28 January, 2011

Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe

Here is a site dedicated to posting stories of the discrimination against Christians in Europe. I offer it as evidence of my contention that we are facing a major clash of cultures/religions in the near future here in Canada as well.

Observatory - Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians

22 comments:

  1. For balance, here's a link to a blog that repeatedly demonstrates intolerance towards people who are not Christians: http://frtimmoyle.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim

    It seems anonymous can't tolerate your intolerance. How intolerant of him.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  3. What about the bigotry and intolerance of the RCC against non-RC marriages? Rome does not recognize christian marriages of Protestants and marriages between RCs and Protestants as legitimate marriages. They arrogantly declare themselves as the sole administrators of marriage. They consider marriage anywhere outside of the RCC as an abomination.

    http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Sacraments/Marriage-divorce-teachings.htm#I. Can Catholics accept Civil

    They condemn civil divorce in countries which recognize it in law and the legal system. Yet, they grant so-called annulments to thousands of people in North America every year on the phoniest of reasons. Almost all annulments are granted simply on the basis of a claim that one of the parties did not understand what they were getting into.

    One consequence of their system is in Latin American countries and many other places, there are many married RC men who have concubines and their wife ( or the wife has a another partner)is locked into a marriage which essentially does not exist except on paper in the local diocese church or office. This is a disaster for children who are forced to live in an unstable and insecure environment.

    Furthermore an RC man or woman in a mixed marriage can easily get an annulment from the RCC if they think they see greener pastures elsewhere. The RCC is only too willing to grant them annulments to try to get them back to the RCC. The benefit to the RCC is of paramount consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  4. STG: WHOW! The St. Pius X Society are a heretical group that broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1980's. It is because they preach such hatred. The RC Church recognizes the marriages of all protestant churches. We also recognize civil marriages between non-Catholics. We only presume to set regulations for baptized Catholics and assume that other denominations have done the same for their members.

    We do not condemn civil divorce in any country. We simply state that it does not dissolve a blessed or sacramental union. As an evangelical, surely you would say the same.

    Next, even in North America (which accounts for over 80% of all the annulments granted in the world), only 1/3 of those who apply are granted the declaration of freedom they seek. Most priests and Chancery Offices vet cases before it gets to the point where the official tribunal process begins so that people will not end up paying for something that they won't qualify for. Our Diocese will forgo any fees if the applicant can demonstrate that it would cause a financial hardship. I believe many other dioceses do the same.

    As to your last point, it's called the Pauline Privilege and comes directly from the scriptures. I would have thought that this would be the one situation that you would support the Church. The problem is not a question of Catholic or Protestants, but of Christians and pagans or other faiths. The union can be annulled if it brings a person into the Christian communion.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Rome does not recognize christian marriages of Protestants and marriages between RCs and Protestants as legitimate marriages."

    Wayne, did you enter a wormhole and go way far back in time or something? The Catholic church absolutely does recognize and accept all marriages -- even civil ones -- as being legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tim, Lady Janus,

    Tim said "STG: WHOW! The St. Pius X Society are a heretical group that broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1980's. It is because they preach such hatred. The RC Church recognizes the marriages of all protestant churches."

    OK I apologize for mis-statements in that regard. I obtained some of my information from the chapter in Loraine Boettner's book which was written it appears in the 1960s. It appears the situation was true back then, but may have changed to some extent since when the book was written. That is not back in the middle ages, but the book is not the latest information. But I suspect there is far more to this than what you are saying.

    I did not know the St. Pius X society was considered a heretical group and heretical website. I wonder what countries that group exists in and whether it is a majority in parts of Asia.

    Tim, you say the RCC recognizes all Prot marriages and civil marriage. But the RCC still calls marriage a sacrament which is to be performed by the RCC, although there is nothing in the Bible to support it being a sacrament.

    While the RCC really has no choice but to say it recognizes non-RC marriage, it still has some ways of exercises it's influence in a mixed marriage for example. Isn't it true that if a RC person wishes to marry a Prot in front of a Prot minister, the RC priest requires the non-RC partner to sign a declaration that any children from the marriage will be raised as RC? Don't you think that is quite intolerant by denying a couple to decide themselves in which church they wish to raise their children?

