One of the most disquieting traits of our time is the tendency to look at concrete, everyday situations without a general view of what is right and wrong. This attitude is typical of children – who can't understand why the dangerous dog should be put down – and shortsighted, when they are in good faith, adults – who can't understand why a murderer should be executed -.
The right answer is always the logical, not the emotional one. The dangerous dog should be put down because the interest of safety comes before the child's desire that the dog may live; similarly, the execution of the murderer should be carried on so that elementary needs of justice and deterrence may be satisfied, even if the crying girlfriend of the assassin is on TV all day telling us what a sweet, good-as-pie, misunderstood man he is. The child, and the girlfriend, will plea for mercy. But it is false mercy that puts others in danger, and takes away from criminals the fear of their own destruction.
Logic must come before emotions. Laws – both legal and moral – can't be bent to accommodate feelings. Lex, dura lex, sed lex. During the reign of Blessed Pius IX there were hundreds of executions, in a State with a population of merely a couple of millions.
This obvious reasoning applies also to the Sacraments; the more so, because the things of God are so much more important than the things of man.
Marriage, it is said, is in bad shape. We have in front of us the suffering of so many who have made a mistake. Should we not have mercy, and spare them?
Marriage is a sacrament. Once validly contracted, it stays. Whatever suffering the marriage causes, the once chosen bond stays. If the wife goes to bed with the entire regiment, she is still the wife. If the husband become violent, or alcoholic, he is still the husband. His becoming violent afterwards is nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with his having married before. The once validly celebrated sacrament stays. Hitler didn't stop being baptised because he became the Fuehrer, either.
If you're married, you're married. “But if he has become violent, then it means that he did not intend to marry me” must be among the most stupid things that can come out of the mouth of a human being.
The man wanted to marry, which is why he did it. He could take this decision because he could think. He was considered an adult able to make his own decisions: drive a car, enlist in the army, buy a home. All decisions which have a big influence on his life, or can be deadly to others. Still, he was considered able to make them. No one doubts this.
If a soldier rapes a girl in an occupied enemy village his superiors do not say “evidently, you never wanted to become a soldier”. He still is very well a soldier, which is why he will be court martialled. The decision, once validly taken, stays. An adult is, by definition, one who is able to make his own decisions and will answer for them. Retrospective rearrangement of a taken decision is neither here nor there. If you validly bought a house and discover the mortgage is too big of a burden, you can't just make your decision null and void because “you didn't really know what you were doing”. Was the house legally purchased? Yeah? Then it's all yours, my boy…
Therefore, any argument aiming at persuading you that the church should be “flexible”, “merciful”, or whatever else, and ignore the reality of a decision once validly taken in order to pretend the decision was never there in the first place is not only factually and logically flawed, but radically sacrilegious. It is very obvious that the current climate encourages spouses to lie about the bond they once freely chose; the recent “simplifications” go even further down that road, encouraging a narrative in which the spouse is a victim (of his or his spouse's “inexperience”) and therefore, implicitly but clearly enough, authorised to lie.
This isn't mercy, this is a fraud, and a sacrilegious one at that. God will not be fooled. At seven, a boy can theoretically send himself to hell. Imagine an adult trying to fool God about his own marriage. Congratulations, Pope Francis. You have just made the devil a huge favour.
Mrs Pious Adulterer will, we have said, insist that she could not make the choice. But ask her whether she would be ready to consider null and void the purchase agreement of her house because, ten years later, the seller discover he wasn't “mature enough” to make such a decision, and see what she answers.
The same person who would be insulted at your implication that she should be incapacitated – because obviously not able to buy or sell cars, houses, heirlooms, and the like – will eat you alive if you tell her that if she was able to make an important decision like buying a car or a house, the more so she was able to make the obviously far more momentous decision to marry; a decision taken almost always very formally, very solemnly, with great pomp and ceremony, in front of all relatives and friends, and with all the attached, well-known emphasis on this bond being “forevah and evah”, and now suddenly discarded like a bad joke.
“Me? Promise? Solemn? Oh no, I wasn't really serious, you see!”
“What do you say? Incapacitation, guardian, protecting me from myself? You b@st@rd!!!”
