Monday, 27 February 2012

Civil Partnerships: False positions, false preaching and false motives

Primarily to Catholics marriages are made in Heaven - and I do not mean the gay nightclub - it is a sacramental institution - a union of souls becoming one flesh where one gives oneself totally to the other and becomes everything for that other - the physical and spiritual love overflows with the Grace of God through His Procreative Will into forming new life - a new unique encapsulated cosmos - the child becoming a new part of this spiritual and physical bond and increasing the love and the experience exponentially....

It's a reflection of natural reality - the telos towards the continuance of the earthly race; an inbuilt social, cultural and psychological entelechy towards that end - for love to overflow into a family and a community and the physical and spiritual links increase commensurately...

Now even if you remove the religious aspects of this paradigm you still arrive at a natural phenomenon - an evolutionary/genetic/endocrinological/neurochemical/psychological coercion towards this bonding and unifying and consolidating and becoming a protective, loving holism of a family.

The natural telos of lovemaking is exactly that - unifying and procreative - biologically, psychologically and for those with a non-positivist/secularist/mechanist perspective - a spiritual entelechy too.

That's the normative way - any way you wish to look at it - that's the inherent design and the ontological ideal.

Now introduce those who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex - why or how or through what process or potential biological/psychological/socio-cultural factors  is irrelevant for this argument - they exist.

Even though they possess an inherent procreative capacity they are unable to enter into the normative paradigm expressed above as they psychologically and spiritually limited from bringing that aspect of themself to fruition by unifying themselves with a member of the opposite sex.
No matter how unifying the intention of their sexual acts - they axiomatically [and for all intents and purposes if one aspires to the ideal scenario - unwillingly] preclude that generative aspect of themselves from their sexual partner.
No matter how crude or insensitive it may seem - the sterile sexual acts of homosexuals is mutual masturbation.
All the evolutionary, biological ,psychological aspects of themselves driven towards a procreative entelechy is automatically denied from them...

Hence there is a scarring - an intrinsic moral disorder within the acts unable to fulfil their designated purpose.
...and those with same-sex attraction possess an inherent 'natural' moral disorder and a social disorder - it's non-normative and non-categorical - it cannot be universalised without extinction.

Now within the infertile and menopausal there remains most of the entelechy except a procreative aspect which can still be personally, socially and externally vindicated and lead to a furtherance of that very entelechy by promotion of the very state or providing that holism to those deprived of it e.g. adoption, communal integration etc. They are married by natural and supernatural standards.

But for those within a same-sex relationship?
The best to which they can aspire is an exclusive loving union of disaffected friendship - the argument that sexual activity by its very incapacity to fulfil the overwhelming desires for fully unifying and being procreative is by its very nature damaging on so many levels and must be considered as intrinsically harmful and intrinsically morally disordered - cannot be merely dismissed with 'it's the optimal expression of physical love' - the limiting unifying nature of it axiomatically accentuates and aggravates and potentially corrupts and jeopardises the love within the relationship.

...and to this couple their relationship must be afforded social recognition and in the interests of social justice all legal rights reflecting their relationship should be implemented and upheld - joint property, rights of inheritance, power of attorney, hospital visitation etc.

So this same-sex partnership must be afforded specific rights.
The Church cannot condone and strongly advises against - for the couple's own sake- any sexual activity [but this does not preclude chaste emotional and exclusive physical intimacy to complement and compliment the "disaffected friendship']

Now the government - instead of merely altering all the legal aspects individually - chose to encapsulate all these legal rights into a Civil Partnership act which for all intents and purposes designates the same-sex couple as having the same legal status  as those who are married [yes I know - it is not called marriage - and it does not directly relate to those within a sexual relationship - but nevertheless the legislation has introduced a separate entity which possesses a congruency in statutory rights as marriage]

So where marriage's normative natural [and legislative supernatural] status is compromised by its existence.
For those in [most] religious bodies it scandalises the very nature of marriage's supernatural union of souls and the resultant spiritual family holism.

Therefore the Catholic Church...

[despite what you might hear from obscurantist renegades like His Grace Archbishop Nichols [whom don't forget was forced by the Vatican to clarify his position] or the posturing Catholic Voices]

...strongly opposes Civil partnerships by their very emulative nature. It does not oppose most of the natural social justice provisions within it - it opposes its encapsulation as a single entity which bastardises and scandalises the intrinsic nature of marriage. A same-sex relationship - however loving and unifying - IS BY VERY DEFINITION - not marriage.
To provide all the rights under a 'marriage-like' umbrella statute is erroneous and defiantly denigrates the normative aeons-formulated categorically-exclusively heterosexual nature of marriage.

