If we get rid of adultery as part of the redifinition of marriage then of course politicians like John Major, David Mellor, Nicholas Soames, Chris Huhne, Robin Cook, Tim Yeo, Geoffrey Archer would have had no reason to be embarassed.
Another effect is that when a Catholic headteacher runs of with the caretaker, leaving spouse and children, it is going to be difficult to demand their resignation or just to sack them. At the moment Catholic teachers and other employees have a morality clause in their contract ensuring that they are in fact Catholic.
Recently the CES and Bishop's Conference issued Christ at the Centre: Why the Church Provides Catholic Schools, a defense of Catholic schools and also a setting forth of guidelines, whether these will be enforceable if marriage is redefined will be another matter.
12 comments:
Another crucial factor is that once the legislation has been 'trimmed' by equality/discrimination claims and all that's left is a desexualised/non-commitment socio-economic mutually beneficial contract which has nothing to do with marriage...
What happens to baptised non-Catholics whom previously had valid marriages? They won't be validly maried as they neither did as the Church does nor either implicitly or explicitly made the inherent spousal declaration or commitment?
Any defender of the bond will remind us that "I am your husband/wife" if non-clandestine is enough to validate...but when the government eradicates every meaning behind those words a civil ceremony becomes hostile...
Therefore the question arises "Can we formally or proximately materially co-operate with civil marriage"? in that it conspires with the grave disorder of extramarital sex?
Evangelium Vitae 73 & 74 & the CDF's 'considerations' say we can't co-operate with intrinsically unjust laws...so we're left with a massive quandary.
Will the Church be forced to remove itself from the civil process and will Catholics married in Church be forbidden from participating in a civil ceremony which intrinsically scandalises the very nature of marriage itself?
Ultimately: Will Catholics no longer be married in the eyes of the State?
Given the number of adulterers and perverts in the House of Commons is it any wonder that we have so much anti-life legislation? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could add to your list, Father.
Adultery is to be defined as being between a man and a woman (unlike marriage!). Therefore if two men are "married" and one sleeps with a woman that is adultery but not adultery if he sleeps with a another man!
We'll have to hope that the Eton/Oxbridge/Stonewall set eases the pressure on DC & Co and the Bill is given a quiet siding in which to repose, rather like Lords reform....
What we could do with now is some good old fashioned British humour sending the whole thing up. Its a pity Spitting Image isn't still going because they would have a field day. Cameron could marry Clegg etc..
On second thoughts that's probably why liberals don't have a sense of humor. Its the one thing that brings everybody back to earth with a bump in a relatively controlled way that doesn't hurt too many feelings. And that's the last thing they want.
The guidelines will be unenforceable, regardless of whether redefinition is passed or not. I really wonder what the real purpose of such statements are.
Remember the case involving a Catholic school in Liverpool?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560153/School-cannot-sack-head-in-gay-marriage.html
I think what was once known as shame has morphed into a 21st century accusation of hypocrisy, placing it on much the same pejorative footing as bigot and homophobe.
Nicholas "not adultery if he sleeps with another man"-no just sodomy
Just more of Christ mystically being killed as he was once physically killed by those people everyone is afraid to call out by name.
When someone is afraid to mention your name from fear, you have successfully earned the title 'Master'.
Because these people have overcome Rome, they can continue to destroy Holy Mother Church at will.
*
To-day we read of the intractability of HIV in the gay community:
Huge improvements in treating and testing for HIV have failed to curb infections in gay and bisexual men in England and Wales, a study suggests.
...
"Prevention services so far have been under-resourced, without a clear focus on outcomes or effectiveness.
"They often do not address the cultural and structural drivers of HIV transmission amongst gay and bisexual men - including drug use, mental health issues and the gay scene."
I wonder whether the reference to "the gay scene" is codeword for the attempts to present homosexual activity as normal and to be accepted.
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21277450
I have just been reading John Finnis on marriage at http://web.mit.edu/anscombe/www/finnismarriage.pdf
The position under the proposed legislation is that for those in a heterosexual marriage heterosexual infidelity is adultery and regarded as a serious offence against their marriage. For a homosexual couple in a union homosexual infidelity will not be regarded as an offence against their union. There is a certain logic in this as Finnis's article suggests - at least to me. Heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different in this respect from a homosexual union where there is little reason for fidelity. It is pure fantasy to equate marriage with this latter union and to call it marriage. It is certainly not equal in any real sense.
Post a Comment