Will the world try to force the teachings of abortion, same sex marriage,... to the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timi_Celcer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tzimisce said:
Yes.

They will try to force their world views on the Catholic Church.

I don’t know how successful they will be.
Click to expand...
They have already had some success–not in changing the teachings of the Catholic Church of course, but in pressing the secular view upon Catholic people. Catholics provide much of the voting support for pro-abortion politicians; for pro-gay marriage laws, for no fault divorce, and other matters antithetical to Catholic teaching. Many Catholics have wrongly accepted secular teachings on birth control and sexual mores. Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they do no place children with same sex couples. As a result partially, of Catholic capitulation, family and society structures continue to crumble.
 
Usige said:
So is outlawing murder, drunk driving, and thousands of other acts. Once upon a time dueling and killing someone who had wronged you was perfectly acceptable to society. It is now outlawed. Should we allow it again because it takes away someone’s free will and forces a behavior they might not agree with?

The laws Catholics want “to force” on people are not about being Catholic, but are laws that (should be) written on every human’s heart. It is only through corruption of the world that so many people accept evil and proclaim it as good. Sometimes laws are passed to slow the rot and decay of a society.
Click to expand...
AMEN !!! God’s Laws always come before civil law. God’s Law, then Natural Law, then Church Law and then Civil Law as long as it doesn’t go against the above three laws. God Bless, Memaw
 
When the UN ties IMF loans to legalizing child sacrifice and homosexual indoctrination I believe this fulfills Revelation’s prophecy’s that nations will be forced to give up their sovereignty.
 
runningdude said:
Persecute is a strong word. The United Nations is not going to burn Catholics at the stake for refusing to support abortion.
Click to expand...
The US is going to ‘burn’ Catholics and our Church for not supporting the tenets of the new health care system that calls for all businesses (including churches, if they provide insurance to its employees…and if you have employees, you’re a business) to provide provisions and pay for birth control and abortion services.
DaddyGirl said:
But trying to legally prevent same-sex marriage and abortion is taking away free will…and that is much different than “promoting” the teachings of the church, it is indeed trying to force those teachings upon people who are not Catholic.
And there are many millions of people who are not Catholic in this world.
So protesting or voting against these issues, trying to get States and the Supreme Court to ban them, etc…and not letting the person make that choice for themselves is trying to take that choice away from them.
So in the case of those who are doing that, then I say…that is not good.
In the same way that I would not want Catholics to be forced to allow same sex marriage in their church even though I believe in it myself.

That is very different than saying it is* telling* the church to change its teachings or “attacking” the church, as the article claims.

.
Click to expand...
The Church hasn’t attempted to deny same-sex marriage, other than to declare it wrong. It is the secular world, the government, who is trying to force their secular views on the Church; by forcing florists, cake makers, photographers, to condone and assist in gay marriages, that is an intrusion into our Faith. Most businesses who are being persecuted at this point have no problem serving gay people, but it’s the act of marriage that they are against.

We are on a slippery slope, and it’s difficult to get a toe hold to get out of it.
 
We Catholics have an obligation to always promote the Gospel in our private and public lives, including the promulgation of laws.

Therefore, any advice from non Catholics that we should not promote our “agenda” in the public venue will be taken with a grain of salt given that we have a higher directive from God Himself. All I ask is that people recognize this and respect it instead of insinuating that we are not doing right just because they are opposed to it.
 
ccmcmg said:
We are on a slippery slope, and it’s difficult to get a toe hold to get out of it.
Click to expand...
At some point in time I am utterly convinced that they will force clergy to conduct “marriages” of homosexuals.

I am not saying that this is the rationale that they will use, but it is one possible rationale:

For example, in Massachusetts, the law regarding who may solemnize a marriage reads as follows:
Section 38. A marriage may be solemnized in any place within the commonwealth by the following persons …

Churches and other religious organizations shall file in the office of the state secretary information relating to persons recognized or licensed as aforesaid, and relating to usages of such organizations, in such form and at such times as the secretary may require.



You will notice that the person who solemnizes the “marriage” certifies this official State record on behalf of the State.

This has the minister acting as an agent of the State (albeit an unpaid agent of the State) because he is certifying an official State vital record. Just as a doctor certifying an official vital record of birth or death.

Thus it is not a purely religious activity…and I would bet that somebody, at some point in time, will use that against us.
 
markomalley said:
At some point in time I am utterly convinced that they will force clergy to conduct “marriages” of homosexuals.

I am not saying that this is the rationale that they will use, but it is one possible rationale:

For example, in Massachusetts, the law regarding who may solemnize a marriage reads as follows:
Section 38. A marriage may be solemnized in any place within the commonwealth by the following persons …

Churches and other religious organizations **shall file **in the office of the state secretary information relating to persons recognized or licensed as aforesaid, and relating to usages of such organizations, in such form and at such times as the secretary may require.

https://imgur.com/VdSc3Yp

You will notice that the person who solemnizes the “marriage” certifies this official State record on behalf of the State.

This has the minister acting as an agent of the State (albeit an unpaid agent of the State) because he is certifying an official State vital record. Just as a doctor certifying an official vital record of birth or death.

Thus it is not a purely religious activity…and I would bet that somebody, at some point in time, will use that against us.
Click to expand...
Hmm, item 22 only has two choices for sex. Perhaps this will be amended.
 
