The Green MP for Brighton Pavillion seemed very happy to have before her five Catholics explaining to her their concerns over the proposals for same-sex marriage.
We were, for reasons which will become obvious, I think, able to convey that we do not come at this subject from a position of bigotry, but of genuine concern for people, relationships, families, employees, homosexual persons and frankly, anyone living and working in the United Kingdom as well as for the institution of marriage.
The Big Issue
Anyone who reads this blog or who is familiar with the Catholic response to the issue of 'same-sex marriage' will understand the many points on which Catholics object to the redefinition of marriage. First and foremost, our understanding of marriage is that it is a natural institution which precedes the State and the Church which finds its origin and meaning in the union of man and woman, to the exclusion of all other forms of union. For the State to redefine it, even for motivations which it deems to be worthy, is for the State to extend itself beyond its legitimate remit over human affairs. The purpose of marriage is this union of man and woman for their mutual benefit and happiness and so that by this loving union of two people, their sexual union may bring forth children in a loving home to form a family. This is for the good not just of the couple themselves, but for human society. Marriage and the family serves what the Church understands as the 'common good'. You are likely only here, indeed, because of at least one, or not both of these institutions: marriage and the family - thus these institutions can't be that bad.
Caroline Lucas warmly greeted this small delegation of parishioners of St Mary Magdalen Church, among whom was an 11 week old baby (that's 9 months + 11 weeks). The mother of this beautiful baby, Caroline Farrow was able to hold her little child while explaining to Caroline Lucas the many reasons why this same-sex proposal was not in the common good. In what was a 20 minute surgery, the group were able to present to Caroline Lucas our view on what 'gay marriage' could mean for those who disagree with it, religious or not, when or if it comes into force as legislation. We explained that we had already seen cases in which those in the public sphere had been punished for not accepting homosexual unions as such and especially those who voice their dissent over 'gay marriage' and that were this proposal to be passed, the consequences for those who disagree would be bound to be severe. This would be the case for those who work as teachers, chaplains, registrars as well as those parents who felt that an education in homosexuality and the union of two persons of the same-sex was not in their child's best interests.
Among our delgation was more than one person of a homosexual orientation and therefore we were able to present to Caroline Lucas the truth that while human relationships and human sexuality can indeed be 'diverse' that in the Church, at least, homosexuals are not blamed for the condition, but find forgiveness and hope. One of the delegation pointed out that 'same-sex marriage' would also have consequences for the standing of civil partnerships, which were legislated for, ostensibly, to bring legal rights to homosexuals and lesbians. The so-called 'upgrade', presumably, makes that legislation, which was feared to be the foot in the door for marriage it clearly was, to be redundant.
We also discussed the consequences for the established Church of England and that the cases that could be brought against the Church in future would inevitably lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England. Whatever one thinks of that, it is hardly the kind of event that should take place as a side effect of legislation which has nothing to do with it. Overall, I think, we were able to communicate effectively to Caroline Lucas that what appears at first to be something concerned with 'marriage equality' leads inexorably to a range of secondary consequences which will damage the institution of marriage, as all marriages become simply 'parties to a marriage' (how many?) and husbands and wives, mothers and fathers are airbrushed from reams of Government legislation that exists now and will have to be created in the future. Most of these points of contention, I believe, have been covered on this blog and in the many resources online which set out the Church's deep opposition to 'same-sex marriage'.
So, what was Caroline Lucas's response? Well, Caroline Lucas seemed appreciative, as I say, of our honesty, our compassion for homosexuals, our pleasant and well-mannered approach to discussion and seemed to appreciate our contributions. While she certainly said that we had given her much to 'think about', she also made it clear that we know 'where she stands on the matter', but that she would give the issue more thought. The point at which she was most interested, perhaps not surprisingly as a politician, was when Caroline Farrow mentioned the ComRes poll suggesting that 70% of the British public are against the proposal to redefine marriage. Caroline Lucas had not seen this poll. 'Please could you send it to me...' was her response.
At one point, however, Caroline Lucas, in defending the proposal and examining our opposition, suggested that there exist many heterosexual couples who marry but who decide not to have children. What, for instance, do we think as Catholics of artificial birth control which can separate the unitive act of lovemaking from its procreative purpose? We suggested that while it is the case that because such tools for the regulation of fertility exist, that there is nothing particularly 'green' about pumping yourself full of chemicals which are then released into the water supply. In fact, different people responded to that question in different ways to counter Caroline Lucas's argument in defence of 'gay marriage'. Seeing a flaw in the birth control argument, in terms of demographic catastrophe of the Western World, I went on the offensive. 'The Church was right', I maintained, 'to warn the West of the contraceptive culture' because our birth rate in the West is now something like 1.8.
