Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

As we marched along the ancient +70 mile pilgrimage route to Chartres* last weekend we received the devastating news of the ‘defiance of God’s law’ in Ireland, when the results of the Irish Referendum on marriage ‘equality’ became known.

(* I shall be writing an article for CP&S about this amazing and wonderful pilgrimage in the next day or two; sorry for the delay.) 

By Pete Baklinski on LifeSite News


OXFORD, May 28, 2015. Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal.

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”


Another interesting article on the subject is this one linked to via ‘The Remnant’.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

  1. toadspittle says:

    “I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” says Raymond Cardinal Burke.

    The Cardinal is getting in a bit of a mix-up here, isn’t he?
    Pagan gays didn’t bother getting married (as far as Toad knows) but – if they’d felt like doing so – I’ll bet they would have. Pagans are generally pretty daring.
    Why do gays get “married,” anyway? Search me. Same reason “straights” bother getting married, I suppose. So as not to scandalise the people next door.
    And you can only defy God if you believe in God.* You’d think Raymond might have figured that out by now.

    *But then, you swiftly and rightly point out, you might believe in a God who actually approves of Gay Marriage. In which case, rather than defying God, you’d be obeying Him (or Her).
    ….Raymond clearly hasn’t considered that, either. But then he’s got a lot of other things to consider in Malta these days.

    “Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.””
    What’s not to understand? If usage changes the meaning of a word, (like “awful,” or “terrible,” or “impertinent,” or “chauffeur,” or “marriage,” ) then dictionaries will be obliged to redefine the word.
    And that’s what they do.
    It’s not hard.
    …Necessary, though.


  2. Quos Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius.


  3. toadspittle says:

    “Quos Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius.”
    That would firmly indicate that you accept Jupiter’s existence, Robert John.
    …Or he couldn’t do anything.
    Or maybe you are implying the Christian God has made us all mad? Or what?
    Or maybe both gods are teaming up together, against us humans, like a tag-wrestling team?


  4. toadspittle says:

    “As we marched along the ancient +70 mile pilgrimage route to Chartres* last weekend we received the devastating news of the ‘defiance of God’s law’ in Ireland,”
    Can’t have been all that “devastating.” The “Yes” vote was massively odds-on with the bookies. Still, that’s why they hold referendums. ‘Cos you never know, do you?


  5. Brother Burrito says:

    Please don’t down-vote Toad, it only encourages him.

    He’s such a naughty, cheeky, boy, you see.


  6. toadspittle says:

    All right, Burro. I’ll stop doing it.


  7. kathleen says:

    This is an anti-Catholic and very muddled comment Toad!

    God will not be mocked. Some of the first words in the Bible after the Creation of Adam and Eve laud the complimentarity of men and women for each other, the fundamental equal value (“male and female He created them”) made in God’s own “Image and Likeness”, with their differences inspiring mutual love and attraction. The fruitfulness of the “one flesh” union in marriage between one man and one woman in the forming of a lifelong union has been designed by God for our good, our happiness, and the continuation and growth of humanity in the world. Homosexual acts are a vile perversion and contradiction of the Divine Plan.

    The union of two people of the same sex can never be a marriage in the true sense of the word, so Cardinal Burke is absolutely correct in saying that this legalised re-definition of marriage is a horrific “defiance of God”. The evil fruits of doing this will, in time, be seen… mark my words!


  8. toadspittle says:

    I will go further, Kathleen and say God cannot be mocked – for all sorts of logical reasons.
    I’m quite prepared to accept that my comment is “muddled,” but in what way?
    “The union of two people of the same sex can never be a marriage in the true sense of the word, so Cardinal Burke is absolutely correct in saying that this legalised re-definition of marriage is a horrific “defiance of God”.
    I don’t see how changing the definition of a word necessarily constitutes “defying” God. Nor where “horrific” comes in.
    You do see how. Oh, well. We’ll just have to differ, for once.

    Maybe the union of two people of the same sex can be a “sort” of marriage in “some” sense of the word. Maybe not. Matter of opinion.
    Hardly seems worth all the jumping up and down, making noises only bats can hear, rending of garments, and pulling out of hair by the tuft – on either the “Pro,” or the “Anti,” side.
    (To me.)


  9. GC says:

    kathleen, let us show a little progressivism and social reformism here. Perhaps now a revolutionary arrangement in which a male and a female, desirous of loving and supporting each other faithfully and uniting as one flesh permanently in the hope of producing, nurturing and forming their own offspring by nature, could at least be imagined, at a stretch anyway? Now there’s a novel idea! I wonder what such an arrangement could possibly be called? Any suggestions? Now there’s a hard one.


  10. toadspittle says:

    Sorry to keep gnawing at this now-meatless Gay Marriage bone, but the subject keeps coming back like indigestion, or gout. Now Raymond’s sinking his gnashers into it.

    I don’t personally think marriage is as old as mankind. ( I seem to remember Ginnyfree saying that it was.) I think that, over 30,000 years ago – when humans were sophisticated enough to draw amazing things on cave walls – there was no marriage of any description. I don’t know, of course – nobody does, and it’s unlikely we’ll ever know.
    Possibly a man and a woman agreed to live together, and rear offspring. Or maybe they just casually copulated and the man (or woman) went on his or her way, leaving her pregnant or not. That’s probably far more likely in fact. Then, only a few years back, (say 200) the idea of “marrying” for love was childish – marriage was for land, money, power or convenience.
    Now, “love matches” are all the rage. OK. Times change.

    P. S. Did Solomon have lots of wives, or just girlfriends? Does it matter which way?
    Times – and our idea of marriage – have changed. And will go on doing so.


  11. JabbaPapa says:

    I will go further, Kathleen and say God cannot be mocked

    Your posting history is evidence to the contrary, Toad.


  12. JabbaPapa says:

    … or maybe he’s implicitly denouncing this “gay marriage” business as being worse than demented even from a pagan POV.


  13. toadspittle says:

    They’re still doing it, Burro.
    Anyway, your asking them not to is rigging the game, a bit.


  14. toadspittle says:

    No it isn’t, Jabba.
    Yes, the ideas people have about God can be mocked. We mock the Protestants’ ideas, don’t we now?
    God – no.
    If God exists, mockery can mean nothing to Him. And if he doesn’t. then it means nothing to anybody.


  15. GC says:

    Sounds like toad_sport dot com


  16. JabbaPapa says:

    Sophistry ill becomes you.


  17. Tom Fisher says:

    Well you fought your corner with gusto on this thread, and that’s always admirable 🙂


  18. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad doesn’t have a ‘corner’, which is why his contributions provoke either frustration or ennui, but not anger. The only reason he’s indulged here is to challenge people with convictions to sharpen their arguments and beliefs. Agnostic he is, but if he was a stupid agnostic, he would not have lasted more than a month or two. He sounds like a decent fellow in real life, which might gain him entry to the Drones Club, but not here.


  19. JabbaPapa says:

    He sounds like a decent fellow in real life

    He most assuredly is 😉


  20. toadspittle says:

    Like Marx, Toad doesn’t want to belong to any club that would accept the likes of him as a member.


  21. John A. Kehoe says:

    Spot on. Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Or did we Irish simply nod off and allow the referendum permitting same sex marriage to pass ? Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus ?


  22. johnhenrycn says:

    Court rules Christian baker cannot refuse to make wedding cake for gay ‘marriage’ “

    An example of new fangled ‘human rights’ – in this case, the right not to be discriminated against – trumping venerable civil rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of association.


  23. toadspittle says:

    I suppose if Jack the Christian baker made the gays a cake stuffed with sawdust and cigarette butts – the Court would bust him for that, too. Charge him with undue frivolity, or something.
    ….What is the world coming to?
    Or, as Jabba would put it, WITWCT?
    Although, maybe I can now sue JH for being “offensive and dehumanising,” by calling me names.
    Bit hard to “dehumanise,” a toad, though.


  24. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad, where is Jabba these days?

    You know, this cake baker situation is one about which I have conflicting thoughts. Legal beagles follow (or should, I believe) the cab-rank rule, which obliges them to accept any case that comes across their desks (some exceptions and conditions apply) which in turn means they ought not to refuse to represent grievance mongers like the ones who prosecuted the baker. The only option for Christian legal beagles confronted with that dilemma would be to restrict their practices to areas other than human rights law – like say personal injury law, concerning which there is no specific homosexual agenda that I’ve ever come across. I gave up practicing family law the year I became a Catholic, because I no longer wished to be an enabler of divorce. A friend and colleague of mine, a devout Catholic, didn’t see that as a problem to continuing his family law practice.


  25. toadspittle says:

    Don’t know what Jabba’s doing. He talked of doing the Camino again this year. But I’ve heard nothing for months.

    You were, I think – JH, quite right to follow your own conscience on law. Just as Jack the Baker was on cake. One possible solution is, I think, to introduce some sort of policy whereby we are not obliged to give a specific reason for refusing to undertake a commission – it should be sufficient to say “I just don’t want to.”
    That’s what I’d say, if asked to write a glowing paean of praise about Tony Blair. Though, if pressed, I would happily elaborate.
    (Christian baker Jack might also consider attaching tiny marzipan labels reading, “The sentiments expressed on this cake do not necessarily reflect those of its maker.” That would be stupid enough to satisfy anyone, surely?)


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s