Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...



We have a problem :

Catholics might be technically forbidden from co-operating in new intrinsically unjust English civil marriage legislation.

But if they think they can simply undergo a non-State-involved religious ceremony
 and simply be married in the eyes of the Church and the sight of God?
They can't - it's illegal!!!.

 After last night's vote determining Same-Sex Marriage the Church is ultiumately going to be forced to separate itself from performing the civil aspects of marriage within a Church Nuptial ceremony

Similar to other countries with a two-ceremony system...

BUT...

...in most countries there is a civil contract of mutual exclusive, spousal fidelity – even when they just affirm a presumptive contract.[i.e. nothing is directly stated to the contrary of presumed 'traditional' exclusive fidelity]

That won’t exist here.
Because our government has made sure that any ‘assumptions for conformity’ with other understandings of marriage [e.g. among diverse faiths/cultures in their actuations of beng husband/wife/life partner/significant other/uncle tom cobley] – can’t exist.

They’ve made it perfectly clear what constitutes marriage by excising the ‘unnecessary exigents’ like fidelity, sexual intimacy, cohabitation, even mutual recognition or interaction outside a brief signing ‘ceremony’.
‘Marriage’ – will have virtually no criteria at all – to the extent that SSM is diminished to the level of an automatic joint parent licence and a public oath of fidelity to one’s sexual orientation – not one’s spouse.

There’s no marriage there!!



As such a ‘contract’ will include none of the corresponding canonical provisions to conform for validation among the baptised
[previously marriages among baptised non-Catholics going through a civil ceremony were automatically validated - this will cease to occur and lead to thousands who would have been heretofore married - living in sin]
- and as it intrinsically contravenes the very nature and end of marriage itself – it makes it an intrinsically unjust law
- we can’t get away with merely equivocating it away as an unjust law we have to deal with
- we’re not allowed to formally or proximately materially co-operate with it at all.


But  under Section 75 of the 1949 Marriage Act no couple can  have a religious marriage without its corresponding State-recognised civil validity? i.e. Church marriage and civil marriage are inseparable - you cannot clandestinely have one without the other.

But The Catholic Church in this country does this every day through Radical Sanation – Convalidation of ‘marriages’ where two unmarried baptised confirmed their life-long relationship by being together until a spousal death.
We declare marriages as valid [irrespective of any civil contract] all the time.

Surely our legal experts and canonists must  have known this?



So let's get this straight:
If Catholics are forbidden from co-operating with an intrinsically unjust law [e.g. participating in a civil marriage which directly contravenes and negates and is further diammetrically opposed to one's prospective nuptial vows]

…and in full conscience could not conspire with such a scandalous intrinsically unjust law..
…they would be forbidden by law to have a sacramental marriage in Church?!!!

So if we follow a strict moral adherence of CDF & Papal directives…

Catholics are about to be banned from getting married in any way at all?

Their consciences preventing them conspiring with an anti-matrimonial marriage laws [e.g. state endorsed indiscriminate sexual license and serial adultery]

...laws to which they must adhere in a process they must undergo to legally go through a sacramental ceremony?



This is a potential nightmare.

..and why hasn't anyone commented on this to either confirm or dismiss and allay one's fears over the issues?

Has the Government inadvertently declared war against the Catholic Church?

1 comment:

Mike Cliffson said...

"Has the Government inadvertently declared war against the Catholic Church?"
Inadvertantly?