The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

This Could Be Its Finest Hour

By on 8.17.12 @ 6:09AM

The Church of England defends traditional marriage reverently, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God.

The U.S. based Episcopal Church’s recognition of same sex unions last month mostly excited a big yawn. More interesting is the resistance of its mother body, the Church of England, to Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to install same sex marriage in Britain. The latter’s opposition is more significant because it remains its nation’s established church and still wields political and constitutional powers.

Episcopalians have often behaved as the established church in America. It once was the church of America’s elites. But now below 2 million members and spiraling, the Episcopal Church no longer excites more than knowing smiles. Its affirmation of transgender clergy last month, at its General Convention, fulfilled stereotypes about modern, liberal Episcopalians.

The Church of England similarly often has a penchant for striving to be trendier than thou. But even as it presides over an increasingly secular Britain, it cherishes its role as senior church in the global, 80 million member Anglican Communion. And its few pockets of spiritual vitality in Britain often tend to be evangelical, often immigrant. Its second senior most prelate, the Archbishop of York, is himself a Ugandan and potentially the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

It’s also true than in a secularizing country, the Church of England (unlike U.S. Episcopalians, who mostly just resent more numerous evangelicals) appreciates the threat to religious liberty under a regime of imposed same sex marriage. How would the established church disallow what the civil law requires? The church may have to disestablish, especially if it desires any continued leadership over global Anglicans.

British media quoted church officials dismissing government plans as “‘half-baked,’ ‘very shallow,’ ‘superficial’ and ‘completely irrational.’” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Archbishop of York John Sentamu only slightly more diplomatically lamented that government proposals “have not been thought through and are not legally sound.” The church’s official response rejected the government’s push with vigorous, point-by-point rebuttals.

One organizer of that response was Bishop of Leicester Tim Steve, who declared on his own: “Marriage is not the property of the Church any more than it is the property of the Government. It is about a mutually faithful physical relationship between a man and a woman.” He warned, despite government claims of protection for churches, “If you do what the Government say they are going to do, you can no longer define marriage in that way. It becomes hollowed out, and about a relationship between two people, to be defined on a case-by-case basis.” Imposed same sex marriage would precipitate the “gradual unravelling of the Church of England which is a very high cost for the stability of society.”

In its official response, the church criticized the government’s idea, which would “alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.” Marriage benefits society by “promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.” The church noted its past support for benefits for same-sex couples, and warned that redefining marriage for “ideological reasons” would be “divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.”

Compared to Episcopalians, the Church of England sounded like Southern Baptists, declaring marriage was instituted by Christ Himself for all people as a lifelong union of man and woman. It even quoted the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, hardly an arbiter of modern fashion. And it cited ancient words so recognizable to all English speakers: “The Church of Christ understands marriage to be, in the will of God, the union of a man and a woman, for better, for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till parted by death.”

“Many, within the churches and beyond, dispute the right of any government to redefine an ages-old social institution in the way proposed,” the church noted, soundly more truly conservative than the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. “It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not a case of knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole.”

The church, which is legally bound to conduct marriages to all British citizens and currently conducts one quarter of all Britain’s marriages, wondered how its beliefs long could survive, even with ostensible protections for religious freedom. It also asked why the government would continue to allow civil partnerships for same sex couples after legalizing same sex marriage. And it asked how the new law would define adultery and consummation.

Rowan Williams steps down at the end of this year as Archbishop of Canterbury, no doubt partly due to his frustrations over schisms and divisions among Anglicans precipitated by the Episcopal Church over sex issues. He came to office with liberal views, but his liberal critics now chide him for supposedly “hardening” the church’s resistance to liberalizing on sex. The church’s defense of traditional marriage may have lasting constitutional implications for Britain. It may also turn out to be its finest hour.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.


Letter to the Editor View all comments (64) |

Aristocat| 8.17.12 @ 6:31AM

Astonishing ! I had no idea the Church of England opposed homosexual marriage. Maybe they've been reading the King James Bible:
" That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."

Otis, my man!| 8.17.12 @ 10:15AM

Who would have thought the C of E would be making a last stand? The Mayflower pilgrims were fleeing from it's King of England authorized power. Now it too is suffering the same persecution.