    Secondly, you say the RC accepts divorce. But they really have no choice but to say that. Divorce is legal and is a fact in North America. But as you said, the RCC does not recognize divorce of it's own members. That is still a fact and a refusal to accept the laws of the land on divorce. Instead, they have their own system of dissolving marriage called annulments whereby they cleverly can say they are not dissolving a marriage. They simply say it never existed.

    Annulments are granted on the flimsy ground of one of the parties claiming they did not understand what they were getting into.

    If an annulment is claimed by an RC in a mixed marriage, the RCC is more than happy to accomodate them and give them an annulment on one of the flimsy excuses. This ground for annulment is not something a Prot church would condone. However, most Prot churches do recognize divorce which is according to the laws of the land and will accept divorce people into full membership. Isn't it true the RCC will not accept divorced people as full members but tell them they should come to church anyway but not receive communion. They are considered as fallen from grace. The only way it can be resolved by divorced RCs would be by them getting an annulment. Isn't that true?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lady Janus,

    "Wayne, did you enter a wormhole and go way far back in time or something? The Catholic church absolutely does recognize and accept all marriages -- even civil ones -- as being legitimate."

    I think there is a misunderstanding either by me or you or both of us. The RC has no choice but to say it recognizes non-RC marriage, but what does that mean and how is it applied in real life situations involving the RCC.

    I do not think they recognize them for their own members. I am not sure what they would do with a couple who were married in a civil union (by a justice of the peace) and wanted to join their church.

    What is a couple were married in a civil union and one of them wanted to join the RC? Would the individual be accepted as a member able to receive communion? There are probably all kinds of situation which are not clear and which would show exactly how the RC viewed non-RC marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tim,

    "As to your last point, it's called the Pauline Privilege and comes directly from the scriptures. I would have thought that this would be the one situation that you would support the Church. The problem is not a question of Catholic or Protestants, but of Christians and pagans or other faiths. The union can be annulled if it brings a person into the Christian communion."

    According to your interpretation and the RC interpretation I assume, the RCC would break up a legitimate marriage between a non-RC couple or between an RC and a non-RC person, by granting an annulment even if the other partner had no wish to split. This is done on the ostensible claim that one of the partners is an RC and wants an annulment on the basis of a claim that the partner is not a christian. But this is not what the verses in the epistle are saying. It is a gross misinterpretation and used to end legitimate marriages. This is a serious violation of what God intended.

    The verses real meaning should be clear. That a christian is not bound if deserted by a non-christian. This is not a licence to grant an annulment simply because one partner wants one and it is beneficial to the RCC. Prot churches do not support the breakup of marriage on based on that interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim,

    "Next, even in North America (which accounts for over 80% of all the annulments granted in the world), only 1/3 of those who apply are granted the declaration of freedom they seek."

    This is quite a bit different than what catholicinsight website, a RC source, says:

    "A high percentage of cases that are tried end in a declaration of nullity. From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in the United States is 4/10 of 1%. "What the picture reveals is that mandatory review, and appeals leading to retrials at Second Instance, have done very little to tarnish America's reputation as the annulment capital of the universe."

    http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/printer_c_annul.shtml

    From this it looks like close to 97% of applicants obtain an annulment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tim,

    "The union can be annulled if it brings a person into the Christian communion."

    Wow. You think a marriage should be dissolved simply to gain another RC?

    ReplyDelete
  11. STG: CHRISTIAN... not Catholic. We will dissolve the marriage of a person as part of them becoming a CHRISTIAN under certain conditions.

    Jeesh! Don't keep look at these things with your anti-catholic glasses. They seem to keep you from seeing what's actually posted! (grin)

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  12. STG: re: the Catholic Insight figures - they are probably accurate stats BUT you have forgotten what I said about vetting out cases that have no chance of obtaining an annulment that takes place either with the priest or in a Chancery Office (local headquarters/offices of a diocese).

    An annulment means that there was a defect in the consent of the one or both of the parties. If it's simply a case of someone wanting to be with someone else and thus wants to leave the first marriage (the majority of cases we see), they will most likely never make it to the court of first instance. Why waste thousands of dollars paying for a process when you know there's no hope of a positive outcome? All of our tribunals are staffed primarily with laity - all of which get paid professional rates as befits their expertise (canon lawyers, psychologists etc.) so it makes no sense to have to use them for no purpose. It would be a waste of money both for the church and the applicant.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  13. STG: re: Pauline privilege - No. You are mistaken. I am speaking about someone wanting to become a CHRISTIAN (ie: be baptized and profess the tenets of the Apostles Creed). We will not (although there may be some possible case I haven't considered) grant dissolutions of Protestant marriages. We consider then to be as validly married as are Catholics. If such a person were to divorce and want to marry a Catholic, they would need to go through the annulment process with the conditions and processes I've explained above in previous comments.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Catholic Church has so many rules.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I do not think they recognize them for their own members. I am not sure what they would do with a couple who were married in a civil union (by a justice of the peace) and wanted to join their church."