The head of the Austrian group “Wir Sind Kirche” (“We Are Church”) was excommunicated, together with her husband, for playing Mass (and, actually, “priestess”) at home. What I think happened is that these people invited a small number of satanic nutcases at home and, after tea and Sachertorte, “concelebrated” a pretend Mass.
I hope the Sachertorte was good, because the thing with the pretend Mass had a kind of a bitter outcome.
This group is, in a way, the Austrian Heresy on steroids or, if you prefer, the openly militant Austrian Heresy. A bit what the SA were to the Nazi ideology. They evidently do not limit themselves to dream of, say, priestesses; they actually play priestess themselves.
Ah, these children! They grow up so fast!
In this case, the children are clearly Satan’s willing tools. They refusal of basic Catholicism puts them squarely in the Presbyterian camp, but at least the Presbyterians have the decency to not imagine themselves Catholics.
By the by, the woman is 67 years old, showing age does not necessarily go together with wisdom, and is apparently using a title of “theologian” without the legal qualifications to do so. Where I come from this is a criminal offence of no small import. I wonder how the Austrian see that. What the matter tells me is that some people would do absolutely everything to attract attention on themselves.
I don’t pity the husband. I pity the neighbours.
Now, it is obviously good that, once in a while, we are informed the rules are enforced. But this here is truly extreme, and to infer from this any kind of “orthodoxy” of Francis would be utterly unrealistic, particularly considering the inquest against the two started in 2011. More probably, Cardinal Müller persuaded Francis that something more robust than a “slap on the wrist” had to take place. We have, anyway, always known this is one madness Francis does not support.
“Wir Sind Kirche” isn’t small fare, as in the German-speaking countries dissent is almost as fashionable now as brown was in the Thirties. They are present in more than twenty Countries, but to my knowledge they are vocal particularly in Germany and Austria. One wonders how the Austrian members will react to the news that their Dear Leader is found guilty of delicta graviora.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because this is one of those events that might open the eyes of the tepid, the ill-informed and the slow. To keep the woman at the head of the Austrian nutcase group would be telling. To oust her would force, perhaps, some soul searching.
When the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, one is forced to inform oneself as to what has happened and, if he is of sound thinking, realise they are excommunicated for refusing to compromise Catholicism. When these two are excommunicated, many will be hopefully led to realise that within this movement Catholicism is not even present in homeopathic doses.
In any way, what is sure is that we can’t infer from the punishment of this really extreme behaviour any return to orthodoxy from Francis.
It would be like praising Stalin because he did not eat children.
I am informed via Father Z's blog that in France the President has authorised a woman to marry a man.
Whilst this should be the normality in every country whose people can use their brain – even in France – in this case the matter is made somewhat unusual by the fact that one of the two happy people who are supposed to pronounce the oui ( or “je le veux”, or whatever it is) is without the shadow of a doubt either in a very advanced state of decomposition or – if from an atheist background, say, or works of mercy have been deemed a waste of time and money – reduced to very fine ashes these past two years.
Now, what makes our women-chasing hero, Monsieur Hollande, think that a bunch of bones, or a handful of ashes, may pronounce the words “I do?”. It is, apparently, a rather absurd law of 55 years ago, (ill) conceived to allow the “marriage” of betrothed people on occasion of a big tragedy that cost the life of hundreds.
I am no canonist, but I cannot imagine that the simple intention to marry one day in the future can reasonably translate into a marriage; not one inter vivos, much less one between a living bride and a long deceased corpse. Many are the marriages called off at the last minute, and with acute instinct the popular mind identifies in those very words, “I do”, the confirmation that the will to marry is actually there, thus wonderfully matching the common sense with the legal status; because if the magic words in the proper setting are not there I am sorry, dear lass, but you are as much unmarried as before.
Now, I will spare you the jokes about the great joy in the cemetery, and the Bridegroom inviting its entire population to a danse macabre after the ceremony. What concerns me is that something that 55 years ago was probably seen as a – strange and creepy – way to protect marriage is now probably seen as another way to extend marriage to pretty much everything under the sun.
In the same way as the UK wants the death of the EU as a political organism by allowing Turkey to become part of it, the secular society wants the death of the institution of marriage through “inclusion” of the most outlandish things, from the absurd concept of a dead bridegroom to the far more absurd concept of two wannabe brides or bridegrooms, to the future frontier of geometrically enriched (triangles, or quadrangles; the sky, or the circumference, is the limit) “marriages”.