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.17.12 @ 4:21PM

You are wedded to remote causation, allow homosexuality and "the AntiChrist will getcha if you dont watch out": homosexuality is a v. minor issue, not even an issue; abortion is a legitimate issue-- however gay issues are wedge issues; bread 'n circuses issues.

Appleby| 8.17.12 @ 7:10AM

Every member of my family who formerly attended the Episcopal Church in America has left that body and gone elsewhere, in sheer disgust at their decision to worship the male sex organ as opposed to Jesus Christ. We are Catholic, Luthern, Baptist, Orthodox, Methodist and Foursquare now.

Harry the Horrible| 8.17.12 @ 10:43AM

My father dumped the Episcopalians and joined the Anglicans, as did most of his church.
The Episcopalians were left with a tiny congregation, an old, large, expensive to maintain church and a bishop with expensive tastes.
The Anglicans, however, are building a cathedral!

Von Mises Jr| 8.17.12 @ 7:24AM

Michael Barone's "Our First Revolution" discusses the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89. England and Ireland have a long history of religious conflict that resulted in the overthrow of James II, and before that resulted in the dictatorship of Cromwell the Puritan.
The Church of England discriminated based on the Popery Laws. To serve in government, military post or to own land, one must have been an Anglican receiving communion under the "Test Acts" three times per year. Irish Catholics could not own land and to this day there is animosity between Irish and the English.
Charles II converted on his death bed and his brother James II became the Catholic King reversing the discrimination for Catholics and against Anglicans. William whose wife Mary were both distant relatives and he invaded England unopposed. So the people of Britain have a much better understanding of the dangers posed. And we should pay heed.

Stephie| 8.17.12 @ 7:47AM

We have small Anglican church here, congregation of about 45 but slowly growing. The two regular Episcopal churches in the county are, to me, nothing more than social clubs who look at you funny if you happen to appear at a Sunday service, not a member. I almost felt as if I had to tell them the name of my waterfront property, which I don't have, and my portfolio. Physically a beautiful old historic church, but hollow on message and a nonwelcoming congregation. What a shame. I know they are liberal to core as well.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.17.12 @ 9:06AM

"The church noted its past support for benefits for same-sex couples, and warned that redefining marriage for "ideological reasons" would be "divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships."

I think this is the problem with the Anglican denomination in a nutshell. They are chary about sanctioning same sex marriage, but didn't have any problem with sanctioning same sex civil unions.

It is not the business of the state or the church to sanction perverted relationships, no matter what it's called. Now that the Anglican denomination has given its blessing to same sex civil (dis)unions, they really have no grounds for opposing same sex marriage. They end up looking like hypocrites.

The fact is, almost all major organized religious bodies, in one way or another, have become synagogues of Satan. So the fact that they refuse to condemn perversion is to be expected. The surprise is that the Anglican denomination still has a few who have not sold their souls for a mess of liberal-progressive respectability. I don't think it's going to last, however.

Peter von Kowatscheff| 8.17.12 @ 9:15AM

The polite mewling by the C of E is just a formality; assume this battle lost. Here
is a prediction: The issue will be decided by the new Archbishop of Canterbury who will, in all likelihood, be a liberal who, upon deep thought and prayer, will kindly wedge the door open ever so slightly by allowing individual clergy members and parish churches to "follow their own conscience." Game over. Ten years from now the courts and their activist judges will have incrementally chipped away at this pesky "conscience" stick-in-the-mud clause and it will be a criminal offense, under a fortified hate crimes legislation, to question or even discuss the validity of same sex "marriage" or the imagined gender of a "transgender" claimant. The state will finally be able to do what it has been aiming to do for decades; to insist that contrary to any evidence from our lying eyes, the bare-arsed emperor indeed has new clothes on and those unwilling to pretend to see them, to "celebrate" them--and to pay for them, of course--will suffer the full force of the law.

MelvinNC| 8.17.12 @ 11:22AM

Ya got to look at this way people. Laws of man are as good as the people want to follow them. If the masses don't want to follow em, then they don't have to.
Its that whole consent to be governed thing ya know.

Kingofthenet| 8.17.12 @ 11:40AM

Ah a little 'Fear of God' because if that Supernatural Monster who created everything and can do ALL things, can't "lord' it over small weak mortals, what's the point? Now please excuse me I have to get back to my Ant Farm, something tells me there is going to be a 'Fire from the Sky' Supernatural Magnifying Glass incident, that will be talked about by the survivors for weeks.