    I can tell you what I've seen happen in one such case: the priest simply persuaded the couple to have a "re-affirmation" (not what he called it, but I can't remember what he called it) ceremony in the church. It cannot be an actual marriage ceremony, because they are already married, by civil authority. But there is a ceremony for it. And, in this one case of of which I know, the couple were already both Catholics, although they had not formally practised their religion in a long time.

    And I have had some personal experience with the annulment thingie, as well. No, it is NOT easy; nor is it simply a rubber stamp. If you want an annulment, you have to give them an accounting of your reasons. In detail. Sometimes intrusively so. And you have to be prepared to declare yourself to be utterly blameless in the whole sordid affair. Accepting any part of the blame can be interpretted as your being a willing participant in a fraud (not fraud in the legal sense, but in the matrimonial sense), and therefore, not worthy for annulment. So, in the case of a mutual agreement to the dissolution of a marriage, you cannot say it was mutual -- one of the two must always carry the blame. And if you're the one wanting the annulment, you must be willing to blame the other.

    I wasn't prepared to do that, and it became less and less important to me to have an annulment declared, so I simply dropped it back on the archbishop's desk and walked away from it. My current partner and I are both still very good friends with my ex and his new partner, and my ex and I have been "dissolved" for more than thirty years. OMG -- where did the time go?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lady Janus: The ceremony is called a convalidation of the marriage.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you, Tim! I knew there was a name for it... ;D

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lady Janus,
    I get the feeling the RCC will deal with any situation they can by giving an annulment, or a convalidation, or whatever it takes to retain control of marriage. They invented the dogma of calling it a sacrament, even though the Bible does not mention it, so that they could control all aspects of it, particularly when at least one party is RC or there might be children involved. In that case they want to make sure their control extends to which church the children are raised in. They will go to any lengths to extend and maintain control. They are not as benign as one might think. Tolerance ends where they think their numbers or control might be affected.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lady Janus,

    Glad to hear you survived being "dissolved". :D

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Wayne,

    Are you as critical of your fellow Protestant denominations or are you only critical of Catholicism? Surly your aware of the countless theological errors and contradictions of your sola scriptura brethren.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paul,

    "Are you as critical of your fellow Protestant denominations or are you only critical of Catholicism? Surly your aware of the countless theological errors and contradictions of your sola scriptura brethren."

    In this case, I am critical of the false teachings of Romanism because the errors of Rome concern the fundamentals of the christian faith. If I were talking with Prots and the occasional came up where I might disagree with some things they were talking about it, I may do the same. I attend Bible studies and have often been in disagreement with my brethren on certain points under discussion, and they with me. But that is the purpose of discussion at a Bible study group. I am interested in truth based upon Scripture rather than a unity based on falsehood.

    I was talking with our Minister this morning at coffee after the service on the interpretation of a verse in revelation which you might be interested in and it appears the Minister and I may have different interpretations of the verse. It concerns Revelation ch17 vs5 "And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." I was just going to look at some Bible commentaries from the past centuries to see what some theologians had to say about this verse.

    That is permitted in Prot churches to disagree about some things. We agree on fundamental or essentials but can and often do differ on non-essentials. I don't think the RCC has that kind of freedom.

    As for your comment "countless theological errors and contradictions of your sola scriptura brethren", I am not sure there are countless errors. I am also not sure what errors you are referring to. I know there are some differences in interpretation in some doctrines. Usually these are not major issues though. I have debated those kinds of things with Prots on other website such as sermonaudio.com
    But usually they do not disagree on fundamentals such as salvation by faith in Christ.

    The other thing we need to remember, Paul; Catholicism is a major world religion, with membership around one billion although only a small percentage of that actually attend. They comprise a large part of Canadian and western society and have major influence in the education system, government, and society in general. Therefore, what the RCC is believing, doing, promoting in government, and the world is of major interest to me. I hope that answers your question properly.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics