Fact-based criticism of the Benedict Option
Found this via Twitter. Good stuff with regard to why the Benedict Option would be no protection for the Faithful. Excerpt:
In any case, St. Benedict wasn't running away from an oppressive state. Had there been a state wanting to stamp out monasticism, he would have been a sitting duck. The Protestant rulers of Ireland found it extremely difficult to impose Anglicanism on the hearts of the people, but childishly simple to burn down the monasteries. Later there were secret seminaries, but even this had to wait for the persecution to move into a less militant phase.
St. Benedict is the wrong model; his was a capital-intensive approach to preserving learning and Catholic orthodoxy. We are going to need to be lighter on our feet. St. Edmund Campion and St. Oliver Plunket are the people to study. The exiled institutions, the secret printing presses, the underground Cathedrals, the network of trusted Catholics, and a resistance to torture.
A ghetto has a lot to say for it, for a beleagured cultural minority, but it requires at least a degree of cooperation with the civil authorities. The original 'geto' was the Jewish quarter in Venice: half protected space, half prison camp.
However I'm not sure he is entirely correct in predictions like the following:
Gay couples will demand to be 'married' in Church. Some priests will give them some kind of ceremony: some priests will refuse. The latter will be prosecuted for discrimination. It will be no protection to them to say they are not acting as agents of the state. It is not only agents of the state who are under the law. They are offering a service to the public: they should not discriminate. The difference between making a reasoned distinction between real and pseudo marriage, on the one hand, and homophobia, on the other, has already been collapsed by the courts in England.
There are presently some legal hurdles to a successful prosecution, at least in the UK, but those hurdles will come under intense pressure and, if the success of the so-called progressive agenda continues, they will disappear. Faithful priests will go to prison. On present trends, this will happen in the next few years.
Certainly we should prepare for the worst even as we hope for the best. I think a pretty good case can be made that the Sacrament of Matrimony "offered" by the Church is not something which has ever really been a "service offered to the public." There are quite a few hurdles to be cleared, and being opposite genders is only one of them. There's age, relationship—first cousins can't marry—status, etc.
I don't know if that fact could be translated into a legal case in court. I actually think it would be great for a gifted Catholic lawyer to start quoting theological statements and canons of the Church on marriage in the civil courts, explaining at length why the Church teaches what it does with regard to marriage. That would be the perfect imitation of the martyrs, and it would drive the butt pirates and the demons they serve crazy.
"St. Edmund Campion and St. Oliver Plunket are the people to study." So are Catholics in the 20th-century Ukraine, resurfacing after 40 years underground.
ReplyDeleteJapanese had a nice run of about 200-odd years, too.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the pivotal questions will be how far the deference the religious normally give their priests and their churches has become ingrained as a general habit in parishioners, inhibiting them from acting in their own self-interest.
ReplyDeleteAs of today, the ECUSA will be performing SSM. There will be no conflicts there.
As for others, though, for example, Catholics, it's really difficult to see the downside for a priest refusing a SSM in his church any more than for refusing to rent it out for a live sex show. Very well, Adam and Steve sue the Catholic Church in America - with all its resources - for not performing a SSM. Then what, puppies who have just caught the rear tire of a Peterbilt heading down Pike's Peak? You expect the Church to simply roll over for your mean-n-snarky Twitter campaign?
Au, contraire, you've just become famous to thousands and thousands of people: your names, your faces, your addresses, the same for every one of your friends and relatives, your employers, your fellow employees, everywhere you go, everything you do, every minute of every hour of every day, yours, and all of theirs. All have immediately become People of History. Sure, some may not want to be PoHs, but who can choose their destiny? Hey, you're friends with Adam & Steve, now you're just as famous as they are.
But, how, you ask, could Christians be so mean as to actually lean on these two puppies, not just resist, but actively resist, make them own every bit of what they're attempting to wage against the Church? See, the way it's supposed to work is that the Left pushes, and the religious/Right falls down and rolls over. When Walmart signs on to SSM, or Apple, or the legal hierarchy in the U. S. itself, that's supposed to be the end of it. You accept their position and you continue to buy their shit, because that's what you are - a consumer. You consume the kibble that's thrown in your dish, because to do otherwise would cause you effort and inconvenience, possibly even discomfort.
But what if, instead, every SSM advocate that tried to usurp a person or institution's constitutional religious liberty found himself risking becoming radioactive socially in addition to whatever other legal entanglements he signed on for. Sure, he can offload the discoveries and the appeals to the lawyers, but what about being videoed every day of the year as he walks out his front door, every time he goes into work or a business, every time he tries to congregate with others. Harassment? Nooo...he's become a "groundbreaker", and his "groundbreaking" is simply being minutely chronicled. And who are the lucky friends and relatives of this groundbreaking pioneer? What's their intriguing story?
