What would St. Thomas More Do?
Fr. Raymond de Souza, a Roman Catholic Priest/Journalist in Canada asks this question in today's National Post. All of the House Members will have to vote Friday on the same-sex "marriage" legislation (Bill C-38). This article takes all the legislators to task and asks them to have just a tiny bit of the spine that St. Thomas More had when he stood up to King Henry VIII. St. Thomas More, pray for Canada!
posted by Becky @ 9:40 PM
18 Comments:
Ah yes, but it would be just as noble to vote for the bill as it would be to vote against it, no? Either vote could be voting one's conscience.
I praise Thomas More for his bravery in exercising an INFORMED CONSCIENCE - one that was correct in it's judgment. "Voting one's conscience" does us no good if our consciences perceive good as evil and evil as good.
I am not so much of a moral relativist to think that voting one's conscience is the ultimate good. Although preferred to coercion, it doesn't get us very far with an issue of such cosmic proportions.
I would not classify same-sex marriage legislation as an issue of cosmic proportions. And also, this is not an issue where morals are very clear. I know you disagree, but often people do not agree on such things.
People can disagree all they want. There is one Truth, and I don't claim to have it - but the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does, so what can I say?
The passage of this Bill will change the lives of Canadians forever and for the worse. Changing the very foundation of society of course is an issue of cosmic proportions. It seeks to destroy the very thing that keeps our civilization alive. It waters down an institution that is one of the many things that puts us in direct contact with the Creator.
I do not claim to have the right answer, but I do claim obedience to the Entity that does.
Hm... I can's say I agree with the assertion that marriage is the foundation of society. I mean, doesn't the fact that societies came BEFORE marriage sort of preclude that idea?
Also, I think you DO claim to have the answer by translation... since you "claim obedience to the Entity that does." That doesn't really change anything though.
Societies existed before the STATE instituted marriage, but marriage itself (lifelong commitment between persons of the opposite sex who raised children together) has existed since the beginning.
I still disagree. I agree that lifelong commitment between persons of the opposite sex who raised children together has existed since the beginning of "society creation." I'm just not sure that lifelong commitment between persons of the same sex was uncommon though either. Perhaps no sex was involved, but our society is rooted upon the basis of commitments to another individual. Friends make up the backbone of society too - possibly more than a "marriage-type" situation. If all that existed was marriage, I would believe that society WOULD breakdown.
And more related, I don't think that instituting same-sex marriages will bring down or "destroy" society. Not only that, but the Church did not exist before marriages, did it? Oh I'm sure God existed always, that's for sure, but I really don't think that marriage is the foundation of society. Not at all. An important facet? Sure. Something upon which society rests itself? No way.
If you're sure that God existed always, then I suggest you reread the first two chapters of Genesis, where God creates mankind as "male and female" and asks them to be fruitful and multiply. Marriage is about sex and communion. Homosexuals simply do not fit into that category, no matter how great their friendship is.
Also, with a bit of exegetical work on Genesis, it is clear that the description of Creation very much transcends time. That is, the creative act of the eternal God established the communion of male and female as a means of being in communion with him. In the very depths of our personhood we are created "male and female."
Well, if God created man, then he must have existed before man, right? I'm not sure how that's supposed to refute my point that God existed always... (basically if God didn't exist always, then who created God?)
And fine, homosexuality does not fit into the category of procreation, - I have to agree with you there - but at the same time society will not simply collapse like you believe it will if we allow the STATE to recognize same-sex marriages. Last time I checked, that doesn't mean the Church has to recognize marriages, and if the Church and our relationship to the Lord is what holds us together as a society, then it shouldn't matter what the State does, as long as it does not impede our ability to worship and serve the Lord, right?
I personally don't CARE if same-sex marriages are recognized by the Church or the State, but that's not my point here. I am at odds with your position that it will somehow magically make society as we know it crumble.
Maybe gay/lesbian couples won't be in communion with the Lord, but that shouldn't affect society - only their position with the Lord.
It's the concept of marriage being just a relationship or friendship that will cause society to crumble. The State has traditionally recognized institutions that deserve special recognition and protection. Marriage (as defined between a man and a woman) deserves special recognition because it gives the State its citizens and creates stable and loving family structures. Homosexual unions cannot do this in a way that is beneficial to society, and therefore deserve no special recognition from the State.
More on this later tonight...
Becky, you're right on!
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this picture. Does it scare you?
Not scared - only sad. For them and for everyone who has been brainwashed into thinking that this is a civil rights issue.
