Sat 1st Nov 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Latest News

Two women and a man enter a civil partnership in Brazil

By on Thursday, 30 August 2012

Newlyweds pose for a photo (Photo: AP)

Newlyweds pose for a photo (Photo: AP)

Two women and a man have entered into a civil partnership in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo.

Legal recognition of the three-way relationship follows a decision by the Latin American country to extend civil partnerships to same-sex couples.

Previously, the law regulating “stable unions” existed solely for heterosexual couples who were cohabiting.

It meant that they had rights of inheritance if one of them died and that there were rules on the division of property and estate if a relationship broke down.

But the relaxation of the rules has led to the three people being registered as a stable union in Brazil for the first time after the notary said she could find no objections.

She told local media that she “went to investigate if there was some legal impediment, and I verified that there wasn’t. I couldn’t recuse myself from notarising the declaration.”

The Brazilian Family Institute, which openly supports both polygamous and same-sex unions, welcomed the decision.

“We have to respect the private nature of relationships and learn to live in this pluralistic society recognising different desires,” said the group’s vice-president.

British sociologist Patricia Morgan, who specialises in family policy and criminology, said she was not surprised by the ruling, adding that similar attempts have been made in the Netherlands.

She that the proliferation of a range of relationships that will be legally considered equal to marriage was inevitable once the institution had been redefined.

“In the Netherlands to be equal they opened up civil partnerships to heterosexuals as well as to gays but then found that there were these three-in-a-bed relationships that were seeking legal recognition,” she said.

“I think it is all part of the cause,” she said. “Once you break away from one man and one woman, what do you expect?

“This is the traditional regenerative relationship. Once you allow two men [to wed], where are your boundaries?

“People say this won’t happen but where does it stop? You are going to get polygamy from Muslims, aren’t you?

“People are simply shutting their eyes if they think that this is not going to happen,” she said.

Part of the problem, she added, was the modern view of marriage as a “couple relationship” based on subjective definitions of “love”.

This was to the exclusion of its wider purpose as a public contract serving the common good by supporting the procreation and education of future generations.

In Britain, the Scottish Parliament last month announced that it intended to legalise gay marriage, with the first ceremonies expected to be held in 2015.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said he is “absolutely determined” to bring forward gay marriage laws for England and Wales “in this Parliament”.

The issue of gay marriage has prompted many Conservative Party activists to leave the party or refusing to renew their membership, according to press reports, with membership down by 60 per cent since 2005.

The mainstream Christian churches as well as Muslim, Jewish and Sikh leaders are opposed to the proposals.

  • nytor

    “You are going to get polygamy from Muslims, aren’t you?”

    Well quite.

     “the Scottish Parliament has already legislated for gay marriage”

    I’m sure it hasn’t. It’s had a consultation, but that’s all.

  • paulpriest

    What’s wrong with it?

    I’m serious – don’t forget we have the ‘illustrious’ Catholic Voices telling us the only problem with Civil Partnerships is their exclusivity to SSA couples…

    Of course we have timeless magisterial teaching and direct orders from the CDF, His Holiness & even our Conference of Bishops [republishing their 2003 provisional deposition in Dec '11 thus making it precedential] that we must strongly oppose Civil Partnerships…

    …so to whom do we listen?

    …and Mr Caldwell I’m afraid Ms Morgan is very much mistaken in believing a ‘subjective relationship based on love’ is the MODERN view of marriage.

    It’s timeless Catholic teaching – straight out of Matthew’s Gospel – reiterated by Aquinas!

    The Basis/Purpose of Marriage is LOVE!

    [NOT [as yet again Catholic Voices repeatedly state] “the bearing and raising of children”]

    The AIM/END of Marriage is for that Love to overflow into being open to receive the Gift of Life from God  and forming a Loving Union of separate persons sharing in one Loving Family nature – thus reflecting the Trinitarian nature of Love within the Godhead.

