On Catholic Exchange, Judie brown has a very interesting piece about the relationship between contraception and legalisation of homosexuality. She has the following arguments:
1) Contraception links sex to pleasure and thus opens the way for pleasure irrespective of his finality. Therefore, contraception is at the root of the increase of acceptance of homosexuality.
2) That most Catholic couples in the US use contraceptives doesn’t make their use less wrong; it merely exposes the inability of the clergy to convey Catholic values.
3) We might have had a different situation today, if the Church has preached the Truth about homosexuality (and contraception) instead of shutting up.
On 1) This is very profound. Homosexuality is a perversion, not a weakness and people don’t become perverts because you don’t insist on the way to have intercourse in the proper way. Still, it can be argued that the reduction of sex to pleasure has led to a higher acceptance of all those who see in sex only a way of seeking pleasure. This mentality will in itself not cause an increase in homosexuality, but probably an increase in its acceptance. The decline of the taboo of homosexuality (sins crying to heaven for vengeance? What’s this?) has certainly also played a massive role.
On 2) I found the remark absolutely spot on. It is time to repeat again and again that the Bishops must start doing their job again. Here in Blighty, I can’t name a single Bishop who wouldn’t deserve immediate dismissal. In the US the situation is probably better, but one wonders how much (one answers: not much).
On 3) I think the lady really hits the bull’s eye. Contraception is not unavoidable. Abortion is not unavoidable. Mickey Mouse “marriages” are not unavoidable. They have all come to pass because the Clergy were sleeping or more probably, cowardly looking for ways of being popular. That so many people nowadays see as “normal” what Christianity (and not only Christianity: ask the pre-Christian Romans!) always saw as a grave perversion says it all about the scale of the dereliction of duty from the Western clergy. Note that where the Clergy do their work, this problem is virtually non-existent (Africa, Asia).
The bottom line is that at the beginning of everything is Bishops doing their job and taking care that their priests do the same. Sound teaching attacks the secular mentality in all its mistakes and allows a more complete view of Christian Doctrine and of one’s own life, which in turn better equips Christians for the right reaction to secular challenges.
If the proper thinking about contraception had been hammered in the head of the faithful since Humanae Vitae, we would probably not be here today talking about Proposition 8.
William Oddie of the “Catholic Herald” has a very interesting article about the parallel stories of the USA (where a judge has overturned the popular decision on Proposition 8, as repeatedly reported here) and the UK (where the Charity Commission has decided against the right of the last Catholic adoption agency to only serve heterosexual couples).
Mr. Oddie poses some interesting questions:
what, precisely, is the authority of the Charity Commission to pronounce that same-sex couples can be successful adoptive parents? What does this dire quango actually KNOW about this or anything else?
The sad reality is that this dire quango (for you non-British: QUasi-Autonomous Non-GOvernmental organisation, that is: a sort of agency fed with taxpayer money but not part of the proper government activity) is the ideal screen to allow the British Government of the day (the fake conservative one actually in power not excepted) to have potentially controversial, highly political decisions taken by some organ not residing within the Government, thus letting it appear a “technical” decision. Bollocks of course, as the extreme political content of this last decision abundantly proves.
The author further asks:
And how can it be in the “interests” of children to be adopted, not by a stably married couple, but by a gay couple instead (apart from anything else, gay relationships are notoriously unstable), “through other channels”?
and here an interesting question is posed: the instability of homo couples cannot be overlooked. It is extremely clear here that the interest of the child is the pawn of an ideological orientation.
On the contrary, common sense tells us that, as the US bishops have declared:
same-sex union […] contradicts the nature of marriage: it is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot co-operate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union.
and that as a consequence of that
it is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities.
The astonishing thing is that not more than a couple of decades ago this would have been considered purest common sense by believers and atheists alike. It would have been considered common sense, because it is. And in fact the author points out that
it surely requires the most extreme credulousness to believe [….] that marriage and same-sex unions are essentially THE SAME reality and that a gay couple can therefore give adoptive children the same benefits as a man and wife
Mr. Oddie observes that
Our descendants will look back in amazement at the gullibility of our age
and how can we disagree with him on both arguments (that we are in a phase of institutionalised madness and that the next generation will see the madness of our ways).