But that's mean! You should docilely go into exile instead! And the law has even been waved over you like Harry Potter's wand as well.
LOL! Good one.
I do think we need to fight back harder. That's why I've for the most part been in Donohue's court with this strategy.
DeleteIt may be a failure of my imagination, but I can't see how government in the U.S. could order the Catholic Church to celebrate SSMs. The priest (or deacon) assists in the celebration of a religious sacrament (the ministers of the sacrament are the couple themselves), for which reason the state authorizes him to declare them legally married as well. The Church doesn't offer a legal marriage service with Catholic trimmings*, it validates a Catholic sacrament in accordance [one hopes] with Catholic canon law, and to date all the states are willing to say, "While you're at it, you can file some paperwork for us, too."
ReplyDeleteThe state can do what it likes with the authority to declare people legally married, and tax law is altogether under Caesar's control, but short of declaring Catholicism illegal there isn't a legal lever for commanding, much less forcing, a change in religious practice.
* A legal marriage service with Catholic trimmings does seem to be what a lot of people who have been married in a Catholic church over the last few decades were looking for, which is part of the reason the country's in the mess it's in today. I suspect a far more serious crisis for the Catholic Church in the U.S. than the threat of legal action related to SSM is the collapse in the numbers of Catholics seeking a Catholic wedding at all, much less one to start off a sacramental marriage as understood and (sort of) taught by the Church.
I think you are right about this. Someone on EWTN mentioned the other day that what gay couples may try to do is find Catholic Churches which have historical landmark status and attempt to use the church building under some type of public use provision. That's more conceivable.
DeleteAgreed, but that is far from the only evil that the government can do to churches that don't go along with SSM.
DeleteIMO, serious damage will be done to the culture if the State no longer honors Church weddings as legitimate marriages (requiring those married in the Church to go through a sham wedding down at the county registrar, before being considered "legally" married). This, by itself, will marginalize faith in the general culture, further pushing the Church out of the public square and damaging society.
It will be yet another exercise of tyranny for a government to force its citizens to participate in a lie -- in this case the lie that marriage in the Church is not marriage.
And, as Pauli notes, there will be attacks from the flank, including use of facilities (Knights of Columbus in Canada were attacked in this way), employment discrimination lawsuits, the Church being forced to cease some of its charitable outlets (adoptions in Massachusetts, hospitals, schools, etc.).
Yes, this will force Catholics to be "less nice" in many instances and maybe that will be an improvement.
DeleteI think that the line will line between serious Catholics and non-serious Catholics will become starker for sure. The WSJ pointed out that while Roe v. Wade didn't really require anything of the opposition, Obergefell does.
I think that the line will line between serious Catholics and non-serious Catholics will become starker for sure.
DeleteAnd that is not a good thing. Conversion takes time for some of us, some longer than others. I for one am blessed that God has been patient with me.
And that is not a good thing. Conversion takes time for some of us, some longer than others. I for one am blessed that God has been patient with me.
DeleteAmen!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe calculus is this: which dominates, religious beliefs or legal beliefs?
DeleteUp until the 1960s in the U.S., the legal beliefs of African-Americans - the belief they'd rather not get lynched, or go to jail, etc. - predominated over their moral/religious beliefs that they'd rather be treated as equal to whites. During the civil rights era, that flipped for a significant number: now they were willing to go to jail, etc., rather thane be treated as second class citizens.
Hood County Clerk of Court Katie Lang stood on her religious beliefs up to the point she got sued; then her legal beliefs took over (technically, I believe someone under her is actually doing the complying, but she's basically allowed her office to rewrite forms, etc.).
Which takes priority?
Religious beliefs - "I believe this-and-that, and because of that I ain't gonna do so-and-so", no matter what".
Or Legal beliefs - "You know, I believe this-and-that, but I believe I don't wanna get sued enough moreso that I believe I'm just gonna let this-and-that slide so I don't get sued".
With respect to the supposed effective "gag order" on Sweet Cakes by Melissa - because liberals aren't the only ones smitten with the pop facileness of #HashtagJustice - here is the actual text of the order, specifically at C just above the Appendix.
DeleteDoes it "effectively decree[s] they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs"?
No, it simply robotically recites Oregon public accommodation law, which treats announcing not baking cakes for gay weddings as indistinguishable from "no Negroes served here".
C. NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violations of ORS 659A409 by Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from 2 publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the 4 effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a 5 place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any 6 discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.
Brad Avakian, Commissioner Bureau of Labor and Industries
Oregon obviously requires educating.
But Aaron and Melissa Klein can continue stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs all the livelong day, and woe to anyone who would try to stop them.
BTW, the Kleins have 60 days from July 2 to petition for judicial review. Who will help them, and which pillow-biting Dreherists will merely try to score blog hits off of them before moving on to the next shiny thing?