Wednesday, December 26, 2012

10 Ways of Damaging Civil Liberties



A Happy and Blessed Christmas to you all.
And a Happy St Stephen's Day

Today the Church wisely teaches us that the message of Christmas has to be seen through the lens of the blood of the Martyrs. Same sex "marriage" will test many people's fidelity to the Catholic faith.

Thank God for some good strong support from some of our Archbishops and Bishops over Christmas, some sadly seem have had nothing to say at all, either over Christmas or in the Pasroral Letters that many Bishops issue for the Feast of the Holy Family.

C4M lists 10 ways redefining marriage would damage civil liberty, (my comments in red). As our local Conservative MP Mr Weatherly has called for Churches that will not marry same sex couples, to not be allowed to marry anyone, these issues should be taken seriously.
1. Teachers in state schools will be forced to endorse the new definition of marriage. Those that refuse could be disciplined or even dismissed. Such action would be legal. As Catholics were forced out of offering adoption services, so we are likely to be forced out of education entirely, or any charitable work that envolves Government funding, or resources of any kind. 
Will the Government also get rid of school governors who disagree with redefinition. 
2. Parents will ultimately have no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse the new definition of marriage across the curriculum. As there has been in Canada and Spain were SS "Marriage" has been introduced there has also been legislation introduced to remove the terms "Mother" and "Father" and replace them with "Parent #1" and "Parent #2". 
3. NHS/University/Armed forces chaplains could be lawfully fired by their employers if they express, even outside work time, the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is not only chaplains but other government/local government employees whose jobs could be at risk.
4. Foster carers and prospective adopting parents could be legally rejected by local authorities on the basis that they fail to embrace the new definition of marriage. 
5. Public sector workers could be demoted or dismissed for expressing support for marriage between one man and one woman. Will we also start banning texts that promote 
 marriage between one man and one woman from public libraries and public places?
6. Registrars who have a conscientious objection to the new definition of marriage will be dismissed unless they are prepared to act against their beliefs. And what about psychiatists and counsellors employed by the NHS?
7. Churches/mosques/synagogues could ultimately be forced to perform same-sex weddings if a Government ban on such weddings in religious premises is overturned by the European courts. Despite the Cameron's talk of "triple locks" the scenario of a member of the clergy taking his/her religious institution to court for forbidding him/her to "marry" ss couples is highly likely.
8. The Church of England may have to disestablish or face the prospect of court action because, as the established church, it must provide a wedding to any person who is legally eligible to get married. It is inconceivable that the State Church will be allowed to continue to be opposed to redefined "marriage", increasingly pro-ss "marriage" bishops will be appointed. As we have seen with the ordination of female bishops the Cof E will be increasingly urged to "get with the programme". The CofE is a fairweather friend on this matter, unfortunately.

9. Faith-based charities could be banned from hiring public facilities if they refuse to endorse the new definition of marriage. Faith based charities and Churches are likely to lose their charitable status.
10. Clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage, but who are in a denomination which has no such objection, could be taken to court if the Government allows religious same sex weddings. Such clergy are likely to be forced out, anyway.
What the "shambolic" and shallow Mr Cameron has shown is that this Government cannot be trusted on any promise it makes regarding marriage or the family. The relationship between male and female is hardwired into nature itself not just human beings, the Government wants to alter this, my great anxiety is if this goes ahead what else will a future government decide it can legislate on: abolish death, or turn back the sea?

19 comments:

Dom said...

In the case of the Church of England and 'Church in Wales' being specificcally not allowed to perform same sex marriages by legislation: this isn't going to happen.

Many Anglican ministers will be willing to perform these 'marriages', but I doubt that the CPS or anyone else for that matter is going to persue a prosecution or a liberally inclined Anglican hierarchy to insist on this legal discipline.

romishgraffiti said...

We live in western New York and our children are in public elementary school. Perhaps because most of the teachers and students are Catholic or Jewish, there hasn't been any attempts to shove same-sex "marriage" teaching down their throats. However, we have to stay vigilant because my guess is that it is only a matter of time before evil's lidless gaze is cast in our direction.

