Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Vatican vows to continue fighting for traditional marriage despite setbacks

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

ROME, November 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an unusually strongly worded statement on Vatican Radio’s website, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the head of the Vatican’s press office, has vowed that the Church “will not give up its defence of marriage” despite recent setbacks.

Lombardi’s comments followed a front-page editorial in the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, which appeared the same day and decried the growth of “politically correct ideologies invading every culture of the world,” backed by organizations like the UN. The paper called for “courage” from Catholics in fighting those ideologies.

The Church, said the editorial, “is the only institution to point out that while it is certainly unfair to persecute homosexuals, to oppose the marriage between persons of the same sex is not an offensive act, but a point of view that must be respected.”

“And so is opposition to abortion,” it added. “This is not an attack on human rights, but the defense of a social structure - the heterosexual family - which formed the basis, so far, of all human societies.”

In a statement published in 30 different languages, Lombardi agreed, writing that the Church’s opposition to same-sex “marriage” is not a matter of unjust discrimination, which the Church does not allow. Rather it is “a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognised as such; and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother.”

Lombardi was responding to the fact that voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington State on Tuesday voted to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Lombardi called the votes “myopic” and said that “the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good.”

He also noted the hardening of the legal situation in Spain, where the Constitutional Court recently refused an appeal challenging the country’s same-sex “marriage” law, and the fact that a bill has been introduced in France to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

The erosion of natural marriage in the laws of Western countries, Lombardi said, “does not cease to amaze.”

There is “public acknowledgement” that “monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilization,” he said.

Catholics who oppose the re-writing of marriage laws maintain that disconnecting marriage from procreation is a way of draining all genuine meaning from the institution. Unhooked from its procreative purpose, they say, marriage could come to mean any pairing or even grouping of consenting people.

Lombardi took up this theme, saying, “If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry?”

Defending natural marriage, Lombardi said, is a matter of “preserving a vision of the human person and of human relationships where there is a public acknowledgement of monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilization.”

The Catholic Church, he said, will not “give up proposing that society recognise a specific place for marriage between a man and a woman”.

In the editorial in L’Osservatore Romano, journalist Lucetta Scaraffia wrote, “The church is called to present itself as the lone critic of modernity, the only check ... to the breakup of the anthropological structures on which human society was founded.”

“It seems in fact that the Church, at least on this floor, is doomed to failure,” Scaraffia wrote, but this appearance is deceptive. “Contrary opinions, even by journalists and intellectuals close to the Church,” are finding their way into the public debate, she said, a result of Catholics raising their objections after reflection on the topic and honing their reasons in public forums.

“Catholics are playing a key role in today’s guardians of freedom of religion and belief,” Scaraffia wrote.

She cited the case of the Catholic adoption agencies in the UK, some of which fought lengthy legal battles for the right to refuse to consider gay partners as adoptive parents. Their struggle, Scaraffia wrote, “has made it clear to everyone that this is not progress, but rather a conflict that sees the defeat in these cases of one of the freedoms constitutive of the modern state, the religious freedom.”

Scaraffia noted the irony of the US forcing Catholic institutions to violate their religious principles and provide contraceptives for employees: “To restrict religious freedom in a country founded by colonists who had fled there in order to freely practice their faith is really a dangerous contradiction.”

Catholics, she said, are the only group to “have the courage and the strength to oppose an ideology based on political correctness, that is invading every culture in the world, thanks to the support it gets from the United Nations.”

The pair of editorials are a departure for the Vatican’s media machinery that that has heretofore been largely supportive of Obama and dismissive of his many Catholic critics. L’Osservatore Roman’s editor-in-chief, Gian Maria Vian, has penned several editorials defending and praising Obama and his administration, including one in 2009 in which he said that far from being a pro-abortion president, Obama – who is on record as voting against a bill the would have protected infants born alive after failed abortions – can only really be called “pro-choice”.

The definition of natural marriage has already been abolished in eleven countries since 2000: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex “marriage” has also now been installed in parts of Mexico and at the state level in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

The states of Maryland, Maine and Washington approved the creation of “same-sex marriage” at last week’s election. The topic is open to legislative debate in a dozen other Western countries.

