Shameless Catholic MPs call on Our Lord Jesus and St Thomas More to justify voting for same-sex marriage

Not content with disobeying their bishops and dissenting from the teaching of the Church by voting for same-sex marriage some Catholic MPs are calling on Jesus and St Thomas More to justify their betrayal of their Catholic Faith.

Writing in the Shrewsbury Chronicle( Thursday, February7, 2013), Daniel Kawczynski MP wrote in an article entitled  ’Why I voted in support of gay marriage ‘:
” Jesus says: ” Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This of course describes the reciprocal relationship between an individual and his neighbours which underpins all human interaction…the passage of the same sex marriage bill is consistent with this cornerstone of Christian belief: By doing so, we allow our neighbours to share in the happiness of a legally recognized marriage.” 

In answer to this obscure and desperate attempt to force Jesus into justifying his voting for homosexual ‘marriage’ the Gospels attest to Jesus’ explicit teaching on marriage as God intends

‘He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mt 19:3-9).

Damian Collins MP attempts to press the example of St Thomas More to justify his betrayal of the Catholic Faith:

‘I will be supporting the Same Sex Marriage Bill because I believe in a society where people have freedom of religious expression, but also one where outside of religion people are equal in the eyes of the law. But as an MP of Roman Catholic faith, I have been drawn to considering over the last few weeks, what Thomas More would have made of this issue.

Saint Thomas More, Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor and a former speaker of the House of Commons is famous for the moral stand he took against his King, even though it cost him his life. It was learning about his example at school which prompted me to choose him as my Confirmation Saint. Thomas More is particularly remembered because he could not in conscience swear an oath recognising the Succession to the Crown Act 1533 which had the effect of annulling one of Henry VIII’s marriages and therefore changing the royal succession. He could not swear the oath because, although he would abide by the Act’s content, he could not in conscience say that he agreed with it. Parliament, he said, had the right to decide matters of marriage, and had the right to require all subjects, including Catholics, to abide by its laws, but it could not have the right to require Catholics in conscience to agree with them. As a result he was imprisoned in the Tower of London and then executed.

The Same Sex Marriage Bill is not seeking to tell the different churches and religions what they should believe, or to restrict them practicing their beliefs as the do now. Churches will not be required to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies if they do not want to. The Catholic Church will remain free to teach that marriage is a sacrament of the Church, it is between a man and a woman, that its purpose is for the procreation of children, and that it is for life. Of course, sadly, many people who are married by the Church are not able to have children, and a great many marriages end in divorce. The law of the State in allowing divorced people to remarry is already against the teaching of the Church, and a form of marriage that the Church would not recognise or perform. So we already have a system of marriage by the churches and the state which are sometimes compatible, and other times not.

The Bill is an attempt to strengthen equality in our society, without compromising religious freedom. I believe that Thomas More would have understood this distinction, and regardless of how he would have voted (I would not seek to presume on a matter of conscience like this) I think he would have agreed that this was something that Parliament had the right to do.’

Damian Collins MP entirely misrepresents St Thomas More’s attitude towards parliament assuming powers they had no right to exercise. Peter Ackroyd writes the following about St Thomas More’s response to Parliament taking the powers of the Church to itself:

‘A bill was prepared by Thomas Cromwell, which would have transferred the powers of the Church to parliament…’The Chancellor [Thomas More] and the bishops oppose the bill as much as they can…at which the king is exceedingly angry, especially against the said Chancellor.’ More had come out into the open at last. His decision was a token of the urgency or danger, of the situation; but already it was too late. The king had found his power, under the guidance of Thomas Cromwell, and now pressed the clergy into final surrender. He again prorogued parliament and on the following day, 15 May, convocation accepted his demands in a document known as the’submission of the clergy’. Effectively he destroyed any independence which the Church still enjoyed, by insisting that all ecclesiastical law required royal assent and that canons or constitutions could be changed only with his approval. He, not the Pope, was truly the head of the Church in England. On the day after the clergy submitted, Thomas More resigned as Lord Chancellor.

He failed in almost all of his objectives and in a polemic he was then completing he wrote that ‘Our sauyour sayth that ye chyldren of darkness be more polytke in theyre kynde then are the chyldren of lyght in theyr kinde. And surely so semeth it now.’ He also condemned ‘traytors’ at court and berated convocations ‘of thyr dewty so neglygent’; clearly he believed that the debacle was the result of secular conspiracy and clerical incompetence’. Peter Ackroyd, The Life of Thomas More, p. 319-320.

