Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Stone Wall Awards; ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY
Topic Started: Friday, 2. November 2012, 09:35 (904 Views)
Penfold
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 11:14
I do not anticipate the State forcing priests to administer the Sacrament of Matrimony to same sex couples.
And that is the problem, people are only looking one or perhaps two steps ahead.
If the legal definition of marriage is changed then Anglican Ministers will not be allowed to refuse couples who are resident in their parish, a marriage ceremony for they have a legal obligation to marry those who seek to marry in their parish unless they have been married before or the union is within the legally prohibited bounds of consanguinity..

Quote:
 
http://www.peterboroughdiocesanregistry.co.uk/marriage.html#measure
Q: Is a clergyman obliged to marry a parishioner?
A: Yes, unless either (a) one of the parties is divorced and the former spouse is still living, or (b) the marriage is prohibited by law owing to the relationship of the parties, or (c) one of the parties is a minor and the appropriate consent or consents have not been given.


Read this article it is a reasonable summery of the Anglican position that many fear will result in a change in the definition of marriage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/gay-marriage-anglican-church-warning


As regards Gay Clergy currently in civil partnerships they are being posted into parishes and institutions against the wishes of many of their colleagues who are being obliged to work with them by their bishops because the law does not permit it to be otherwise, for not to work with then would violate civil legislation concerning equality in the workplace.
Change the definition of marriage and you alter a great many other aspects of society and its relationship to marriage.

The adoption agency in Leeds thought it was protected because the definition of "Family" was understood to be, father, mother and children, it had not recognised that the law had changed the definition to include couples were their is a Father and father, mother and mother. It has lost all appeals.

Rose you may not support a change in the law or Gay Marriage but you have pilloried Cardinal O'Brien who is one of the few prominent clerics of any faith who has had the integrity to publicly speak out against it.
Quote:
 
Cardinal O'Brien asked for what he got.


OSB your personal struggle is something that most on this forum recognise and we accept you and admire the contributions you make and all that you do on this forum behind the scenes as a moderator but... I can not accept that homosexuallity is anything other than a sin. Nothing I can do and nothing you can say will change that for it is not in my gift to change this though the churches position has embraced the fundamental concept that we love a person regardless of their sin. It is unfortunate that being homosexual marks you out as more identifiable than those of us whose sins are internal, those who are envious and jealous, those who are greedy and selfish and those who are unforgiving, to name just a few silent and private sins many on this forum will be guilty of. If I were to meet you in town and not know you I would have no reason to know or ask about your sexual orientation or activity any more than I would ask about that of any forum member, however some forum members may wear a wedding ring, that will tell me they are in a relationship with a person of the opposite gender but it will not tell me if they are hetrosexual, homosexual or bisexual. I am unhappy with those who broadcast their sexual behaviour and conduct their private lives in public, whatever their sexual orientation. I do however respect those who chose to remain private and who try to live a chaste and sober life. Chastity is something all are called to even within marriage, out of respect for themselves and for their partner. I am now wandering into the domain covered by Humanae Vitae. A chaste homosexual is wrestling with the same passions and lust as anyone else with one exception, the object of their lusts and passions. The sins of lust and envy that a celibate hetrosexual commits in their dreams and fantasies are no less sinful than those of a celibate homosexual. But celibacy is regarded by many as a deviancy from the norm because people do not like to be reminded of their own obligation to chastity of thought, word and deed and that sexual intercause and congress is restricted to the marital relationship and is intended as a means of procreation. However if I were a Bigot I would refuse to have dealings with almost all the people I meet for in truth few people are able to live up to the ideal. However I like the Cardinal must not cease to remind people of what that Ideal is and to ensure that were we can we protect the laws and customs that recognise that the Ideal is Shared by the Society in which we live. If society truly wish to change those laws then, as Cardinal O'Brien has stated, let them be asked to vote on the matter in a referendum. Stonewall accuse him of being a Bigot for seeking to allow people the freedom to exercise their democratic choice. Stonewall do not want an open and free discussion. They may have welcomed you and given you solace and support and that is good but then a bar and and off licence will welcome an alcoholic, that does not mean I will close down a bar or shut the off licence but it does mean very simply, beware of who your friends are.
Edited by Penfold, Sunday, 4. November 2012, 10:25.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Penfold
 
I can not accept that homosexuallity is anything other than a sin
Wrong. All sexual activity other than that between a man and his wife is sinful. Homosexuality is not a sin. Sexual activity whether solitary or between umarried people is. This is (I accept well-meaningly) typical of the confused thinking and pronouncements of Catholics. It leads to a number of unintentionally offensive observations.

I am not a sinner because I am a homosexual. The two are not synonymonous. But repeatedly it is spoken and written of as if it were. I am sick of it.

Jesus accepts me as Bernard, who is all sorts of things including homosexual and (like everyone else from the Pope down) a sinner. I look forward to the day when this is widely understood and emulated.

(NB This is really not ad hominem about you, Penfold. It is ad causam and in ecclesiam.)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I understand that the actual topic of this thread was discussed on BBC1's Sunday Morning Live (10 a.m.). I will watch it when it becomes available on iPlayer later today.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
OsullivanB
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 12:23
Penfold
 
I can not accept that homosexuallity is anything other than a sin
Wrong. All sexual activity other than that between a man and his wife is sinful. Homosexuality is not a sin. Sexual activity whether solitary or between umarried people is. This is (I accept well-meaningly) typical of the confused thinking and pronouncements of Catholics. It leads to a number of unintentionally offensive observations.

I am not a sinner because I am a homosexual. The two are not synonymonous. But repeatedly it is spoken and written of as if it were. I am sick of it.
There must be a lot of celibate homosexual people who are sick to death of people making assumptions about their behaviour and make intentionally or unintenionally offensive observations. Some, when they meet a man or woman who openly states they are homosexual by nature, jump to the conclusion they are homosexually active, and condemn the person for doing something they might not be doing.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 10:21
Rose of York
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 11:14
I do not anticipate the State forcing priests to administer the Sacrament of Matrimony to same sex couples.
And that is the problem, people are only looking one or perhaps two steps ahead.
If the legal definition of marriage is changed then Anglican Ministers will not be allowed to refuse couples who are resident in their parish, a marriage ceremony for they have a legal obligation to marry those who seek to marry in their parish unless they have been married before or the union is within the legally prohibited bounds of consanguinity.
I know all that, Penfold, but we are not Anglicans. If the law is changed to allow same sex couples to be "married" in the eyes of the state that will not mean they may receive the Sacrament of Matrimony. If and when (as it most likely will) happen, the chances are there will be a significant exodust of Anglo Catholic priests from the Church of England. Anglo Catholics believe there are seven sacraments, including marriage. Obviously you will know that, but some people arranging to be married by their local vicar will not know a thing about sacraments. The vicar will have a choice, to obey the state or obey God.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 09:35
I do not by any means agree with or approve of everything Stonewall does and has done. But it spoke for me when few others did. And it was the only organisation that did so.
Sadly, I think that is a negative reflection on our Church as much, if not more, than a positive reflection on Stonewall. An all too common pattern nowadays where secular organisations are giving people what they are not getting from our Church.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I cannot see from the New Testament any evidence that Jesus mentioned homosexuality at all , neither for or against. Nor can I see any evidence that he elevated heterosexual marriage to the sort of iconic status which the Church bestows on it today. In fact, he is remarkably silent about sexual matters of any kind and I think he is not too bothered about these issues which to my mind have absolutely nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

My comments about the competence of Cardinal O' Brien I will reserve for the alternative forum to spare administrators any embarrassment

John
***********************************************
Edit:
It takes a lot to embarass me. All you have to do is observe forum rules.
:admin:

Rose of York
:rofl:
Edited by Rose of York, Monday, 5. November 2012, 03:29.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 12:23
Penfold
 
I can not accept that homosexuallity is anything other than a sin
Wrong. All sexual activity other than that between a man and his wife is sinful. Homosexuality is not a sin. Sexual activity whether solitary or between umarried people is. This is (I accept well-meaningly) typical of the confused thinking and pronouncements of Catholics. It leads to a number of unintentionally offensive observations.

I am not a sinner because I am a homosexual. The two are not synonymonous. But repeatedly it is spoken and written of as if it were. I am sick of it.

Jesus accepts me as Bernard, who is all sorts of things including homosexual and (like everyone else from the Pope down) a sinner. I look forward to the day when this is widely understood and emulated.

(NB This is really not ad hominem about you, Penfold. It is ad causam and in ecclesiam.)
my apologies Bernard. You are correct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 17:47
Penfold
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 10:21
Rose of York
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 11:14
I do not anticipate the State forcing priests to administer the Sacrament of Matrimony to same sex couples.
And that is the problem, people are only looking one or perhaps two steps ahead.
If the legal definition of marriage is changed then Anglican Ministers will not be allowed to refuse couples who are resident in their parish, a marriage ceremony for they have a legal obligation to marry those who seek to marry in their parish unless they have been married before or the union is within the legally prohibited bounds of consanguinity.
I know all that, Penfold, but we are not Anglicans. If the law is changed to allow same sex couples to be "married" in the eyes of the state that will not mean they may receive the Sacrament of Matrimony. If and when (as it most likely will) happen, the chances are there will be a significant exodust of Anglo Catholic priests from the Church of England. Anglo Catholics believe there are seven sacraments, including marriage. Obviously you will know that, but some people arranging to be married by their local vicar will not know a thing about sacraments. The vicar will have a choice, to obey the state or obey God.