In addition, civil unions, also called civil partnerships, domestic partnerships or registered partnerships, have been created in law in many jurisdictions and grant all or most of the privileges of legal marriage, including in some cases the right to adopt children. They are recognised in Andorra, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Same-sex civil partnerships are recognised in Mexico in Coahuila and Mexico City and the United States in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

PBS defends decision to air pro-abortion documentary ‘After Tiller’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Under pressure for showing the pro-abortion documentary "After Tiller" on Labor Day, PBS' "POV" affiliate has defended the decision in response to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews.

The producers of the film say their goal with the documentary, which tells the stories of four late-term abortion doctors after the killing of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, is to "change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety.” 

POV told LifeSiteNews, "We do believe that 'After Tiller' adds another dimension to an issue that is being debated widely." Asked if POV will show a pro-life documentary, the organization said that it "does not have any other films currently scheduled on this issue. POV received almost 1000 film submissions each year through our annual call for entries and we welcome the opportunity to consider films with a range of points of view."

When asked whether POV was concerned about alienating its viewership -- since PBS received millions in federal tax dollars in 2012 and half of Americans identify as pro-life -- POV said, "The filmmakers would like the film to add to the discussion around these issues. Abortion is already a legal procedure."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"This is an issue that people feel passionately about and will have a passionate response to. We are hopeful that the majority of people can see it for what it is, another lens on a very difficult issue." 

In addition to the documentary, POV has written materials for community leaders and teachers to share. A cursory examination of the 29-page document, which is available publicly, appears to include links to outside sources that defend Roe v. Wade, an examination of the constitutional right to privacy, and "a good explanation of the link between abortion law and the right to privacy," among other information.

Likewise, seven clips recommended for student viewing -- grades 11 and beyond -- include scenes where couples choose abortion because the children are disabled. Another shows pro-life advocates outside a doctor's child's school, and a third is described as showing "why [one of the film's doctors] chose to offer abortion services and includes descriptions of what can happen when abortion is illegal or unavailable, including stories of women who injured themselves when they tried to terminate their own pregnancies and children who were abused because they were unwanted."

Another clip "includes footage of protesters, as well as news coverage of a hearing in the Nebraska State Legislature in which abortion opponents make reference to the idea that a fetus feels pain." The clip's description fails to note that it is a scientifically proven fact that unborn children can feel pain.

The documentary is set to air on PBS at 10 p.m. Eastern on Labor Day.

Kirsten Andersen contributed to this article.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

He defended ‘real’ marriage, and then was beheaded for it

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A Christian man was executed during the night by a high-profile ruler after making an uncompromising defense of real marriage.

The Christian, who was renowned for his holiness, had told the ruler in public that his relationship with his partner was “against the law” of God. The Christian’s words enraged the ruler’s partner who successfully plotted to have him permanently silenced.

John the Baptist was first imprisoned before he was beheaded. The Catholic Church honors him today, August 29, as a martyr and saint.

While John’s death happened a little less than 2,000 years ago, his heroic stance for real marriage is more pertinent today than ever before.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the ruler Herod had ‘married’ his brother’s wife Herodias. When John told Herod with complete frankness, “It is against the law for you to have your brother’s wife,” Herodias became “furious” with him to the point of wanting him killed for his intolerance, bullying, and hate-speech.

Herodias found her opportunity to silence John by having her daughter please Herod during a dance at a party. Herod offered the girl anything she wanted. The daughter turned to her mother for advice, and Herodias said to ask for John’s head on a platter.

Those who fight for real marriage today can learn three important lessons from John’s example.

  1. Those proudly living in ungodly and unnatural relationships — often referred to in today’s sociopolitical sphere as ‘marriage’ — will despise those who tell them what they are doing is wrong. Real marriage defenders must expect opposition to their message from the highest levels.
  2. Despite facing opposition, John was not afraid to defend God’s plan for marriage in the public square, even holding a secular ruler accountable to this plan. John, following the third book of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 20:21), held that a man marrying the wife of his brother was an act of “impurity” and therefore abhorrent to God. Real marriage defenders must boldly proclaim today that God is the author of marriage, an institution he created to be a life-long union between one man and one woman from which children arise and in which they are best nurtured. Marriage can be nothing more, nothing less.
  3. John did not compromise on the truth of marriage as revealed by God, even to the point of suffering imprisonment and death for his unpopular position. Real marriage defenders must never compromise on the truth of marriage, even if the government, corporate North America, and the entire secular education system says otherwise. They must learn to recognize the new “Herodias” of today who despises those raising a voice against her lifestyle. They must stand their ground no matter what may come, no matter what the cost.

