Father J. Bryan Hehir is out of step with the U.S. Bishops...

As reported here, Father J. Bryan Hehir, Secretary for Healthcare and Social Services for the Archdiocese of Boston, has argued that, “We [Catholics] could, on the basis of living in a pluralistic society, remain silent on the contraception question in the public policy area while upholding the Church’s teaching internally.” Father Hehir further argued that such an approach is consistent with Catholic tradition because, “Catholic tradition doesn’t always try to translate internal policy into public policy.”


But the U.S. Bishops aren't advocating such silence.  A new publication from the Bishops urges priests to preach on contraception, sterilization and in vitro fertilization.  In addition, the Bishops are urging priests to stress "God's desire to forgive our sins and renew his grace" and to offer "extra hours of sacramental reconciliation each week."  See here.

Related reading: Father J. Bryan Hehir's corroding and ambiguous pluralism.

Read More

"The time I have spent before the tabernacle is the best spent time of my life."

"Jesus is in our tabernacles, and this fact we call the Real Presence. The same Jesus Who was sheltered by Mary Immaculate within Her virginal body, is in the little body of a white Host. The same Jesus Who was whipped, crowned with thorns, and crucified as a Victim for the sins of the world, remains in the ciborium in the Host as a Victim sacrificed for our salvation. The same Jesus Who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, where He now is gloriously reigning at the right hand of the Father, resides on our altars, surrounded by a multitude of countless adoring Angels — a sight that Blessed Angela of Foligno beheld in a vision.


Thus Jesus is truly with us. 'Jesus is there!' — The holy Curé of Ars could not finish repeating these three words without shedding tears. And St. Peter Julian Eymard exclaimed with joyful fervor, 'There Jesus is! Therefore all of us should go visit Him!' And when St. Teresa of Jesus heard someone say, 'If only I had lived at the time of Jesus ... If only I had seen Jesus ... If only I had talked with Jesus ...,' she responded in her spirited way, 'But do we not have in the Eucharist the living, true and real Jesus present before us? Why look for more?'

The Saints certainly did not seek for more. They knew where Jesus was, and they desired no more than the privilege of keeping inseparable company with Him, both in their affections, and by bodily presence. Being ever with our beloved — is this not one of the primary things true love calls for? Indeed it is; and, therefore, we know that visits to the Blessed Sacrament and the Eucharistic Benediction were the secret yet evident loves of the Saints. The time of paying a visit to Jesus is wholly the time of love — a love we will resume practicing in Paradise, since love alone 'does not come to an end' (1 Cor. 13:8). St. Catherine of Genoa made no blunder in saying, 'The time I have spent before the tabernacle is the best spent time of my life.'" (From Jesus Our Eucharistic Love, by Father Stefano Manelli, O.F.M., Conv., S.T.D.).

Are we cold toward Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament?  Do we only visit Jesus when we need something or when we feel obliged?  Or do we visit Him for the best reason: because we want to be near Him? 

When we neglect Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, we hurt ourselves.  This because it is only through frequent visits to Jesus in the Eucharist that we are able to grow in that union with God which Jesus desires to bestow upon us in our daily lives.  Jesus is interested in our thoughts, our desires, our needs and hopes, our ambitions and our work.  Put simply: our daily lives are of the utmost importance to Him.  He is there for love of us.  And we should be there for love of Him.

Who else is always there for you?  Fickle men who praise you one day and denounce you the next?  Who else is as interested in you as the Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

He waits for you.  He waits for me.  Our sad world cannot hear Him as He says, "Could you not watch with Me for one hour"?

Are we indifferent?  Do we seek out the Eucharistic Jesus or do we prefer the noise of this dying world?

Read More

U.S. Bishops: What is behind this?

One has to wonder what the U.S. Bishops are up to here.  During  a General Audience on July 10, 1996, Pope John Paul II spoke on the virginity of Mary and Jesus' virginal conception.  The Holy Father said:

The Church has constantly held that Mary's virginity is a truth of faith, as she has received and reflected on the witness of the Gospels of Luke, of Matthew and probably also of John.


In the episode of the Annunciation, the Evangelist Luke calls Mary a "virgin", referring both to her intention to persevere in virginity, as well as to the divine plan which reconciles this intention with her miraculous motherhood. The affirmation of the virginal conception, due to the action of the Holy Spirit, excludes every hypothesis of natural parthenogenesis and rejects the attempts to explain Luke's account as the development of a Jewish theme or as the derivation of a pagan mythological legend.

The structure of the Lucan text (cf. Lk 1:26-38; 2:19, 51) resists any reductive interpretation. Its coherence does not validly support any mutilation of the terms or expressions which affirm the virginal conception brought about by the Holy Spirit.