JimG said:
Hmm, item 22 only has two choices for sex. Perhaps this will be amended.
Click to expand...
Obviously a _____-phobic form! Don’t worry, I’ve already alerted Jeff Zuckerberg to this sitaution and he assures me he’ll be back with a 58-gender form shortly.

:eek:
 
markomalley said:
Obviously a _____-phobic form! Don’t worry, I’ve already alerted Jeff Zuckerberg to this sitaution and he assures me he’ll be back with a 58-gender form shortly.

:eek:
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing sex for gender.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I think you’re confusing sex for gender.
Click to expand...
People do not have “gender”. The word “gender” was a grammatical term used to describe whether a word was masculine or feminine.

“Gender” was never a word used to describe persons until the feminist movement of the 1960’s.

People are born of either the male or female sex. Gender constructs posited by “intellectuals” based on subjectivism and emotivism are absurd and only serve ideologues while exploiting others in the name of “indiscriminateness”.
 
runningdude said:
Persecute is a strong word. The United Nations is not going to burn Catholics at the stake for refusing to support abortion.
Click to expand...
Government persecution always happens incrementally. It always starts out mild and ends brutal. The Roman persecution of Christians didn’t start with beheadings. It started with the pagans merely being offended that Christians wouldn’t offer incense for the worship of Caesar. Hitler’s persecution of the Jews didn’t start with the Holocaust. It started with unjust government taxes and fines which were designed to economically bleed the Jews. The Nazi persecution of Jews also started with anti-gun laws which prohibited the Jews from owning guns and with anti-Semitic propaganda which portrayed Jews as being evil and unpatriotic. Because it started out mildly and because not all Jews were equally affected at first, there were some Jews who were in denial and thought that it wasn’t so bad while other Jews were sounding the alarm trying to wake others up. This sounds similar to what is currently happening to Catholics. Some of us are in denial saying “what persecution?” while others, seeing the dangerous direction we are going in, are sounding the alarm.
 
Amandil said:
People do not have “gender”. The word “gender” was a grammatical term used to describe whether a word was masculine or feminine.

“Gender” was never a word used to describe persons until the feminist movement of the 1960’s.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the usage of words tends to evolve over time. It’s good to see you’ve followed the etymology.
 
livingwordunity said:
Government persecution always happens incrementally. It always starts out mild and ends brutal.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting view. Looking throughout the history of the USA I’ve gotten the impression that it was pretty brutal for whoever happen to be in the out-group but over time the magnitude of the policies against who ever the out-group happens to be has gone down.
 
Amandil said:
People do not have “gender”. The word “gender” was a grammatical term used to describe whether a word was masculine or feminine.

“Gender” was never a word used to describe persons until the feminist movement of the 1960’s.

People are born of either the male or female sex. Gender constructs posited by “intellectuals” based on subjectivism and emotivism are absurd and only serve ideologues while exploiting others in the name of “indiscriminateness”.
Click to expand...
According to this article in First Things most recent issue, both “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” are rather recent constructs. There were always men and women, of course, and there were a variety of sexual acts, some approved, some disapproved. People participated in such acts, but they were never described by their “sexual orientations.” That idea is something new.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Yeah, the usage of words tends to evolve over time. It’s good to see you’ve followed the etymology.
Click to expand...
It didn’t “evolve”, they hijacked it and completely changed its meaning and contextual significance.

Its something liberals do very often.
 
Amandil said:
It didn’t “evolve”, they hijacked it and completely changed its meaning and contextual significance.

Its something liberals do very often.
Click to expand...
The meaning and context may change over time. We no longer use the word “computer” to refer to another human being. The word “awful” has gone from labeling something awe inspiring to something negative. Broadcast - from sewing seeds to wide spread communication. Nice - from ignorant to something more positive. The word “husband” came from a word meaning “owner” (back when women had a status close to property). Deadline referred to an imaginary boundary that when crossed by a prisoner would result in getting shot by a confederate guard. Egregious meant “remarkably good”. Guy from a proper noun (Guy Fawkes) to “person of grotesque appearance” to a person. There’s even some amount of divergence in how some words are used in regions whose language has the same common root (ex: USA vs UK vs Australia)
 
ThinkingSapien said:
The meaning and context may change over time. We no longer use the word “computer” to refer to another human being. The word “awful” has gone from labeling something awe inspiring to something negative. Broadcast - from sewing seeds to wide spread communication. Nice - from ignorant to something more positive. The word “husband” came from a word meaning “owner” (back when women had a status close to property). Deadline referred to an imaginary boundary that when crossed by a prisoner would result in getting shot by a confederate guard. Egregious meant “remarkably good”. Guy from a proper noun (Guy Fawkes) to “person of grotesque appearance” to a person. There’s even some amount of divergence in how some words are used in regions whose language has the same common root (ex: USA vs UK vs Australia)
Click to expand...
Spare me. This wasn’t some “organic” movement of speech, this was the politically calculated bastardidation of the term for the purpose of propaganda.

Like atheistic “humanism”(talk about an oxymoron).
 
Brendan said:
No more so that trying to prevent rape, murder and theft is taking away free will.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh. Now ya done it. You had the nerve to equate “consensual” sins with “nonconsensual” sins.

Didn’t you get the memo? There’s a difference. Duh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top