I want to hope this marriage “par ordre du mufti” does not have any legal consequences of sort; but again this is France, so you never know.
It is also interesting to reflect where this might lead to. For example, there could be some business in matching deceased people. A company called, say, “happy coffin” might talk with the bereaved, who would then – based on the matching profile of the “couple” – decide that Aunt Agatha' and Uncle Freddy would have wanted to marry, if they had met; which, unfortunately, they didn't, but I am sure Monsieur Hollande is no man to be discouraged by this little detail. A letter to him, et voila'. The putative husbands will, rather probably, not be asked.
Therefore this little episode, in itself only the result of a monomaniacal and rather macabre bout of emotionalism of a non-widow, can well be considered another nail in the – erm, well, (cough) – coffin of marriage as God intended.
Which – whatever Monsieur Hollande, mad members of Parliament or a wannabe widow want you to believe – is the only one there will ever be.
After the recent experiences, I will wait that I have the time to read, re-read and read again the papal interview to the Corriere. It will not be today, and possibly not tomorrow. Saturday at the latest.
This time the interview was recorded; it possibly seeming strange that Francis is ready to record his spontaneous post-lunch ecumaniacal rubbish on the first smartphone around, but does not want his interviews with professional journalists to be recorded.
Some preliminary considerations of a general nature can be done now.
Legal sanctions are not there because our forefathers were stupid. They are there because our forefathers had values, and ordered their legal system in accordance to them.
Illegitimate children used to have no legal rights to a part of the inheritance, because it was considered obvious that the defence of family values demanded that the legitimate children be afforded a protection that could not be automatically extended to illegitimate ones. Of course they could still inherit a large portion of the estate. But they had no right to an automatic entitlement, and no right to the part of the estate to which the wife and legitimate children were automatically entitled.
The same principles applied, and in part still apply in countries like Italy, to other aspects of everyday life. Of course the concubine has no rights to the estate. She is the concubine, not the wife. There's a huge difference, and this difference cannot be downplayed without downplaying marriage.
I trust a boy of twelve understands this after a moment of reflection. I trust everyone understands that you can't protect certain values, any values, without giving whenever appropriate a different legal treatment to those situations that are outside of the protected ones.
To say “I support marriage” and to advocate that the concubine have the same rights than the wife is, very obviously, undermining marriage. To say “I support the family” and to give illegitimate children the same inheritance rights of the legitimate ones is, very obviously, undermining the family, and so on.
Some people think as if the past generations had been stupid. They weren't stupid. Not only they were smart, but they were also coherent with the values they professed.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say the family must be protected, and undermine it for the sake of inclusiveness; or say you are in favour of marriage, and demand that the concubine get the same privileges and legal status of the wife.
Again, I do not know to what extent this applies to what Francis said, but I have an inkling it might be relevant. This just as a heads up and general reflection. More of it when I have read about the latest utterances of our Not-So-Holy Father.
It can make sense, at times, to give baptism to babies whose parents are not sacramentally married. Those of you who love classical music might, for example, remember the case of Felix Mendelssohn and his siblings; all of them baptised, even if born of Jewish parents.
But you see, Mendelssohn was raised as a Christian – albeit, alas, a Protestant one -, as were his siblings. When he was baptised, the decision to raise him as a Christian was already made. It was no question of what the relatives of the parents “expected”, or of a nice ceremony and party, or of the child not feeling “different” when at elementary school. The intention to have people around the baby caring for a proper Christian upbringing was certainly there already.
This is most certainly not so for many couples nowadays, who consider having their children baptised only in order to avoid discussions with their parents, or because of the “nice ceremony”, or because everyone else in their circles does it. That they do not care is already not shown, but shouted, by the simple fact that they are not married in church. There might be other people – perhaps the uncle, or the grandparents – taking this obligation for themselves; but how often this is the case nowadays both you and I can easily imagine.
Never one to let a good headline go to waste, Bishop Francis has now baptised the son of a couple who did not consider it right – or did not have the right, I do not know the details – to marry in the church, though they apparently did consider it just the ticket to have their baby baptised by the Pope. Would the Bishop of Rome object to this? Well, of course not…
Francis is very aware – whatever the Pollyannas might think – of the worldwide echo of anything he does differently from his predecessors, and he has already complained in public about those priests who are restrictive in their decision to give baptism (probably because they care, I add). When, therefore, Francis proceeds to baptise the baby of public concubines living in scandal, he willingly undermines both marriage and baptism. The first because he sends the clear message that another usual testimony of Christian faith, that is obviously a sacrament and an obvious precondition for a chaste life in common rather than concubinage, can be dispensed with; and the second because it again creates the perception that a baptism is something you give to a baby like you would a pacifier.
This may seem strange to us, but certainly isn't in Francis' world. If atheists can be saved and Jews don't need to be converted, baptism is clearly no big deal. If God punishes us with a slap on the wrist at most, then clearly God has already slated us for inevitable salvation at conception. If there is no need to convert anyone to Catholicism, or Christianity come to that, then there is no specific value to be attached to the peculiar rite of admission to this Christian faith and baptism can be given for the asking, merely as a token of something already there for everyone.
In Francis' vision there is only one community of faithful, the humans. He has already baptised all of them – be they atheist in “good conscience”, Jews eating kosher or Muslims observing the Ramadan – in the name of the Black Shoes, the Ford Focus and the Wheelchair. It is very clear to him Christianity is just one of many options, all of them leading to inevitable salvation, with the worst case scenario being a slap in the wrist. He probably considers Christianity the best option; but again, certainly not to the point of trying to persuade others to follow his choice. He will merely point out to you the advantages of choosing this option: having more joooy, experiencing more luv, and the like.
Why on earth would he ever have a problem in giving baptism to absolutely anyone?
A bakery refuses to bake a cake for a couple of fags wanting to pantomime a God-made institution for their perverted aims.
They say no, as they had done several times in the past. But this time, several death threats follow.
The fags also launch the usual facebook boycott campaign. As a result, the business increases substantially.
You see, what these cretins do not understand is that the more they agitate the waters, the more people wake up and discover that they have had enough of political correctness, and the time has come to take a stand. And so many honest, if perhaps tepid Christians march to the shop of the brave Christian, and spend money by him. Be assured that when they get out, they are a little less tepid already.
May God bless this brave man and prosper his business, and let us really hope judicial Gaystapo-activism does not try to force shopkeepers to serve openly homosexual initiatives just because the state allows some form of official sexual perversion.
I had thought that in a world so stupidly perverted as to even contemplate the possibility of a man “marrying” another man (or a woman marrying another woman) pretty much everything would be possible, like marrying one’s own dog (copyright: Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor).
But in another tragic example of how reality overtakes fantasy, we are now informed a woman decided to marry…. herself.
Whilst the news is reported with the tongue-in-cheek attitude one would expect, I am not entirely sure there isn’t a deep logic in this.
First of all, the thing cannot have been made in jest. Dozens of people invited; eleven-years-old child saying to her mother he is embarrassed for her (good chap; there are hopes) and real, “solo honeymoon” to be paid with real money. Most of all, no sane person would push a joke to this level of insanity. At this point, even if you say it was all a joke no one is really going to believe you.
You might know Proddies have this strange idea of making “marriage vows”, something that always makes me cringe when I see it in movies, and thank God I will probably never be asked to be present to such diabetes-inducing ceremonies. If you want to know , the “marriage self-vow” of the lady in question is “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self”. A beautiful example to selfless dedication to one’s own unlimited narcissism, I must say. Or more probably, an indication of a truly desperate need for a man. But I digress.
The lady in question might, in fact, have hit the bull’s eye. Her boundless narcissism and self-centredness is in nothing different from what we see in poofs and lesbians doing the same. The only difference is the lady isn’t sexually perverted and therefore lacks the dog, or the “partner”, to stage her little circus.
At this point, I predict in future we will have women asking to be married to Martin Luther King, or JFK (wait; perhaps that would be less frequent…), or the ever-present Mahatma Ghandi. Whereas men could ask to be married to… no, really, I can’t imagine men doing such things. Unless they’re fags, of course; but then, fags are not real men, merely pathetic caricatures of women exactly like their pretended “marriages” are the caricatures of the real thing.
I must admit I had never thought of even the possibility of such “self-marriages” happening.
On second thought, though, I am not sure this speaks against me.