The Evangelist Matthew, reporting the angel's announcement to Joseph, affirms like Luke that the conception was "the work of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20) and excluded marital relations.

Furthermore, Jesus' virginal conception is communicated to Joseph at a later time: for him it is not a question of being invited to give his assent prior to the conception of Mary's Son, the fruit of the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit and the co-operation of the mother alone. He is merely asked to accept freely his role as the Virgin's husband and his paternal mission with regard to the child.

Matthew presents the virginal origins of Jesus as the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy. "'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel' (which means, God with us)" (Mt 1:23; cf. Is 7: 14). In this way Matthew leads us to conclude that the virginal conception was the object of reflection in the first Christian community, which understood its conformity to the divine plan of salvation and its connection with the identity of Jesus, "God with us".

Early Church firmly believed in virginal conception

Unlike Luke and Matthew, Mark's Gospel does not mention Jesus' conception and birth; nonetheless it is worth noting that Mark never mentions Joseph, Mary's husband. Jesus is called "the son of Mary" by the people of Nazareth or in another context, "the Son of God" several times (3:11; 5:7; cf. 1:11; 9:7; 14:61-62; 15:39). These facts are in harmony with belief in the mystery of his virginal conception. This truth, according to a recent exegetical discovery, would be explicitly contained in verse 13 of the Prologue of John's Gospel, which some ancient authoritative authors (for example, Irenaeus and Tertullian) present, not in the usual plural form, but in the singular: "He, who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". This version in the singular would make the Johannine Prologue one of the major attestations of Jesus' virginal conception, placed in the context of the mystery of the Incarnation.

Paul's paradoxical affirmation: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman ... so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4-5), paves the way to the question about this Son's personhood, and thus about his virginal birth.

The uniform Gospel witness testifies how faith in the virginal conception of Jesus was firmly rooted in various milieux of the early Church. This deprives of any foundation several recent interpretations which understand the virginal conception not in a physical or biological sense, but only as symbolic or metaphorical: it would designate Jesus as God's gift to humanity. The same can be said for the opinion advanced by others, that the account of the virginal conception would instead be a theologoumenon, that is, a way of expressing a theological doctrine, that of Jesus' divine sonship, or would be a mythological portrayal of him.

As we have seen, the Gospels contain the explicit affirmation of a virginal conception of the biological order, brought about by the Holy Spirit. The Church made this truth her own, beginning with the very first formulations of the faith (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 496).

The faith expressed in the Gospels is confirmed without interruption in later tradition. The formulas of faith of the first Christian writers presuppose the assertion of the virginal birth: Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian are in agreement with Ignatius of Antioch, who proclaims Jesus "truly born of a virgin" (Smyrn. 1, 2). These authors mean a real, historical virginal conception of Jesus and are far from affirming a virginity that is only moral or a vague gift of grace manifested in the child's birth.

The solemn definitions of faith by the Ecumenical Councils and the papal Magisterium, which follow the first brief formulas of faith, are in perfect harmony with this truth. The Council of Chalcedon (451), in its profession of faith, carefully phrased and with its infallibly defined content, affirms that Christ was "begotten ... as to his humanity in these last days, for us and for our salvation, by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (DS 301). In the same way the Third Council of Constantinople (681) proclaimed that Jesus Christ was "begotten ... as to his humanity, by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, she who is properly and in all truth the Mother of God" (DS 555). Other Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II, Lateran IV and Lyons II) declared Mary "ever-virgin", stressing her perpetual virginity (DS 423, 801, 852). These affirmations were taken up by the Second Vatican Council, which highlighted the fact that Mary "through her faith and obedience ... gave birth on earth to the very Son of the Father, not through the knowledge of man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 63).

In addition to the conciliar definitions, there are the definitions of the papal Magisterium concerning the Immaculate Conception of the "Blessed Virgin Mary" (DS 2803) and the Assumption of the "Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mother of God" (DS 3903).

Mary's holiness and virginity are closely linked

Although the definitions of the Magisterium, except for those of the Lateran Council of 649, desired by Pope Martin I, do not explain the meaning of the term "virgin", it is clear that this term is used in its customary sense: the voluntary abstention from sexual acts and the preservation of bodily integrity. However, physical integrity is considered essential to the truth of faith of Jesus' virginal conception (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 496).

The description of Mary as "Holy Ever-Virgin, Immaculate" draws attention to the connection between holiness and virginity. Mary wanted a virginal life, because she was motivated by the desire to give her whole heart to God.

The expression used in the definition of the Assumption, "the Immaculate, Ever-Virgin Mother of God", also implies the connection between Mary's virginity and her motherhood: two prerogatives miraculously combined in the conception of Jesus, true God and true man. Thus Mary's virginity is intimately linked to her divine motherhood and perfect holiness."

 
What are the U.S. Bishops up to?

Read More

National Education Association tells United Nations that schools need to teach about orgasms.

Lauren Funk, writing for C-FAM, explains that:



"Graphic sex education for youth is the new battleground at the UN, as evidenced by side events during the past week at the Commission on the Status of Women.

The theme of this year’s CSW is the “access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology.” While delegates are busy negotiating resolutions and outcome documents, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN organizations campaign for the installation of socially radical curriculums in Africa and America alike.

'Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,' Diane Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more 'inclusive' sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.

Comprehensive sex education is 'the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,' Schneider proclaimed, 'and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.' 'Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum,' she explained, and said that those opposed to homosexuality 'are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.'

A Belgian panelist at the same event explained how necessary it was to have government support when educating about anti-discrimination issues. He claimed that the 'positive, pro-LGBT policies in Belgian schools are a direct consequence of liberal and open-minded legislation in Belgium,' and went on to stress the importance of states in providing relevant materials for students and schoolteachers. He also held up Belgium’s 'gender in the blender' programs, which are discussion-based programs for Belgian teachers who want to discuss gender and transgender issues in their courses, as a model for other nations who wished to encourage their teachers to address these topics.

The UN system was also advocating for the sexualization of youth at this year’s CSW. A panel sponsored in part by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) advocated for 'comprehensive sex education' not only as a tool to combat 'gender oppression,' but also as the key to achieving all of the Millennium Development Goals. The panelists presented the highly controversial UNESCO guidelines on Sex Education, as well as a new IPPF-sponsored curriculum as the gold standard for comprehensive sex education. Both curriculums promote a liberal approach to sex, approve of masturbation, and expose children to graphic content in their youngest years. The panelists also insisted that these programs be implemented in schools in order to reach as many students as possible, and they also recommended they start as soon as possible, given the fact that many girls in developing countries leave school before the age of sixteen.

Although most of the side events during CSW are not sponsored by governments and attract few delegates, the NGOs who produce the events are UN lobbyists – which means that the agendas on display during this year’s CSW will influence UN policy in the near future." (See here).

I've said it before and I'll say it again, because Humanists recognize the importance of the public schools in advancing their man-centered religion, they do everything in their power to ensure that children are indoctrinated into the tenets of Humanism even as they attack faith-based schools. It was Paul Blanshard, writing in The Humanist, who said, "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all the other myths of alleged history." (The Humanist State, March/April 1976, p. 17).


Humanist John Dumphy, also writing for The Humanist, said "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another servant, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become and area of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never realized Christian idea of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." (The Humanist, January/February 1983, p. 26).

Read More

Unitarianism, Catholic modernists and the spirit of Antichrist...

It was Dr. Peter Kreeft who said that, "Christian faith is..pinned to history, for its object is not only the invisible Father but also the visible, incarnate Son. Subtract all the history and all that is left of Christianity is a general ethical concern - in other words, modernist theology - for example, Unitarianism, 'the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man and the neighborhood of Boston.'...The distinctively Christian teachings are the beliefs about the historical Jesus. That is why the modernist is embarassed by them: they stand in the way of a single world religion..."



This explains why modernists within the Church are so attracted to Unitarianism. With all of its liberal and humanistic beliefs and practices, Unitarianism is very attractive to Catholics who have lost their faith but cannot steel themselves to admit it and who are striving to build a new church made in their own image and likeness.

In the March 8, 1955 edition of Look magazine, Rev. Carl M. Chorowsky, minister of the first Unitarian Church of Fairfield, Connecticut, explained the basic tenets of Unitarian theology.  Dr. Chorowsky said that, "In general, a Unitarian is a religious person whose ethic derives primarily from that of Jesus, who believed in One God, not the Trinity...Unitarians hold that the orthodox Christian world has forsaken the real, human Jesus of the Gospel, and has substituted a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics and pagan philosophy.  Because Unitarians refuse to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and God, they are excluded from the National Council of the Churches of Christ."

Dr. Chorowsky further explained the Unitarian attitude toward Jesus Christ in this edition of Look magazine when he said that, "Unitarians repudiate the doctrine and dogma of the Virgin Birth...Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, either of Jewish hope or of Christian fantasy.  They do not believe He is 'God Incarnate,' or the Second Person of the Trinity, as the final arbitrator at the end of time, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

What is this but the spirit of Antichrist?  We are warned in 1 John 4: 1-3, "Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God.  This is the spirit of the Antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world."

It was Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in his book The Antichrist, who explained that, "The first aim of Catholic modernists is to convert the Church of Rome to modernism and then to convert the Universal Church.  They seek to create a Church in their own image and likeness - a small, Gnostic, elite Church of worldly-wise intellectuals who will dominate the religious thinking and practice of the whole human race..Today, in the post-Christian era, neo-modernism has regrouped its forces under such titles as 'Catholic Opposition' or 'Catholic Dissent' or 'Christian Critics.'  This dissent and criticism is leveled against 'the institutional Church,' not against the enemies of the Church."

In his book Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, Fr. Fanzaga explains that, "...he [Robert Hugh Benson] also warns of a great danger for the Church which has to do with the 'great seduction' - the 'great prostitute' the Book of the Apocalypse calls it - that is, humanitarian religion. Only the Church, reduced to a tiny flock will resist. The Church will be tempted to follow the path of humanitarianism which would reduce Christianity to a form of humanism in which Christ is regarded merely as a man - although the greatest man ever born...At the same time, Benson foresaw that the tiny flock - of Paul VI - would resist the reduction of Christianity to humanitarian religion and that it would be branded a public enemy of the people and of progress. It would be accused of being out of step with the times and of belonging to the Middle Ages. Thus, Benson has prophesied [in his book The Lord of the World] both the seduction and the persecution of those who would uphold the supernatural dimension of Christianity." (Fr. Livio Fanzaga, Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 128).

Unitarianism denies the historic doctrines of Christianity.  It rejects the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Vicarious Atonement, Bodily Resurrection and the return of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Glory to judge the living and the dead.  Unitarians embrace paganism and promote abortion, homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."  This is what attracts Catholic modernists.

Related reading: Unitarianism and paganism

Related reading: Sisters of the Assumption in Petersham, Massachusetts participate in "Interfaith Unity Service" with Unitarians.

Read More

More on Deacon Paul Mello and the Unitarian Universalists in Petersham...

In a previous post, I noted how Deacon Paul Mello of Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, Massachusetts took part in an "Interfaith Thanksgiving Service" held at a Unitarian Universalist church in Petersham which is led by M. Lara Hoke, a Unitarian Universalist minister who promotes the LGBT agenda and who lives with another woman whom she refers to as her "wife."

Lara Hoke authors a Blog which has a link to a Unitarian Universalist Pagan website.  This pagan website explains that, "Some Pagans believe in the Goddesses and Gods of the old religions and others do not. Many Pagans understand deity as immanent, in everything, and believe revelation is found in nature instead of written in scriptures. Some believe in an afterlife and that their actions in this life will determine their place in the next. Others believe only in this life and that their actions here are all that matters. Still others believe in reincarnation. Some Pagans believe in an active Spirit World while others do not. Because Paganism is a non-creedal religion such divergent beliefs can exist together under one religious name – just like in Unitarian Universalism! Many modern Pagans find their beliefs are very much in harmony with Unitarian Universalist Principle..."  I'll bet.  See here for full text.

Pope Benedict XVI has warned that, "There is..a consciously antirationalist response to the experience that 'everything is relative,' a complex reality that is lumped together under the title of New Age. The way out of the dilemma of relativism is now sought, not in a new encounter of the 'I' with the 'Thou' or the 'We,' but in overcoming subjective consciousness, in a re-entry into the dance of the cosmos through ecstasy. As in the case of Gnosis in the ancient world, this way believes itself to be fully in tune with all the teachings and the claims of science, making use of scientific knowledge of every kind (biology, psychology, sociology, physics). At the same time, however, it offers against this background a a completely antirationalist pattern of religion, a modern 'mysticism': the absolute is, not something to be believed in, but something to be experienced. God is not a person distinct from the world; rather, he is the spiritual energy that is at work throughout the universe. Religion means bringing my self into tune with the cosmic whole, the transcending of all divisions...Objectifying reason, New Age thinking tells us, closes our way to the mystery of reality; existing as the self shuts us out from the fullness of cosmic reality; it destroys the harmony of the whole and is the real reason for our being unredeemed. Redemption lies in breaking down the limits of the self, in plunging into the fullness of life and all that is living, in going back home to the universe....The gods are returning. They have become more credible than God. Aboriginal rites must be renewed in which the self is initiated into the mysteries of the universe and freed from its own self. There are many reasons for the renewal of pre-Christian religions and cults that is being widely undertaken today. If there is no truth shared by everyone, a truth that is valid simply because it is true, then Christianity is merely a foreign import, a form of spiritual imperialism, which needs to be shaken off just as much as political imperialism. If what takes place in the sacraments is not the encounter with the one living God of all men, then they are empty rituals that mean nothing and give us nothing and, at best, allow us to sense the numinous element that is actively present in all religions. It then seems to make better sense to seek after what was originally our own than to permit alien and antiquated things to be imposed on us. But above all, if the 'rational intoxication' of the Christian mystery cannot make us intoxicated with God, then we just have to conjure up the real, concrete intoxication of effective ecstasies, the passionate power of which catches us up and turns us, at least for a moment, into gods..." (Truth and Tolerance, pp. 126-128).
What is a Catholic Deacon from Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol doing at an "Interfaith Service" held by Unitarian Universalists who identify with paganism?  This is not ecumenism.  It is syncretism: the misguided notion that religious unity can be achieved by ignoring the differences between faiths on the assumption that all creeds are essentially one and the same.