The author concludes with this words:
“Oh Liberty,” in the famous words of Madame Roland as she mounted the scaffold, “what crimes are committed in thy name.” It was, I fear, ever thus.
The fight against the madness of the “right to perversion” continues. It will be victorious in the end, but it might be after our time. Not a reason to avoid the fight anyway.
As many of you will know, the 9th Circuit of the US Court of Appeal has imposed an emergency stay on Judge Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8 (stay which the man, a homo himself, had decided not to impose). Therefore, so-called homo “marriages” continue to be banned pending the appeal. This will be very sad news for the two aged Romeos the San Francisco Chronicle has so “sympathetically” written about last week and one wonders what will be their reaction at having to wait four months, when less than a week has caused such girlish crying.
It would prima facie appear that reason is starting to prevail and that once the question is examined from a court not composed from one homosexual judge things start to go in the right direction. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Let us see why.
1) The judges of the Ninth Circuit have decided to fast-track the proceeding. A decision is now expected for around Christimas. Notice that this is after the gubernatorial election in California, but before the new Governor is installed.
2) The judges have invited the supporters of Prop 8 to indicate why they think they should have the right to appeal in the first place. I remind you here that neither the Governor of California nor the Attorney General have defended Prop 8 in front of Judge Walker and the emergency stay has been granted following an appeal of various sponsors of Prop 8 (among them a California county with 70% of voters in favour of Prop 8 ) in the face of the scandalous inaction of the two.
As things stand, it seems to me that the plan is very clear: to pave the way for a rejection of the appeal because of (alleged) lack of legitimacy of the Prop 8 sponsors. In order to do this one must act (that is: decide on the appeal) before the new Governor to be elected in November decides to do his job. If this happened, it would change the cards on the table if not from a procedural standpoint (I have no idea whether he would stil be on time to do so), certainly from a political one.
This is, I am tempted to think, exactly the reason why the process has been now fast-tracked. There are further options like an additional appeal in front of an enlarged court, but in my eyes there is now a clear indication that the Court of Appeal might decide the question in December based on Governor and AG not showing up. The judges will not be the same ones who decided over the emergency stay though, so one never knows.
The emergency stay is certainly a small piece of good news in itself. Still, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Prop 8 sponsors are now any nearer to final victory.
As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who has decided that it is unconstitutional for 7 million Californians to decide what a “marriage” is (and that he is a pervert, by the way), has now decided that his ruling will not be suspended pending appeal.
This was largely expected, so no real bad news here. The battle is now going to move to the upper floors and in the end it will very probably arrive to the Supreme Court, the expectation that the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals may defend democracy, elementary Christianity, common sense and basic decency being wildly optimistic.
Still, please allow me to spend two words on the editorial cut given by the san Francisco Chronicle to the event. A photo of two oldish pervs, “lovingly” holding each other, dominates the page. The article focuses on the oh so terrible, terrible trial of the two, who are now forced to wait, listen to this, until next Wednesday before they can “marry”. They were in the town hall already yesterday, but they “left disappointed and empty-handed”. Poor lambs. “They sure don’t make it easy on us”, comments one of the two aged Romeos. Difficult to bear. What a vale of tears life is.
Further echo to the local perverts is given: “”This shows our relationship is as valid as anyone’s,” says one of the two Romeos already seen and shows how deluded he is. “It’s a fantastic feeling”. “Feelings” everywhere. So feminine.
But the crown is left for the end; it comes from a young 18 years old from Amsterdam and thus obviously the last cry in matters of both wisdom and “inclusiveness”. “Everyone should have the right to marry who they want*”, he says and by doing so he confirms what Christians already know: that homos wouldn’t have any problem with incestuous “marriages”, provided they can get their way. And their way is, as we all know, a very painful and shitty one.
A pity that no one of the Romeos looked at Michael Voris’ video about Hell. Many of them will live to regret it.
* I’d have said “whom” but I am not a mother tongue so I am certainly wrong.