...The Church cannot merely dismiss the awkwardness and accept the Civil Partnership provisions with the equivocation that it's a legal arrangement and not a recognition of a sexual 'consummated' partnership...

[How +Vin & the Catholic Voices team thought they could get away with that argument is beyond me - same-sex partners DO NOT ENGAGE in what the Church calls lovemaking - haven't they read the criteria of casti connubii & humanae vitae?
Compound that with the physical manifestation of the legislation - it is performed AS A MARRIAGE by its participants - and thus compromises the normative natural nature of Marriage and scandalises the Catholic sacramental supernatural nature of marriage]

Hence the 2003 CDF Directive where we have a 'duty to oppose' same-sex unions and the proscriptive 'strongly oppose' of CBCEW representative Bishop Hines's deposition to the CP consultation - apply!

So when during the Papal Visit [and repeated in Sep 2010] Archbishop Nichols declared 'we did not oppose Civil Partnerships'... [and as reported in the Nov 2011 Tablet ]

...His Grace was guilty of amnesia and [inadvertent?] misrepresentation of Church teaching - as he has been during recent months [hence the intervention of the Vatican in December - forcing him to clarify his position (which didn't really clarify anything - and those who denounced the Archbishop's position as directly contrary to the CDF directives and the 2003 Bishops' Conference position as ...and get this..."MISCHIEVOUS"!!!! ) ]

But here's the irony - when Andrew Brown reiterated the CV/+Vin's position [and its contrast with the Catholic Church elsewhere in the UK]

Suddenly The CBCEW issues a 'Clarification' where it states:

Following a Guardian report today, 23 February 2012, it is important to clarify the position taken by the Bishops' Conference in 2003 in response to the Government Consultation on "Civil partnership – A framework for the legal recognition of same–sex couples”. Civil Partnerships are now part of the framework of British law. The current debate is about the specific nature of the institution of marriage and its distinctive place in the fabric of society.
23. We believe the government’s proposals to create civil partnerships for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them. They would in the long term serve to undermine marriage and the family for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9-12 above. They are not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have either already been substantially addressed or can largely be addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately. Moreover, the government’s proposals do nothing to tackle what is in fact a very much bigger issue, namely the lack of rights enjoyed by cohabiting heterosexual couples and their children, many of whom wrongly believe they are protected by ‘common law marriage.’ The government needs to publicise their lack of rights, and strongly advocate the obvious solution, which is marriage.


+Vin says "we did not oppose Civil Partnerships"
Catholic Voices Co-ordinator Austen Ivereigh informs members of the CV team that the CDF directive ordering a duty to oppose same-sex unions DOES NOT APPLY to Civil Partnerships and that Dr Oddie was 'exploiting the ambiguity'
Catholic Voices barrage the blogs and twitter with defence of this position to the extent that Greg Daly [The Thirsty Gargoyle] makes a ludicrous, farcical, sophist, fallacy-laden & ultimately utterly specious defence of Archbishop Nichols's position that a same-sex union is not the same as a same-sex union because the sexual aspect is not presumptive [ignoring that same-sex mutual masturbation is NOT doctrinally considered as lovemaking and cannot be applied]

...and NOW we have the CBCEW 'clarifying' that they DO actually oppose Civil Partnerships and always have done since 2003...

So where does that leave Archbishop Nichols & Catholic Voices?!!!

So far we have had nothing but silence from them.

Nevertheless Civil Partnerships exist [and the Church [despite our own hierarchy's obfuscation, wishful thinking and ultimately downright mendacity - even after a clarification which does confrm to the CDF] opposes them just as it opposes a vast array of other legislation]

It has a legal equivalence with marriage in every way except one - where it can be performed.

Now here's the crux of what's going on.
When the legislation for Civil Partnerships was being proposed - GLBT activists and campaigners declared all they sought was recognition and a resolution of all the social injustices and deprivations the law in its then state had against homosexuals - that it DID NOT WANT it to be considered as marriage - as... get this...

"Marriage is a redundant socio-cultural paradigm which offends all those who belong to a "post-nuclear family" relationship"

 [ironically you'll hear similar arguments from so-called Christian lobby-group Ekklesia who oppose any legal/financial bias towards the marital status]

In other words - the GLBT community recognised marriage for what it was - a timeless socio-cultural and religious construct which did not reflect the nature of their relationships. They did not want to be referred to as participants in marriage given its ideological and religious 'baggage'

So what changed?
Why all of a sudden do the Gay Activists demand 'Justice' & 'Equality' and an 'end to homophobic oppression' which can all be resolved by the legal designation of 'Same- Sex Marriage"?