Occam's Tool| 8.17.12 @ 11:51AM

Most of us get over our desire to fry ants at age 8, King.

We move on to other things, like beating the shit out of Julian Assange.

Marriage is an instrument by which society sublimates the male sexual urge and turns it toward protection of the family and maintenance of civilized structures. That's its purpose, and screwing with that is a very bad idea. It is a very bad idea to mess with well established formats for channeling biological urges that, however imperfect, have long track records of doing their jobs.

Kingofthenet| 8.17.12 @ 7:04PM

We are the Ant's and alot more closer related to them than this Supernatural God. whatever it is. Good thing it isn't REAL.

Don O'Brien| 8.20.12 @ 11:22PM

Ant's..... ants
alot more closer related to ..... more closely related to

Why do the little show offs in the class have such poor grammar?

Big Bob| 8.17.12 @ 12:04PM

So taking a stand that is in agreement with a literal reading of the Bible is worthy of being called a church in its "finest hour"!!?? Who knew.

Petronius| 8.17.12 @ 12:11PM

Oh, the huge manatee! We can lay this one at the feet of Henry, the VIIIth of that name and Royal sausage stuffer extraordinaire; a sometime Defender of the Faith and schismatic when it didn't defend his dynasty. For England then, marriages were and some still are, affairs of State. Noble families needed permission of the crown to wed. Not so now, but the stake of the Archbishop is that of himself as an Officer of the Crown defending Royal turf. If "call me Dave" has a clue, he best not mess with this issue at all. Her Majesty would dearly love to see a Conservative Prime minister conserve something that matters for once.

Silver Bullet| 8.17.12 @ 3:50PM

"Its Finest Hour"? Hardly. It's time to admit the failure of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as Scripture itself attests.

Please see: 2Tim4:3; 1Tim3:14-15; 2Thess2:14; 1Cor11:1-12; 2Tim2:1-2; Matt.18:15-18; John20;21; Matt.18:18; Luke22:31-32; Matt.28:20.

And: "Anglicanorum Coetibus" (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html ).

Dear Anglican Brethren: Come Home! (See: http://chnetwork.org )

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.17.12 @ 6:13PM

So Silver Bullet, why are you denying sola scriptura while citing Scripture?

Nick| 8.17.12 @ 7:45PM

Probably for the same reason that Christ only used the Torah when talking to the Sadducees, Mr. Crisler. Nor, did He use any of the Duetero-canonical books against the Pharisees.
Because they rejected the other books as not inspired by God.

In the same way, as I have learned discussing Sola Scriptura with non-Catholics, you guys reject most of Sacred Tradition. This can lead to rejection of the Holy Trinity (remember Margie & Victor?).

Plus, the Bible NEVER claims to be the "sole" basis for our belief in the Gospel of Christ, nor, our only authority.

Remember what the Ethiopian said when Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
He answered, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31)
Sacred Scripture must be taught by those who have the authority.
God Bless!

Bob James| 8.17.12 @ 9:39PM

Oooo-rah, Nick. Well done. Robert Sungenis would have taken 1,500 pages to say the same!

Meaning no disrespect to our Episcopalian and Anglican brethren, I have to agree with Peter von Kowvatscheff and Silver Bullet. Rowan Atkinson could have slapped down the Episcopalians when they endorsed priestesses, catamites, and now, surgical circus freaks as clerics. He washed his hands and did nothing. Remember, Mr. Atkinson was the same cleric who endorsed Londanistan and said sharia law has a place in Merry Ol'.

King Henry VIII was named Defender of the Faith by none other than Pope Leo X. Why? Because Henry was a Catholic, who mounted vigorous and learned defenses of the faith from . . . heretics. He did an excellent job. Of course, when his dynastic needs demanded it, he instead sundered the Church Militant. Today's British monarchs, to their eternal shame, still cling to that title, duly won, but surrendered for earthly pursuits.

I suppose we can take solace in the thousands of saints created by Henry's schismatic usurpation of Church prerogatives. Many were parish priests who risked (and lost) their lives bringing the sacraments to the faithful at the risk of death.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.17.12 @ 9:56PM

Bob, the Roman Catholic denomination did nothing for years to stop the terrible abuse by homosexual priests. Now, everyone thinks Catholics priests are just homosexuals who haven't been caught.