    Please do not veer from Catholic teaching  by implying the purpose of Marriage is anything but Love itself – for it gravely scandalises and offends those among our neighbours who enter into marriage either infertile or menopausal – whom live out marriage’s purpose but through no fault of their own are limited from achieving its normative end.

  • teigitur

    Indeed, had a consultation which it is ignoring. Sham.

  • teigitur

    Be interesting to see if this is reported in the mainstream media.

  • JabbaPapa

    The inevitable end result of all this incoherent nonsense is that cuivil marriage will be legislated into oblivion, and the only recognisable form of marriage remaining will be the religious.

  • The Catholic Herald

    nytor – Thank you for that. The article has been amended. 

  • Simon Caldwell

    PaulPriest – Direct quotes should be used to repeat verbatim what the person has said not to rephrase a quote to give it a different meaning.

    Sure, marriage is based on a love. But what Patricia Morgan is saying is that all kinds of relationships are being justified on the basis that those involved are in love. What do we say about the man who ‘loves’ his mistress, the incestuous uncle who ‘loves’ his niece, a man with a ‘love’ for horses? Where do you draw the line. This brings us to the point of the paragraph which has scandalised you. It refers to ‘subjective’ interpretations of ‘love’ which may not flow from God but might have more to do with infatuations, self-gratification, self-serving relationships, egoism and suchlike. How do we distinguish one from the other?

    Here’s the original paragraph:

    Part of the problem, she added, was the modern view of marriage as a
    “couple relationship” based on subjective definitions of “love”.

  • Lazarus

    Aquinas is quite clear that the natural law basis of marriage is (ceteris paribus) procreation (eg):

    ‘Now it is evident that the upbringing of a human child requires not only the mother’s care for his nourishment, but much more the care of his father as guide and guardian, and under whom he progresses in goods both internal and external. Hence human nature rebels against an indeterminate union of the sexes and demands that a man should be united to a determinate woman and should abide with her a long time or even for a whole lifetime. Hence it is that in the human race the male has a natural solicitude for the certainty of offspring, because on him devolves the upbringing of the child: and this certainly would cease if the union of sexes were indeterminate.  ‘ This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for the above reason is said to belong to the natural law.’ (STh IIa IIae, q154, a2, resp).

    The issue is more fully developed (albeit not by Aquinas himself ) in the supplement to the Summa, (eg) a2, resp.: ‘I answer that, Nature inclines to marriage with a certain good in view, which good varies according to the different states of man, wherefore it was necessary for matrimony to be variously instituted in the various states of man in reference to that good. Consequently matrimony as directed to the begetting of children, which was necessary even when there was no sin, was instituted before sin; according as it affords a remedy for the wound of sin, it was instituted after sin at the time of the natural law; its institution belongs to the Mosaic Law as regards personal disqualifications; and it was instituted in the New Law in so far as it represents the mystery of Christ’s union with the Church, and in this respect it is a sacrament of the New Law. As regards other advantages resulting from matrimony, such as the friendship and mutual services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law. Since, however, a sacrament is essentially a sign and a remedy, it follows that the nature of sacrament applies to matrimony as regards the intermediate institution; that it is fittingly intended to fulfill an office of nature as regards the first institution; and. as regards the last-mentioned institution, that it is directed to fulfill an office of society.’

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Brazilians leave the Church, become apostates. This is what follows.

  • paulpriest

     Lazarus – have you actually read what you’ve posted?

    Do you understand the difference between a purpose/nature [form/species] & an aim/end [operation]

    The first perfection [PURPOSE] is in what marriage is – a spiritual union
    The second perfection [AIM] is in its operation and direction towards its telos – pro-Creation

    Summa Theologica: Part Three: Question 29 Part 2:

    I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

    QED I think….