Protect the Pope comment: Far from understanding why Catholic MPs would vote to change the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to include the coupling of men-men and women-women it is more likely that St Thomas More would have judged these Catholic MPs ‘chyldren of darkness’ who as ‘traytors’ had betrayed the Catholic faith and their obedience they owed the Pope, the successor of St Peter. That they behaved so is bad enough, but for Daniel Kawczynski MP and Damian Collins MP  to claim the words of Jesus and the actions of St Thomas More to support their rejection of the Catholic faith adds deep insult to the profound injury they have inflicted on our nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damian-collins/gay-marriage-bill-what-would-thomas-more-do_b_2616725.html

33 comments to Shameless Catholic MPs call on Our Lord Jesus and St Thomas More to justify voting for same-sex marriage

  • Frances

    ”Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
    Is this choice of text unfortunate, deliberate or witty?

    • I don’t recognise that translation. It is not the Jerusalem Bible translation used in the liturgy in England and Wales and with which, I would suggest most British Catholics are familiar. I can’t help wondering if he goes to Mass.

  • Michael Petek

    Daniel Kawczynski MP and Damian Collins MP are heretics and seditionists who ought to be excommunicated and impeached. They are disloyal not only to the Church, but also to Her Majesty and are unfit to serve her on their oath.

  • how dare these mp’s quote two of our holiest saints! they would rather have been crucified on the cross than go against the churches teachings. don’t they remember why sodom and gomorrah was destroyed? hello? you are such fools! we are not listening to God but making rules to suit ourselves!!!

  • Paul Smyth

    And will the Archbishop of Westminster, in whose diocese these MPs voted against Christ and his Church and the Natural Law act: very unlikely. His lack of vigour is scandalous.

  • Karla

    WIll their priests enforce Canon 915 and deny Communion?

    Archbishop Raymond Burke has said

    “Individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely, to receive Holy Communion unworthily.”

    “Clearly, the burden is on the minister of Holy Communion who, by the nature of his reponsibility, must prevent anything which profanes the Blessed Sacrament and endangers the salvation of the soul of the recipient and of those scandalized by his unworthy reception of Holy Communion.”

    • Pedro de Luna

      I think you should all write to the press, to your own bishops, to the the MPs’ bishops, to the bishops conference, to the CDF, to the nuncio. Cause a real stink. Really make some sparks fly. After the Battle of the Virgin Mary crisps there is nothing that cannot be achieved.

  • ms Catholic state

    The very very least that should happen is that they should be denied Holy Communion at Mass….starting from tomorrow. I bet when Priests are being questioned by police over their sermons on marriage….they will wish they took a firmer stand with these traitors to Christ.

    Catholics should contact them and express their revulsion at their betrayal.

    • Dr Mark Thorne

      I’ve written to my MP, who is another dissenting Catholic MP on these issues, but she hasn’t repled to any of my specific queries – keeps issuing me with a reply containing oversentimentalised nonsense without any substance. Is there such a thing as a Parliamentary Ombudsman – do I have sufficient grounds for getting them involved in this? God Bless

      • ms Catholic state

        I don’t know about Parliamentary procedures…..but it could be worth a try. I sent a message via Twitter to Mr Collins and will shortly send one to the other MP. I’m sure such messages will cause them to reflect if nothing else. Everything is worth a try. Also we should pray for them. Who would have thought Sarah Teather would have reconsidered her position.

      • Nicolas Bellord

        I am afraid the Parliamentary Ombudsman has no jurisdiction as regards the behaviour of MPs. He/she is there to investigate maladministration by the executive at the behest of one’s MP.

      • ms Catholic state

        It doesn’t seem like Daniel Kawczynski MP has a twitter account. So I suppose I’ll try emailing him. God Bless

    • Confusedof Chi

      Do these ‘Catholic’ turn up for Mass, I ask myself!!

  • Same old, same old

    If you don’t think homosexuals should get married then don’t marry one. It isn’t difficult.

    In the meantime please stop trying to prevent those denominations that disagree with you to be able to perform such ceremonies.

    • Andrzej

      If you don’t like X, then just don’t do X.

      Wonderful argument for legalizing any disordered behaviour. I commend the intellectual depth.

      More seriously: if you find it hard to accept views differing from your own being argued in the public square, do consider moving to a country where there is no pluralism.