When Catholics surrendered long ago to the idea that homosexuality is a legitimate orientation, they lost any right to criticize Anglicans for similar lapses in faithfulness to Scripture.

John2| 8.17.12 @ 11:15PM

Dear C. Vernon Crisler,
As you claim to know Catholicism, you will perhaps resonate to a bit of fraternal correction, to wit: Now, every anti-Catholic bigot thinks Catholics priests are just homosexuals who haven't been caught.

Do you see?

You then inform us that, “…Catholics surrendered long ago to the idea that homosexuality is a legitimate orientation,…”
Catholics consider homosexuality to be a disordered state that leads to grave (mortal) sin. I will not give in to the temptation to ask rhetorical questions like, “Do you know a Catholic?” or “Do you believe Catholic faith has any content whatsoever?”

I will just state plainly and for your benefit that your knowledge of Catholicism is deficient.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.18.12 @ 12:03AM

Sorry John2 but that old "anti-Catholic bigot" dog won't hunt. The accusation of bigotry for anyone who criticizes Catholicism is just an old RC talking point, and has no logical validity.

Catholicism has accepted the validity of homosexual orientation. Perhaps you don't know what your own denomination is teaching:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....atholicism

The Catholic teaching on this subject -- that homosexual inclination or orientation is not itself sinful -- is objectively Satanic.

Jesus tells us that we are not even to lust after another man's wife; it's not just a matter of adulterous ACTS. He did not authorize any idea of an adulterous "orientation," nor should those who claim to be Christian authorize such perverted ethical ideas as taught by your denomination.

John2| 8.18.12 @ 3:45PM

Dear Vernon,
You claim logic and objectivity, and vilify the Church.
LOGIC:
Don’t pretend you used logic to defeat an “old RC talking point.” On the contrary, my friend, you are using the language of an anti-Catholic bigot. Some possibilities:
1. You cut-and-pasted someone else’s words, or
2. Someone commented using your name, or
3. Maybe you really believe what you posted. In this case hunt as you like, and do whatever you like with any consenting dog (this is the appropriate riposte to your reverent note on “…perverted ethical ideas as taught by your denomination”).

Don’t miss the point, Vernon -- Option 3 would make you an anti-Catholic bigot. But options 1 and 2 are not yet foreclosed to you.

Perhaps you don’t know that Wikipedia is a poor source. The Catechism is the source. I do hope you find some light and climb up from authorship of, “…perverted ethical ideas as taught by your denomination.”

Turning quickly to objectivity: You inform us that, “The Catholic teaching on this subject -- that homosexual inclination or orientation is not itself sinful -- is objectively Satanic.”
Vernon, that is an anti-Catholic bigot’s version of the Church’s teaching. It is NOT the Church’s teaching, as Nick’s (8.18.12 @ 2:57PM) comment should help you to learn.
Objectively? Are you pointing to Rand’s “philosophy?” Or is this a false clue, provided by you, for the benefit of the dog?

Best to you and yours.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.18.12 @ 7:53PM

John2, two can play the game: I can just as easily call you an anti-Protestant bigot.

John2| 8.18.12 @ 9:54PM

Dear Vernon,

Two can play, one will lose.
1. You will find no anti-Protestant bigotry in my comments. I pointed out that you brought us some anti-Catholic bigotry, but I cannot be sure that you are a bigot. I guessed that you cut-and-pasted someone else’s words, or that someone else might be using your name, or that you might be a Randian, but that does not make me a bigot.
2. Recheck my comments; I did not refer to any faith other than Roman Catholicism, which you attacked. No, you cannot call me a bigot on that basis, either.
3. I am the unlikeliest anti-Protestant bigot you could imagine. I am on good terms with thousands of Protestants, as I make daily contact with dozens; some days, hundreds. I will not give in to the temptation to ask rhetorical questions like, “Do you know a Catholic?”
4. I had a little fun with your “that dog won’t hunt” but that was not bigotry. Nor am I bigoted against dogs.

I guess that’s enough for now. How might you benefit from this?

I will just state plainly and for your benefit that your knowledge of Catholicism is deficient. Do read the Catechism and follow Nick’s links. There is more to the RC faith than you seem to think. I will know you have done this when you post a comment something like:

“The Catholic faith has a lot in common with the Protestant faiths, which developed from Catholicism.”

Best to you and yours. You are not corresponding with an enemy here.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.19.12 @ 9:50PM

John2

I've been around awhile. The following are typical RC talking points used for years against Protestants when they criticize Catholics or Catholic teaching:

"I will just state plainly and for your benefit that your knowledge of Catholicism is deficient."

"my friend, you are using the language of an anti-Catholic bigot."

The claim was also made:

"It's time to admit the failure of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as Scripture itself attests."

From my perspective, attacks on sola Scriptura, claims that Protestant don't understand RC teaching, and accusations of anti-Catholic bigotry, are just examples of anti-Protestant bigotry.

As I said, two can play at this game.

In addition, you and your buddies still have not provided a good reason why sola Scriptura is wrong and the RC position is right.

John2| 8.19.12 @ 11:47PM

Dear Vernon,
A seventeen year old fifth grader could say he has been around for awhile; too bad it isn’t doing him any good.

Two can play this game? Yes, it seems this is just a game to you. Nick put you on the right road. You won’t go. Two can play, one will lose.

I am under orders to try to help anyone twice. If no response, then leave them alone.

Best to you and yours.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.20.12 @ 8:15AM

John2, typical Catholic arrogance and disrespect for others....and anti-Protestant bigotry.

John2| 8.20.12 @ 6:23PM

Dear Vernon,
I want to acknowledge receipt of your note. I will resist the temptation to contend with you further; it is unnecessary. Your substantive argument and method of disputation are clear. The reader can decide who is arrogant and who disrespects others. So now I leave you alone.

Best to you and yours.

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 2:57PM

"Bob, the Roman Catholic denomination did nothing for years to stop the terrible abuse by homosexual priests."

This is not true, at all, Mr. Crisler. Please see my summarization, in a reply to MK48, on this subject:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_850283

And before you bring up the Inquisition, read the facts on that distorted period of history, first:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

Also, the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality does not give them permission to "lust" after anybody. They are called to chastity as all single people are.

Since we don't know what causes them to be attracted to their own gender, and we do know that God didn't create them with that inclination, we can't say that having a same-gender attraction, without acting on it, is a sin. Sin is ALWAYS an act on our part. And, lusting is an act of the will, is it not?
Being attracted to another man's wife is not a sin, but, coveting her is a sin.

As I constantly tell DRed & other liberals: Don't get your information from wiki. You're just asking for trouble.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.18.12 @ 7:53PM

Nick, the wikipedia article is an accurate summary of RC's damnable teaching on this subject.

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 8:18PM

Parts of it were accurate, parts of it were wrong, and parts were distortions and out of context quotations. As John2 advised you, go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to know what the Church really teaches.
Are you claiming that it is a sin to be attracted to your neighbor's wife?

I hope you read those links, by the way.
God Bless!

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.19.12 @ 9:41PM

Nick, which parts were wrong, and why? Presumably, those who wrote the article read the documents you are referring to.

Nick| 8.19.12 @ 11:43PM

It's not my job to proof-read wiki for you, Mr. Crisler.
And, you presume too much. You should just take my advice and double-check anything you read in wiki. Triple-check.

But, since you asked, here was a simple one:

"The church has also issued a statement that 'urges States to do away with criminal penalties against [homosexual persons],'[9] calling it 'grave violations of human rights.'"

The second quote, in bold, is not in the Holy See Delegation's statement.

Also, there IS NOT "considerable debate within the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Church's teaching on homosexuality."

Nick| 8.19.12 @ 11:45PM

p.s. You keep avoiding answering whether, or not, you consider being attracted to your neighbor's wife a sin?

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.20.12 @ 8:27AM

Nick, the phrase was citing something from footnote 10, Catholic News Agency. It said:

"Following an afternoon panel discussion about treatment of homosexuals by governments around the world, the Vatican’s legal attaché to the United Nations issued a Dec. 10 statement saying the Holy See continues to oppose “all grave violations” of homosexual persons’ human rights.

So again, where are the errors

I should note also that the unholy See "continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them."

Given that the Bible has the death penalty for homosexuality, this declaration is really a declaration of war against the Bible. I'm not advocating the dp for homosexuality, but the idea that states cannot legislate against homosexuality shows just how far the RC denomination has gone in its tolerance for evil.

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 11:57AM

"Nick, the phrase was citing something from footnote 10 [...]."

No, it isn't, Mr. Crisler. Read the sentence again:
"The church has also issued a statement that 'urges States to do away with criminal penalties against [homosexual persons],'[9] calling it 'grave violations of human rights.'"

That sentence is claiming that the "grave violations" quote is found in the statement cited in footnote 9, not footnote 10. That quote is found NOWHERE in the December 18th, 2008, statement, i.e., footnote 9.
I trust CNA, so I assume those quotations are correct.
You asked for any errors & I gave you two that I spotted rather quickly.

I see that you have AGAIN avoided answering if you consider it a sin to be attracted to your neighbor's wife. Why?

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 12:26PM

Continued....

"I'm not advocating the dp for homosexuality [...]."

Why is it okay for you to change a command given by God, but, it is evil for the Catholic Church to do so?

"[...] but the idea that states cannot legislate against homosexuality [...]."

This is not what the Holy See stated. She "urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them." Is says nothing about legislation.

The main point of the CNA story concerned States that use capital punishment, torture, cruel & inhuman treatment against homosexuals.
Do you advocate the use of torture? Is it okay for homosexuals to be beaten by their fellow citizens? (I'm not favoring so-called "hate-crimes" legislation, either.)

For almost 2,000 years the Catholic Church has urged dignified treatment for all men. Whether they be Blessed Mother Teresa, or, Charlie Manson. All men are created in the image & likeness of God, and are entitled to just & fair treatment as such. Even if guilty of heinous crimes.

This is not a "tolerance for evil," as you mistakenly put it. This is following the Gospel of Christ.
"Love thy enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
- Matthew 5:44

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.20.12 @ 4:21PM

Nick, you are appealing to trivialities, not to anything of substance. It was a spokesman for the Vatican who talked about the "grave violations" business.

Also, since the Bible allowed Israel the death penalty for homosexuality, non-Israelite commonwealths can certainly impose the death penalty for homosexuality. Early America did so, even though Jefferson would later amend the laws of Virginia to remove the death penalty and use castration instead.

We are not under the Israelite theocracy, so we don't have to impose their civil laws. However, to regard criminal penalties against homosexuality (no matter how mild) as unjust is a backhanded way of criticizing the morality of the Bible.

I repeat, the Roman Catholic denomination has sold its ethical soul by accepting the concept of homosexual "orientation." I suppose they did this so they wouldn't have excommunicate a lot of their priests. Nevertheless, the only orientation the Bible speaks of is the "natural use" -- that which is consistent with the created order. Homosexuality is not consistent with the created order, and that is why St. Paul says that it's worthy of death. There is no "orientation" about it.

You need to get off your ecclesiastical high horse and instead of criticizing Anglicans, remove the beam from you own denominational eye.

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 7:38PM

It was you, Mr. Crisler, who asked "which parts were wrong, and why?" Remember?
It is you who is engaging in trivialities, I'm afraid.
That sentence is NOT accurate, yet, you still persist in arguing the point. You seem unable to admit that you were wrong.
And, there is NOT a "considerable debate within the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Church's teaching on homosexuality," by the way. You keep avoiding that one.

Plus, statements by the Holy See's delegation to the UN are NOT dogma of the Catholic Church. And, as far as I know, the word "orientation" is just a bad translation. The CCC never uses that word. It uses the word inclination.

"However, to regard criminal penalties against homosexuality (no matter how mild) as unjust is a backhanded way of criticizing the morality of the Bible."

No, it is not. Do you consider torture "mild"? How about harsh & abusive prison sentences? Again, you were wrong about the Church being against "legislat[ing]," the Holy See delegation never said that. Why is okay for you to be against the death penalty for homosexual acts, but not us Catholics?

"You need to get off your ecclesiastical high horse and instead of criticizing Anglicans, remove the beam from you own denominational eye."

When did I criticize the Anglicans?

Are you ever going to answer whether you consider being attracted to your neighbor's wife a sin, Mr. Crisler?
Or, may I assume that you have conceded the point?

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 12:17AM

Thanks, Mr. James!
Saint Thomas More, Pray For Us.

Muriel| 8.20.12 @ 2:39PM

Wow - Mr Bean is the Archbishop of Canterbury?

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.17.12 @ 9:52PM

And how do you know whether someone has the authority to do the guiding?

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 12:08AM

"And how do you know whether someone has the authority to do the guiding?"

That's easy, Mr. Crisler. Apostolic succession and remaining in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Saint Peter (Kepha in Aramaic).
They are the guardians and teachers of the Deposit of Faith, i.e., Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition.

Scripture & Tradition, along with the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church,) together make up what has been called the three-legged stool of the Catholic Church.
Take away one leg, and the the Church can't stand.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.18.12 @ 1:06PM

Nick, how do you know whether someone is a successor to the Apostles?

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 2:04PM

Because the early Christians wrote down the succession of bishops from each See, or, diocese, Mr. Crisler.

I think Saint Irenaeus put it best when he wrote:
"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (Against Heresies 3:3:4 [A.D. 189]).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 2:05PM

Read more here:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts.....succession

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.18.12 @ 7:51PM

Nick, how do you know the early Christians wrote these things?

Nick| 8.18.12 @ 8:13PM

Mr. Crisler, how do you know Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John wrote their respective Gospels?
How do you know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.19.12 @ 9:38PM

Nick, I'm asking you the question. It seems to me if you think the Bible needs an infallible, authoritative interpreter on account of epistemological problems, then the same problem infects any other writing, including the writings of those who presume to give authoritative guidance.

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 12:09AM

My answer is in my two questions, Mr. Crisler, if look close enough.

It is by my faith in the Inspired Word of God that I believe Moses is the author of the first five books of the Bible. Since, the author never identifies himself.

The authors of the four Gospels never identify themselves, either. Only Saint John comes closest. It is only through Sacred Tradition that we know names of the Four Evangelists.

This is what happens when you discard Sacred Tradition. You can't be sure of who wrote much of the New Testament, nor, which books of the Bible deserve to be in the Canon of Scripture, and which do not.

I'm not claiming that the writings of the early Church Fathers are inspired by the Holy Spirit. But, they are accurate histories of the early Christian Church. As much, if not more so, than the works of Josephus or Tacitus. Do you question their authorship?

So, I ask again, how do you know who wrote the four Gospels?

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.20.12 @ 8:32AM

Nick, you are missing the point. You refer to Sacred Tradition, but the same problem you find with the Bible would also infect Sacred Tradition, and also the early church fathers.

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 12:55PM

No, Mr. Crisler, you are avoiding answering yet another one of my questions.

I have no "problem" with the Bible, or, its Divine origins. I have a problem with private and false interpretations, like Sola Scriptura. Which, again, is found NOWHERE in the Bible, is it? (You never answered that objection, remember?)
The New Testament repeatedly testifies to the fact that the Gospel must be taught, both tradition and doctrine, both orally and by letter (cf 2Tim 2:2; 2Thess 2:15).
Christ gave the Apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost, in order to protect the Gospel from corruption & error. The Apostles passed on this gift to "faithful men" by the laying on of hands, i.e., Apostolic Succession.

If you accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John wrote the Gospels accredited to them, you are already accepting Sacred Tradition, without admitting it.
If you accept all 27 books found in the New Testament, again, you are accepting Tradition, without admitting it.
Scripture ALONE will not give you the answers to these questions, will it?

You can deny it to yourself, Mr. Crisler, but I can see it very clearly.
God Bless!

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.20.12 @ 4:31PM

Nick, like most Catholics who are unfamiliar with Protestant teaching, you are confusing sola Scriptura with solo Scriptura. The problem with your view is that you think the Bible needs an authoritative interpretation, but you don't understand that all of those presumptive intepretations would in turn need authoritative interpretations.

Of course, once you've seen the epistemological problem with the anti-sola Scriptura view, and admit to the need for reason and historical investigation, you then admit the need for "private" interpretation. You would not accept some group's claims to authority without doing your homework. That's called the Berean principle, i.e., the principle of "private" interpretation; using common sense in judging the claims of others.

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 8:07PM

"Nick, like most Catholics who are unfamiliar with Protestant teaching, you are confusing sola Scriptura with solo Scriptura."