Rose if the law is changed then all religions will be affected, as has been demonstrated in all walks of chaplaincy in government departments be it education, hospitals, prisons or the military, if the Established Church is not protected against the secular agencies then none of us are.

Quote:
 
The vicar will have a choice, to obey the state or obey God.
At the moment, when conducting a marriage, the vicar has the constitutional right to do both are you content to deny the vicar that constitutional freedom.
Edited by Penfold, Monday, 5. November 2012, 10:19.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Monday, 5. November 2012, 10:16
Rose if the law is changed then all religions will be affected, as has been demonstrated in all walks of chaplaincy in government departments be it education, hospitals, prisons or the military, if the Established Church is not protected against the secular agencies then none of us are.

Quote:
 
The vicar will have a choice, to obey the state or obey God.
At the moment, when conducting a marriage, the vicar has the constitutional right to do both are you content to deny the vicar that constitutional freedom.
Did I give the impression I would be content for the vicar to be denied any constitutional freedom?

If legislation is passed permitting same sex "marriages" do you think Catholic priests would be bound by the laws of England and Wales to administer to them the Sacrament of Matrimony if our dioceses opt out of marriage registering for state purposes?

Any government that passes such legislation will face the wrath of most muslims, Christians, Jews and many people of other faiths or none. I anticipate landslide election victories for politicians who speak out against it.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

The problem is that it is to late to tell vote out an MP after the law has been changed. The campaign starts now and our MPs must be left in no doubt that this proposed change in legislation is unacceptable. I am tiered of things being declared legal or illegal without proper consultation and debate and all Cardinal O'Brien is doing is insisting that that debate takes place and that we are not left with having to fight a reversal of a law that should never have been brought in. Stonewall do not want the debate, and want the law to be passed on the nod with minimum consultation and any member of the Scottish Parliament who votes against or threatens to vote against will be targeted and labelled as a Bigot. The minority rules because the majority remain silent. It is time to speak, the sadness is that this is not about acceptance or rejection of homosexuals it is about accepting that marriage is no longer to be regarded as a bond between a man and a woman. This may not matter to some of you, but why should we return to the pre-1838 days were Catholic Marriages, and all those not conducted by the Church of England, were not recognised by the state. The emancipation of Catholics in the UK in 1833 was just a step towards Catholic acceptance in society, do we really want to reverse these freedoms, do we really want to allow the drift to secularism to continue unchallenged and unabated. But this bigger debate is perhaps to much for this forum, The stonewall award of Bigot to Cardinal O'Brien is just and indicator of a wider malaise that is destroying our religious heritage and freedom. I am saddened, but not surprised that people seem to think it acceptable for them to insult the cardinal in this way and angry that some of you are even going so far as to condone them by saying the Cardinal has got what he deserves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

I support the Scottish Cardinal on this issue.
I just thought it was a mistake to respond in like kind to Stonewall.
I also signed the various petitions on the UK consultation indicating my disagreement with Camerons own proposals.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I signed Coalition for Marriage petition.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"If legislation is passed permitting same sex "marriages" do you think Catholic priests would be bound by the laws of England and Wales to administer to them the Sacrament of Matrimony if our dioceses opt out of marriage registering for state purposes?"

Just a reminder Rose that we should be clear in our own minds that it would be quite impossible for our priests to administer to them the Sacrament of Matrimony - I mean in the Sacramental sense. Further in terms of the participants - irrespective of the location and the officials, scenery etc. - only they can effect the Sacrament and only then if said participants are male and female.

The state has the clerical power to issue marriage certificates, some of which will be Sacramental and some of which will not be. And any between same-sex will not be Sacramental whatever the state may say - or more likely understand of even less.

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Josephine
Member Avatar

For what it's worth:

In France, a couple is married in a civil ceremony at the Mairie (Mayor's Office, Town Hall)

and then may (or may not, according to choice) go to church (or other religious building according to faith)

for their religious ceremony.

I think that what is happening in our country now is the thin end of a wedge and we may well end up, in future,
with a system resembling the French one.

Would that be such a bad thing?

Would such a system ease the pressure on religious bodies to conform with the secular idea of marriage?

At present, as far as I am aware, at least one member of a couple has to be Catholic for a wedding in a Catholic church.

Does this requirement "protect" Catholic priests from the pressures which are coming to the Church of England?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply