October 23, 2011

Mobilize for Marriage

Gentle Reader: I've not done an activist post for a while. Heck, I've not posted for a while! lol

It's time to get serious about what marriage means. If you believe, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches us that Christ intended, that the family is a miniature of Holy Church; God as the bridegroom (Father) and the Church as the bride (Mother). If you are a Catholic and you think that the family unit is open to "interpretations" that include unmarried cohabitants, 2 men or 2 women, "married" GLBT couples, then somewhere along the line you have been deceived by our culture into thinking that alternative to the norm is (or should be) the norm.

Really, what is the norm these days? I read those bumper stickers that say "Subvert the Dominant Paradigm" and laugh. The dominant paradigm these days is: whatever. Traditionalism is subversion. I know that's not what the bumper sticker composer meant which is why I think it's so funny.

In Minnesota, in November of 2012 (next year), the state will vote on a constitutional amendment to the state constitution that will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Understand, the amendment will NOT overturn domestic partner registries but it will withold the sacramental term of "marriage" from being applied to alternative forms of coupling.

As Catholics, we must believe that marriage is not just a word, it's not just a civic, legal term. Marriage is a Sacrament - one of the Seven Sacraments of the Faith. How long, really, if the amendment fails, do you think it will be before the Roman Catholic Church is forced to recognize or perform "marriages" that are not one man and one woman? How long do you think the render unto Ceasar what is his and render unto God what is His separation will last in such a culture?

There are Catholics in our parishes and in elected office who have been catechized, not by the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the catechism of popular culture. They believe it's ok that marriage is NOT between one man and one woman and they want YOU to believe so too.

Someone is going to come by and say something like: well, YOU, have legislated that we believe that marriage IS between one man and one woman and we don't agree...This Nation may have been founded by radicals in the eyes of Britain, but was it founded by radicals in the eyes of God? Would the Founders of this Nation have any CLUE that one day it would even be conceivable that allowing 2 men to legally marry is under discussion? No. If they had any concept of it, it was from Scripture and world history where they perceived that cultures and cities that were sexually permissive did not fare very well.

My friend, Ray has been doing some tremendous education work with the local Catholic Defense League. Archbishop Nienstedt and several parish priests are also writing educational pieces in newspapers and bulletins - as well as preaching from the ambo on Sunday. It's not enough. We need YOU! Speak to your family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. Write. The other side is well-mobilized. One of the local papers, which a columnist for my town paper rightly terms: The Enemy Paper, is a biased mouthpiece of blasphemy and sacrilege. This rag is, unfortunately, the paper with the largest local circulation.

The other evening a young man came to the door supporting the idea that the term "marriage" should be for everybody. He believes that something is being denied him and he wants it. The term marriage is available to everyone. It's not denied to anyone. But, there are rules for obtaining it. Marriage is not a RIGHT. I'm single - does that mean we should do away with the term "single" because there are days when I feel alone?

The young activist and I exchanged pleasantries. He wanted me to sign his petition. I told him I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and I can't help him by signing his petition. The smile fell off his face and he wished me a good evening and left. That's it. We don't need to be unpleasant; just state the Truth, simply and plainly.

We need more people stating the Truth. Don't sit around in silence for the next year.

By the way, in St. Paul there are some local races you may want to pay CLOSE attention to next month (November 2011). Pay serious attention to the Ward races and the School Board races this year. What are the candidate's agendas? Don't kid yourself that all the candidates only care about the parameters of the office they are running for. Who is sponsoring their candidacy? What organizations support them? We are a year out from the marriage amendment vote - it's not a coincidence that some candidates are trying to get into local offices NOW. You may wonder what the City Council and the School Board have to do with the marriage amendment. I say: indoctrination can happen anywhere. Also, voting this year will be RANKED voting - in which you rank your preferences in each race. It's no longer one person in the race gets your single vote. The person with the top ranking in the pool of voters is elected.It's like grading on a scale. Ranked voting gives me a headache but the people spoke.

The people will speak in November 2012 as well. I pray they speak for marriage as God intended.

9 Comments:

Blogger Terry Nelson said...

Excellent post Cath! I had no idea they were sending people door to door - I can't wait for them to show up at my door - I think I will publish some documents stating what the Church teaches and why marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I'll have them by the door to give to the campaigners as they swing by - and I'll be pleasant too!

Crap! I just realized that means I actually have to go to the door then doesn't it? See what sacrifices I make!

October 23, 2011 1:57 PM  
Blogger Cathy_of_Alex said...

