Posted on 05/06/2005 1:07:06 PM PDT by Caleb1411
Spain used to be one of the most culturally conservative, devoutly Roman Catholic countries in Europe. Now Spain is about to pass a law legalizing homosexual marriage and adoption.
When equally Catholic Belgium legalized gay marriage and adoptions, the Vatican, under Pope John Paul II, opposed the action with words. But Pope Benedict XVI, in the first policy test of his papacy, is going much further.
A Vatican official told Spaniards that if the measure passes, they must defy it. Officials should refuse to marry same-sex couples or even process the paperwork if they try to adopt a child. Bureaucrats and others who find themselves complicit in gay marriage or adoption should refuse to obey the law, even if it means losing their jobs.
"A law as deeply inequitable as this one is not an obligation," said Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo of Colombia, the head of the Pontifical Council on the Family. "One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is a law." To tell citizens that they should not obey the laws of their country is a very unusual and aggressive action. Said a history professor at a Spanish university, "I had never heard of such a direct call to civil disobedience."
American evangelicals, for all of their political activism, have not gone so far as to tell file clerks in Massachusetts to misplace the marriage records of gay couples, or a worker in an adoption agency to lose the application of homosexuals. And it is not clear that they should. It is a tough call on where to draw the line between Romans 13 ("be subject to the governing authorities") and Acts 5 ("we must obey God rather than men"). It may be easier under Roman Catholicism, with its ancient—and unbiblical—teaching that the church has temporal authority over the state.
Still, if the new pope is going to be this assertive on cultural issues, evangelicals should pay attention. Evangelicals and Catholics have huge—and important—theological differences, but when it comes to pro-life issues, sexual morality, and resistance to militant secularism, they find themselves on the same side of the culture wars.
Some critics say that a hard line from the pope will only increase the secularization of Europe. Eighty percent of Spaniards are Catholic, but only a third of them go to church and follow its teachings. Won't threatening the file clerks just drive them away? If the file clerks disobey and process the marriage licenses and adoption forms despite what the pope tells them to do, will the church excommunicate them? Whether the hard line makes the nominal Catholics quit or if the church expels them, either way the result will be fewer Catholics.
But this brings up the other part of the pope's strategy, one that is even more radical. Before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger argued that the church needs to get smaller so that it can become purer.
Some observers are interpreting this in institutional forms. "If it's true Pope Benedict XVI prefers a leaner, smaller, purer church as he has spoken of before," said Notre Dame professor R. Scott Appleby, "we could see a withering of certain Catholic institutions because they're not considered fully Catholic. This might include Catholic colleges, hospitals, and other Catholic institutions."
But surely it is precisely the nominal Catholics—those who claim membership but hardly ever go to church and ignore its teachings—that the new pope would be glad to be rid of.
The problem of secularism is not just with the outside culture thinking it can do without God. The deeper problem is that the church itself has become secularized. A smaller but purer church may well have more impact than the diffuse cultural Christianity that has lost its saltiness and its savor.
This is a challenge that evangelicals need to consider. With our megachurch, church-growth mindset, we often assume that bigger is better, and a church with lots of members is a strong church. Is this always true? In our efforts to reach the secular culture, is the secular culture instead sometimes reaching us?
The ideal would be to have both size and purity. But might there come a time when American evangelicalism too will need to be winnowed? —•
I'm confused, are you saying that only the civil marriage of two Catholics is considered invalid, all other civil marriages are considered valid, that seems contrary to me, why does the Catholic Church for example care about the civil marriages of non Christians, I can see that they loosened the policy about one Catholic and a non Catholic Christian, otherwise it would lose even more members, n'est-ce pas so in fact isn't that a concession to a changing society because I remember not too long ago the only way to have a valid marriage in the Catholic Church was for the non Catholic spouse to convert.......
If the oath is to uphold the laws of the republic, and a law is regularly made (that is, in accordance with the law for enacting laws), one cannot legitimately refuse to uphold the law, regardless of whether one thinks individually (in accordance with the tenets of religion X) the law is evil, and at the same time remain in the office of trust.
Muslims are perfectly welcome to try to make converts - peacefully, by convincing people that their religion is true - but without the use of beheadings, slaughter or any of the other violence, no matter how rooted in their holy writings. Just like Jehovahs' Witnesses, in other words, who do nothing more violent than ring your doorbell and talk your ear off.
We're in agreement here, CatoRenasci. And this is the only authority that the Church actually claims.
The Church actually has no temporal authority. Can't fire you, can't fine you, can't freeze your bank account, can't take your home, can't put you in prison. "How many legions has the Pope?"
The only power the Church has, claims, or wants, in the public forum, is persuasion. The only power the Church has over her own members is the power to teach, govern, and sanctify. That "governing" includes no temporal coercions: the Church can excommunicate, but on the other hand, anybody who doesn't like it can quit.
None of this is offensive to civil society or to the principles of a nonsectarian constitutional democratic republic.
I'd shake cyberhands with you on that.
Yet. Remember, the Nuremberg Laws preceded Auschwitz. The first step was to remove Jews from government service. Here, the first step is to remove Catholics from government service. I'm surprised that you don't see the parallel.
Or one Catholic and a non-Catholic.
why does the Catholic Church for example care about the civil marriages of non Christians
If one of them later becomes Catholic, it can be a pretty significant issue.
then would I be correct in assuming the Catholic clergy in Spain itself willing participated in the Inquisition despite Rome's protestations or were all or some of the Catholic clergy being forced to faciliate the will of the Spanish monarchy....
and are you saying that the Vatican did not in any way profit from the expropriation of land and property from those labelled heretics......
Well, perhaps all is a bit strong, there are probably some viewpoints that are truly beyond the pale. However, there is no question that liberty of conscience is a fundamental principle of this republic enshrined in our founding documents. Those who don't accept that principle and wish to use the power of the state to insist on a particular viewpoint may well be among those whose viewpoints ought not be tolerated.
please do, it has a lovely ring to it.....
When a ruler passes a law in a state where the majority are known to disagree with it or to be members of a religion that disagrees with it - and incidentally, in Spain, Orthodox Jews and Muslims also disagree with this law - he is trying to provoke an attack on the faith of the people, and the people have a duty to resist him.
For example, early Christian converts who worked for the Roman government often did have to leave their jobs, because they realized the existing demands (offering incense to the emperor, for example) were incompatible with their new beliefs.
However, in the case of Spain, you have a radicalized Socialist government that is suddenly trying to impose a change on the traditional basis of a society. Catholics should be allowed a conscience clause. If not, they are not only permitted to resist, but have the duty to do so. And this was what the Spanish bishops conference proclaimed today.
Simply not true. Use the analogy of a soldier above. Laws that are unconstitutional, for example, can be refused. Laws that are intrinsically EVIL can be as well. This is BASIC to our moral code. I will add this, get used to militant and activist Christianity. Secularism has pushed way beyond acceptable limits and the Soldiers of Christ are on the march.
There is no paralell: Jews were being persecuted simply for being Jews. No one is persecuting Catholics. No one is even removing Catholics from government service. Rather, the idea is that anyone may participate in public life in accordance with the law. Accept an office of profit or trust under the United States (or any political subdivision thereof) and take an oath to uphold the law, then either uphold the law or give up the office. That's not persecution.
"If he cannot in good conscience obey his civic duty, he must perforce resign office"
Why isn't it his civic duty (a crafty way to phrase it)to do as he sees right? The source of a mans morality and belief does not disqualify him from participation in government. Democratic structurs give people recourse when they disagree with the law. When they do not then they are totalitarian.
no one is attempting to remove Catholics from service, the Vatican by counselling civil disobedience to secular law may just make it harder for some Catholics to be elected in the first place, as it was historically......
my own position is we are better for having people of various religious faiths involved in public service...
Good. Try telling it to the state legislature of Tennessee, which is considering a law to force Catholic doctors employed by Catholic hospitals [note: no government employees involved] to give women drugs to end pregnancy, in violation of Catholic teaching.
"Liberty of conscience" is becoming a dead letter, and it's situations like that one, and the one in Spain that are making it that way.
See, the only way you can endorse liberty of conscience for a great many viewpoints is to accept that it's better than the alternative. That implies that there are things worse than not getting to impose your viewpoint, and that implies a moral standard bigger than "what I really, really want right now". And the only possible basis for such a moral standard isn't a secular one.
Those who don't accept that principle and wish to use the power of the state to insist on a particular viewpoint may well be among those whose viewpoints ought not be tolerated.
See: I told you it wasn't possible. :-)
but do the majority of Spaniards disagree with gay marriage
now if there had been a referendum, I do not believe this was the case in Spain and the majority voted in favour of gay marriage, then what
doesn't majority rule? even if it is a "bad" law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.