Brainwashed?... I - just - can't - comment - anymore...
Getting - so - irrational...
Um - how about how Catholics are brainwashed and... oh nevermind.
Thanks becky, I am now starting to think that my friends who are Catholic are crazy as well. Way to really help out the Church.
The Church doesn't need my help. But if speaking it's Truth and the world does not comprehend it, well, there's not much more I can do.
But seriously...scared? What in the world would I be afraid of?
Most Catholics are crazy. Being obedient to Christ in His Church is, to the world, a very crazy thing to do. So if I'm crazy for being in love with the Truth of Christ, so be it. I shall wallow in my craziness.
I don't mean to belittle faith, for faith is a leap that we should all have in what we believe - no matter how much it transcends logic. I have faith in many things, except I think I make that leap of faith in a different direction or in a different way than you do. So don't get me wrong there, I can agree that faith is a bit crazy - we all are in some regard.
What IS crazy is closing your mind to analysis of your issues. If in discussing things like same-sex marriage does not cause you to change your view, then so be it - you can reaffirm and strengthen your belief in something as a result. The important thing to avoid is discussing without listening and trying to comprehend "the other side" of the issue at hand. Responding with assumptions and ignorance is something to be avoided.
The point is that you can respect and even agree on a few points for the other side of an issue without damaging your faith in a certain belief. Understanding what exactly you have a problem with about the other side is paramount to becoming a better person. I just hope that you have become a better person in this regard after our little, um... discussion... here. I also hope that you can now admit to understanding and agreeing on at least some of what I say.
I am horribly offended by your comment on brainwashing. I have not been "brainwashed" any more than you have, Becky. Hopefully you can understand that the reasons that I believe what I do stem from the same mechanism that cause you to believe in what you do. I know you believe you are right, but it is equally important to believe that I AM NOT WRONG. I don't believe your view is wrong, simply different and I fully admit that. How about you?
Cheers.
I actually think it's a whole lot more healthy for you to just believe that I'm wrong for now. It fosters better discussion. I DO think you're wrong, although you often make good points that help me to clarify my position in a better way.
If I sometimes retort or blow off comments, it's more because I don't have very much time to blog and also because I have so many discussion like these face to face with people that I forget what I haven't said on my blog. Also, I get tired of repeating the same things over and over...
I meant brainwashing specifically in reference to same-sex "marriage" being a civil rights issue. The media and various gay rights groups have worked very hard to try and frame it in this way, and I think that it could be akin to "brain-washing."
If not brainwashing, then I guess I have a civil point of discussion for you: If same-sex couples have an equal right to marriage, then how come a man and his 14-year old girlfriend can't also have marriage under a civil rights argument? We make an age requirement for marriage because it makes sense. Why not a "sex" requirement as well?
Well, point taken. But how are your feelings on "civil unions" as opposed to "marriage" with respect to same-sex couples? Essentially, I find that two people who love and live with each other in a sexual relationship be accorded the same rights and privileges.
Getting back to your point of discussion - I guess I'm not so opposed for "marriage" to be relegated to opposite-genedered, heterosexual couples, but "same-sex marriage" (let's call it that for now) relates to two consenting adults having a sexual and emotional relationship with one another. Both are the same at their core in terms of feelings, but they branch off from that point. Age limits makes sense based on the commitment involved, but I would argue that in this issue your hypothetical does not apply. The point we are disagreeing on is related ONLY on the fact that out of the two adults who want to marry each other, one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual. Again, age has something to do with capacity, and using that hypothetical would imply that somehow homosexual couples have no idea what they are getting into, much like a child.
So overall, I guess I'm not arguing for "marriage" to be recognized, but at least a "separate but equal" institution - by the powers of the State, since it disagrees with teachings of the Church. Love between two consenting adults is the same in both circumstances. How do you feel about that?
I know you believe it is a step in the wrong direction, but think about this: homosexuality has been around for a LONG LONG time. I would argue that homosexuality has not really "increased" since the period of the Romans and before, even though we seem to hype it in today's era. It won't disappear, it won't grow - it is simply something that will always be there. Therefore I don't possibly think that it would crumble our society if it hasn't for thousands of years.
Finally, I DO NOT think it is healthy for me to believe you are wrong, since if I do then I would be assuming that all of your points are wrong. THAT is not an assumption that I am willing to take, since I base my position on what I observe. While the issue is subjective, the information we get must be received with an objective mind. If not, then we are indeed close-minded and will get nowhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home