Saturday, September 17, 2011

Cameron pushes children out of marriage

David Cameron intends to legalise "gay marriages", apparently it is necessary for "equalities". It is the obvious consequence of the civil partnership legislation introduced 6 years ago. It is perhaps significant he intends this legislation to be introduced before the next election, just so Catholics and Evangelicals don't turn the election  into a debate on this issue.
For Cameron it seems just to be a matter of a change in the meaning of words but in reality it is the loss of the meaning of a word.

Marriage is not primarily about the couple, it is about children and family and society. Placing a homosexual relationship on a par with heterosexual marriage is an entire rethinking of the very nature of marriage and therefore of society itself. It is a part of the trend in the West, but maybe specifically in the UK to see children as problem in society, an interference with career development or earning capacity, an economic burden, a source of social problems. No wonder the recent UNICEF survey finds UK children the most neglected and unhappy in Europe.

 Again and again children are pushed out of the centre of our society. Goods and services legislation finally crushed Catholic adoption services, after of course they had already allowed adoption by non-Catholics, the divorced and remarried and single gay people, really removing any leg they might have had to mount any legal defence, hence the voluntary closing down of these agencies by most dioceses.

I am very impressed by the defence of marriage, and children, by Cardinal O'Brien and the Scottish bishops, let us pray we can be as effective. Perhaps one of our English difficulties is that we have failed to address adequately Life and family issues here since the publication of Humae Vitae, which has always been very softly pedalled.

Liberal Catholics suggest being open to Life - well actually children - is something we shouldn't get hung up on but actually it is basic to our understanding of what a human being is. We are made for children. Catholics see children as the basis of society, the family and human sexuality, children their procreation and education, should be at the heart of our economy and legislation.

It isn't just a matter of not killing children in the womb, it is a matter of welcoming children. I was talking to a Polish women who said under Communism a women was actually paid by the state for a child's first five years to stay at home to care for her child. Here parents are increasingly penalised and impoverished, the cost of housing is one factor, child care and the assumption that others should be paid to look after children is another.

Increasingly larger families are the prerogative of the wealthy, Cameron's legislation is just part of the anti-child and child-commodification which springs from a decadent capitalism, where the pursuit of financial gain has become a good in itself, without any understanding of what that gain should be for.

If Cameron can make such a seismic change in our society what will follow?
You might find this of interest.


Just another mad Catholic said...

May I ask the question "In light of these proposals (and the discrimination against Catholics that will result) What loyalty as Catholics do we owe this Government?"

On the Feast of Christ the King last year (I was in America) the Priest at the Chapel where I was serving Mass stated quite bluntly during the homily that a Government that leglislated against the natural law had lost its legitimacy.

If we had the resources to do so, would it be morally legitimate for us to instigate a Coup d'état replacing the commons and the lords with a Catholic Dictator who would criminialize sodomy, abortion, actually enforce the law regarding Euthanasia and make sure that the Truths of the Faith were taught in punblic schools.

I propose that what we need is a British Franco, anyone want to volunteer for the job?

alison said...

Great post. Thank you. Cameron will lose votes regardless. People will now have seen through his ploy to pretend family is at the heart of this government and when the deficit is barely reduced, the Big Society continues to fail and with taxation remaining high enough to keep couples from having children when they want them, votes will dissipate for this pitiful PM. I certainly won't be fooled into thinking he is the lesser evil next time around.

Michael Petek said...

One wonders what point there is in upgrading civil partnerships to 'marriages' besides a change of nameplate.

The legal difference between marriage and civil partnership is that, in marriage, adultery is a ground on which a marriage can be found to have irretrievably broken down and so ought to be dissolved. This is not available as a ground for dissolving a civil partnership.

Refusal to consummate a marriage is a ground on which a marriage is, in English law, voidable. Not so for a civil partnership.

The only thing that anyone could have in mind in proposing to introduce same-sex marriage is that the contractants would exchange between themselves the right of either to the body of the other for sexual acts without reference to their relation to procreation.

So if marriage were to be redefined accordingly, a man and a woman would be held to be 'married' even if, at the time of the ceremony, either or both of them were determined never to consummate the marriage by an act from which conception could result.

It gets even worse.

We can tell from Romans chapter 1 that acceptance of homosexual acts in any Christian or human community is a conclusive sign that idolatry is entrenched there, be the false god worshipped instead of the true God or in addition to Him.

Appealing to Sacred Scripture, the Church teaches - and Catholic Tradition unanimously accepts, that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity. This teaching has undoubtedly been set forth by the ordinary universal Magisterium as divinely revealed and is so easily verified as true by human reason even apart from revelation that invincible ignorance can scarcely be claimed. For the baptised, it is binding on pain of heresy.