      • Sam Mace

        In that spirit Andrzej stop trying to stop the Quakers and Unitarians who do want to perform gay marriage from being able to do so. Also the argument put forward is valid when the action does no harm, allowing gay people to marry causes no harm to anyone else.

    • Michael Petek

      Pray, tell me, how exactly do you consummate a same-sex union.

  • Bob Hayes

    If some pro-SSM politicians are turning to Scripture for guidance, perhaps they should reflect upon Christ’s words on leading others astray in Mt 18:6, ‘But anyone who is an obstacle to bring down one of these little ones who have faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone round his neck’. I am no specialist in these matters, but the behaviour of these ‘Catholic’ MPs appears to be engaging in the sin of scandal as defined in the Catechism (2284-2287).

  • Gurn

    Politicians are seriously living on a different planet. These politicians were afraid of being sneered at and insulted but Thomas More had to face death. Standards have indeed dropped haven’t they.

  • ForFaithForever

    Scripture Very Relevant is Isaiah Chapter 5 Verse 20
    ” Woe to you that call Evil Good, and Good Evil: that put Darkness for Light, and light for darkness: that put Bitter for Sweet, and Sweet for Bitter

    God Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth set a Standard for Marriage and it is
    Evil to Undermine that just as it is to Promote Abortion

    Ephesians Chapter 5 Verses 25 to 32
    Husbands, Love your Wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be Holy and without Blemish. In the same way Husbands should love their Wives as their own bodies. He who loves his Wife Loves himself. For no one ever hated his own Flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, …

    I Think that there is a Clear Enough Definition of Holy Matrimony as Husbands
    are Men and Wives are Women

    ” Catholics ” who do Not Uphold the Traditional and True Definition of Marriage
    should be Denied Holy Communion until and unless Genuine Repentance is Shown

    I am Very Disgusted that any Catholic could Vote for the Wrecking of Traditional Marriage

  • Joseph Matthew

    St Thomas More would of course have formed his conscience in accordance with Church teaching. The most obvious way forward would be to request politicians who vote in favour of intrinsic evils to not receive Holy Communion.

  • John Kearney

    There was even a Scottish Labour MP in the house who on hearing how open-minded and right the same-sex bill was concluded that he would not abstain but vote for the bill. It was all so gushy and sweet. Indeed had this Bill been just about a man marring a man and how sad it was they could not, I might have been converted myself. But as some MP`s knew full well there was a shadow hanging over the chamber, the National Secular Society. they are the ones who will now insist that when marriage is taught in schools different types of marriage, heterosexual and homosexual, must be examined. The gay life style must be accepted. As Maria Miller said in introducing the bill, the Catholic view can be given in schools but it must be `balanced`. Nobody challenged this word. In Quebec, Canada, a school, Loyala College has had an appeal to the Supreme court turned down. The appeal was against a decision that they had to accept the secular curriculum on Marriage which included examining all types of Marriage including homosexual. Their catholic programme was not to be taught. In NOvember as NIgel Farage of UKIP has told us the European Parliament will be introducing a Bill which will require that homosexuals who marry in countrys like Spain, Portugal,or Sweden must be treated as married if they decide to live in another country of the European Union. Since European Law now runs this country we are almost forced by Cameron to recognize Same-Sex marriage.

  • Mike2

    Basically, these MPs are Lutherans. To them the meaning of Scripture is plain and they have the right to interpret it as they wish – even if that interpretation is flatly contrary to that of the Magisterium of the Church.
    As for those people who argue that we should not prevent other people having what they want, I wonder if they would put the same argument towards somebody who believed that he had every right to remove possessions from these peoples’ houses. Ah, but they would argue that this would affect them while changing the definition of marriage only affects homosexuals. Strange argument.

  • Joseph Matthew

    Interestingly, Professor Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist and gay rights advocate, admitted that homosexuals might be able to change their orientation. He received such a negative response from the gay rights lobby that he did a quick u-turn.

  • viki

    Are there many homosexuals who remain chaste and support the teaching of the Catholic church?- we need to hear your views and obvious opposition to this Bill

  • Same old, same old

    From Andrzej

    “More seriously: if you find it hard to accept views differing from your own being argued in the public square, do consider moving to a country where there is no pluralism.”

    That’s my point. If the Catholic Church don’t want to perform weddings for people of the same sex then don’t do it, but what about those Churches that do want to? It seems that yet again you want people to protect your rights without you having any thought for those who disagree.

    Please don’t preach pluralism to me and then practice just the opposite.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>