The moral divide between the Roman Catholic Church and civil law

national | rights, freedoms and repression | press release

Thursday October 19, 2006 14:33

by Harry Rea - The National Mens Council of Ireland

Email as sent to Political Representatives and others - Oct 19th 2006

In May of this year a father of four was jailed for two weeks for contempt of orders made in family law proceedings brought by his wife in the Circuit Court. His habeas corpus application was successful after Justice Smith in the High Court commented that the manner in which he was jailed contained "worrying features". He was freed on condition that he initiate Judicial Review proceedings to resolve the important issues raised.

The husband had argued that the court had failed to show jurisdiction over his Roman Catholic Marriage, that the matter raised constitutional issues as to whether a marriage can at the one time be soluble and indissoluble and on that basis declined to appear before the Circuit Court.

The unhappy and unsatisfactory apparent dismissing of the Judicial Review in the High Court last week whilst the father was absent because of illness leaves these important issues still to be resolved and this essay is an attempt to analyse the underlying difficulties that this case has unearthed and why it might suit the legal system to have this matter swept back under the carpet.

The essential features of the case are:

1. Does the state have authority to regulate a Marriage consecrated under the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church? It is accepted that they can regulate the civil aspects of it after some form of a Decree has been awarded?

2. Which code has authority over Roman Catholics where the civil law fails to protect the innocent party and acts immorally but the Canon law still acts morally?

3. Should the husband in the circumstances be forced to pay the costs?

4. How should one manage the conflict between following ones religious convictions and participating in civil society were the civil law offends the moral teachings of the Church.

The Husband approached the National Mens Council of Ireland and sought assistance from our Legal/Research Resource and Self-help group set up to support and promote Marriage as the necessary unit group of a free and civilised society. It is on this basis that we assist this father and many other husbands and wives who want to protect their Marriages. We take care not to get involved in anyone's private family life but to support by providing a rational look at the underlying legal and moral principles.

There has always existed at any time in history codes of law under separate authorities. It is accepted that the major churches have developed such codes, to assist and direct their congregations, which derive their authority from the teachings of the church and ultimately from the Gospels.

The Roman Catholic Church through its teachings have helped form the basis of Irish society and its founding Christian values are enshrined as natural law principles in the Constitution where they protect the people from unwarranted secular interference.

Courts of both civil and Canon disciplines exist to vindicate the rights of their people and they both, in the past, sought to protect the innocent spouse and children in a Family and so defend the institution of marriage from attack.

Thus in Article 41, Bunreacht Na hÉireann proclaims:

"The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

For much of the history of this state Roman Catholic Canon Law and civil law have co-existed in harmony due to both being derived from the same Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. In fact because the civil law acted in a way that the church would anyway approve Canon 22 urges the observance of Civil Law for the very good reason that the secular authorities are better set up to deal practically with such matters and this leaves the church free to attend to more spiritual affairs.

Canon 22 allows for non-observance of the civil code only where this happy confluence of codes departs and the civil law acts contrary to the Divine or moral law. That departure was initiated in 1988 when a cabal of self-professed feminists, both men and women led by Senator Mary Robinson, intent on furthering their ideology to eradicate Marriage, set in motion the conditions they hoped would lead to the eventual abolition of the institution of Marriage and the privacy and protection from state interference that it provided.

The tactics they employed then have continued unabated to this day. Their ploy was to embarrass and shame the predominantly male members of the houses of the Oireachtas, with misrepresentations of the facts, into responding "chivalrously" to the feminist demands. Their focus of attack was on the law that provided a remedy for deserted spouses, the law of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Although this law was rarely utilised in the previous two hundred years, its mere existence acted to restrain a spouse from deserting as they knew, by it being invoked, that they could be required by a court of law to return home or be legally declared a deserter and lose all claim to the marital assets and any inheritance.

One can see that this fact was hidden from the TDs and Senators by reviewing the absurd emotive language used in the debate:

"If we grant the restoration of conjugal rights against the will of one partner we are talking about rape or a licence to rape." "In the context of our law where it is still legally right and possible for the male to rape the woman in marriage this action has a degree of sinister proportion to it ... rape, forced sexual acts could be imposed on her ... and it is only right and proper that such action be abolished forthwith this morning."

Once that protection for a deserted spouse was removed, lawyers, who dominated the Oireachtas, then and now, were given free rein to introduce new grounds for seeking a decree of separation under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 which, it was accepted by the Supreme Court, permitted a deserter or adulterer to benefit at the expense of the innocent party.