  • paulpriest

     I know – and apologise for the paraphrasing [unintentional - just on palmtop] – but it’s a crucial point in the alleged ‘defence against redefinition of marriage’

    We have so-called defenders appearing on the media saying the purpose of marriage is having and raising kids as if we’re breeding cattle where any love in the relationship is secondary and even though a criterion it isn’t the priority [almost allying itself to eastern notions in arranged marriages where love is exigent and may come later but it isn't mandatory]

    This is NOT Catholic teaching and never was!

    It also leads to ludicrous comments e.g. that of your fellow blog-poster Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith spoke of the ‘awkwardness’ of marrying infertile couples!!!??

    YE GODS!!!

    Marriage is about Love and its overflowing into new Life.

    Same-sex unions are intrinsically akin to to the extrinsically contracepting heterosexual ones…they deny the telos of the union and are therefore operating towards their own ends and the love is compromised/jeopardised by it [where the infertile/menopausal marriage isn't]

    If we don’t get this right we screw up any chance of being treated with any respect – we’ll be seen as hypocritical, inauthentic and insincere and ultimately merely homophobic…

    [which is EXACTLY what happened during the adoption agencies debacle where most orthodox Catholics were attempting to argue the nature of the spiritual union in marriage overflowing into a single loving bonded union within the family and the necessity of that unified committed bond between a single-parent & child or a married couple-child - ONLY TO DISCOVER that our own adoption agencies had screwed us over by adopting kids to unmarried heterosexual couples - and that technically the dioceses WERE BEING HOMOPHOBIC & hypocritical by excluding SS couples!!!]

    We’re sick of having the foundations of any argument pulled up from under us by those who should know better…and frankly the most pathetic, ludicrous, scandalous of stunts being presently pulled is by those who claim to be against the redefinition of marriage when they’re the ones redefining it themselves in order to win a petty media battle but lose the war!

  • Lazarus

    Before we drown in properly/improperly used scholastic terminology, perhaps we should take a step back.

    The part of your original post that needs glossing is your claim, ‘The Basis/Purpose of Marriage is LOVE! [NOT [as yet again Catholic Voices repeatedly state] “the bearing and raising of children”]’.

    I put aside the question of CV as I have absolutely no interest in pursuing that here.

    So we are left with your claim: ‘The basis/purpose of marriage is love, not the bearing and raising of children.’

    It’s quite clear that Aquinas thinks that the natural good served by marriage is the procreation and the upbringing of children. (This after all is the account you’ll find in Aristotle’s Politics of the origin of the household on which Aquinas is basing his account.) That this good -and its contribution to the natural end of human beings- is to be understood only fully in terms of the supernatural end of human beings is a given. But since awareness of the supernatural end is established by revelation, this fuller awareness of the good of marriage is not perhaps a particularly good basis for dialogue with secularized society.

    Again, take a step back. You may think that CV is wrong to emphasize the good of bearing and raising children: that’s a tactical question and it’s one I won’t get into here. But it’s clearly a mistake to say that, in principle, Aquinas would have rejected the bearing and raising children as one reason for keeping marriage as an institution for one man and one woman -and, moreover, a reason better suited to comprehension by unaided natural reason than reliance on reference to revealed truths about our final end.

  • JabbaPapa

    You’re falsely assuming that the “gay marriage” lobby is at all interested in taking any counter-arguments seriously in the first place.

  • paulpriest

    Why are you arguing against what I’m not saying?
    I’m not dismissing procreation or child-rearing – I’m attributing it with its more appropriate designation & role [as in the hierarchy of the Nicomachean ethics [the second perfection greater than the first]

    I’ve given you every hint as to the major problems – and how the present strategy is untenable in that it’s grounded in a lie…

    So what’s the solution?

    How do we oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ on secularist terms?

    You may be in for a little shock…

    Here’s the crux – How can the ever-chaste Our Lady & St Joseph be married when two men or two women can’t be? Or can they?

  • paulpriest

     Why do you think I give two hoots what the gay lobby think?

