Scottish Bishop says 'not now, not ever' to 'gay marriage'

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The CHurch is blessed to have courageous bishops willing to speak out against immorality.
 
"no matter what legislation or regulations your Government enacts or endorses.”

Good to see a Bishop standing up for the rights of the Church.
 
I too am glad to see a bishop who is willing to stand up for what is right. I just find it so sad that we even have to comment on this - such bishops should be the norm, not the exception.
 
Brooklyn said:
I too am glad to see a bishop who is willing to stand up for what is right. I just find it so sad that we even have to comment on this - such bishops should be the norm, not the exception.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. How far down the ladder has the Church come that we praise Bishops who publicly proclaim the precepts of the Church? Not to take the thumbs up away from him by any means, but this is now become unusual for Bishops? Jesus have Mercy!
 
Brooklyn said:
I too am glad to see a bishop who is willing to stand up for what is right. I just find it so sad that we even have to comment on this - such bishops should be the norm, not the exception.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!

Thank God for a Bishop WITH SPINE! 👍
 
My Bishop 👍!

It’s a funny thing I have began to notice lately. On the whole, the clergy in Scotland have a habit of being rather… forceful and outspoken on issues that concern society and the road it is taking. Perhaps once our German Shepherd is called home, a Highland Terrier should take up his place :D?
 
Why change after 2000 years? The laws of God are higher than the laws of man. Bless this man.
 
City_Smurf said:
My Bishop 👍!

It’s a funny thing I have began to notice lately. On the whole, the clergy in Scotland have a habit of being rather… forceful and outspoken on issues that concern society and the road it is taking. Perhaps once our German Shepherd is called home, a Highland Terrier should take up his place :D?
Click to expand...
Perhaps if things go REALLY south in the US, Scotlan would be a place to relocate to.
 
CWBetts said:
Perhaps if things go REALLY south in the US, Scotlan would be a place to relocate to.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe. But according to the article, gay marriage is likely to pass in Scotland.
The Equal Marriage Campaign – backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and individual SNP and Labour MSPs, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups and some church leaders – want the ban on same-sex marriage lifted and for religious and humanist celebrants to have the freedom to officiate at same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...
Polling evidence suggests a majority of Scots would back the move.
Click to expand...
heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bishop-on-same-sex-marriage-not-now-not-ever-1.1043092

And my sense is that Freedom of Religion has stronger protections in the US, than it does in the UK. And this leads into my question…

Bishop Tartaglia wrote to Prime Minister Cameron:
“Your statement is vague enough to have more than one outcome in practice. But you and your Government need to be aware from the outset that the Catholic Church will not register civil partnerships nor celebrate same-sex unions: not now, not in the future, not ever, no matter what legislation or regulations your Government enacts or endorses.”
Click to expand...
Does British law allow government interference in how a church practices its religion? Why else would Bishop Tartuglia say such a thing?
 
Let the gays get married, just don’t let your kids associate with their culture.
 
RoncalliM said:
Let the gays get married, just don’t let your kids associate with their culture.
Click to expand...
Wrong answer, you loose, you don’t even get a cheesy consolation prize. By allowing gays toy mary, you are giving tacit approval of their culture and lifestyle.
 
OK. It’s only common sense that homosexual marriage would pollute the sacrament of marriage. The follow up question, though, is this: Does homosexual holy orders pollute that sacrament? If not, why not?
 
mdzialo said:
The follow up question, though, is this: Does homosexual holy orders pollute that sacrament? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking, but the Catholic Church holds that unforgiven sins of a priest do not invalidate the sacraments.
Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.
Click to expand...
The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur68.htm
 
Betts,

The onus is on parents to tell children what is right and wrong, NOT THE STATE.

The fact that the state is even involved in marriage is a joke. People should be allowed to get “married” in whatever faith floats their boat.

Two people who love each other don’t need lawyers and courts to prove it.

Here is food for though Betts,

I disapprove of fat people. I think it is morally wrong to be overweight as you are damaging yourself and in many cases those around you. Should it be illegal to be overweight? Is the state tacitly approving of every activity which isn’t illegal? The state is NOT NOT NOT the moral guide, not should it be. It is the state’s job to seek utilitarian outcomes and the parents job to orient the moral compass of children.
 
RoncalliM said:
Betts,

The onus is on parents to tell children what is right and wrong, NOT THE STATE.

The fact that the state is even involved in marriage is a joke. People should be allowed to get “married” in whatever faith floats their boat.

Two people who love each other don’t need lawyers and courts to prove it.

Here is food for though Betts,

I disapprove of fat people. I think it is morally wrong to be overweight as you are damaging yourself and in many cases those around you. Should it be illegal to be overweight? Is the state tacitly approving of every activity which isn’t illegal? The state is NOT NOT NOT the moral guide, not should it be. It is the state’s job to seek utilitarian outcomes and the parents job to orient the moral compass of children.
Click to expand...
Your analogy is flawed. For instance, being overweight is not intrinsically disordered. Homosexual behavior is. The state does have the responsibility to enforce moral laws. Otherwise we should also throw out laws against theft, murder, rape, assault, etc. I assume you also are “pro-choice” (actually pro-abortion) as thit is a moral issue as well. Grow a backbone and take a stand against sin.
 
The ability to gain weight is an adaption meant to allow animals to store food when it is plentiful and then use it up when no food is available, or to survive extremely cold weather climates. For the average 1st world person being fat is a crime against nature as a future in which you would need these excessive fat reserves is unlikely to come and the insulation provided by fat is obviously unnecessary as well. It is intrinsically wrong to grossly overfeed yourself when many people are starving.

Secondly, as per your example, murder/theft/ect, these things are pareto worsening. Allowing homosexuals a marriage license under the state barely affects anyone except a few sodomites who want tax benefits. Most of these people will divorce and re-marry many times based on the preferences of most of the homosexuals I know.

Here is another example. Being drunk is intrinsically wrong. Should it be illegal again?
 
RoncalliM said:
The ability to gain weight is an adaption meant to allow animals to store food when it is plentiful and then use it up when no food is available, or to survive extremely cold weather climates. For the average 1st world person being fat is a crime against nature as a future in which you would need these excessive fat reserves is unlikely to come and the insulation provided by fat is obviously unnecessary as well. It is intrinsically wrong to grossly overfeed yourself when many people are starving.

Secondly, as per your example, murder/theft/ect, these things are pareto worsening. Allowing homosexuals a marriage license under the state barely affects anyone except a few sodomites who want tax benefits. Most of these people will divorce and re-marry many times based on the preferences of most of the homosexuals I know.

Here is another example. Being drunk is intrinsically wrong. Should it be illegal again?
Click to expand...
Stop throwing out straw man. You are blinded by friendship with sodomites. If one suffers from SSA, that does not give them permission to engage in such behavior. Chastity is the universal call to all Christians, and it is manifested in various ways, based on one’s station in life. For the unmarried, that is abstinence from sexual activity. Is it so hard to understand that doing things God’s way is the only way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top