These are the 'dreaded' 2(1)d; 2(1)e and especially the 2(1)f grounds where apparently one of the parties is permitted to claim unilaterally that the marriage has ceased to exist! The grounds where the spouse could claim they had been the victim of desertion, adultery or cruelty still existed so these new grounds were obviously designed for spouses who didn't qualify for genuine grounds!

However the Supreme Court judges were reluctant to strike down the Act as being unconstitutional as they considered there existed provisions in Part 2 of the Act which gave judges sufficient discretion to safeguard against this happening.

A year later in 1995 the Oireachtas inexplicably repealed the whole of Part 2 and never replaced the safeguards. Since that day the law has been allowed to benefit the spouse whose misconduct had caused the breakdown of the marriage.

This has led to Ireland now being a deserters' and adulterers' paradise where they can happily leave their Marriage and still get the marital assets including the children! Is it any wonder the legal profession proudly claim that family law is their growth sector!

Thus one of the fundamental maxims of law had been broken which says "the law can not allow a transgressor to benefit from their own transgression"

Not only does the Act now fail this test of being considered proper law, it is being implemented unconstitutionally and lacks both a complete and moral jurisdiction, as it no longer protects the innocent.

The state no longer protects Marriage. It assists in its destruction.

Thus the civil law and Canon law are in opposition and it was on this basis that there was a need to hear the Judicial Review initiated by the Wexford husband to have the issue as to whether a civil code, which is inherently immoral, can supersede the moral Canon law?

In the matter of whether the state has authority to regulate a Roman Catholic Marriage the issues definitely require an airing as it appears from the evidence that they do not.

The prospective husband and wife make a Covenant of Marriage with God under the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church and declare that no man can cast it asunder.

The history of this state shows that the Marriage Laws apply to all other forms of Marriage - Registry Office, Church of Ireland, Methodist, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim etc but there has never been any requirement for Roman Catholics to also take part in a civil marriage ceremony.

The civil authorities accept that a marriage properly conducted by the Roman Catholic Church is valid and merely create a register of the details for administration purposes. The Civil Registration Act of 2004 is an attempt by the state to encroach on Catholic Marriages but that understandably appears to be running into problems of implementation as it seeks to regulate whom within the church can solemnise a marriage and how the Roman Catholic Church conducts its own ceremonies.

From this it is clear that the civil law is entitled to deal only with the civil aspects of a marriage. This means that they can assist in granting reliefs to a spouse where the conferring authority has declared one of the spouses to be eligible to live separately.

For Roman Catholics that authority remains within the church despite the apparent judgement made in the High Court last week where it was reported, "the State rejected the claims that neither the courts nor Oireachtas could regulate Roman Catholic marriages"

This is plainly not true; the state can not separate or divorce a Roman Catholic. That still can only be done by the church and only for very serious reasons.

As long as following one's conscience does not offend public morality the state must respect the right of a Roman Catholic to the practice of their religion.

Bunreacht Na hÉireann ARTICLE 44

1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

If the Court Reporter's account of the hearing that took place last week in the High Court is accurate, it also requires an answer as to how the state was allowed to argue against leave for a third time in this case as the state solicitor had already argued unsuccessfully against the granting of leave on two occasions. It seems extraordinary that a judge could claim that there is no arguable case when the issues patently remain unresolved.

The granting of leave for Judicial Review simply requires that the judge believes that there exists an arguable case to be discussed. This was achieved to the satisfaction of three High Court Judges. To subsequently oppose leave the man's wife had to successfully argue that the three High Court judges had got it all wrong. It is hard to accept that she did.

This threshold of permission for leave is purposely set low to allow the hearing of bona fide criticisms of the current system because the result is to bring about improvements to the administration of justice.

In this way the Judicial Review process acts in the public's interest in supervising the courts. This then beggars the question as to costs. If the process benefits the public interest why has the judge awarded costs against the husband in this case and why doesn't the state pay the costs?

The National Mens Council of Ireland has already assisted a husband in winning his Judicial Review where the High Court found that the District Court were applying the law in a flawed manner. The result of this husband's action can only act to prevent further miscarriages of justice, yet even here the state refuses to pay the husband's costs.

One can only presume from the state's behaviour that it wants to scare off any prospective Judicial Reviews, which would improve the family court system and return it to confluence with the moral Canon law. However since Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 its claim to jurisdiction over marriages would be governed by Article 9 of the Convention,

"States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child."

Thus the state's jurisdiction must be subject to Judicial Review and the costs issue must be resolved immediately.

The question of costs is central to the availability of Judicial Review to a parent where they believe the court has acted contrary to the law. Most parents are not at liberty to squander the marital assets that properly belong to the family unit for the benefit of the children and their posterity.

Parents need to know that by righting the wrong that exists in the administration of the law they will not end up paying expensive lawyers on all sides and losing the family home even where they are found to have been right and performed a public service.

The National Mens Council of Ireland believe that Judicial Review performs a welcome and necessary function in working for the Common Good and contend that the costs should be borne by the public purse. The leave stage should act to eliminate any frivolous or vexatious cases.

In conclusion we believe that no purpose has been served by sweeping aside the prospective Judicial Review and ignoring the issues it raised. The husband is considering his options, which include taking the case to the Supreme Court and to the Vatican so that clarity will actually be achieved.

The grave danger is that until these matters are properly attended to this husband will likely be imprisoned again in perpetuity as yet another Catholic martyr simply for following his religious convictions.

Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon www.family-men.com Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138 Email: familymen@eircom.net

NB
We would like to advise you that the National Mens Council of Ireland is a voluntary organisation

We send you this vital information because it concerns Marriage, which is established as the cornerstone of society. We work to research and promote all that is right, decent and proper in maintaining the vocation of Marriage as an essential component to ensure stability in our everyday lives. We would much prefer to be financially able to promote our support of Marriage in an effective way against the hugely financed organisation that denounces Marriage as opposed to what is enshrined in our Constitution and is part of who we are as a people. However, we are not funded by any state agency and rest assured, not from lack of trying.

Because of this lack of funds we are forced to communicate with you by email, even though our experience dictates that vast quantities of our hard work, put into report fashion, is either totally ignored or dealt with by a standard receipt of delivery.

We ask that you would offer us the courtesy of a written reply as the matters discussed herein are of such absolute necessity for the information of our citizens and the future of our existence as a stable society into the future.

We would also value your opinion on how you would rate the unique service we provide and ask if you could assist us by advising on how we might secure financial support to ensure our continued existence.

save preference

Comments (9 of 9)

Fathers and daughters

by Thigh High Docs

Fri Oct 20, 2006 15:05

Also, it occurs- in bringing up your daughters, would you wish for them
to have all the knowledge or for them to be kept in a state of ignorance
regarding the issue of marriage- because forewarned is forearmed.

The issue of second post-bereavement relationships wherein partners
maybe beyond the child-bearing years, or those who marry but
don't want kids, or gay marriages- all of these things are
legislated for in a truly unequal way.

A man has a mother/sisters/daughters/grandmother/nieces- every
decision you make or lobby for will be a part of a future geneartions
life- and in the past a lot of the strangled hurt of failure was buried
and came out violently. therefore in addressing the issue of marriage
failure:

1. Dialogue (remember men's rights are strangled by the State- the idea
that the mother should be the emotional support and women's by the church
that the male should be the provider)- between these twin pillars there has
to be a co-operative way that acknowledges the best of both sexes
without stereotyping the role of either and allowing for the rights of the child.

Good Luck- because people seem very set in the way that they choose to be
controlled and defined!

I Love that name.

Fri Oct 20, 2006 14:17

I am glad my parents had me.

I am glad to be.

We are it seems agreed on that.

Anomalies aside. I would suggest that education is necessitious in the issue of women
and marriage. For both boys and girls. Because if you ask for mutual respect and promise
unending love, then it has to be reciprocal?

If it stops-and stops it sometimes does, then the vow which was entered freely and
with full knowledge of the view the church takes of biological determinism of the
female should also be freely left with mutual respect?

I think that canonical law in this instance should be geared towards the eventuality
that things can go wrong, and I wish truly that there was a support for males
also because the vow there is also very onerous-but denying the male right to
his child is to me as wrong as denying the woman her right to her freedoms
to move on. Essentially I would think that the child needs both parents or the
one who is committed to the raising of the child-at least.

I do not think that this can be accomplished without the understanding that
the refusal to accept that love is gone and the imposition of vows is good for the child,
because it imprisons both parties in a perceived role that is to me-heartbreaking.

Therefore- if the marriage vow can be adapted in the necessity for divorce/separation
to become a promise without enmity between both parents to push aside the
differences that caused the breach in favour of both parents giving the child their
very best without enmity then I would support that.

A 'continuining in friendship' promise to raise with love the child who is
afterall more important the the grievances that split the parents.

I do not think that this type of agreement is possible with imposition of the vow-
because it harms both parents and makes their roles impossible.

I , for one-anyhow, fully support the father's right to co-parent his child.
I believe that the father has a valuable role to play in the devlopment of the child.

But it is an onerous task that needs honest review, to accept that sometimes
it does not work and that what previously united is the cause of the breach,
thus I would suggest very strongly that in this instance, we look at the issue
of the child's interests and not the perceived gender role of the woman.

if that is not possible-every girl should know what it is she signs up to?

I don't feel the issue of abortion can possibly have the same criteria- because
in that instance, it is a mutuality, people do get hurt and the choice ultimately is with
the woman who will have to carry the child. Many men ask for their partners to abort
-I know this, and the women refuse. There are many tonal areas in the issue
of reproduction-or as you say, pro-creation, but legislating through systems
that lack the voice of women alienates them from the issue. Thus the dialogue
on sex begins on an equal and respectful footing- otherwise it loses it's
impetus because the 50% who actually decide to legislate or prounounce
on the issue do not have the necessary parts to actually experience the processes
pains and joys of these decisions.

I speak, btw, as someone whose mother was forced to continue to have children
despite having cancer in her womb-that is with experience of both the joys
and pains of the birth process.

Reply to 'Thigh high docs'

by Harry Rea

Fri Oct 20, 2006 13:47

Let us consider this hypothetical question (Clearly we can only speak generally in these matters as there will always be individual examples that are very different from the norm) - When your father and mother decided to marry and to engage in sexual relations, as would be perfectly normal and mutually acceptable in that union, do you feel that your mother would have had the moral and reasonable right to refuse you your life, as was surely of great significance in their decision to marry, without asking you beforehand (had it been possible)?

What would you feel now if you get to know that your mother had rescinded her promise to have a child with your father or worse - tried to abort you?

The most important human right you have is the right to live. In as much as; Neither a mother nor a father have the right to abort (taking the perfect example of your right to your existing life now). Neither they have the right to deny their spouse’s natural desire to have a child if previously they freely committed themselves to the vocation of Marriage and so form a family.

This factor is also based on them both previously understanding their acceptance of the others commitment - spiritually, doctrinally or otherwise. If not, then surely they should not have been party to their spouse’s original promise and simply through their own free will, remained single.

“Christian marriage is the permanent union of husband and wife for the procreation and education of children and for their own mutual assistance”.

Without intending to belittle their love or romance, in marrying they offered their right ‘not to have intercourse’ as part of that union (as intercourse is the normal way to have a family) and that is as far as their rights go. From then on it's the right of the unborn child (you) to be a natural and fulfilling factor of their original mutually respecting choice. I'm glad to see that their free will to marry and procreate has resulted in a totally different human being, complete with your choice of decision to continue your family line –or not.

That is what makes our free will to commit to marriage such an intimate yet intrinsic option in the natural continuance of human life. If we were simply meant to act as dogs might, confining ourselves to carnal pleasures then such feisty and spirited people such as you would have no need to be.

Although the case of rape is particular and must always be seen as horrendous, the rights of the unborn child and the expectancy of each parent in the others sexual responsiveness, should be safeguarded. Yes, even before conception, if both individuals have honestly and seriously accounted for the blessing that that child is to be before they choose to become one in flesh.

Again I remind you that I began by emphasising there will always be individual cases where actual physical, emotional or psychological anomalies prevent the fulfilling of the mutual promise to each other in marriage and the hope would then be that the love and respect they found in each other to cause them to want to marry, would see them through to contend with their cross. But if not, then the one who did not dispute their original intention must be classed as the one who is ‘actually’ aggrieved. In no way should this suggest rape, or force of any description as a solution but it should prompt the non-reciprocal spouse to make every endeavour to help fulfil their marriage vows.

These first few paragraph might suggest that the sexual act is the focus of ‘having a child’ but of course it is not. I am certain that the remembrance of the pleasures or difficulties experienced by the mother and father in the sexual act are completely diminished by the sheer joy of ‘having a child’

Had they decided not to marry and instead to keep their personal and selfish gratification as their utmost consideration then ‘bully for them’. But, once they submit to marrying, and so agreeing with another who openly makes it known that they need a child or children and to be part of the family then formed, one could only expect that they each understood that they would have intercourse and partake of the pleasures of the much more fulfilling joy of child-rearing. Marriage and loving-giving marital intercourse in any natural consideration has consequences and facts that are undeniable.

