Saturday, May 01, 2010

Too Much Christianity!

I get heartily sick with all these Christians wanting to be exempt from the Law of the Land just because they are Christians. I have every sympathy with judges and tribunals who tell them to clear off. Special pleading is not good enough!
Catholics have only of late taken up this odious practice, in the past we appealed to the Common Good, based on the Natural Law and Reason. If something is good for us then it is good for society, our concern is not about narrow fideistic sectarianism but the wisdom man possesses by virtue of his being made in God's image.
Have as look at Innocent Smith who suggests the problem is too much scripture going around. Innocent's is one of my favourite blogs.
Gerald Warner too suggests that behind the MacFarlane judgement is an opposition to the rights of conscience and perhaps therefore the essence of social diversity of our pluralistic society.

9 comments:

Michael Petek said...

You evidently haven't read the Ladele and McFarlane judgements, Father.

Lilian Ladele sued and lost under anti-discrimination laws because she was dismissed from her job as a civil Registrar after she refused to officiate at civil partnerships. This case falls specifically within the terms of the CDF's Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (2003) which Pope John Paul II approved in forma specifica.

"#5 . . .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."

The second case, that of Gary McFarlane, was about a sex therapist who refused to counsel a homosexual couple and was then dismissed by his employer Relate.

Both of these litigants had been called upon as though to burn incence to Caesar. They made three fatal mistakes.

The first is that they brought their claims under anti-discrimination legislation, when they should have brought them under the freedom of conscience provision of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The second mistake is that they effectively lost their cases when they conceded that their respective employers were pursuing a legitimate aim in eliminating discrimination against homosexuals, albeit in what concerns sexual activity.

The third mistake was that they came to their cases as supplicants, asking for their sincerely held religious beliefs to be accommodated. This is unbecoming a Christian.

Had I been in their position I would have filed and served a sworn witness statement to the effect that Christianity is public truth which objectively binds the public authorities and the courts, which - if they defy Christ - expose themselves to severe punishment:

"32. Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast [of Christ the King] not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education." (Pope Pius XI).

It is not a matter of Christians claiming exemption from the law of the land just because they are Christians. The question is whether Caesar is exempt from the law of Christ just because he is Caesar. Who does he think he is to profess he is not?

The earliest Christians were persecuted because they refused to worship Caesar, but also because they insisted that everyone - including Caesar - must serve and obey Jesus Christ.

Fr Ray Blake said...

I have read both, Michael.

Have read the submission? I suspect not, both are based on asking for an accomodation because of the applicants faith.


ps I am being a little ironic in my post. I point this out in case you didn't realise. As Catholics we are concerned with Fides et Ratio.

Ma Tucker said...

The judge said this

“In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence,” said the judge. He claimed that affording legal protection to a position held purely on religious grounds could not be justified because “It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

I wonder what his ruling would look like when applied to himself...

In the eye of everyone save myself, my judgement is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence,” said the judge. He claimed that affording legal protection to a position held purely on his own judgment could not be justified because “It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.

I am become God springs to mind!


Father, are you suggesting that the CES should have objected publicly and vociferously to the state sponsored grooming of school children under the guise of sex ed on behalf of ALL children in the UK?

Fr Ray Blake said...

Ma,
Yes!

Independent said...

I see that Dr Dawkins has come out in support of the Liberal Democrats. Presumably he has been attracted by their manifesto against religious schools and in favour of assisted suicide.

Have homosexual unions been legally recognised and given the legal status and right belonging to marriage in England? They may have in popular opinion but have they been so in law? The actual Act of Parliament does not mention such crucial matters as consummation or divorce for infidelity and can be regarded as not explicitly envisaging a sexual union. It can be regarded as a means whereby friends share porperty rights. Indeed it is a pity it did not extend its provisions to people who are related.

Could some legal expert comment, please?

Michael Petek said...

I'm not a legal expert, but I can confirm that a civil union has all the legal and fiscal benefits of marriage, though it is not necessary that sexual activity be contemplated.

You can't contract a civil union with anyone within the prohibited degrees for marriage. Two spinster sisters tried to do this, as they wanted to preserve their inheritance rights against the tax man as between themselves, but lost when they took their case to Strasbourg.

Dissolution on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the relationship can be granted by the courts, but it isn't called divorce.

The technical term is 'gay abandon'.

Independent said...

The secular State would appear to be informed by the Syllabus of Errors reinterpreted in terms of secularism. Its motto is "error has no rights", with error being religion.

We must work for a pluralist society in accordance with the Decree on Religious Liberty of Vatican II. Recent legal judgements are incompatible with pluralism.

Michael Petek said...

A pluralist society isn't likely to be durable if you attempt to religiously structure public life and civil law according to pluralism.

If they are not structured according to Christian religion,they will be structured according to another. At present, that religion is homosexualism, which insists that supreme honour and reverence is due to the sexual act between two of the same sex.

If you profess that homosexual acts are sinful you are likely to be arrested, as was a street preacher in Workington this month under the Public Order Act 1986 sections 5(1) and 6.

He might as well have been arrested for heresy against the Christian faith as held in the (pro-gay) Metropolitan Community Church.

If society were to be structured according to the Catholic religion, it could be a pluralist society for Catholic reasons.

Independent said...

The Confessional State is dead and one can no more have a Catholic Pluralist State than one can have a Lutheran Pluralist State, an Anglican Pluralist State, or a Moslem Pluralist State, or indeed a Secularist Pluralist State. Pluralism means pluralism.

In practical terms it is impossible in a diverse society to impose one model, one system of belief , whatever one may desire. Newman bracketed together John Keble and Pius IX as believers in Confessional States and regretfully dismissed both as being overtaken by events.

We will all have to put up with others doing doing what we regard as wrong, but must be allowed to criticise them as they must be allowed to criticise us.