I have written here about the astonishing decision of a federal judge, the homosexual Vaughn Walker, about discarding the will of 7 million Californians because they have told him that he is a pervert.
At the time it seemed that the judge had suspended his decision pending appeal. This is not the case. It appears that the judge suspended the decision pending his decision whether to suspend the decision pending appeal.
It would also appear that the State of California has done whatever it could to push the cause of the homosexualists, and it is still doing it. You can read here Governor’s Schwarzenegger press release after the decision. It reads like a homosexualist manifesto. Peter Tatchell himself couldn’t have made it any more biased.
If you consider that California was the defendant in the 4th August decision, I cannot see how we can be confident that the suspension pending appeal will now be granted.
Last time I looked, Schwarzenegger called himself a Catholic and even from the other side of the Pond I seem to remember that he was rather more conservative some years ago.
Goes to show that to marry a member of the Kennedy clan is very detrimental to your salvation.
He needs our prayers, but I think that all American Christian voters need to remember Proposition 8 when they go to the ballot in November. Religion cannot be dissociated from politics, one can’t just wipe out his religious convictions and dismiss them as not relevant to hisa vote. If he does so, then he has no religion convictions, merely some varnishing of Christianity he has heard sometime in the past but never really embraced.
As already anticipated yesterday, I’d like to say one or two words about the Proposition 8 sentence. The sentence is very long, so I am going to isolate and comment those parts which have been most commented.
Beforehand: please note that Judge Walker – who has decided over the legitimacy of 7 million people to decide whether he is a pervert or not – is himself an outed homosexual.
Anyway, the most relevant phrases found are the following:
“A private moral view that Same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”
This is absurd judicial activism and is wrong on so many levels that one doesn’t know where to start
1) It is not for a judge to decide what is a proper basis for legislation. If this be so, the judges of this land would squarely invade the role of the legislative organs as they would just decide that every principle they don’t like is “not a proper basis for legislation”.
2) The expression “private moral view” has no sense at all. Every moral view is private and the sum of the private moral views is what constitutes public morality. That incest be bad is no more and no less a private moral view than that homosexuality be bad. But the fact that the majority believes that it is so gives a social moral dimension to the issue.
3) I’d love to know which piece of legislation going beyond the purely technical and involving people’s behaviour is not the fruit of a moral view. What is forbidden is, in his essence, what is considered immoral. There’s no way one can take morality out of the equation.
4) I’d love to know what is, according to Mr. Walker, a moral view which is “not private”. Not stopping at a red light? Not paying taxes? Murdering people? Why should the evaluation of all these behaviours be anything else than the sum of private moral views?
5) I don’t know whence the judge takes his idea that same-sex so-called couples be “couples”, but discriminated because considered “inferior”. Same-sex couples are an abomination, “inferiority” is nothing to do with that. Two siblings happily screwing each other are not a “couple” being “discriminated” because considered “inferior”. They are two perverts, period.
Basically there is not a single word in this hallucinated phrase which does not show a total lack of respect for people’s morality, and for democracy. The only thing we read here is that a homosexual doesn’t see the right of other people to democratically decide what is moral.
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
This is another astonishing feat of ideological bias. I’d like someone to show me where the American Constitution (in light of which Mr. Walker was called to rule about Proposition Eight) has been amended saying that marriage was once, but is now nothing to do with gender anymore. This is pure activism. Legislation from the bench. It reminds me of the pretori d’assalto in the Seventies’ Italy, an ideological aberration rapidly corrected in the following years. It is obvious that the United States are suffering the same problem (ideologically motivated judges wanting to reshape legislation according to their wishes) now. Again, with this logic “marriage” should be extended to incestuous couples as “equals”. This goes to show what happens if you allow a homosexual to decide about sexual matters.
“Because of Proposition 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage”.
More absurdities: if you don’t allow perverts to marry, it is obvious that they will not have “sex within marriage”. With the same train of thought, Judge Walker could complain that forbidding incestuous marriages is unconstitutional, because it does not allow siblings to engage in sexual activity within marriage.
This seems to me enough (for the moment at least) to properly consider the baffling amount of bench activism going on here. That it comes from a judge who is himself affected by the same perversion against which his fellow Californian have voted makes the entire process even more absurd, as it is absurd to think that his own perversion has not played a decisive role in his ruling.
To have a homosexual decide about the right of homosexuals is the same as to have a paedophile decide about the legality of pedophilia, or to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
I generally do not indulge in such rhetorical questions, but this time the question doesn’t appear very rhetorical.
For you non-Americans, the story in very short format. In 2000, the citizens of California vote in a referendum a proposition (“Proposition 22”) to ban homosexual so-called marriages. In 2008, the California Supreme Court strikes down the referendum decision because “unconstitutional”, that is: the court decides that the people are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count.
The citizens of California then proceed to held a second referendum on Election Day 2008 to have homo-marriages banned (“Proposition 8”) and give it a majority for the second time; this time the approved proposal is that the ban be inserted in the Californian Constitution so that the judges of the California Supreme Court will not be able to play God or to decide that they are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count, again.
With the California Supreme Court now out of the game a single man, a judge of the Federal District Court called Vaughn Walker, has decided once again that the citizens of California are naughty and so their will doesn’t count. This will now go to the appeal court (the notorious 9th circuit, secular and liberal as they come and therefore largely expected to upheld the ruling) and then to the Supreme Court. In his gracious omnipotence, the judge has apparently decided that the ruling be suspended pending appeal.
I will write in a different entry about the sentence in itself; details are starting to get through and the sentence seems to me an astonishing show of idiocy and ideological blindness, but this is for another day.
What I am thinking now is: what is happening to the American democracy? Do the American citizen really think that the sovereignty should ultimately rest by the judges?
I do not even want to begin the discussion whether a ban of homo marriages be “moral” or not. Of course it is, but it is not about that. It is about the fact that the people have chosen, and they have even chosen twice. We have here a situation where the electorate continues to decide in one sense and the courts continue to decide that they are wrong. To me, this is courtocracy battling against democracy.
This is sheer madness. It is as if there was a sort of Ayatollah of Political Correctness deciding that every piece of legislation must comply with the Supreme Mantra or be struck down. But the fact is: this is NOT democratic thinking. Democratic thinking is to accept that once a decision has been democratically achieved, this decision is respected as long as the voters do not take (in whatever form, through a referendum or through their democratically elected representatives) a new decision.
Take Italy. Once a Referendum has led to a decision a new referendum on the matter is forbidden for five years and never has the Corte Costituzionale dared to question a democratically formed decision. In a democracy, you just don’t walk over the electorate like that and when the people have spoken, no judge can interfere about the fundamental “morality” of the decision.
Here we have the absurd situation that several million people have voted for a very clear question involving fundamental moral principles and a single judge decides that the will of these several million people should just not be considered. One man! This is not a democracy anymore, this is dictatorship of the courts. The fact that further rulings are now expected does not change an iota in the fundamental matter that it will still be judges deciding whether the will of the people applies or not. Also the fact that the decision is suspended pending appeal does not change that it was the judge himself deciding so. Madness.
If the people of California are not free to even decide about the most basic ethical and religious principle of life in common anymore; if even fundamental expressions of the people’s will must be “cleared” by a judge after the vote; if several millions decide in one sense, but one man can decide that they were not entitled to do it, where has democracy gone?
I say it once again: in a country like Italy (with a fairly recent experience of dictatorship and therefore a high degree of sensitivity towards “expropriations” of this power through other powers of the State) there wouldn’t be such discussions in the first place. A referendum must be approved beforehand by the Corte Costituzionale to make sure that it is in harmony with the fundamental principles of the Italian constitutional system (say: you can’t have a referendum to abolish democracy, because democracy is a constitutionally protected principle) but once the referendum has been held the people have spoken and that’s that. Also unthinkable is the concept that the Court may feel authorised to decide about the morality of the decision. This is not for them to decide, but for the people themselves.
If someone (perhaps: American?) can give more colour, I am grateful. As it is now, the entire system appears bonkers to me.