Please, enlighten me.
I thought that Sola Scriptura is translated, "By Scripture alone". Almost every Protestant I have discussed this with has basically said that the Bible is the sole authority by which we know how to be a Christian. (I know Anglicans don't hold to this view.)
Is this not correct?

You don't seem to have any answers to my questions, nor, do you have any biblical refutation, either.

"The problem with your view is that you think the Bible needs an authoritative interpretation [...]."

No, I do not. The Catholic Church does not provide an interpretation for EVERY verse of Scripture. But, there are various verses of Scripture that the Church does define, infallibly (e.g., Gen. 3:15; Matt. 16:18-19)

"You would not accept some group's claims to authority without doing your homework."

I do not regard faith as a process of the intellect alone. Faith comes from the heart, as well as from reason. I don't need to keep investigating. I could spend the rest of my days just reading the Bible and the lives of the saints.

Nick| 8.20.12 @ 8:15PM

Continued....

Plus, you are assuming that I haven't done my homework. I assure you, I have. This is why I make an appeal to authority, i.e., the writings of the early Church Fathers. An appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, if the authority is competent.

I find that the writings of men who knew the Apostles, or, knew men who knew the Apostles, to have much, much more authority than men who were born over a millennium after Christ walked the earth.

In Acts, the Bereans went to search the Scriptures after they had been instructed by Paul. They still had to accept the authority of Paul, because he was sent (apóstolos) by Christ.

Are you admitting that you accept some traditions?
Are you Anglican, by the way?

Don O'Brien| 8.21.12 @ 12:10AM

NIck, What a totally fascinating debate. As a RC recently returned to full practice of my Faith, I gained a great deal from your comments. My heartfelt gratitude. God Bless you and yours.

Nick| 8.21.12 @ 7:31PM

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. You are very kind.

Check in more often. You will see discussions like this all the time. There are several Catholic regulars here, at AmSpec, who proudly defend the Faith.
And also several non-Catholics who defend their point of view with respect.

There are a few who are rude, but, there's not much you can do about that in the comboxes, I'm afraid.
God Bless!

KamilBourne13| 8.18.12 @ 3:01PM

like Dawn answered I'm alarmed that a student able to earn $7545 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this website EarlyRich(dot)com

KamilBourne13| 8.18.12 @ 3:03PM

as Eugene implied I cannot believe that someone can make $9311 in a few weeks on the computer. did you read this site EarlyRich(dot)com (Click "Home" on the menu bar)

TLP| 8.19.12 @ 8:51AM

Record Unemployment. Record Number of Homes in Foreclosure. Record Number of Americans on Food Stamps, living at the Poverty Line, living BELOW the Poverty Line. The worst Housing Market since they started keeping Records. American Cities declaring BANKRUPTCY! 

Record Homelessness, although you wouldn't know it, because outfits like The WAPO don't run stories on The Homeless, when there's a Democrat in The White House. 

Record Bank Failures. Record number of Bankruptcies. The first Downgrade of our Credit Rating in the History of this Country. 

Illegal Drilling Moratoriums. Illegal Recess Appointments. Gun Running. The first Cabinet Member in our History, to be found In Contempt of Congress. Chronic Leaking of Intelligence Secrets. 

Trillion $ Deficits EVERY YEAR. $5,000,000,000,000 in New Debt. Thousands upon Thousands of Job Killing Regulations. Job Killing Government Agencies in the form of The EPA, Energy and Interior Departments, as well as at "The Blacks Only" Justice Department, and the NLRB. 

But, don't worry.  

All this can be fixed, if we can just See Mitt Romney's Tax Returns. 

Pathetic.

Occam's Tool| 8.20.12 @ 2:10PM

I don't hold out much hope for the C of E, especially with its current dhimmi as Archbishop.

But there's a reason for marriage---it corrals men and makes them do the right thing. It is extremely useful, and not to be trifled with.

Occam's Tool| 8.20.12 @ 2:11PM

By the way, I NEVER get into Protestant/ Catholic fights, unless Israel is involved. I wish blessings upon Nick and Vernon both.

More Articles by Mark Tooley

More Articles From Special Report

Tornado Chasers

May 24, 2013 | Claire Healey

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/17/this-could-be-its-finest-hour

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|59 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|93 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 4:19PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.