Thursday, March 14, 2013

Enough Pope-Sniping Already!

Pope Francis I on Argentina’s push for gay marriage: 'Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.' New pope, same old attitudes.” - Daily Maverick newsletter
Don't you just hate it when secular journalists attack religious institutions in the name of political correctness? All those barbed comments about the Pope being "old fashioned" because he opposes same-sex marriage? Often these comments come from the same people who sidestep the issue of our President's many wives and illegitimate children. Such hypocrisy!
FWIW, I am not a Roman Catholic; I am a Christian, and a member of a non-denominational Christian congregation. I made my marriage vows in a Christian church, and I regard marriage as a religious institution, not a civil one. So I find it repulsive when secular society tries to dictate to me what my church can and can't do when it comes to marriage vows. Why should secular society dictate to the church that it may not refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples? Has secular society ever read or understood the vows made in a marriage service?
Most secular society condemns incest and rape, but is largely silent on infidelity and extra-marital affairs, including sex before marriage. So it obviously doesn't regard marriage as a viable institution, and thus condones divorce for almost any reason. It's not surprising then that secular society doesn't have much of a problem with same-sex marriage, since it takes marriage so lightly anyway.
On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage is completely different: marriage is a covenant entered into between a man and a woman with the specific intent of creating a safe environment to raise children. It is a life-long undertaking because children need full-time parents to nurture and support them. Children and parents need grandparents to help and guide them; and uncles and aunts and cousins to provide a secure social environment. Families need a caring community to provide support and security, where children can grow and learn and develop. This includes schools, churches and other social structures.
I thought all of this was obvious, but apparently civil society (which includes journalists) have decided differently. They have decided it is OK for couples to screw around, inside and outside of marriage, and to hell with the consequences. Abortion is permissible if not encouraged; pornography and adult movies are ok in private; gay sex is ok, even at a young age, as long as it is consensual. It's inevitable and logical to allow incest and rape too. After all, there are plenty of movies and erotic literature that celebrate, if not glorify, it. Popular music has song after song that glorifies licentiousness, lust, fornication, etc. We don't even notice how permissive, bent or risqué the lyrics are.
The Roman Catholic Church has been plagued by scandals involving priests who molested under-age children. What about priests who molest grown-ups? The outrage just vanishes, because gay sex is OK, and straight sex is fine. The outrage is more about the "cover-up" than the act itself.
Isn't it inevitable that anyone who opposes "gay rights" is therefore subject to bitter attacks, if not downright character-assassination? People involved in ministry to those with issues of sexual brokenness have received death threats, been ostracized, vilified or attacked in public. Psychologists or counselors who regard lesbian or homosexual behavior as morally wrong have been expelled from (secular) professional bodies or had their credentials revoked. So much for human rights and/or morality.
I'm not saying the church is above criticism: it isn't. But sometimes the source of the criticism is worse than the criticism itself. What does a cynical pagan know about the covenant of marriage? What gives him/her the right to criticise a system he/she will never be part of, whether it changes or not? Why should I listen to people outside the church pontificate on what the church should be like? I'm tired of our modern double standards:
  • Senators and politicians talking about morality, but only when it applies to others; 
  • Journalists who drool over the doings and screwings of business, music and movie stars, but who express outrage over the same behavior by political or religious leaders; 
  • Gun advocates who glorify war (and shooting their neighbours) yet claim to be responsible citizens;
  • Parents who complain about our declining society, yet allow their children to watch sex and violence on TV and in movies, and enjoy it themselves as "entertainment";
  • Banks who pay massive bonuses to employees when they make outrageous profits, yet won't lend money to small businesses when they need to grow;
  • Laws that punish prostitutes, but not their clients;
  • A legal system that requires witnesses to take an oath, but allows lawyers to lie and twist the truth with impunity;
The list is endless. The consequences are obvious and everywhere to see.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As a christian, in reponse to those who criticise our beliefs, here's the way I see it: You don't like the church - in fact it would probably not be completely unfair to say that you hate the church. So why on earth do you want the church to endorse your beliefs? There are only a miniscule percentage of Christians who discriminate against homosexuals or harm them in any way; just as there are only a miniscule percentage of Muslims who are suicide bombers or terrorists. In fact, "love of enemies" ("love" being respect, tolerance and goodwill and "enemies" at the very least being those who are different or disagree) is a fundamental part of Christian ethics. Surely you don't have the right to tell the Church what to believe or think, since you are not part of it's belief systems or structures. If you practice the tolerance you are so fond of advocating, then leave us alone, we wish you no harm.