Indeed, what was most revealing about Caroline Lucas's personal beliefs was her response to my assertion that the Church had been proved right over artificial birth control because of the declining and unsustainably low birth rate in the West. Her response?
"But the population a huge problem and we're destroying the planet!"
And, sorrowfully, therein lies the huge clash of beliefs now taking place between the Church and the secular World. Summarised in Caroline Lucas's response is the heart of the creed of a Green agenda which sees the human race as a problem or indeed a solution only in as much as man's place in the World exists in order to serve and preserve the environment at all costs.
This means, in fact, that policies which serve the common good of humanity are incrementally replaced by policies which serve the good of 'the Earth'. In that statement, we see that what the Church is confronting here, is not a mere set of beliefs of secularists who consider population to be an 'important issue', but a religion built around the conservation of 'Mother Earth'. What we're seeing is the deification of the Earth and the reclassification of human beings, its inhabitants, as an essentially problematic part of Earth's landscape.
This means that on a range of issues, be it abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual and lesbian marriage, perhaps euthanasia and assisted suicide, while someone who signs up to a 'Green policy' may indeed recognise, in all these things, something that is intrinsically inhuman, that this intrinsic wrong and the various consequences that flow from this intrinsic wrong for humanity and societies as a whole are worth it not for even the 'greater good of humanity' but for the greater good of the Earth. This moral relativism is given ideological power because even if it is at times objectively detrimental to the common good, its evil is over-ridden by the good it does for the Earth in terms of the lesser number of humans exploiting or harming this planet.
 |
| 'Gay marriage' serves the Green agenda |
It does not take a genius philosopher or a great prophet to see that such a view on man's place in the World is a recipe for all manner of evils and that the inherent logic of the 'green' philosophy leads to the acceptance of a greater role of the State in human affairs, perhaps totalitarianism and even human sacrifice in order to appease a planet that views us as parasitic beings destroying its beauty and ecology. This is ecological utilitarianism.
This is why, I believe, Caroline Lucas is able to hold together the acceptance of various aspects of 'same-sex marriage' or abortion, or perhaps even euthanasia, as having potentially negative consequences for individual human persons, while also holding the view that despite the many potential or actual negative consequences, they are worth it, because the detriment to individuals, families, institutions and even freedom itself are worth it in order to preserve and protect Mother Earth. I would confidently assert that what the Church is dealing with in the 'same-sex marriage' debate is a host of men and women whose beliefs, while essentially anti-human, are anti-human for different reasons, one of which is, in the case of Caroline Lucas MP, on a par with religion. That religion is, essentially, the neo-paganism of the New Age.
During the surgery, I pointed out to Caroline that many British laws based on Christianity were being eroded, overturned and replaced with new laws which did not serve the 'common good' and that at the heart of the Christian vision of a society was this idea of the common good, a good served by the promotion of marriage and the family and of respect for the sanctity of human life. It did not, then, occur to me, why while Caroline Lucas can see the attraction of policies that serve the common good, that their replacement by the British State with laws which did not serve this good could be more appealing than those which did. In order to understand why Caroline Lucas should believe this, we need to understand the 'new age' spirituality for which Brighton and Hove is an obvious contender for a 'New Age City of the Year Award'.
The New Age
Like the paganism of our Angle forefathers, the neo-paganism of the new age holds aloft creation to be worshipped or at least venerated to a level that is excessive. Essentially, we are dealing here with a philosophy which crowns the Earth, nature and the environment with those attributes that belong to its Creator from Whom all goodness and virtue flow.
Yet none of these sins can be matched by the mortal sin of excessive human reproduction, because, you see, the problem with the environment is us, even while we are an integral part of the whole ecology. If only we were eradicated, or lessened to a small number, our impact on the Earth would be minimised and Mother Earth would be happy, yielding forth an abundance of organic fruit and vegetables to feed the animals and the 500 million inhabitants of the Earth that are left once we've depopulated 2/3 of the World. Then Mother would be happy. Oh yes. Worried yet? No? Well, you should be.
The Church's Response to the New Age
The Catholic Church's response to the New Age beliefs is one of prudence. Yes, it is true, says the Church, that men and women are 'stewards' of the Earth and should be responsible with its resources. However, stewardship of the Earth does not mean the creation of a philosophy which holds man to be in any way a parasitic or subordinate creature to the Earth or any kind of 'cancer' upon it. No. Believe it or not, while the Earth is 'good', man's creation is 'very good' despite our fallen, often selfish behaviour. All human life is sacred in a way in which the lives of the other creatures are not since man is made in God's image and likeness. By adoption of Baptism, man's relationship with his Creator is restored in Christ, by whose blood we are redeemed. And what Christ is by nature, we become by adoption. And it matters not to the value of human life whether a man is baptised, or not. Baptism affects man's salvation and raises him to glory, but all persons are endowed with a unique dignity as human persons. All human life is instrinsically sacred at the moment of conception to death, infinitely valuable and precious in the sight of God. God is the Father of all mankind.
