Mr. John Ansley, in the comments section of my previous post, has responded to a Catholic Blogger (and attorney) who wrote the following: "We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships." (See the comments section of this Blog post).
Mr. Ansley correctly noted that, "This sounds like nothing more than an attempt to justify same-sex 'marriage,' whether under this name or the euphemistically labelled 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' But the acceptance of any of these contentions will redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If this happens, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,' had this to say: 'The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.' (No. 8).
It would appear that Renee is dissenting from this authoritative teaching when she asserts, 'We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships.' How unfortunate."
Indeed. In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."
As I explained here, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological: "Especially important is to avoid conversations with the demon... The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen..." - Father Merrin - The Exorcist.
Mr. Ansley correctly noted that, "This sounds like nothing more than an attempt to justify same-sex 'marriage,' whether under this name or the euphemistically labelled 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' But the acceptance of any of these contentions will redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If this happens, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,' had this to say: 'The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.' (No. 8).
It would appear that Renee is dissenting from this authoritative teaching when she asserts, 'We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships.' How unfortunate."
Indeed. In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."
As I explained here, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological: "Especially important is to avoid conversations with the demon... The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen..." - Father Merrin - The Exorcist.
Related reading: Perfect possession.
We need laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships? For a Catholic to suggest such a thing is just chilling. And it reveals just how far the homosexual movement has made inroads into the Church - and the minds of many who belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.
ReplyDeletePositively unnerving.
Things are getting really dark here in Massachusetts. That a Catholic Blogger and attorney would use a Blog called "Defend the Faith" to promote laws recognizing "differing relationships" - homosexual in nature - is really terrifying.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me shudder.
Homosexuality has been condemned by Fathers and Doctors of the Church and by the Popes for 2,000 years. Saint Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church, says that it "should not be considered an ordinary vice, for it surpasses all of them in enormity" (The Book of Gomorrah).
ReplyDeleteThe Catechism of St. Pius X calls homosexuality a sin that "cries out to Heaven for vengeance." (See
http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechism/PiusXCat.txt. Theologians give Genesis 19:13 as the scriptural basis for this designation.
Why do we need laws which "recognize" unholy unions? Bizarre.
Saw your link at Technorati...thought you might find these of interest:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqZkPxG2pmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhzB9Zyr-8w
Unmasking The "Gay" Agenda
ReplyDeleteBy J. Matt Barber
MichNews.com
Feb 13, 2008
Balance of Power
Americans who self-identify as “gay” or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the population. Yet the homosexual movement — led by extremist homosexual pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that HRC and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 50 million.
Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.
The Goal
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.” At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are “equal.” If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved...
Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”
Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded “homophobic,” “hateful” or “discriminatory.” They are to be silenced by all means possible..."
I posted this at the DTF blog...
ReplyDeleteRenee writes, "There is a big difference between the a homosexual act and a person who may be a homosexual!" No kidding. But if you're trying to sell us the lie that most homosexuals and lesbians are not engaging in sexual relationships, you really aren't going to have much success. We know better.
On October 1, 1986, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a document titled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. The Letter recalls the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices:
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it IS a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."
Strange Renee how you never make mention of THAT particular aspect of Magisterial teaching. I wonder why. Perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda to have "laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships"?
The homosexual lifestyle is highly promiscuous. And even when a homosexual person is not living in sin, the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Objective disorder..hardly the basis for legal recognition of homosexual unions.
ReplyDeleteMike, I just posted these comments at DTF Blog:
ReplyDeleteAs much as I like to give other Catholics (and Christians of other faiths etc) the benefit of the doubt - asking for clarification where this is needed - Renee's assertion that, "We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships" really speaks for itself.
I am not, of course, suggesting that Renee hasn't argued against same-sex "marriage" in the past, but people's views often change or evolve. Her call for "differing sets of laws that recognize..differing types of relationships" is profoundly disturbing. If this is not a call for legal recognition of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," what is it? Words do, after all, have meaning.
I'm also concerned with this statement made by Renee: "not all aspects of a same-sex relationship are wrong.." Hopefully what she meant to convey is that not all same-sex relationships are homosexual in nature. There are members of the same sex who are simply friends. But given the context of this discussion thread, I am concerned that this is NOT what she intended to say. If she is saying that there are some "aspects" of a same-sex [homosexual] relationship that are not "wrong," I would like some clarification on what she means. The very inclination is, after all, "objectively disordered" and any homosexual act is, objectively speaking, gravely sinful. I say objectively speaking because the full extent of moral culpability is known to God alone and that is not for us to judge. It is this sense that Scripture says God alone is judge.