    I’m caring about what Catholics are thinking!!!

    ..and how far too many of them are either sympathetic towards same-sex marriage  for the right reasons [which our commentators are lying about]
    ..or against them for all the wrong reasons [which are commentators are fallaciously promoting [even if subversively]

    ..and you have both sides thinking the Church is being cold, insensitive, uncharitable and heartless – and being condemned/praised accordingly!

    Why can’t two men or two women get married?

    Want to know the secret that nobody dare say?

    It’s because they can’t make love!!!

    They can only mutually masturbate…irresepctive of all the affections,desires, good intentions and spiritual longings/yearnings..they can’t make love!

    Lovemaking is a physical-spiritual holistic ‘sacramental’ rite where – as St Paul reminds us – we are most Godlike

    It doesn’t matter how many kama sutra contortions or multiple orgasms are involved – it’s not lovemaking if it’s not heterosexual and open to life

    Catholic moral teaching is so simple that a kid can understand it – unfortunately it’s the adults who have to talk about it – and they really don’t want to offend anyone with such awkward incivilities as telling people the truth…

    For instance: Can you imagine Jack Valero or Austen Ivereigh going on News 24 and making that argument?

    Of course not!
    Even though it’s the only real answer and every other one is wrapped in deceit or fallacy or misrepresentation or hellbound good intentions or bigotted offence…

    So we have to lie to SS couples and say “You can’t get married because the purpose of marriage is having kids”

    because telling them “marriage is about expressing love to its fullest in lovemaking -  and you can’t make love!” would start the fists flying….

  • JabbaPapa

    Why do you think I give two hoots what the gay lobby think?

    I’m caring about what Catholics are thinking!!!

    Ah !! OK, then I missed that, sorry !!!

  • RDmische

     Why does the Herald let this gentleman pollute its comment boxes with reams of detraction and poorly-argued gibberish? It’s annoying.

  • Yuf

    It’s been in the mainstream media for the past couple of days. E.g. here

  • Jeannine

    After reading in the media a few yrs ago about a woman “marrying” a dolpin, this 2 women, 1 man civil marriage seems rather normal to me.

  • Lazarus

    I’ll post the following simply so that others who are interested can be assured that a defence of marriage based on procreation is not un-Thomist. I’m not at all interested in getting into an online scrap with well-intentioned, if peppery, fellow Catholics.

    ‘The family is natural in perhaps an even stronger sense and is prior to political society…The human family comes into existence from the nearly universal tendency of males and females joining together for purposes of procreation. Humans share with other animals (and even plants) a “natural appetite to leave after them another being like themselves,” (Commentary on the Politics, Book 1, Lesson 1 [18]) and immediately see the utility if not the necessity of both parents remaining available to provide for the needs of the children and one another.’  

    Internet encyclopedia of philosophy:

    This human tendency is the natural law written in our hearts, and this natural law is the eternal, divine law insofar as it is comprehensible to reason unaided by revelation. Of course, there is more to say regarding the hard cases such as the marriage of Our Lady and St Joseph. But to acknowledge that is not to overturn the basis of marriage in natural law, nor to rule out a defence of marriage based on that natural law as ‘a lie’. 

  • paulpriest

    Ok for the last time will you please stop misrepresenting what I’m saying – I AM NOT arguing against either procreation or child-rearing as intrinsic to the normative operation of that living love in marriage – so why do you keep saying I am?

    The LIE to which I refer is the distortion of the very nature of marriage which has procreation as the purpose of it rather than its end; unifying love being an arbitrary secondary concern.

  • Lazarus

    If I’ve misrepresented you, then it was unintentional and I apologize.

  • paulpriest

    I agree!

    Dashed uncivilised of me.

    Such lack of sensitivity and decorum is highly inappropriate on these threads; where we should exercise due diligence in respect and conformity to the present regime with its prevailing ethos, praxis and argot.