The Church also holds as inherently heretical and dangerous any attribution to the Earth and the environment those powers and virtues that belong to the Creator. Anyone who is familiar with the psalms will realise that while it is a gift to man to delight in the wonders of God's creation, God's creation, including man, was made to praise and lavish worship upon the Creator of all things.
The video above shows the Office being sung by monks. Well, you can hear them anyway. The lyrics for the Laudate Dominum are, briefly...
'Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise him, all his angels: praise him all his hosts. Praise him sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars and light. Praise him, O ye heaven of heavens: and let all the waters that are above the heavens, praise the name of the Lord. For he spake, and they were made: he commanded and they were created. He hath established them for ever, even for ever and ever: he hath made a decree, and it will not pass away...'
It goes on to ask fire, hail, snow, mountains, hills, trees and cattle, birds and other animals and, of course, people and angels to give praise and worship to God because in God do all things, including us, find our fulfilment, meaning and purpose.
The Church's vision of man is messianic in as much as God became man in order to redeem him and take him to where He now lives. The new age vision of man is messianic in as much as man can redeem himself through a combined community effort that 'saves the planet'. The Church's vision of God is one of a loving Father, whose Justice is appeased by the saving work of the Redeemer which brings man into friendship with God. The new age vision of God denies Him entirely and places creation into the centre of human activity - caring for an Earth that will react angrily and with justice if we do not work alongside her in living sound, ecologically balanced lives. The Church's vision of man is one of abundance - to 'go forth and multiply' - to be fruitful - something that is naturally human, set in contrast to a new age attitude towards new life that sees fertility and childbirth as obstacles to be overcome for the sake of the planet. The new age vision of man is to sacrifice human beings in order for the Earth to repay us with her gratitude and an abundance of harvest. In no way does homosexuality or same-sex marriage threaten this kind of inhuman dogma.
The Green movement does not present the Church with a new problem. It presents the Church with an old problem in new clothes. Plenty of people around St Francis's time were falling back into pagan superstition. It is easy, too, to see why, to the Green Party and new age proponents, abortion, same-sex marriage and the host of elements in the 'culture of death' are supportable despite the harm these things do to human beings, families and society, because all of these things, yes, same-sex marriage too, serve to reduce the human population, in order to please and serve Mother Earth. In fact, the goal of preserving Mother Earth is so very attractive to what is a global, well-funded environmental movement with UN approval, that it would be no surprise to me if over the years and decades to come, these things could become mandatory on an international scale, because, as the Church will tell you from experience, whenever there is a new religion with a particular creed, you will always have dissenters and heretics. Thankfully, we can rely on the new age enthusiasts and the Green movement to show mercy to the heretics, as this promotional video for the campaign 10:10 to reduce carbon emissions nicely shows us.
Worried yet? Ah, I'm sure they're only joking. Incredibly, these guys have actually been going around campaigning in Brighton schools. Try getting pro-lifers into Brighton schools and see the reaction! Seriously, though, this is no laughing matter. Here is why.
UN Agenda 21
As we know, the population movement, morphing neatly with the Green movement is an incredibly powerful force in the Western world. The United Nations Population Fund was funded and founded by incredibly rich men who, eugenic in outlook, believed in Malthusian predictions that human resources would run out in the last century. Among those who have invested heavily in the UN Population Fund and who have their very own Population Council in the US are the Rockefeller dynasty, among other multi-billionaires, who happen to be one of the richest families on the planet. Not heard of it? Well, that's not surprising, because nobody involved with it in the Green movement wants you to read it. Here's Glenn Beck explaining it. Take it away Glenn.
You may not have heard of Agenda 21, but I think Caroline Lucas has. Sadly, despite a mutually respectful dialogue, I have to acknowledge that there will be little chance of Caroline Lucas changing her opinion or voting intentions should this proposal come to the House of Commons. At the heart of the Green MP's agenda is Agenda 21: the program for the enslavement of the West under a communistic global regime masking its real vision of an inhuman, brutal and dictatorial totalitarian State that will stop at nothing - nothing - to achieve its objectives, first locally until going global, with an excessively romantic, inordinate love for the environment. Anyone - anyone - working actively and knowingly towards the implementation of the horrifically anti-democratic and dystopian Agenda 21 is not working for you, but the very rich and powerful of this World to the detriment of the human population.
Say a prayer for Caroline Lucas and pray for all legislators to God and His Mother, our Mother and Queen, crowned in Glory, whose Immaculate Heart will triumph.
No comments:
Post a Comment