Now examine the condition of the historic Protestant churches in continental Europe. With the possible exceptions of Finland and Norway, all the Lutheran state churches officially hold that homosexual acts are morally licit. Of the 22 regional churches in Germany, 10 will bless same-sex partnerships, as will the Church of Denmark. The Church of Sweden conducts same-sex marriage. All the Old Catholic churches (Union of Utrecht) do same-sex blessings as well. Why on earth does the Catholic Church conduct ecumenical relations with these brothels?

This one's for Just Another Mad:

No, I don't think it would be morally legitimate for us to instigate a coup d'état.

For the Queen to do so herself would be more easily justifiable, as she could do it with less risk of public disorder and with greater probability of success.

nickbris said...

It is unbelievable that they actually have time to bring in this "fun legislation",they really are laving a laugh.

The Banks are bringing us to financial Armageddon,unemployment is as high as it has ever been,the prisons are full to the roof-tops,thousands are sleeping rough on the streets,nursing homes are bumping off the aged wholsale and all they can do is kow-tow to a vociferous bunch of malcontents.

Bringing about Regime Change illegally in Sovereign States just to get one over on a previous administration is just another example of a ridiculous coalition that should have been nipped in the bud at conception.

georgem said...

I was going to comment under the headings of the major weapons in the gay campaign armoury:
Homophobe, Bigot, Fundamentalist, Equality.
Then I clicked on the link and found it's been done.

Dorothy B said...

Thank you for this post, Father. A couple of things occur to me.

"Increasingly larger families are the prerogative of the wealthy". I would add that many people who live entirely on state benefits appear to share this prerogative. The pain starts - and, I think, is particularly acute - with those couples whose income is just above the benefits threshold.

I fear that if Cameron's plan becomes law it may become a "hate" crime to refuse to refer to a homosexual couple as married. There may come a time, in the fairly near future, when we are going to have to stand our ground. The problems Christians encounter when wearing crosses, or in referring in any way to their religious faith, will pale against this.

Pablo the Mexican said...

No one person can make seismic changes is Society in the manner in which they are being done today.

These changes are diabolical. They are orchestrated by Satan, much like these happenings in America:

The above noted video shows what has happened in America; it can be used as the boiler plate to demonstrate Satan’s works in his fight against God.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our protection against the World and its contagion.

The Holy Rosary is our most formidable weapon against those that meet in their Lodges and Synagogues against God and His Christ.

Invoke the Saints. Ask that they help our good Priests and Nuns.

Pray for the Monks at the Monastery.

Viva Cristo Rey!


JARay said...

Here in Australia, towards the end of the last government, we managed to get written into law that marriage was between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all else.
The present set of machinations of the Left....notably the Greens, is trying to overturn this definition of marriage. A recent poll suggests that the vast majority of Australians want this definition to stay in law. Even the present Prime Minister (Julia Gillard)who is known for being an atheist and living with a "partner" (Tim Matheison)has declared that she does not want any change in the definition of marriage.

JARay said...

Quite off the topic but am I the only one who types a comment and then finds that I am supposed to type in some funny set of letters which do not appear until I have tried to submit my comment and failed because the set of letters which I have(!) typed(there were none!) do not match the required set. Then the required set of letters appears! At the second attempt when these letters actually have appeared, my comment is accepted for approval.

johnf said...

Our local Parish Priest already feels that sooner or later he will end up in gaol for refusing to marry two homosexuals.

You can see the scenario. Two males asking the local parish priest to marry them. Being politely refused. Then expressing 'hurt', bring in the Plod. Although Theresa May has said that no Church will be forced to marry homosexuals, we know that bringing a lawsuit before a liberal Judge, the law can be reinterpreted.

At the least, a hefty fine - a nice little earner for said homosexuals. At most, the Parish Priest arrested and the Church closed.

The question is what are we as Catholics going to do about it?

Aaron said...

Roger Helmer MEP has an interesting take on this proposed legislation which I agree with, although I do not agree with his own "philisophical" perspective.

He gets it absolutely right where he states: "Finally (and a key point): any attempt to broaden the definition of marriage to include other relationships can only be seen as a deliberate device to dilute, demean and diminish the institution of marriage as it is generally understood. If marriage becomes broader, it becomes shallower, and the vital importance of marriage in our society will be further eroded."

Helmer is not a Christian and he doesn't argue as a Christian, but I think his three principle points have a lot of relevance for us as Catholics:

Peter Tatchell, gay rights activist par excellence has this to say: "The ban on same-sex marriage is homophobic discrimination and should be repealed."