    Authentic Catholic teaching on Love, marriage and the family can look after itself…

    …and when Tatchell, Summerskill, Nelson etc get their own way and Holy Mother Church is told by the British Government it’s forbidden to participate in the Civil Marriage process because it won’t conform to equality legislation?

    …our Leaders, Quangocrats, Commentators will bewail their lot and blame everybody else; all claiming they did everything they could to prevent it

    Does anyone doubt that within two years same-sex marriage will be on the statute books?
    So why are our religious leaders and their spokespersons engaging in this phoney conflict?

    We’re not defending marriage – we’re just posturing so that when the dust settles there’ll be no real harm done and those officially delegated to ‘defend’ the faith can continue to do so unabated; not tarnished by the social awkwardness of long-term antipathy from third parties

    “We’ve already lost – so let’s not let our loss have any consequences which might compromise our cosy place within the establishment.

    It’s all shadow-boxing…a masquerade just to save face.

    Heaven forfend that anyone should think we really believe what we say!

    Hence something really ought to be done about that awkwardness north of the Border…
    How dare that reckless dolt Cardinal O’Brien actually stand up for what he believes!
    Is he mad?!!
    Doesn’t he realise the consequences of this religious fervour!!?

    Better to dissociate ourselves utterly and be seen to have nothing to do with the issue. After all, we don’t want to jeopardise our reputations for impartiality and pastoral sensitivity”

  • awkwardcustomer

    How can you be so incredibly rude?

  • scary goat

    I know this is going to sound a bit strange, but in a way this is exactly why I was against the Church fighting against secular “gay marriage” in the first place.  Secular marriage is already so far removed from sacramental marriage that it really doesn’t make any difference. I got myself into trouble here before by mentioning the “slippery slope” idea, and what about people who “love” their dog etc.  The gay people here at the time were most offended.  To me, it seems like a fairly obvious “parental tactic” to sometimes say “oh, go on then! do whatever you like”. Sometimes you can explain till you are black in the face and the kids still say….but why not? That (whatever it is) won’t happen! Sometimes, when they won’t listen, you have to let them do it…..then wait for them to come back crying when it’s all gone wrong. Then make them take responsibility for the consequences. (preferably in situations which do not have dire consequences!) But these are adults, not children, and they probably need to learn the hard way, although it’s pretty dire.

    I think it is a mistake for the Church to make “strange bedfellows” with, for example, muslims on the subject of “gay marriage” because we are not on the same page regarding marriage anyway.  I believe the Church should make its own position clear on marriage, but beyond that, let them get on with it.  The secularists are not going to listen to us anyway, and we are taking a bashing for the Church trying to interfere in “state” affairs.  I feel that our position should be: WE believe this. We don’t agree with “gay marriage” because a, b and c.  Let them carry on till it all becomes total chaos, then when they are all thoroughly disgusted with the long term consequences, a couple of generations on into the future, the pendulum will swing and then it’s up to the Church to shine as a light to the world.  A light shines brightest when it is the darkest.

    Sorry, but they don’t want to listen. They are determined. So let them go down the slippery slope.  Let them have gay marriage, polygamy…..each will lead to the next step….human/animal marriage.etc.  The excesses of this generation will backfire on subsequent generations until people start looking for where it all went wrong.  They might trace it back to where “love” became “sex” and all meaning was lost. 

    We need some good catechesis going on for our own young, and we need to be visible….high profile…with our beliefs for all the world to see, but I don’t think we should interfere.  t may sound callous….I prefer to see it as “tough love”.

  • awkwardcustomer

    You’re absolutely right.  There is a determined effort not to address the issue of sodomy and all the other stuff.  Meanwhile the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 1867 has this to say:

    ‘…there are sins which cry to heaven…’  and these include ‘…..the sin of the Sodomites…’.

    Maybe the trolls will do something useful for a change and report the CCC under the hate crime legislation, thereby bringing the issue out into the open for once.  Meena, where are you?