I am deeply concerned - as are many others - about Renee's call for legal recognition of "differing types of relationships." I also have some reservations about Renee because while she was quick to pounce on Paul Melanson for a remark he didnt make [which was actually mine and which I stand by], she has also been quick to defend a homosexual activist who comments here regularly when an individual made inappropriate remarks about him. This would seem to indicate that Renee extends a courtesy to active homosexuals which she will not extend to a brother in the faith. I do not say that she shouldn't have come to the defense of the homosexual activist. I oly question why she was so hasty to engage in criticism of a well-respected Catholic blogger and lay-philosopher.
I find that troubling as well.
Second comment:
If we call for the State to extend "legal protections to individuals that seek to look out for and care for each other," and these individuals are same-sex partners, then we are really just settling for a euphemism. Unfortunately, many are blind to the fact that the legal and social recognition of these euphemistic labels is the legal and social recognition of homosexual unions per se. This would merely provide a "stepping stone" as it were to the homosexual movement to attain its prized goal of same-sex "marriage" across the entire nation.
This is why I believe Renee's call for such legal recognition to be reckless and irresponsible. And in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches authoritatively
Marie, thank you for your courageous witness to truth. Expect to be hated by some for standing with Christ and His Church.
ReplyDeleteI posted the following at Defend the Faith:
It is reckless Marie. The CDF, in its authoritative teaching expressed in "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," teaches that, "Diffentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."
And No. 5 of this same document states clearly, "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection..."
We cannot, we must not, ignore this teaching. There is a great difference between tolerance and the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons.
I'm sure I will be ostracized by some for insisting on this Marie. This will come as nothing new to me. I am persona non grata even at my parish.
C'est la vie.
In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that "Laws are said to be just either because of their end, when they are ordained to the common good; or because of their author, when the law does not exceed the power of the lawmaker; or because of their form, when burdens are distributed equitably among subjects for the common good. For since a man is part of the multitude, whatever he is or has belongs to the multitude as a part belongs to the whole. Thus nature inflicts harm on a part in order to save the whole. Accordingly laws which inflict burdens equitably are just, bind the conscience, and are legal laws.
ReplyDeleteLaws are unjust in two ways: First, they may be such because they oppose human good by denying the three criteria just mentioned. This can occur because of their end, when a ruler imposes burdens with an eye, not to the common good, but to his own enrichment or glory; because of their author, when someone imposes laws beyond the scope of his authority; or because of their form, when burdens are inequitably distributed, even if they are ordered to the common good. Such decrees are not so much laws as acts of violence, because, as Augustine says, "An unjust law does not seem to be a law at all." Such laws do not bind the conscience, except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance, on account of which one should yield his right. As Christ says, "If someone forces you to go a mile, go another two with him; and if he takes your tunic, give him your pallium" (Mtt. 5:40f.)."
I just posted this at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. There, two individuals are also promoting illicit same-sex "marriage":
ReplyDeleteHere's papal teaching from Pope John Paul II (the man who wore the biggest hat of all in the Church): "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".95 This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law". (Evangelium Vitae citing Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963, II: AAS 55 (1963), 271; Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.93, a.3, ad 2; Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.95, a.2
What do those words mean to '86 Grad and Replying? What does Pope John Paul II mean when he teaches [authoritatively] that: "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with THE WHOLE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH."?
What does Pope John XXIII mean when he teaches [authoritatively] that: "..laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order and hence of the divine will, can have NO BINDING FORCE IN CONSCIENCE.."?
What does Saint Thomas Aquinas [the greatest Doctor in the history of the Church] mean when he writes that, "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law"?
You either accept a teaching which is "in continuity with THE WHOLE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH," or you do not.
You're either Catholic or you are not.
It's really that simple. The teaching is definitive.
"Replying" is still insisting that there is no connection between the Natural Lawand civil law at the Holy Cross website. My response:
ReplyDeleteReplying wrote, "I don't agree that natural law has anything to do with whether a government can allow same sex marriage.." This statement only serves to highlight the fact that Holy Cross College is failing its students.
Pope John Paul II, writing in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, says the very opposite: "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church."
The whole tradition of the Church. Replying, in rejecting this "whole tradition of the Church," separates himself from the Church and is no longer in communion with her. He has separated himself from Christ and his salvation is, consequently, in jeopardy.
In his February 20, 1994 Angelus Address, protesting against a special resolution of the European Parliament encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II stated:
"What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, 95)...
But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...
Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family."
Replying has to strain to ignore the reality of Church teaching, a teaching which insists that the civil law must conform with the natural or moral law and that this doctrine is "in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church."
It's hard work being intellectually dishonest. Replying must be exhausted. In any event, he has no case. He is in opposition to the Church's tradition. Holy Cross College has failed to provide him with a sound Catholic education. His comments at this forum only prove this fact.