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? —•
"Dear Mr. Sheed, Are you a saint, or not? Please be honest!"
Agreed, both on the resignation point and on what an ideal state would not do, However, we live in a real world where painful choices exist for everyone, perhaps especially for the faithful.
---"Dear Mr. Sheed, Are you a saint, or not? Please be honest!"---
No, I'm not a saint but am most definitely dead. I hope the Lord will have mercy on me in time. Purgatory is very real, I can assure you. I do get access to the internet occasionally though.
Frank
Actually, I find that democracies seem far scarier in terms of imposing their "enlightened" political system on the rest of the world.
They seem completely oblivious to the arrogance of saying in essence "This two thousand year old institution needs to change but it's asking way too much of me to change which church I will attend."
And yet Christ prayed, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."
Men are chaotic by nature, interpreting any law by whatever suits their appetites. For examples of secular Chaos, try the first election of George W. Bush, Lincoln's abrogation of the Constitution during the civil war or for that matter ANY war that American presidents have gotten us involved in without consent of congress, Roosevelt creating internment camps for American citizens of Japanese descent or the fact that one court often overturns the findings of a previous court; so much for eliminating the chaos.
in a multi cultural, multi religious society, secular law is the only way to protect the rights of all....
Secular law only satisfies the whims of secularists, multi-culturalists and multi-religionists; it thinks precious little of American citizens that do NOT subscribe to secularism(Christian? You have to pay twice. Taxed for the secularist government schools and on your own for paying for private schools). Those who believe that American culture should be taught and promoted in American schools rather than multi-culturalism are also given a back seat (if any seat at all) As for religion, we were essentially a Christian nation and other religions enjoyed freedom here specifically because of the libertarian nature and moral ethos of the Christian faith. Those who undermine Christianity in America ultimately undermine trheir own true freedom.
That is called statism. The only viepoint IS the viewpoint of the state. Others who disagree with the centralization of power with the state are becoming more marginalized.
Sounds like a perfect formula for the advancement of evil; everytime there is an evil law passed, those who see it as evil ought to resign.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Can you please tell Justice Kennedy that?
Cleverly stated, that. When/if one reaches the conclusion that ALL things ultimately belong to God. One has precious little use for Caesar.
Of course, there are those that love Caesar so much they want to hand everything over to him. Those types generally have precious little use for God. (Except as a scapegoat for the world's evils).
Really? You post like a redhead.
Pinging Hermann the Cherusker.
I agree...absolutely.
If you are using current definitions of the term, "libertarian" and Christian are not in the least bit related. In fact, Libertarianism is the antithesis of Christianity.
You might have meant 'liberal,' in the 17th Century sense, which would be less a slur on Christianity.
Thank you! I may have red later in the summer, when the medium brown washes out and I look like my kids' grandmother again :-).
LOL!
I appreciate the point you are making. Precision in language IS important, but I was refering to the stance that Christians had historically and Scripturally had towards government; small 'l' libertarian, not big 'L' Libertarian.
In the old testament I often reference 1 Samuel chapter 8 as a starting point for Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism recognizes an ethos that comes directly from God which states in essence that the love of God and the love of man are indivisible. Liberal libertarianism on the other hand largely assumes an atomistic ethos which states that as long as I am not physically hurting another person or his property, anything goes.
Liberal, whether used in the classical, romantic or decadent sense of the word is man-centered, rather than God-centered, so I'm not sure that I WOULD use that term.
Again, I may be wrong and it would be interesting to have entire threads that revolve around the precise definition of terms, if only to increase our understanding of the issues and each other and to avoid a ton of entirely unnecessary arguments.
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.