1569 Rising said...

Father,

At grass roots level in the Conservative Party, there is great opposition to this senseless proposed bill. That view is strongly represented on the Conservative back benches in the Commons.

Be assured that we Conservatives are lobbying hard against this proposal.

JARay said...

I have just bought a copy of the film "For Greater Glory" which is about the persecution of the Church in Mexico in the 1920s. It is most inspirational. The thought then came to me that, hard on the heels of the persecution of the Church in Mexico, there followed a similar persecution of the Church in Spain during the 1930s.
I doubt if the army will be entering churches during Mass in England and murdering the priests saying Mass and killing members of the congregation but the persecution is real enough. The gospels tell us that we will be hated just as Christ was hated. No doubt the number of Faithful will diminish but the Faith itself will be strengthened.
How long, O Lord, how long?!!!

Gervase Crouchback said...

Perhaps it is time 1569 Rising for those backbenchers to tell Mr weatherly that he isa Conservative MP and if he keeps on expressing those views to resign and stand as either a LDP or a Labor member.
There is also fr the alternative that the churches will surrender their marriage licences and bless-quietly- the marriage of a man and a woman ,or else conduct marriages under Canon law but not UK law-an act of resistance.
I know here in Oz the former Archbishop of Perth talked about surrendering the marriage licences of his Archdiocese. As kate Edwards says on her blog 'AUSTRALIA INCOGNITIA' the white persecution is on in earnest.

nickbris said...

Piers Morgan has caused angst in America for calling Larry Pratt an idiot and "unbelievably stupid".Larry Pratt is president of Gun Owners of America.

There are calls for Morgan's deportation for undermining the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.

Archbishop Nicholls rightly called the SSM law "shambolic",if the law actually gets through it would be a severe attack on the Laws of Nature,there is nothing to stop Homosexuals getting married;they have been doing that for thousands of years

Fr Ray Blake said...

Nickbris,
No, marriage is by its nature a heterosexual "instition".

johnf said...

If 40 or more of the Tory MPs who oppose same sex marriage went to Cameron and threatened to resign their seats or take the UKIP whip, the government would lose its majority (79) in the HofC - or precipitate an election.

But I dream. MPs have too cushy a job to something as principled as this.

Alan said...

Fr Ray, I think Nickbris means that homosexuals could marry a person of the opposite sex. Not realy an argument with which I feel comfortable.

Gervase, I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't an issue which divides the Tories from Labour and the Lib Dems. It's a Tory Prime Minister who has introduced the legislation.

I think the proposal is politically inept. I may turn out to be the only person commenting on the blog who takes this view, but I suspect that I am one of many who recognises the obligation as a Christian to comply, with God's help, with my religion's precepts on sexual morality, but who is socially pluralist. There are, I believe, cogent reasons for the state to accord legal recognition to forms of relationship other than holy matrimony. For gay people, at least, that has been met by civil partnership. The move to same sex "marriage", identifying the relationship with holy matrimony, to my mind goes too far. I would in future be much more sceptical and likely to listen to "thin end of the wedge" arguments.

Fr Ray Blake said...

Alan,
I agree, I think, with your statement about pluralism. I would be happier if it could be extended to relationships of long term mutual dependency that did not exclude relationships such as two siblings or friends living together.

The problem is that we have lost a sense what "family" or "marriage" actually means. I think Cameron, and most MPs actually thinks they are legislating for gay weddings.

nickbris said...

They keep quoting Opinion Polls as being in favour of this ridiculous legislation,we all know by now that these polls are the most crooked lobbyist weapon.

Maria Miller is under investigation for fraud,the Chief Whip had to resign for abusing the Police in public,Church leaders have condemned the "monkey business" altogether.

I would suggest a General Election as soon as possible and get rid of this polluting Coalition

Highland Cathedral said...

johnf says:
“If 40 or more of the Tory MPs who oppose same sex marriage went to Cameron and threatened to resign their seats or take the UKIP whip, the government would lose its majority (79) in the HofC - or precipitate an election. But I dream. MPs have too cushy a job to something as principled as this.”

In the case of the current Tory MPs who oppose the redefinition of marriage, johnf is probably correct. However, he is possibly being a little unfair to MPs. Back in the early 1980s over 20 MPs resigned from the Labour Party to join the SDP. Most of those MPs lost their seats at the next General Election – which is possibly what makes it unlikely that there will be mass defections to Ukip.

On the subject of “10 Ways of Damaging Civil Liberties” the secularist/atheist crowd must be rubbing their hands with glee that such a ‘small’ measure will achieve such a huge amount of damage. It must be the stuff of their dreams. That, possibly, explains why they are so enthusiastic about it.

Damask Rose said...

Part 1

Fr Ray said...

"I agree, I think, with your statement about pluralism. I would be happier if it could be extended to relationships of long term mutual dependency that did not exclude relationships such as two siblings or friends living together."

Indeed, this would surely mitigate the emphasis on the "gay marriage".

"The problem is that we have lost a sense what "family" or "marriage" actually means."

Yes.

"The relationship between male and female is hardwired into nature itself not just human beings..."

Not so sure about this anymore regarding human beings.

In the animal kingdom (some animals) the male will stick around till the pups/cubs have matured.

But as for people..., the explosion in the "single mother" phenomenon surely shattered the notion of marriage-for-life. The girls will sponge off and the men will get their basterds fed by the state (no apologies for being harsh - I remember when my son attended a primary school when he was little (we removed him), I was shocked how some unmarried women would have 2-4 children with different men and I felt so sorry for my husband who was working his guts out doing overtime for the good of his family, when these earnings, once taxed, would go to pay for these women's, well, sex and kids, oh, and alcohol, and we couldn't afford (mortgate et al) some of the things these single parents would be buying for their kids at Christmas. Gone are the days when a man would ask a women to marry him, only after he had a job to support her and their children. Apologies, I've digressed).

Damask Rose said...

Part 2

After the single motherhood phenomenon, living-in-sin became acceptable. You'd start to see the word "spouse" removed from forms replaced with "partner". Moving-in-with, partnership is de rigueur. I think it is deemed more and more acceptable to shack up with someone even before a person's divorce comes through, because, well, the relationship (such a loaded word) is over. And women think nothing of producing 1-3 illegitimate children with said partner who, you never know, could dump them because, just maybe after ten years with his concubine, erm, partner, he might just leave her because he's found the "one", and yes, marries (whaaaat) her.

Men are playing the field longer and marrying later. Also, divorced men will not commit properly to the next women, because of loosing their property. A friend of mine did the on-line dating thing, and that was an eye-opener for us both. Literally, it is shopping for flesh. If someone doesn't suit, you just surf for the next person, and women are unpaid prostitutes, with men (generally slightly older and divorced) wanting athletic, well-groomed women with the added bonus of "erotic" thrown in. As my friend was a single mother on benefits, she didn't stand a chance, because the men need to have a woman who can totally support herself and hopefully is monied. But women are so easy now they've brought this on themselves and if a women doesn't put out, or, wants to behave in a chaste manner, she could get abuse.

Older divorced women need to really take out pre-nups in case if they do remarry, the new husband doesn't dump them and leave them in a financially compromised position.

Apologies for the long comment, but I think the horse has bolted and the stable door is well and truly closed on the notion of marriage. Who cares about marriage nowadays?

Yes, I always consider the supernatural, and I would say that with such a breakdown in family values, it was only a matter of time before homosexuality rampagingly reared its ugly head and now demands "marriage". And again, supernaturally, if heterosexuals are sterile through contraception, why shouldn't the sterile gays get married?

Damask Rose said...

Part 3

As for the 10 points here. It's quite frightening. But again, considering the supernatural, I blame the Catholic Church. If I believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, then what happens to the Church, happens to the world.

When the Church ceased to be Militant, and we clericalised the laity, with EHMCs, readers, CLOW etc instead of Catholics talking about the Faith in the office, it looks like we will now officially have to shut up. It's too late. We've had Soho Gay Masses instead of teaching gays to be chaste. As Fr Ray points out, few Bishops have said anything.

You hardly hear a priest talk about Humanae Vitae or chastity (for all) from the pulpit or other vices. If a priest did mention conversion from SS attraction from the pulpit, he'd more than likely get a smackdown. God forbid, can't point out to the parents it's their fault for their apostate children. There was a priestly revolt after HV came out (I think Baltimore and Winnipeg come to mind). Has the Church since VII changed it's teaching - is it true it says that love comes before procreation now? Was it von Hildebrand who suggested that?

Well if a large number of priests employ a contraceptive mentality, I'd say, again supernaturally, what do you get? - a spiritual sterility, a spiritual impotence, an explosion in homosexual clergy. (Think in terms of the demonic.) If God's priests reject procreation, what's going to happen? Will we walk in the wilderness for 40 years? How homosexual were priests in the 1940s/50s? Why did God hide the Mass of Ages?

Another digression here, but, gosh, can't remember very well, but I think I read in St Faustina Kowalska's Diary, that when a priest in mortal sin says the Mass, then a demon stands next to him at the altar, yes the consecration is valid, but at the consuming of the priest's Communion he recieves no grace because Our Lord removes Himself. Then what extrinsic grace does the laity receive from these priests' Masses? Something is wrong. How can it be right to have a gay alter Christus? Is this why many Masses world-wide are so kooky - clown Masses, abuses?

Damask Rose said...

Part 4

Fr Ray commented...

"increasingly pro-ss "marriage" bishops will be appointed. As we have seen with the ordination of female bishops the Cof E will be increasingly urged to "get with the programme".

Well, the Catholic Church has had gay bishops for decades now, serviced by their gay clergy and some dioceses are absolutely riddled with practising gay priests (eg, Miami). And as with the priestly sex-abuse crisis, I think there are others who want our children too. Consider the push for homosexualty being taught in schools and I do believe recently some homosexuals called for more homosexuality to be viewed in children's TV.

It might get worse. There is a You Tube video of an American Catholic priest, practically coming out, I think, saying how he was gay when he was ordained decades ago, supporting gay marriage in California.

How many more gay priests will come out, with silent Bishops, who, emboldened, will start to bless gay couples (well, divorced and remarried Catholics can come up at Communion time and get their "priestly blessing") in Catholic Churches in this country if this legislation passes. (Remember Filowchowski and Pendergasts "friendship" anniversary Mass celebrated by then Ushaw president Fr J O'Keefe who advised E&W Bishops regarding sex-abuse victims and the selection of priesthood candidates). How many Bishops have kept quiet on matters "gay" because they have gay skeletons in their own closets and fear the threat of scandal? How far back does the Lavender Mafia go?

One sin leads to another - see St Thomas Aquinas.

Damask Rose said...

Kind of on/off topic, but this article makes for rather interesting reading...

Dated 2001

"Catholic church alarmed that priesthood is becoming a 'gay profession.'" By Paul Vallely

Quotes:

"Ushaw College has introduced female theology students to the college, which Fr O'Keefe hopes will broaden the emotional experience of trainees."

"Elizabeth Stuart, professor of theology at King Alfred's College, Winchester, who is one of the Catholic Church's most prominent lesbian [huh!!??] theologians, says: "Part of the panic is the fear that the church's whole sexual ethic is going to be unravelled." The idea that all sex must be for procreation is the common link that binds together the Catholic ban on contraception and homosexuality. Any shift in the unrelenting attitude to gay sex, she says, "threatens to overthrow the entire edifice of the Church's sexual teaching"."

Article is from Independent.co.uk News.

http://lesbiansrus.homestead.com/files/gay_profession.htm

Alan said...

Fr Ray,

Yes, this was one of the things I had in mind. I also have in mind a heterosexual couple of my acquaintance, whose relationship has outlasted many marriages, but who conscientiously resist the concept of marriage. (Search me. I don't quite understand, either.)

Gervase Crouchback said...

Alan not missing the point-mate- rather emphasising thta if backbenchers who are unhappy with Cameron's laws need to make a point by publicly rebuking this MP and reminding him of what Conservativism stands for.

Sadly prgmatism and the appeal to minoritie for their votes prevails across political parties from Westminster to Wandilogong from Canterbury to Canberra -the latter are an especially despised mob.