Rorate Caeli has a very timely excerpt from Casti Connubii.
This great Pope was not one to mince words, not even in official documents. It is interesting to read today what he wrote not one century ago, and wonder how progressive priests would see a priest who would dare to use the sam e words today. But again old priests believes in Jesus, and many modern bishops don’t.
[S]ince, in order that the deceits of the enemy may be avoided, it is necessary first of all that they be laid bare; since much is to be gained by denouncing these fallacies for the sake of the unwary, even though We prefer not to name these iniquities “as becometh saints,” yet for the welfare of souls We cannot remain altogether silent.
Look, he says, there comes a point when one has to speak, and to speak plainly. If we don’t, the simple will suffer. If we do, we will behave charitably. How different from the “sensitive” mantra of our times, rather trying to persuade us that you can’t say to a sinner that he is wrong, because he could…. persevere in his sin! Genial!
The great Pope then goes on to demolish the idea that marriage be a human, rather a Divine institution, and to point out to the consequences of such error:
The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs
First of all, note the word “evil”. I am grateful for any reference you may email to me of any modern (Post V II) Pope or Bishop who has defined commonly held tenets of the modern thinking as “evil”. Methinks, nowadays references to “evil” have become rather rare (very “insensitive”, you know; people could be shocked, and sell their mother to an itinerant circus); I have more than the suspicion than when the word “evil” is used, this is done in a way that doesn not offend anyone: for example, denouncing “greed” or “the destruction of the planet”: so convenient.
Secondly, notice the argument: the consequence of this thinking – namely: that the laws governing wedlock might be changed according to the shifting circumstances of human affairs – is an evil in itself. The late Pope doesn’t stop – here, at least – to explain to you why a human-based regulation of wedlock is evil. It isn’t Christian, and this is proof enough of its being evil. How different from the attitude of the modern heathen a’ la Archbishop Nichols; people who have the gut to tell us that they are “nuanced” in regard to “civil partnerships”, and are satisfied to only point out that it shouldn’t be called “marriage”. I cannot imagine a Pope XI leaving him at his place, whereas you see that Popes greatly differ in energy and incisiveness of action.
But the good old Pontiff is not satisfied yet, and continues to hammer the errors of his – and every – time. Continuing the explanation fo the consequences of the above mentioned evil thinking, he sees as one of these
that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony – hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.
Read these words slowly and carefully:license of a base fornicating woman. Here, I am rather sure you have never ever read such words from a post V II Pope or Bishop. The lack of “pastoral sensitivity” of such words is such that a priest who would dare to express himself in such a way today would be very probably severely reprimanded by his bishop, whilst the latter would profit from the occasion for another show of “sensitivity” towards unrepentant sinners, obviously at the cost of his expendable priest.
I also wonder how, say, Archbishop Vincent Nichols would answer if plainly asked whether the fornicating woman should have the same rights of the lawfully wedded wife. With some politically correct waffle, very probably.
Pius XI was a strong, energetic, vigorously Christian Pope. He didn’t do “sensitivity” much, though you can plainly see he was more charitable than the entire present body of E&W bishops together.
O for a return of Popes likes the ones of the past.
Read here on The Deacon’s bench a rather enjoyable blog post about, well, what can go wrong.
Truly delicious at time (the reference to the mother is probably the best, and gives plenty of background), this entertaining piece of bloggery might, particularly from some wannabe priestess, be seen as typical of the chauvinistic culture reigning among the clergy.
For this reason, the blog post is linked here.
Wisely, Deacon Kandra has closed the comment box.
The National Organisation for Marriage has an interesting page, “Why Marriage Matters”.
The page explains to Protestants, Catholics and Jews why marriage is directly relevant to them, and why they should mobilise to defend it.
The leaflet for Catholics (in English) is here.
Whilst you could print the .pdf file in two pages and the work is therefore rather concise in nature, this is something that can be forwarded to friends and colleagues in the US and have, in fact, a concrete chance of being actually read.
The arguments are of rather practical nature and should therefore make the matter accessible even to those (the majority among Catholics) who don’t have a solid formation on the matter. I personally would use different, more “militant” arguments, but it seems to me that the NOM approach is simple and accessible for everyone.
This might a good idea for an email.
When it happens – far too seldom, admittedly – it is a joy and a pleasure to be able to report about a Cardinal who really takes his job seriously and is more concerned about the souls of his sheep than about his own popularity or acceptance.
Cardinal Sarah is the man in charge of restructuring the entire apparatus of Church development programs. He obviously has a clear idea of what development aid must not be: a purely secular undertaking indistinguishable from secular organisations of the sort. But our man is also very attentive to the duties of a shepherd to speak clearly.
“if we have fear of proclaiming the truth of the Gospel, if we are ashamed of denouncing the grave deviations in the area of morality, if we accommodate ourselves to this world of moral laxity and religious and ethical relativism, if we are afraid to energetically denounce the abominable laws regarding the new global ethos, regarding marriage, the family in all of its forms, abortion, laws in total opposition to the laws of nature and of God, and that the western nations and cultures are promoting and imposing thanks to the mass media and their economic power, then the prophetic words of Ezechiel will fall on us as a grave divine reproach.”
These words, pronounced at a ceremony of ordination to priesthood and diaconate, have all the clarity of purpose so often absent from our bishops, particularly (but not only) the European ones.
Cardinal Sarah again:
“These reproaches are serious, but more important is the offense that we have committed against God when, having received the responsibility of caring for the spiritual good of all, we mistreat souls by depriving them of the true teaching of the doctrine of regarding God, regarding man, and the fundamental values of human existence,”
The clergyman who has received the responsibility of caring for the souls of his sheep, and feeds them with common places and innocuous slogan instead, mistreats the souls entrusted to him, and will be punished accordingly. Archbishop Nichols’ ears must be burning, and our Archbishop Namby-Pamby also has an awful lot to reflect about; though Cardinal Schoenborn must, surely, take the biscuit.
In another show of beautifully shameless and absolutely un-PC orthodoxy, Cardinal Sarah says:
“we no longer know what is evil and what is good. There are a multitude of points of view. Today, we call white what we once called black, and vice versa. What is serious, and make no mistake about it, is the transformation of error into a rule of life.
“In this context, as priests, pastors and guides of the People of God, you should be continuously focused on being always loyal to the doctrine of Christ. It is necessary for you to constantly strive to acquire the sensitivity of conscience, the faithful respect for dogma and morality, which constitute the deposit of faith and the common patrimony of the Church of Christ.”
This man is a steamroller. I hope we will be hearing more from him in the months to come. The Church desperately needs people like him.
In the press release of the National Organisation for Marriage, NOM’s president Brian Brown said:
“The crowd in Manhattan was so large the NYPD asked us to begin our march early so that we could relieve overcrowding at the gathering site. By the time we reached the United Nation’s plaza, nearly 10,000 people were present. This shows that a new era in the debate about same-sex marriage has begun. It’s not about what politicians think is best, it’s about demanding that the People be given their right to be heard.”
I think that this admirably sums up what I wanted to say with this blog post:
1) the rally was a great success, not only above expectations but (as you could read yesterday for the first NOM press releases) with people spontaneously joining the march;
2) the Christian side is now officially on the offensive, and my impression is that the politicians who prostituted themselves will be able to run, but not to hide;
3) the cry for a vote in NY is not going to go away, and when it is given the population’s awareness will be high enough to ensure victory.
More in general, it is an illusion for a politician to think that he can politically survive (particularly after having betrayed and sold his
backside vote) by espousing the cause of around 1% of the population. It can work only until the common man wakes up; but when this happens, said politician is utterly done for.
Similarly, he who thinks that this movement is now going to quietly die after the first emotional wave following the vote is clearly in denial. This is going to stay and organisations like NOM, the religious organisations like the Only Church and the Protestant communities and the many people who aren’t particularly religious, but are conservative enough to care for the basic instruments of a functioning society will care for it. Against them, a small minority of (how is the word again? “Gay”? No, it can’t be. Oh yes, now I remember…) perverts and their lapdogs, the liberals. When the country wakes up they haven’t the shadow of a chance, as social “liberalism” is clearly in the minority.
In the meantime, the legal challenge to the law goes on. Whilst I wouldn’t bet my pint on its success, this is another sign that this is a fight not going to disappear from the radar screen.
You wouldn’t believe it, but sometimes even journalists of liberal newspapers can grasp elementary truths and inform their readers of the fact. This time, it has happened to the author of this article on the Boston Globe, the NYT-owned, surprisingly-still-alive “progressive” newspaper. The issue is, as so often these days, the so-called “marriage” of troubled souls.
The author of the article demolishes – from the left; which hurts in a special way – one of the mantras of the homo mafia: the desire to equate their “rights” with the civil rights battles of the Sixties and in particular, the idea that as interracial marriages were allowed, then “marriages” between (or one day, who knows: among) homosexuals should be allowed too. Let us see what Mr Jacoby has to say on the matter (emphases always mine):
When the Supreme Court ruled in June 1967 that Virginia’s law penalizing interracial marriage could not stand, it was not changing the fundamental and enduring meaning of marriage: It was affirming it. It was upholding the integrity of marriage by protecting it from irrelevant — and unconstitutional — racial manipulation. Virginia had interfered with the core elements of marriage in order to promote white supremacy, a value completely alien to marriage. Marriage is designed to bring men and women together; anti-miscegenation laws frustrated that design, and could not stand.
That this is nothing to do with an assumed right of perverts to have a legal recognition for their perversion is elegantly expressed in this way:
No one was a fervent proponent of gay* marriage 44 years ago this month when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that laws barring whites and blacks from marrying were unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage wasn’t even a fringe issue on June 12, 1967, the day the court handed down its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, invalidating anti-miscegenation statutes on the books in 16 states as “invidious racial discrimination . . . repugnant to the 14th Amendment.’’ If anyone had suggested to Chief Justice Earl Warren or his colleagues that in refusing to allow Virginia to continue perverting its marriage laws out of racial bigotry they were pointing the way to gay* and lesbian marriages, they would have found the claim unintelligible.
Pure common sense, you will say. Wrong. If you were a liberal, you’d be exposed to literature claiming that the changes brought about by that sentence are allegedly “incomplete” because so-called gay* marriage is still illegal in most American states (I kid you not; it is in the article linked), and the like. A tough job, being a liberal and trying to stay sane.
At this point, Mr Jacoby gets slightly more aggressive:
By now, of course, the idea that same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry as interracial couples has become a favorite gay*-rights trump card. So has the view that opponents of gay* marriage occupy the same moral and legal swamp as the segregationists who thought Mildred and Richard Loving’s marriage should be a crime.
Apart from the use of that strange word, gay*, this could have been written by a conservative journalist. Oh-oh.
The core of the argument is in the following lines:
Same-sex marriage, too, interferes with the core elements of wedlock in order to advance an unrelated goal — the dignity and equality of gays* and lesbians. The fact that many decent people ardently embrace that goal doesn’t change reality: The essential, public purpose of marriage is to unite male and female — to bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce. It is rooted in the belief that every child needs a mother and a father. Gay* marriage, whether enacted by lawmakers or imposed by judges, disconnects marriage from its most basic idea. Ultimately, that isn’t tenable either.
Apart from the obscenely misguided idea that an anti-Christian perverted militant may be “decent” other than in his table or cocktail party manners, this hits the bull’s-eye. Note here that this isn’t an affirmation of the uselessness of such a legislation: this is an emphatic affirmation of its biological absurdity; something that no law or judicial activism will ever be able to change. Boldly, the author makes a claim that in a conservative writer would be considered triumphalistic and extremely reactionary: the so-called homo-marriage won’t last, because it’s too absurd to stand the test of reality.
The best part is for the end:
The old laws banning interracial marriage had a long run but they eventually collapsed. The new laws in New York and some other states authorizing same-sex marriage may be destined for a long run as well, but I suspect they too will likely eventually collapse. Marriage — male-female marriage — is indispensable to human welfare. That is why it has existed in virtually every known human society. And why it cannot be permanently redefined.
Congratulation to the Boston Globe for managing, even as liberals, to see the light now and then.
*”gay” = here: homosexual(s). Don’t ask me why.
Is there one area, just one area of the faith that the modernist, hippie, liberal, progressive, watered-down-the-faith, bongo-pounding, liturgy-destroying, church-wreckovation modernist crowd has not destroyed?
This asks Michael Voris in this brilliant video and I’m afraid that – if we consider “destroyed” in a sociological rather than sacramental meaning – we know the answer.
This video is not about the travesty in drags proposed by our pervert community, but about the real thing. The dramatic drop in marriages is – as the Catholics in the United States clearly haven’t developed a sudden desire for collective bachelorhood – obviously linked to the downplaying of this sacrament by the liberal clergy . Voris actually puts it stronger than that, defining such shepherds as “liberal or gay* or modernist priests” and pointing out to an issue that should be discussed more often, that is: priests who are liberal because they’re homosexual.
Homosexual or not homosexual, many a priest has a very comfortable “let’s wait” attitude, which is in the best case similar to a “can’t be bothered” attitude, and in the worst to a “I agree with you” attitude. The idea is that, given time, everything adjusts itself and the prodigal (but oh so nice; and with the heart in the right place; and certainly environmentally friendly) sons and daughters will come back to marriage and sacramental life once they are settled.
“Are you mental!? No they do not come back!”,, is Voris’ emphatic answer. And in fact you must ask yourselves how would parents be considered who, seeing their children taking drugs and drifting toward alcoholism, reacts by saying “hey, no big deal; they’ll stop in due time”, and how many of those unfortunate teenagers would grow up to be responsible adults rather than, alas (can I say that without anyone being “hurt”?) junkies and drunkards. There’s a reason why a priest is called “father” instead of, say, “favourite, all-forgiving grand-grandmother”: his duty is to give guidance, to reproach when it is suitable, and to be able of showing some tough love when necessary.
The protestantisation of the liturgy has led us to this, because the protestantisation of the liturgy unavoidably leads to the protestantisation of the theology.
This unless even worse – like a homosexual priest pursuing his own diabolical agenda – is at play. Voris again refers to the problem when he invites his listeners to check that his priest is not a “less than ideal model of masculinity-priest” and he once again makes a connection with this and the “social justice”, “inclusiveness” mania.
The last remark is a rather general one, but valid nonetheless: in a very general sense, liberal priests are sawing off the branch they’re sitting on, as those “modern couples” who never came back are unlikely to fund their retirement.
A brilliant video, and one which in my eyes denotes Voris’ new, rather stronger stance about homosexuality both inside and outside the clergy.
* “gay” means here, strangely enough, “homosexual”.
On the Vivificat blog, this beautiful blog post about “Why I oppose same sex marriage”.
It is so pithy, beautiful and charitable (charitable in the right way), that the best thing to do is to reproduce it in its entirety, including the emphases.
There you are:
Why am I strongly opposed to same-sex “marriage”?
Because it is an offense against the institution of marriage? Yes, but not really: that institution has already been demolished by our modern Godless society.
Because it will most likely wind up forcing me, as a citizen of this nation, to in some way participate? Yes, but not really: I am ready and willing to be persecuted for my beliefs.
Because this is a democracy and most Americans oppose same-sex “marriage”? Yes, but not really: I support many things that most Americans oppose and oppose many things that most Americans support.
Because it is a slippery slope that may lead to legalized polygamy, incest, etc.? Yes, but not really: that would be like opposing abortion because it could lead to condom use (Sodomy is the greater evil)
Because it will likely lead to more disease and economic devastation in our nation? Yes, but not really: those are fleabites compared to my real concerns
Rather, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I love homosexuals. Because I do not want to see just another enticement (which is what this would be: a legal endorsement of that behavior) for them to remain in that wayward lifestyle and for young people to join that lifestyle. It is a lifestyle that tears apart their souls, makes depression rampant, and motivates suicide to an astronomical degree. For the government to bless their unions with same-sex “marriage” is to say “Come and partake of this banquet, for there is nothing wrong with it. Come and appease your passions and give in to your temptations, we will bless your efforts. Come and reap the fruits of your actions, that you may spend eternity with us.” In other words, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because it turns the government into the very mouthpiece of Satan.
Is this “theocratic” of me? In violation of “separation of Church and state”? Label me as you will. My stance here is a stance of love, in obedience to the Almighty through His Church, and it will never change.
As for myself, I don’t give a hoot how many from the glitterati, the elites, Hollywood, government in all three branches give their secular blessing on this so-called same-sex “marriage”. Call me what you wish, I will never set this lie above the Truth.
Congratulations to Teofilo de Jesus and Dan O’Connor, the authors of this beautiful witness of Christian love.