Why are they being duplicitously deceptive - they have Gay marriage in all-but-name - so why do they want the name?

In 2001 GLBT Activist Ben Summerskill declared EXACTLY what the intention was behind it...

Simply to force every institution which performs civil marriage to perform same-sex marriage - any body which did not or could not [i.e. all the homophobic enemies of equality] must be legally forced to perform them or be excluded.

In other words - this is about punishing the 'inherently homophobic' aspects of religion
and legally ensuring they are not allowed to continue to provide 'institutionally homophobic' marriages.
If a Church, Mosque or Temple thinks it is going to get away with perfoming Civil marriages within their religious ceremonies and deny same-sex couples from the privilege?
They are very much mistaken - they are homophobic and should not be allowed to continue to affront GLBT dignity by being part of the legal system

So what is this all about?

Ultimately the removal of all religious bodies who cannot perform same-sex ceremonies from also participating in the civil marriage process.

Now make no mistake: Same-sex marriage will come.
Some religions will comply with the intensifying pressure to perform the ceremonies...

...meanwhile our Catholic hierarchy will handwring, bewail their lot, attempt to make dodgy deals with the encumbent government over exemptions and appeal to religious conscience rights etc.
...and it will all come to nothing - they'll be kicked out of the civil marriage process and there will be a legal enforcement of dual ceremonies; the religious ceremonies will need civil confirmation & recognition with separate vows/public declarations.

So why doesn't the Church do here what it has done in numerous countries elsewhere? e.g. India, Canada, Russia etc

Why doesn't the Church pro-actively appeal to the Vatican to remove itself completely from the Civil process and revoke the statutory provisions; throwing them back in the government's face?

Why doesn't it now - before being dragged kicking and screaming - act conscientiously and remove itself from the sullied process?

Well why give away a right you possess and still have an opportunity to cling to - maybe even for a decade or so?

If we're out of the process we lose our [illusionary?] bargaining chip and if we lose this fight we might get compensated by the government with something else we want?

Ohhhhh! We would be seen as 'institutionally homophobic' !!! [the LAST thing our hierarchy wants]

...and to quote our illustrious Archbishop Nichols "Who knows what's down the road?"

Maybe when this Pope dies we'll have new Vatican 'Policy'?
 [notice no deference to timeless magisterial teaching here]

A new Pope might be more 'pastorally sensitive/gay-friendly' and submit to social cultural developments and permit the blessing of 'disaffected chaste same-sex commitments' in Churches - a sort of marriage-lite? And we might be able to wing it and stay within the state system and placate all the gay pressure groups?

{and let's be honest here - they're already happening in secret or in public among professional establishment same-sex Catholic couples while our hierarchy turns a blind-eye - it's happening!!! The more it's done the sooner it will become more 'acceptable' ]

There's also financial considerations - who is going to pay for both a Church and a Civil ceremony? It could mean less money in our coffers if we can't provide an all-inclusive service

....but there is also one final argument as to why we shouldn't take the moral high ground and remove ourselves from the Civil marriage process...

Maybe being ousted by bully-boy browbeating and exiled from the civil process by those who wish to change the definition of marriage and rewrite history for their own selfish ends - is to be cowardly - and to abrogate our duties and responsibilities to our traditions and ancestors and every member of society of all faiths and none - if this is unjust - maybe compliance is the last thing we should do? Maybe we're here to take a stand and fight it all the way - the same way we are supposed to fight against any injustice and oppose every tyranny [even when it arrogantly wields the false banner of 'equality'] ?

Or in this world is it too much to ask the Church to ever do the right thing?

oh...and finally ; before I'm accused of being 'mischievous' - maybe any Catholic who wishes to respond might wish to refer first to

Will Archbishop Nichols retract his previous statements?
Will Catholic Voices retract and  remove its statements on the issue and reverse its contra-Catholic position?
Will homosexual activists admit that they already have gay marriage - and the only reason they want legal recognition of the term 'marriage' is to enforce 'equality' on those who refuse to acknowledge such unions to the extent of expulsion from the process i.e. casting religious institutions into exile?

I do not think so....


continued ranting of Davide M. said...

great post but took me an hour to read. Very deep think I need to lay down now.

continued ranting of Davide M. said...

great post but took me an hour to read. Very deep think I need to lay down now.

Ttony said...
This comment has been removed by the author.