And talk to somebody! Oh, the humanity!

October 23, 2011 2:22 PM  
Blogger Ray from MN said...

I might want to hang out around there and snap a photo. Could be worth a lot of $$$. A real rarity.

October 23, 2011 4:31 PM  
Blogger Nan said...

Ding-dong ditch isn't much of a challenge at Terry's house.

Maybe we should all get together and go trick-or-drinking at his house.

October 23, 2011 9:34 PM  
Blogger Michael J. Bayly said...

Cathy, you're conflating civil marriage with "holy matrimony." Do you really think that everyone who gets "married" believes what you believe about the term "marriage"? Or do you think they should? Since when does the Roman Catholic Church own this word and dictate its meaning?

Peace,

Michael

October 31, 2011 12:14 AM  
Blogger Cathy_of_Alex said...

Michael: The truth is in the Church-not the World. We (and I mean you and me) have an obligation to protect the true meaning of marriage. How long do you think it will be before this supposed seperation of civil from church tries to insinuate itself into the Church. Look at how civilly divorced and remarried Catholics have tried to push acceptance of their adulterous status into a right to be allowed to receive Communion and how the world tells them it's ok to defy the Church in this matter and they fall for it. Then, they expect the Church to cave into public pressure and overturn thousands of years of teaching to accomodate public opinion.

Progressive Catholics who support the redefinition of marriage are hoping to use it as a battering ram to force their other agenda items into the Church by hiding behind a civil law to do it.

October 31, 2011 9:37 AM  
Blogger Michael J. Bayly said...

What about the many non-Catholics advocating civil marriage rights for same-sex couples? They couldn't give a toss about changing the Roman Catholic hierarchy's rules on matrimony. And to be honest, neither do I or most "progressive" Catholics I know. It's the hierarchy's foray into the civil arena to influence and dictate civil law that primarily concerns me.

Your "true meaning of marriage" is the hierarchy's understanding of marriage. Why should it or any other religious truth claim be made the law of the land? Who gets to decide which faith has the correct truth claim? Would you like it if a heavily-funded Muslim lobby was pushing for some kind of constitutional amendment? Might not non-Catholics (not to mention many Catholics themselves) feel the same way about the bishops' efforts around the "marriage amendment"?

As for civilly divorced and remarried Catholics trying to "push acceptance of their adulterous status into a right to be allowed to receive Communion," that's news to me. Is there an organization dedicated to this cause? Can you direct me to it? It's not something I hear that much about in my progressive circles. Most folks in that situation have either totally left the church or found an accepting parish were no questions are asked. It's not an issue that has people donning sashes or organizing protests. Plus their CIVIL rights are not impacted by the bishops' rules. They can still go out and get all the rights and benefits of civil marriage. Not so gay folks. It troubles me (and many others) that our bishops are actively seeking to enshrine such unfairness into our state constitution.

November 02, 2011 12:53 AM  
Blogger Ray from MN said...

It's good to see you talking more and more like a protestant, Michael. When are you going to drop the hypocrisy and remove the word "Catholic" from your blogs and web pages?

You don't accept much of the teaching of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Acceptance of those is what it means to be a Catholic.

November 02, 2011 8:10 AM  
Blogger Cathy_of_Alex said...

Michael: When the waves of divorced and remarried Catholics started in the 70s you were probably too young. You are right, they didn't organize. By and large they left Catholicism and became part of traditions that were anti-Catholic and encouraged them to cultivate rage towards the Catholic Church for not overturning centuries of teachings just for THEM (in the individual sense)

Later, they joined with like minded people (including misguided Catholics taught by errant nuns) and are targeting the Church-not out of any utopian vision, but purely out of rage.

Bishops, who actually instruct the Faithful properly, should not be divorced from the Church. The hierarchy is the Church, is part of the Body-as are we. Thus, the Bishops standing up for marriage are not alone.

Not all Catholics are unhappy with the Church. Not all Catholics want the changes you do. In your inclusive worldview, where do they fit in at the table?

Not all non-Christians support GLBTQ practices or homosexual marriage.

If progressives succeed in overturning a collrctive worldview in favor of their individually defined one, what is that but anarchy and chaos? Our commonality is what brings cohesion and balance.

Progressives want to, of course, replace the current common thinking with theirs. After 50 years of trying, they have failed in the Church and are trying in the world.

Civil marriage is primarily intended to legitimize procreation between the complimentary natures of male and female. If not, then why are there laws prohibiting marriage between siblings and first cousins?

November 02, 2011 9:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>
Locations of visitors to this page