I truly believe there ought to have been a law protecting persons
in same-sex situations from having their Last Will & Testament over-ridden by
family if they objected to the named beneficiary; it is appalling that someone’s
dying wishes be over-ruled (though one must ask why a will, legally signed, not sufficient in law). It should have legally possible to
protect those dying wishes without resorting to calling the living arrangement of
the deceased and the beneficiary ‘marriage’. This only made marriage the
recognition of a mere romantic attachment and not the establishing of a family
for the building up of society. Now, it seems, we are seeing the idea of romantic
attachment extended to other situations just as incongruent with nature:
marriage to the dead.
A number of blogs have reported that a lady has been given
the right to marry her dead fiancé (see here). It is beyond my comprehension
that a person can be given the right to marry a dead person, since there is absolutely
no possibility of the deceased giving their consent. The promise made in
engagement is insufficient to supply that consent, because the promise of a possible
future cannot at the same time be the concrete realisation of that future; it
is either a promise or the event made concrete, it cannot be both.
I suspect many will see the illogicality of marrying the
dead, but how many people who find the idea illogical yet give their support to
same-sex ‘marriage’, which is also out of synch with nature? It is no less odd
to ‘marry’ a man to a man or a woman to a woman because, even though consent
can be given, it is consent to a union that cannot exist. Excuse this rather crude analogy, but attempting to unite
two men or two women in a unity is like trying to achieve the union of two bolts
or two nuts: no such union can be achieved.
Today’s world is simply using the word ‘marriage’ to mean any
relationship in which there is emotional import, to give the word another
meaning entirely, as was done with the word ‘gay’ (which I refuse to use since
it seems this was coined in order to label homosexuality in an asexual, non-offensive,
even joyful manner). Perhaps what we will see next, if emotional import is all
that is needed for marriage, will be someone ‘marrying’ their cat so that the
cat has a right of inheritance, or ‘marrying’ their childhood home because of
the romantic associations it has for them (would this mean that if the house
was sold or repossessed there would also have to be divorce proceedings?)
The world is showing the idiocy of atheistic thinking by registering
as true the impossible union of the living and the dead, of male to male and
female to female. It is idiocy because it is out of synch with our biological nature.
As such, society cannot be relied upon as an authority for right living; cannot
be relied upon for sound teaching or legislation on any moral issue, be that marriage,
contraception, abortion, embryonic research, euthanasia et al. Though we might construct
some theory or other in order to justify diverse ‘marriages’, this is merely a use
of the intellect to justify submission to our passions rather than use of reason
for the control of our passions. Is there no end to this abuse of intellect and
the abandoning of natural law?
Commentators: please, no saucy jokes about nuts or comments derogatory to the human person.
Commentators: please, no saucy jokes about nuts or comments derogatory to the human person.
Persons with same-sex attraction had the same right and power to give what they wanted to whom they wanted in their wills as anyone else. The only exception is where there was a spouse or children that had not been provided for.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Lynda.
DeleteThis being so, I am left wondering what SSA persons used as leverage to get same-sex 'unions' into law. It could only have been their perceived 'right' to having a romantic relationship given approval -which leaves me asking myself if they themselves where unsure of its legitimacy up until that point and needed someone to validate it for them. This is is very complicated issue.
God bless.
I am a trained lawyer so I know the law. Secondly, I saw how lies were used to get the civil union legislation passed in England and Ireland. The Media and most politicians colluded in the false representation of the respective pieces of legislation.
DeleteThank you Lynda.
DeleteI was pleased to receive your clarification on the situation regarding the law. It left me suspecting suspected the kind of deceit you witnessed. I suspect that, as someone by whom the law is highly valued, seeing its manipulation by false presentations was painful and perhaps more than simply irritating.
God bless you, Lynda.
I suspect that there were few situations where some sort of partnership in law was actually necessary; one was probably the passing on of a tenancy. In the old days, same-sex couples who were homeowners simply took out life policies naming the other partner as sole beneficiary and left their half of the house to him/her in a will.
DeleteNo need for "marriage".
Thank you, AndrewWS,
DeleteI always thought that there was little reason for requiring civil unions for homosexuals, and Lynda confirmed this for me.It shows the duplicity that was going on in order to get homosexuality accepted by civil recognition, something which could never have been done by reference to nature since homosexual activity is inherently a misuse of the procreative faculty. SSA persons are not bad people and ought not to be victims of discrimination re employment, housing, health-care, inheritance etc, but if we approve of the acts in which they take part we risk their salvation and disturb the foundations of society which is built on marriage and procreation for the continuation of the human community.
God bless.
It is screwy, 'scuse the picture pun. What happened to, 'till death do us part?' How could that become, oh, when the ball and chain is dead, then the wedding? Maybe it is just a mad case of a mad person and a mad president (after all with hollande's record, who is he to judge?). The appropriation of words and taking them out of their proper historical and natural context and basically kidnapping them and putting them where they shouldn't be and making them to what they do not want to do. It's like a word-slave-market. Marriage - a few decades ago meant what it meant, one man one woman and kids (at least in the west, and if one wasn't a mormon but natural law soon outlawed that) that had a clear unquestioned meaning. in the survey for the synod they used the term natural 'theory'. I commented on it somewhere and was told that that was correct - there is no natural law, only natural theory. and I wondered, since when?
ReplyDeletesociety is drowning in lies and most of us don't seem to have a clue. when I let God show me my ignorance on things it can be a shocker. and when you start to have a clue, people who don't want to change, don't want you to change. But there's only two choices, live the lie (satan), or live the Truth.
Thank you, viterbo.
DeleteI think the manipulation of words to achieve a wrongful end is the work of the enemy, who's fools today's folk as he fooled Adam and Eve -and he brings souls he has fooled to the same end as he brought Adam -spiritual death.
God bless.
In the way that man being male and female is just a theory ... !!
DeleteThank you, Lynda,
DeleteYes indeed!
God bless.
Thank you for this very apposite post Father. I think things will get worse(*), as you say, the marrying of cat, house and the dead (and perhaps even child). It could get even more worse in that people will perhaps be made to engage in unnatural sex acts or perform them because they could face penalties, ostracisation, called a "hater" and so on. Who knows perhaps twenty years down the road, after much homosexual education, it will be assumed that people will be sleeping around with both male and female, thus reducing society to further inhumanity, because as many more people will become sicker (contracting illnesses that once only resided in the homosexual community spreading outwards), expensive medical costs will be diverted to these sick people in the name of "the right to express sexuality". Medical cuts will encompass euthanizing the sick, aged and child. Infanticide is already being discussed in the medical journals. If China can enforce a "one child" policy, what will other states do?
ReplyDelete*Did not Our Lord say that in the End, it will be like the times of Noah, when God the Father destroyed the perverse Nephilim in the Flood.
Perhaps I shouldn't admit it, but some years ago I watched McDowells's Caligula. The film terrified me and I will never forget the feeling of emptiness I felt when Caligula and his family were murdered and tossed down some steps by his personal guard. A total waste of life, for indeed Caligula could have achieved so much greatness for Imperial Rome. Some people will watch the film merely because they say it's soft porn, but I thought the "porn" added weight to the film because it showed people what it was like to live in fear under such a sexually excessive insane debauched despot. I'll never forget the fear of the senators and their wives who, didn't want to, but were forced to "go" with others on this barge, or of Caligula raping a newly wed couple. The fear Senators had that Caligula would want to "go" with their daughters. By the end of the film, I was totally exhausted, shocked, sitting in silence.
With various prelates discussing bizarrely, unchastely and more importantly, yes, I would say blasphemously, the allowing for the divorced and remarried (and perhaps practising homosexuals) to receive Communion, it seems that I am finally coming to an understanding of what it means in Revelations to be the "abomination of desolation". If prelates (O'Malley etc) are allowing themselves to be baptised by Protestants, Protestants giving homilies in Mass during Christian Unity week, 70% of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence (and sadly, I'm going to have to now include priests and prelates in that), discussing the allowance of mortal sinners to receive Communion, I do wonder if one day, if someone will allow a Protestant minister to say the Mass for Catholics and confect the Eucharist. I never thought I would see, in my lifetime, the movement towards the "abomination of desolation" (of course, I could be totally wrong here in what I think the "abomination" will be).
I apologise if my comment has gone off-tangent, but with country after country, "in your face", allowing increasing sexual perversion and its consequences, I am appalled and, yes, in fear, that the Catholic Church hasn't openly re-doubled its efforts to smack it back down.
Thank you, Damask Rose,
DeleteI can see where you are coming from and I think your fears are not so exaggerated: who knows what we will be forced to do in years to come that we are not ‘haters’ of one thing or another? As for the Synod, who knows what secret hopes the participants will take with them and seek to have written into the documents? People may think such a possibility lacks faith in the Church and in the Holy Spirit but if, as Cardinal Kasper admitted publicly, the very texts of an ecumenical Council (Vatican II) had ambiguity deliberately written into them (hoodwinking almost the entire episcopate) then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Synod too will be at least ambiguous in its conclusions, allowing all sorts of irregular and sacrilegious Holy Communions to enter the Church. Of course none of us is ever worthy of Holy Communion; I could do with a large helping of humility, generosity and patience; I am not without fault, but these are what I call “common faults of daily weaknesses”; not deliberate disregard for the Church’s teaching on marriage and all that goes with it. I am sure there must be ways of supporting folk in irregular situations without pretending those irregularities do not exist and facilitating questionable Holy Communions –what would that say to and about those singles and couples striving hard to live by the Church’s teaching?
P.S. I can well understand you being left exhausted after viewing Caligula; even reading your memories of that viewing makes for difficult reading.
God Bless.