  • scary goat

     Exactly.  Bring it on.

  • Parasum

     “This is NOT Catholic teaching and never was!”

    ## Unfortunately, the Magisterium has done a very good job of giving the impression that procreating “like cattle” (or should that be “like rabbits” ?) is the most important feature of a Catholic marriage; with “the mutual society of the spouses” being of distinctly secondary importance. It’s a very demeaning & unChristian notion of marriage.

    So if there is a problem here, it is of the Magisterium’s making. STM it is a bit sick-making for a bunch of fossilised geriatrics (which is what most of them are), who have never married & never had to bother with bringing up a family, to tell (or rather, to dictate to) the laity how we should live. It is very “unfitting” of them to hold forth & dictate on matters for which they don’t have to take any responsibility whatever, and of which they have a purely theoretical knowledge. Theory is a very poor preparation for reality, but they seem not to “get” that.

    “We’re sick of having the foundations of any argument pulled up from under us by those who should know better…”

    ## I know the feeling :(

  • Parasum

    “They can only mutually masturbate…irresepctive of all the
    affections,desires, good intentions and spiritual
    longings/yearnings..they can’t make love!”

    ## Then why do the Church authorities insist that the BVM & St. Joseph never engaged in coitus ? Allegedly – but how do the CAs know this ? – they did not. Therefore, coitus is not needed in marriage. It is repulsive to suggest that without coitus there cannot be love. And those who are not gay are not qualified to talk about those who are, as they know – to coin a phrase – “sod all” about what they are talking. Gay Catholics can love one another perfectly well, TYVM; not everyone is as obsessed with genitalia as the Church’s authorities seem to be. A case of displacement, perhaps – not having “had any”, they “want some”, but can’t get past thinking of marriage as a form of plumbing, since they have never been married. They probably can’t believe women are really human, or anything more than incubators for fresh Catholics. So it’s no surprise if they think gay people are fit only to be suppressed: Sanctimonious Mother Church is quite happy to try deny them legal protection victimisation or murder. It has tried hard enough to kill  them in the past. Rome was not quick to object to the Ugandan anti-gay bill; that shows how much Rome’s hot air about compassion & human dignity is really worth.

    The Church authorities should either drop their almost pornographic obsession with the sex-lives of the BVM & St. Joseph, or quit dogmatising about matters of which they cannot possibly have any info whatever. It is simply idiotic that a bunch of ecclesiastics with hang-ups about sex should ever have been allowed to settle for millions of Christians yet to be born that: (1) Jesus had no siblings (2) His mother never copulated with her husband (3) His mother was a virgin for the entirety of her life, even before, during, and after parturition. If people wanted to be allowed to believe that, bully for them: but to dogmatise it & make it obligatory for all the Church for all time to come, was stupid. It makes no sense that normally-constituted, non-eunuchoid, sexually mature, married couples not withered or incapacitated by age should be expected to find (the CC’s version of) the BVM & St.Joseph convincing models for people who are expected by the CAs to propagate like bunny-rabbits. This is the Church that has dogmatically defined that virginity is superior to marriage – how can the bishops talk any sense about married life ? Everything is designed to ensure they are clueless on these matters. Including the seminary system. The laity, not the bishops, are the authorities on sex & marriage. It’s high time the bishops shut up & listened to us.

  • Marco

    As a Brazilian I know how this circus got started. They took away Catholicism from a Catholic country and gave it the new Protestant style mass and Liberation Theology. The combination of Marxist ideas with a watered down catholicism then resulted in a society that couldn’t find much wrong with anything other than poverty. Soon polygamy, incest and bestiality will be legalized because we have lost any sense of objective standards or strong arguments to support them.  In this chaos we will return to the barbarism of pre-christian societies unless strong objective standards based on truth and reason are revived.

  • paulpriest

     Parasum – ironically in the middle of all that you’ve [perhaps inadvertently] argued against what the Church never taught and for what the Church has always taught…failing to realise that it’s only the present bunch of reprobates in their ‘redefining argument against redefinition’ who have introduced a paradigm which doesn’t exist!

    Certainly you’ve jumped to all manner of fallacious and simply factually untrue conclusions. and in the process accused the Church of saying and doing what it simply hasn’t said or done…but you’ll find that the Church argues in defence of Love in Marriage’s nature and end and hence that’s why it cannot call homosexual activity lovemaking and calls them to celibate disaffected ‘friendship’ where the second perfection can be exemplified.

    Why don’t you read what Aquinas said on why Our Lady & St Joseph [ST III 29 2a] were truly married plus His Holiness on the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals?

    Certainly you may disagree with the conclusions but I think you’ll find that it’s not the Church which is causing so much grave offence to people with SSA but those who are claiming to be defending Marriage when they’re actually dismantling and destroying what it truly is….

  • paulpriest

     You have nothing about which to apologise – I’m fully aware that you’re merely defending marriage but my point is that your arguments are all directed towards the operation towards the second perfection in the AIM of Marriage  – not in its Nature/Purpose.; it’s when we confuse the two prnciples that we get into all manner of chaos and gravely offend and scandalise those who are exemplifying their marital love to its fullest extent but cannot receive God’s gift of life.

  • LocutusOP

     I agree to some extent, although the Church exists to promote the common good. If legal recognition of marriage affirms the reality of marriage – which it ought to do – then the church has an obligation to keep it that way. It is not a Christian ideal to smile as the world implodes and they shout “I told you so”.

    Of course, there is another issue as well…In that legal recognition of non-marriages as marriages puts the church and its members in a very precarious situation, whereby we can now be incarcerated or fined out of existence unless we conform to the lie that all relationships hold equal value.

    So the Church – and frankly, anybody who accepts reality -  is obligated for various reasons to campaign against laws which would lead either to social implosion or legalised persecution for those who think that government exists to affirm reality and not to oppose it.

  • LocutusOP

     Well put.

    There is far too much timidity by those who want to affirm the nature of marriage, and some brutal honest truth would certainly be in order.

  • LocutusOP

     I quite agree….But that assumes that there will be any religious surviving given there is a determined effort to use this issue to force the religious underground.

  • Parasum

    Bad idea. That would wrong those who did not want to be bothered by religion. Besides, which religion ? Once they have dealt with the common enemy, allies often fall out: especially if, without the enemy to unite them, they have been bashing each other.

    Only those who adhere to a religion, should have to bother with its doctrines & disciplines; a point conceded in practice by every Catholic who has ever complained about how Christians in certain countries are *dhimmi*s & have *dhimmi* status. If Catholics don’t like having to live within the constraints of what some Muslim states require of Christians in them – what makes Catholics think that non-Catholics should have to live as something like dhimmis in a state in which Catholics do not have to endure such constraints ? A secular state is no more flawed than a Catholic or other religious one; & in a secular democracy that allows religious groups to live by their own peculiarities, it seems not unreasonable that religious groups should live by theie religions, but that none should be permitted exclusive authority in law-making; which should instead lie with the representative authorities in politics that have been set up for such purposes.

    If in the UK we don’t want sharia law, even for Muslims, by what conceivable right can we expect non-Catholics to follow Catholic prescriptions ? STM that behind attempts to achieve this is the ghost of the idea that men can be made good by law. It’s a disastrous because unrealistic notion – it tries to do without difficult & bothersome stuff like personal example, and prefers to force-feed faith into people. As though that were even within man’s power.  In a democracy, the idea that the subject and the ruler have or must have the same beliefs does not apply. So only those who willingly follow religions in the democracies, can be bound by those religions. It’s useless to expect a democracy to police what a religion wants police. 

  • JabbaPapa


    I hadn’t realised the full extent of the dangers of that liberation theology, thank you for the information.

  • JabbaPapa

    Then why do the Church authorities insist that the BVM & St. Joseph never engaged in coitus ?

    This is yet another problem that has come forth from the sometime over-authoritarianism of 19th century Catholicism…

    The *Tradition* in the Church was that Joseph was an older man with children from an earlier marriage (Jesus’ brothers and sisters).

    The Tradition stated that the marriage was for a non sexual purpose, Joseph basically married Mary under the legal requirement of the Jewish Law because he was a relative, and responsible for her in her and her mother in their financial destitution.

    The story is that after Jesus was conceived, though Joseph was a great husband anda great father and a Saint, he never touched Mary physically (this is of course coherent with the virtue of Chastity, greatly prized in Mediaeval thought especially — but it’s also coherent with what the behaviour of a pious Jew should be towards a woman with a son not of his own flesh according to the Law).

    The 19th century Holy Family narrative has rather needlessly, in my opinion, ruined this IMO more meaningful and satisfying traditional story about Christ’s family.

    But that’s empirical-deterministic patriarchal colonialist thinkers for you ….

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Perhaps you could make the same statement on the Murphy-O’Connor thread …..

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    “In this chaos we will return to the barbarism of pre-christian societies … “.

    We are already there.

  • paulpriest

    It’s what the Gospel says!
    The Virgin will conceive & bear a Son

  • JabbaPapa

    Perhaps you could stop being a reactionary and a rebel.

  • JabbaPapa

    No doubts there !!! :-)

  • scary goat

     Sorry, I haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about or which post of mine you are replying to.  You seem to be arguing with something I haven’t said. 

  • scary goat

     Well….yes…..I do actually agree with everything you’ve said.  Certainly the common good is a very valid issue.  I do feel strongly that the Church should be MORE visible, not LESS.  I actually didn’t mean that we should gloat while the world implodes, nor say “I told you so”.  What I meant was more along the lines of, you can’t help people who don’t want to be helped. Maybe we need to wait till they want help. And maybe the best way to teach in the mean time is by example. I think there will come a time when the people will look back to the Catholic Church and realise that in all this mess, actually we had it right.

    The Church, or priests being fined etc. for refusing to conduct same sex marriages? I can’t really see that happening for all sorts of reasons, but maybe I am wrong and being naive. I suppose some might use it simply as an excuse to tear the Church down, it’s possible.  If that happens, I think that is where the real battle will start. 

    I suppose I feel that we are fighting a losing battle here, but if the government tries to force the Church to perform these marriages and our priests start going to prison, the dynamic of that battle will be somewhat different.

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t lead the horses to water, I’m just saying we have to realise that we can’t force them to drink.  They will come back to drink when they are thirsty enough.

    I don’t know. It’s all so difficult. Sometimes it’s hard to know what to do for the best.  

  • theroadmaster

    It seems that you do not read to many Papal Encyclicals or pronouncements on the subject of it’s marriage or it’s purpose.  Perhaps you should start with such documents as “Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae”(1880), authored by Pope 
    Pope Leo XIII and work your way up to more modern Encyclicals such as  “Caritas in Veritate”(2009) by Pope Benedict XV1.  Required reading like this, should help you make the necessary readjustments, in order  to get rid of those distorted stereotypes in your mind.

  • paulsays

    Like this is anything to do with liberation theology! I don’t think.

  • JabbaPapa

    Look — I have yet to fully review and understand the condemnation by the CDF of liberation theology, because it is a VERY complex document both pastorally and doctrinally — as well as theologically.

    Any extra information, especially from someone with personal “terrain” experience, is gratefully received…

  • Cruz Lorenzo

     any marriage that is not between one man and one woman is a satanic marriage.

  • Oneintheirhearts

    What a Sick World we live in.  
     Stop Offending Our Lord. and Return back to him!! 
    May God Have Mercy On Us and On the Whole World!!   J.M.J.