The Coronation Street influence with it’s quasi-romantic flutters seems to lead people to speak without thinking first of why marriage is so vitally different from cohabitation. Marriage is a simply a co-dependency and where procreation is part of the marriage then the others dependency on their spouse is obvious. Marriage is an emotional subject but we have to be knowledgeable first because misconceptions about a subject can only lead to an addled debate. Civilisations have evolved and prospered because of the stability in their peoples and family lives, likewise history has shown that when a social group favours lust and selfishness those people are doomed in their existence. I do not claim expertise beyond a normal knowledge of historical facts but the current spread of so many sexually transmitted diseases is incontrovertibly due to the huge promotion all around of unregulated polygamous relations outside of a faithful marriage and that error is wiping out vast amounts of our peoples.

One has to be aware that children born outside wedlock are actually in the custody of the State and the State can at any time supersede the mother’s wishes with regard to what they might perceive is in the child’s best interest. Remember all of the children who suffered institutional abuse were also in the State’s care. I do take into account the 3% of those who claimed to have been abused by members of various religious denominations but I would be almost thirty three times (97% ?) more concerned by those who identified non-religious members of staff as the perpetrators of the abuse and have largely remained incognito through misrepresentations in the media and otherwise. Remember if the state decides that some un-requested inoculation or other medical procedure is in the child’s best interest then a single mother can not interfere.

Some try to sell the idea that the act of procreation is the mother’s right only and foolishly assert that if a husband expresses or promotes his natural procreation instinct that it is only animalistic in origin and deemed to be outside his remit to be part of a married family in accordance with his marriage vows but the fact of the matter is, that the rights of the yet to be conceived child and the husband’s received promise to be a part of that life is equally as important as the mother’s part and it is this that is the essence of any decent society’s need to advance and protect marriage.

So all matters concerning society through stable family life, which by necessity includes marriage, must also allow self-restraint, spousal respect and self-respect to come into the equation. If you want freedom in matters of procreation, you have to make the right choices initially for your self, but if you freely decide to marry you must have committed the freedoms then needed by your marriage as superior to your own. Unless you believe for some morbid reason that all sex is wrong and that we humans should cease to exist, you cannot but consider a husband’s right to have a child to share his life with as equal to his wife’s.

We would all hope that those we cherish the most would have a good marriage to a loving spouse, as indeed we might for ourselves. We would pray that they might love and be loved by a married partner for life who would be firm in the making of the essential commitments and understandings. We would also hope that they would be dependable for each other. Most importantly, that they would regard their children as part of their commitment and a responsibility from conception to maturity.

My personal opinion is that it would be impossible to have that level of commitment to any other without the Grace of God and the acceptance of that Grace from God. This belief has been an impenetrable force protecting marriages throughout history; those who believed in and lived by that support have gained the fruits, lived long and prospered. Those marriages that did not, have fallen by the wayside in droves.

What is even sadder is that when only one spouse breaks the vow made, and the other through their convictions cannot, the State, in contradiction to their Constitutional mandate, attacks the innocent spouse and works to make their lives unbearable. Hence so many suicides occur as marriages break-up. The devastation to children who are then wrenched from their stable parent and subjected to a fate worse than bereavement is soul-destroying. They then have to face learning how of creating a happy and fulfilling life for themselves from the parent who has shown by their actions that they do not believe in the only process that could yield the best result, a committed Marriage

Unless we are capable of handling the responsibilities of Marriage we should not get into difficult situations, - don't act before we know our minds and when necessary say NO. But, if you freely meet the right person and you both value the sharing of a family you choose to create a life together, then, for God’s sake, say ‘Yes’ to a good Marriage offer.

There is a fail-proof recommendation available to those who wish to maximise this life’s potential: If you are married, never forget the words and promises of your marriage vows, and if you are not married then pray that one day someone will love you enough to declare that love before God and to want to say something like the following marriage vows:

I, (name), take you, (name), to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife), my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward.

In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow.

I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honour and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.

I (name), take this ring as a sign of my love and faithfulness in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit

After the celebrant then might say;

May the Lord in His goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with His blessings.

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

what will happen

by alone

Fri Oct 20, 2006 13:46

Unless the institution of marriage is equally fair to both men and women then people will become aware of these inequalities and will become ever more wary of marriage. They will just live together instead. Is that a better state of affairs in terms of protection than marriage for women and children.? Look around, it is already happening. Who does this situation benefit most in the long run?

religion

by lucas

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:39

Thankfully common sense and reason win another battle with Irish Catholicism. But we can't rest easy, the same principles have to be applied to other relgious nut, sect and obscurantist in Ireland of every shade and hue.

