itself to be above God and the natural order?

Framing SSM as a religious misses and denies the nature of a civil right. Civil rights speak to needs modern states are learning, through the voice of their citizens, are beginning to recognize those needs.

Think of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory. I’m sure there is a more complex way of discussing the importance of one right over another, but as this theory is well known and taught in basic psychology and sociology classes, I believe it paints the necessary picture. read more…

The REAL problem comes from politicizing and making particular needs into a wedge issue because it shuts off reasonable voice on both sides of the divide. Reasonable voices at GCN have been able to bridge the divide by respecting each other’s needs.