Which is the equivalent of me saying: "The ban on men procreating is sexist discrimination and should be repealed."

Anyway: hope this is of some interest to some.

[Apologies Father if you prefer not to advertise links on your blog(?)]

Amfortas said...

Please can we stop using the expression 'heterosexual marriage'? There is no such thing. There is only marriage and that is between a man and a woman.

Kieran said...

Mad Catholic,
That is Mad

Patricius said...

If "homosexual marriage" is legalised why not polygamy? How terrible to find the polygamists discriminated against!

Ben Trovato said...

Not only polygamy, but also paedophilia. I am not exaggerating: the work has already started to de-stigmatise paedophilia, with an academic conference in the USA convened for precisely that purpose.

That was the first stage with homosexuality; first de-stigmatisation, then legitimisation, then normalisation, and now 'equality.'

Michael Petek said...

Patricius says: "If homosexual marriage is legalised why not polygamy?"

Indeed. Why not any number of people, male or female? Why not a boy and his dog?


I only ever vote for the Conservatives because they historically have voted in line with christian values. After the abortion amendment, and this fiasco, that bond of trust has now gone, and with it my guaranteed vote.

v said...

Given that the Archbishop of Westminster seems uncertain as to whether the Catholic Church will one day accept and bless gay unions (EXAMPLE 1, EXAMPLE 2), I think we'll just have to hope that Evangelical leadership is strong in its resistance to this proposal.

Pétrus said...

I would like to read some direct comment on this from Mr. Cameron but if it is true I may be left with no other choice than to vote UKIP at the next election.

nickbris said...

Voting UKIP or GREEN (raving loonies) is just another way of saying you don't care what happens.

The priority is to get rid of this bunch of SNOBS who are only filling their boots at the expense of the hard working and needy.

We must hope & pray that the Trade Unions have the strength to bring about the downfall of this bunch of berks running the show

pattif said...

Nickbris -

If you think voting for either of the other two mainstream parties is an effective strategy for defending the definition of marriage as a lifelong, indissoluble union between a man and a woman, I think you are in for a big surprise.

gemoftheocean said...

I was with you until you said 'decadent capitalism' Capitalism has ZIPPITY-DOO-DAH to do with this. [Neither does 'socialism.' In fact 'socialism' is more anti-child than capitalism is. Take a look at what the birth rate in 'socialist' Scandinavian countries is, SOCIALIST UK, SOCIALIST Russia (back in the day, when anything more than ONE child was amazing.) Look at SOCIALIST China.

Your problem is you have TOO MANY socialist parties, and that includes that prat Cameron and his minions. I'd vote UKiP if I were British.

Pétrus said...


Up until now the Conservative Party have been very much the party that upheld Christian values in this country. I fail to see how a Christian, let alone a Catholic, could ever vote for the godless lot that are the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

If this change is brought in I can see the Conservatives losing a lot of their support. Certainly at the moment is looks like the Conservative Party is not being led by a Conservative.

nickbris said...

United Kingdom Independence Party. Independent from what exactly? Our main market for what little we make? An educated work-force from Europe?

An exit from the nonsense of NATO would be the best thing but as this country is incapable of standing on it's own feet we have to forget the independence balderdash.


Unknown said...

>Peter Tatchell, gay rights >activist par excellence has this >to say: "The ban on same-sex >marriage is homophobic >discrimination and should be repealed."

>Which is the equivalent of me >saying: "The ban on men >procreating is sexist >discrimination and should be >repealed."
Actually, scientists are working on the mirror image of this: there are already lab mice with two female parents and no male ones.
The technique involves altering female cells to act like sperm.

For many, nature is merely raw material. Denounce something as 'unnatural' and the reply is a shrug and a "so what ?"

Unknown said...

>Peter Tatchell, gay rights >activist par excellence has this >to say: "The ban on same-sex >marriage is homophobic >discrimination and should be >repealed."

>Which is the equivalent of me >saying: "The ban on men >procreating is sexist >discrimination and should be >repealed."

For the moment, but Science Marches On. There are already lab mice with two female parents and no male ones . (Google "Kaguya mouse" if you want more details.)
I'd guess that tech to have the opposite is being worked on as well.

For many people in the West, nature is merely raw material. The very idea of "natural law" sounds vaguely Luddite. ("You've got a problem with IVF because it isn't natural ? Well, then, I guess you need to get rid of your car and your compter !" )

The Lord’s descent into the underworld

At Matins/the Office of Readings on Holy Saturday the Church gives us this 'ancient homily', I find it incredibly moving, it is abou...