Civil/Divine Law.

by Thigh high docs

Thu Oct 19, 2006 18:08

Biological determinism is not pre-destination. The narrowness of view evidenced
in the above report is more unsettling because the societal and nauseating mores induced
by proto-capitalism fully endorse the ideology of canonical moral law.

There have never been more women flocking to the altars.

There are arrays of bridal magazines, celebrity endorsements and org.s
which urge women to wait until there wedding night.

The old style marriage may be, solely a de rigeur front,( no-one remains virgin)
but it is as encapsulating and as stressful- women get wedding planners,
its a huge money-spinner. The she earns less, is taxed heavily takes
the brunt of the childcare decisions and still has to have sex.

What the fuck, is that?

We have reproductive rights (some), morning after, abortion info, affairs
but when it comes down to it-if there is no friendship in the relationship
from a civil and legal point of view-we still lose out. Women openly
collaborate in this form of self destruction . If a marriage ends, it ends
solely beacuse it should never have happened, the least that can be
accomplished is protecting kids from the bullshit that occurs- invective
about imposing canonical law to force someone to stay in an unhappy
relationship is probably the lowest form of misogony available.

Some priests loved women and indeed produced children with them
in this country. they knew better than to impose the rigours of canonical
structures on the hearts of the women they loved. Such a pity that they ran
when discovered and did not fight the celibate marriage ban and all that entails.

A priest or purveyor of canonical law would not advise staying in a broken marriage
if he too had experienced the relationship which bafflingly scares the bejesus
out of Rome.

Get out of it.

This has to be the most pathetic argument for institutionalisation I have ever heard.

Go to eamom Casey and ask him about love-he knows more about the subject
than you-most evidently.

Loonies and Dominionists

by Sean Scotus

Thu Oct 19, 2006 17:42

"When the civil law acts contrary to the Divine law, Roman Catholic law allows for non-observance of the civil law" . Right, and those who know what the Divine law is are aging, celibate clerics.
" a cabal... led by Mary Robinson intent on furthering their ideology to eradicate marriage"....
These are the bizarre and undemocratic views of the Catholic right., who believe that Christ is King and should rule over society as well as over their deluded sects. They form the basis of Bush support in the U.S.
The long struggle of the Irish people has not been to enthrone the Catholic Church: it has been to implement the rule of the Sovereign People, not the undemocratic rule of clerics who claim to know what the law of God is, and who if they had the power would force society to conform to their narrow, anti-human views

What is Marriage?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 17:27

The morality of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before the eyes of
God for the pro-creation of children.

Thus , what we read here is that the man who does not recognise the volition of the
woman in seeking the ending of the relationship is advocating institutionalised rape.

Pro-creation means having sex to make babies.

The duty in canonical law of the woman is to lie down and protect the nuclear family.
This -and there is no other word for it is the rape of a woman, in order that she may
happily pro-create.

Is that not the fact?

Now, in Islam we have the veiling issue.
In Ireland an advocacy agency wants to force Irish Women to remain married
and perform a duty to her husband which is legitimating the crime of rape.

1. You were born of a woman. Each and every one of you. Your vow was to love
and honour that woman- how is legitimating rape and imprisonment, either
honouring or loving the woman who foolishly went to the altar with you?

The church does not recognise the work of women and debases her fertility
to make her helpmeet of a man, as long as women are imprisoned within the
tenets of canonical law we will have these stories on the news /media.

It is legitimate to rape a woman under canonical law.

If I were the person who wrote this nasty report , I would go to my mother
and ask her to forgive me and then to my wife- then I would co-rear
whatever children there are without the twisted bitterness of hate in my heart
that is so evident here.

As to women- I'd read the contract very carefully before donning the veil of the
canonical church in Ireland. You are a breeder and biologically determined
and we are going back to the days of Dev in terms of equality of rights.

You cannot make someone love you, even if your God says its ok- young man.

Good Grief

by Bootboy

Thu Oct 19, 2006 16:38

A woman tries to divorce her husband - who refuses to acknowledge the court and claims that his marriage can not be disolved as god made it. He wants to force a woman to remain married to him despite the fact that there is no consent on her part. What a lovely chap. Is it any wonder that all of this moaning about the sanctity of marriage comes from people who are such bastards that they think it's alright to force somebody to stay in a relationship against their will?

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

The moral divide between the Roman Catholic Church and civil law

Comments (9 of 9)