Read More

File under: "See, I told you so."

Back in June of 2005 I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:


Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, 'First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior.' (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).


Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled 'Catholicism and Modernity' (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: 'The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox.'

Truthfully, isn't that what we're witnessing in Canada and even in the United States (albeit to a still lesser degree)? Already there has been much talk in Canada about passing legislation which would make it a "hate crime" for churches - or individual priests and ministers - to refer to homosexuality as being sinful. The Gospel itself would constitute 'hate literature' under legislation which is proposed by homosexual militants who have many friends in the government it would appear.

The United States isn't far behind. Soon, Christians who hold firm to what Sacred Scripture has to say about sodomy will be labelled 'dangerous' and in need of 're-education' or forced internment in a special 'camp.' Perhaps those of us who remain "obstinate" in accepting God's Word will be dealt with in another 'final solution' offered by a society which has succumbed to the 'Dictatorship of Relativism.'

Some will accuse me of being a 'prophet of doom and gloom.' Recent events in Canada and in the United States would seem to contradict such an assessment."

My friend Deacon Nick Donnelly, who defends the Holy Father and the teaching of the Church from England, has a relevant post at his website Protect the Pope.  He writes:

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have ruled that Eunice and Owen Johns, a Pentecostal couple, cannot foster children because they uphold traditional Christian morality about homosexuality. In their judgement Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson stated: That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”.

To emphasize this point the Justices also stated that traditional Christian sexual ethics is harmful to the interests of children: ‘That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”.

They further made it clear that not only is freedom of belief a ‘qualified’ right but that freedom of religion is also universally subordinate to the rights of homosexuals: ‘Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.’

This ruling makes it clear that if homosexuals are given the right to hold civil partnerships in places of worship that the courts will rule that the Catholic Church will not have the legal right to deny them a blessing in a Catholic parish church.

Incredibly, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that they were not discriminating against Eunice and Owen Johns’s religious beliefs because their upholding traditional Christian morality about homosexuality was not a ‘religious belief’.

‘That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs’. This judgement is setting a dangerous and totally unwarranted precedent that a UK court can judge what is a Christian belief and what is not a Christian belief. By so doing the judiciary is usurping the prerogative of the Churches. It’s also a nonsense distinction that brings the law into disrepute, because its obvious that Christian sexual ethics are a fundamental aspect of Christian belief.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have also ruled that local councils must test Christians to ensure that they have socially-acceptable views of homosexuality: ‘That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality’.

Mrs Jones gave the following dignified response after being unjustly told that she and her husband were ‘unfit’ to be foster parents by Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson: “All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.”

Protect the Pope comment: This is a shameful day for British justice and British jurisprudence when a couple are told that they are ‘unfit’ to be foster parents because they uphold traditional Christian sexual morality.
That two UK judges have the audacity to state as legal precedent that Christian teaching on homosexuality is ‘inimical’ to the interests of children turns truth and justice on its head.

As Pope Benedict makes clear homosexuality is a disorder of sexual desire that is harmful to the individual, the family and society. To present this disorder as normal or natural is truly ‘inimical’ to the interests of a child. And same sex unions that seek to adopt or have a child through surrogacy deny a child the right to the love of a mother and a father. This also is truly ‘inimical’ to the interests of a child.

The UK legal system has abandoned common law and common sense and is now enforcing a fundamentally flawed ideology. Where is our Wyszyński in the UK? Where is our Wojtyła to defend UK Catholics?

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/religious-freedom/breaking-news-high-court-judgment-suggests-christian-beliefs-harmful-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Am I still the prophet of "doom and gloom"?
 
It's time to awake from slumber Christians.

Related reading here.

Read More