…so we talk about it over at the Register.
In some places, success is still possible (as, for instance, in Northern Ireland and in many parts of the US). So there the battle should be pressed. But if, in other parts of the world, the Church has no hope of stemming the tide of the legal fiction of gay “marriage”, then it may well be prudent to propose the compromise…
I really have trouble with this particular line of reasoning—and I mean that generally, not only in this particular article by this particular author. Doesn’t it sort of go against the long tradition of the Church visibly challenging the dominant cultural and/or legal position in society after society, even when this meant almost certain persecution and even martyrdom? What about the Roman Empire days? Surely Caesar had the same massive advantages then (he had the swords and spears if not the guns), yet that didn’t stop the Church from pressing its case. The early missionaries didn’t simply write off the Roman Empire as territory not worth pressing the battle. One could even argue that the Church’s bravery in such dire and unfavorable circumstances actually created converts (see the Martydom of Polycarp, for example), whereas the current seemingly political calculus of Church leaders has encouraged people to leave the Church: why even listen to what bishops have to say when they seem like any other opportunistic politicians, defending a position only as long as it seems like a winning position?
There’s a glaring difference between now and then, Vox. Why were those people willing to risk so much and we so little? Hint: It’s not the culture, it’s not comfort, it’s not all the “what if” scenarios a person can cook up if they’ve a mind to. All that stuff is relative and existed then too. There is one huge difference, and it makes all the difference in the world.
As someone who hates guessing games and has a hard time picking up on purported nuance and subtlety, would you do me the favor of just stating whatever it is your talking about to Vox?
Kinda, sorta. I mean, you don’t find the anyone saying the gladiator games MUST be stopped, or stuff like that. The witness of the Church is always in competition with the State, but I don’t think the oldest history supports the idea of poking the State in the eye for no gain.
Well, Tertullian was pretty blunt in his criticism of the gladiatorial games. I’m not sure if he called explicitly for their outlaw, but he did argue they were murder and inherently immoral.
Considering the comments under the article, perhaps you could do one explaining annulments.
That will make for a fun combox, to be sure.
Rhino-hide jackets provided at the door.
As the veteran of two successful annulments, I could provide some interesting insights from my cases and others that I helped others with, but I can only imagine how upset some might become.
Now that was some excellent reasoning. Dare I say, nuanced?