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 just read where Chinese priests are being subjected to "reprogramming" for not conforming to Chinese law regarding allegiance to the state.
the problem is an "absence of conscience"
and frankly some atheists have more "conscience" than those that profess to be "religious", but I digress....
Yes, and China has a "state-owned" version of the Church just to deal with such things! It wouldn't surprise me to see some Western countries quietly encouraging their own versions of the Catholic Church - that is, keeping the name and the practices, such as they are, but putting the law of the state above that of God and/or the Church. I suspect that's the church to which Kerry belongs...
before I go, I'd just like to thank you all for a very thought provoking yet civil discussion.....
it leaves me with much food for thought
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg doesn't agree with you about that idea.
BTW, the proposed law in Tennessee effectively defines as law the idea that pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilization -- despite the fact that Roe v. Wade says that the question of when life begins is fundamentally a religious one. Do you know what authority the bill cites for that finding? The World Health Organization -- a UN agency.
Why should the views of one foreign organization (WHO) be enshrined in the laws of Tennessee, to the exclusion of those of another (the Vatican)? I think the UN is a far greater threat to the sovereignty and freedom of the US than the Vatican ever could be.
I've got to get back to work now, but this has been a great discussion, gentlemen (and/or ladies).
The oath is to uphold the law, not just to uphold the laws he thinks are OK.
Please describe this "law" you speak of. Actually you can't, except in that VERY broad and VERY general term. The law may be something properly enacted or not. "The law", nowadays, seems more and more to be what the guys with the guns and or the robes says it is. (I think you are perfectly well aware that you and I and others are, in fact, arguing at cross purposes).
I have nothing of quality to add to this excellent discussion thread...except the observation that THIS is just ONE of the things about FR that makes it so unique.
To those who argue that FR is going downhill...I offer up this thread as rebuttal.
Thats all I wanted to say...
I doubt you will agree, but both under the laws of our land and of my faith, when the Pope teaches the TRUTH in conformity to international law, his words DO matter. If the laws of my country violate the laws of GOD, they are nugatory and I wil, disobey them. Bet on it. The Church Militant has a new general and he is willing to lead. The secular humanists ought to be worried.
"My own goal is to be prepared for the testing of my faith, and to be worthy of the martyrs who have gone before."
I don't know how old you are but I'll bet anyway that you are going to get your shot.
I have long since accepted that will get my own. Evil does indeed rule the world. God would have it no other way (I believe).
>>Osama Bin Laden and other Islamists say most Muslims aren't real Muslims because they are not following the teachings of Mohammad or the Koran which turns out to be a good thing
for the world in respect to the teachings which encourage the killing of infidels, as in the rest of us<<
However, unlike Bin Laden, our Pope does not blow up people who do not follow Catholic Teachings.
Thank God, eleven of the twelve Apostles, as well as who knows how many Holy Martyrs for the faith did not share that view. Our human ideas of acting, based on the success / failure ratio is not how Christians are commanded to live our lives.
It may be that the best thing that Christians can do, when confronted with a situation like this, is to become as inept as possible; never complete any action that violates conscience, and force their termination.
The argument I have heard about the primacy of the oath taken is weak; unless ipso facto you cede all power to the state.
Thanks ... the redneck martyr, with a baby on my hip and a last quotation from P.J. O'Rourke :-).
I'm 38. I expect a general persecution of Christians in the United States in my lifetime.
I'm don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that Christians should not seek to have just laws passed, in spite of the opposition? Or are you saying that we should expect to achieve perfect justice in this world, rather than in the next? Or am I off track entirely?
I was responding to your post that stated that we should expect to lose.
You replied: As an historian whose major field was Modern Europe, I read the historical record far differently than you do. It's not worth arguing about.
Yes, you do read history differently--your method is called "blame the victim." It's the same method Bill Clinton used with regard to Waco: "some religious fanatics burned themselves alive." By your reading, Martin Luther King should have just put up with Jim Crow laws and Gandhi should have told his fellow Hindus to buck up and take their medicine.
And these are rhetorical arguments, in case you were wondering about the genre. If you don't want to bother with reason, perhaps you'll be interested in rhetoric.
Incidentally, I have a degree in history too. So as far as the appeal to authority is concerned, we're even. But, as Aristotle said, that's the weakest of arguments.
Oh.
You bring me back to the Cuomo-Kerry Corollary: "The Only Good Catholic is a Bad Catholic."
What should be particularly disturbing to Catholic voters is that the largest single block of senators who are truly anti-American in their view of the political process are also the major anti-Christian voting block in the Senate: a group of thirteen "Catholic" senators, the most vociferous Culture of Death proponents (Biden, Collins, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Leahy, Milkulski, Murray, Reed).
If you've been following the rhetorical trends around the judicial confirmation process, you'll have noticed that a nominee can be considered defective if he or she admits to being a practicing Catholic, rather than just an nominal one (e.g. Judge Charles Pickering.) By this do not, of course, mean merely "churchgoing": I mean one whose mind is convinced of of certain truths, and whose will is willing to live those truths.
This did not mean "breaking the law to live these truths." It meant --- in the case of Pickering --- acknowledging the Judeo-Christian roots of Western law, as anyone, even an honest agnostic jurist, should rightly do.
Beyond the question of Catholic fidelity to a religiously-informed sense of right and wrong: as I remember it, Robert Bork was "borked" mostly on account of his acknowledgement of the tradition of Natural Law.
And others ----- I could make a longer list --- have been deemed unacceptable because they were too Constitutionalist.
Our opponents allow the acknowledgement of nothing but positive law in its crudest form: whatever Just-So Story was handed down 3 hours ago by the robed oligarchs, s**** God, s**** our common humanity, and s**** the Constitution.
THAT concept of law is truly lawless. It deserves the obedience of nobody.
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.