John the Baptist was not intolerant or a bigot, he simply lived the word of God without compromise, speaking the word of truth when it was needed, knowing that God’s way is always the best way. Were John alive today, he would be at the forefront of the grassroots movement opposing the social and political agenda to remake marriage in the image of man.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

If he were alive today he might speak simple but eloquent words such as, “It is against God’s law for two men or two women to be together as a husband and wife in marriage. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” 

He would most likely be hated. He would be ridiculed. He would surely have the human rights tribunals throwing the book at him. But he would be speaking the truth and have God as his ally. 

The time may not be far off when those who defend real marriage, like John, will be presented with the choice of following Caesar or making the ultimate sacrifice. May God grant his faithful the grace to persevere in whatever might come. St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
The Wunderlich family Mike Donnelly / Home School Legal Defence Association
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

German homeschoolers regain custody of children, vow to stay and fight for freedom

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

One year to the day since a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, and forcibly removed all four of the family’s children, aged 7 to 14, a state appeals court has returned custody of the children to their parents.

The reason given for the removal was that parents Dirk and Petra Wunderlich continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

The children were returned three weeks after being taken, following an international outcry spearheaded by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

However, a lower court imposed the condition on the parents that their children were required to attend state schools in order for them to be released, and took legal custody of the children in order to prevent the family from leaving the country.

In a decision that was still highly critical of the parents and of homeschooling, the appeals court decided that the action of the lower court in putting the children in the custody of the state was “disproportional” and ordered complete custody returned to the parents, according to a statement by the HSLDA.

The Wunderlichs, who began homeschooling again when the court signaled it would rule this way, said they were very pleased with the result, but noted that the court’s harsh words about homeschooling indicated that their battle was far from over.

“We have won custody and we are glad about that,” Dirk said.

“The court said that taking our children away was not proportionate—only because the authorities should apply very high fines and criminal prosecution instead. But this decision upholds the absurd idea that homeschooling is child endangerment and an abuse of parental authority.”

The Wunderlichs are now free to emigrate to another country where homeschooling is legal, if they choose, but they said they intend to remain in Germany and work for educational freedom.

“While we no longer fear that our children will be taken away as long as we are living in Hessen, it can still happen to other people in Germany,” Dirk said. “Now we fear crushing fines up to $75,000 and jail. This should not be tolerated in a civilized country.”

Petra Wunderlich said, "We could not do this without the help of HSLDA,” but cautioned that, “No family can fight the powerful German state—it is too much, too expensive."

"If it were not for HSLDA and their support, I am afraid our children would still be in state custody. We are so grateful and thank all homeschoolers who have helped us by helping HSLDA.”

HSLDA’s Director for Global Outreach, Michael Donnelly, said he welcomed the ruling but was concerned about the court’s troubling language.

“We welcome this ruling that overturns what was an outrageous abuse of judicial power,” he said.

“The lower court decision to take away legal custody of the children essentially imprisoned the Wunderlich family in Germany. But this decision does not go far enough. The court has only grudgingly given back custody and has further signaled to local authorities that they should still go after the Wunderlichs with criminal charges or fines.”

Donnelly pointed out that such behavior in a democratic country is problematic.

“Imprisonment and fines for homeschooling are outside the bounds of what free societies that respect fundamental human rights should tolerate,” he explained.

“Freedom and fundamental human rights norms demand respect for parental decision making in education. Germany’s state and national policies that permit banning home education must be changed.

"Such policies from a leading European democracy not only threaten the rights of tens of thousands of German families but establish a dangerous example that other countries may be tempted to follow,” Donnelly warned.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris said that acting on behalf of the Wunderlichs was an important stand for freedom.

“The Wunderlichs are a good and decent family whose basic human rights were violated and are still threatened,” Farris said.

“Their fight is our fight," Farris stressed, "and we will continue to support those who stand against German policy banning homeschooling that violates international legal norms. Free people cannot tolerate such oppression and we will do whatever we can to fight for families like the Wunderlichs both here in the United States and abroad. We must stand up to this kind of persecution where it occurs or we risk seeing own freedom weakened.”

Visit the HSLDA website dedicated to helping the Wunderlich family and other German homeschoolers here.

Contact the German embassy in the U.S. here.

Contact the German embassy in Canada here.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook