Many Australians, including Bishops, do not appear to be aware that while Christians are being bullied and punished now for opposing SSM, it will be immeasurably worse if this legislation is passed. This is our last opportunity to save our freedom of religion! The heterosexual nature of marriage is not only a religious concept, but has been accepted for millennia in all cultures, secular and religious alike. It is simply a matter of biology and human reason.

     Many homosexuals oppose the “gay lobby” and support the rights of children to know and be loved by their own natural parents:
     The silence and timid platitudes apparent in the Church is a matter of grave concern for Australian Catholics, and Christians generally.

Same-sex ‘marriage’ is causing a schism among Catholics in Australia
The Editors, LifeSiteNews
Editor’s Note: The following article was submitted by an Australian priest who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

     AUSTRALIA, October 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews <> ) – Australia’s “gay’’ marriage and LGBTI activists rejoiced. An article in the national newspaper, The Australian, lent support to their shrill campaign for a “yes’’ vote in the nation’s postal plebiscite on same-sex “marriage’’ from an unexpected quarter.

     In our pluralist society, Bishop Bill Wright, bishop of the Catholic diocese of Maitland-Newcastle (north of Sydney), said a “com­mon good’’  argument could be made that “it does more for community peace and harmony for gay couples to have a place in the recognised structures than for them to be excluded.’’

     The article quoted from the bishop’s website, in which he claimed that the push for same-sex marriage “seemed to arise from the desire of gay couples to have an officially sanctioned ceremony to formalise their commitment to each other and then to have that relationship accorded legal and social recognition … in a society where same-sex relationships are legal and gay couples can adopt and raise children, it’s a bit of a legal anomaly that their relationship itself doesn’t have a clear legal status.’’
However wrong he was, Bishop Wright was not alone....
Continue reading here....

Wallace Klinck responded:
     All very interesting.  In my opinion the formal clergy is largely to blame for this whole de-spiritualized and moral decline into chaos and depravity.  They have been more concerned to maintain their institutions and rituals, negotiate their salaries and vacations and clip their coupons while presenting a conception of the Christian message that is other-worldly having little or no practical or appealing relevance as a guide to our regular mortal affairs.  Meanwhile, of course, this has left a vacuum (which nature abhors) and allowed destructive alien influences to occupy and assert control over the organic world in which we live.

     Because of their abstract position the clergy have largely exempted themselves from responsibility for temporal affairs and retreated into a safe place where they need not face any risks in opposing the existing materialistic and oppressive order.  I believe also that a significant part of the clergy is occupied by people who either have come to discount the realism of the Christian message, or by some who are are conscious infiltrators playing the role of outright saboteurs, or “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.

     The clergy in general does not actively and practically oppose war, institutional poverty, debt, usury and all of the tragic personal and social consequences of these major abominations.  They may pray without personal risk for the souls of those who are afflicted.  It is true of course that many of the clergy have little or no disciplined understanding of these issues, which is understandable.  What is not understandable or acceptable is their steadfast, stubborn and perverse unwillingness seriously to study them.  Apparently, these afflictions are all of God’s will and we should not seriously seek to intervene.  Of course when Christians are forced to take a universally amoral position they then will be denied the right to say “Yes” or “No” and thereby disallowed expression of any exercise of discretion or differentiation without being pilloried for “discrimination”.  Equality having been elevated as the new universal moral standard, any evaluative thought or action will be forbidden—except by the State which in its supreme omniscience and omnipotence will be the ultimate arbiter of all things.  The State, being a purely abstract entity, will of course be controlled in practice by a few powerful individuals who in fact will be the new tyrannical rulers.  Civilization will become static and devoid of meaning.

     I do not believe that we are all equal.  We are all unique and different.  That is what makes us human instead of automatons.  Demanding an “equal” right to a “job” is to demand the right to be a regimented slave.  As in nature, we do all have a right to partake in consumption and as labour is replaced by non-labour technological factors of production the right to consumption should be extended without favour to all citizens in free association.  Seeking social “justice” through employment is the Marxist-materialist road to conditional “security” through slavery; seeking it via consumption is to pursue it along the road to freedom in Abundance.  This is the crucial difference between the enslaving materialist Doctrine of Salvation through Works and the emancipating freedom available through the Christian Doctrine of Salvation through Grace.  We do not live in a world of scarcity but rather of abundance, both real and potential.