We are not yet at the “marriage” with animals, but this novel concept that marriage (and actually: everything) is simply not what it is, but how one decides to define it is already bearing its first poisoned fruits.
As you can read here, a strange collection of people claiming to be a sort of, oh well, “extended family” (and in fact, “Mormon traditionalists” as it would appear) has now challenged the Utah bigamy law.
The author of the blog post, Tom Crowe, says it right:
…. if Adam and Steve can get married, then there is no logical argument against Adam and Eve, Betty, Patty, Jane, and Suzy. Or Adam and Steve and Betty and Jane and Bill and Patty and Jim and Suzy and Leo.
Or, I venture to add, between all the above mentioned and Fido; or between (among?) all the abovementioned where Steve and Betty (or Patty, or Jane, or Suzy; or all of them) are relatives; like siblings, say, or daughters of the same father.
Tom Crowe also notes that:
the legal argument is the same: my relationships are my business and there is no reason why my relationships as I deem them appropriate should not be recognized by the state as “marriages” with all rights and benefits accruing thereto
and in fact, I am at a loss to understand how those unspeakable people (like our streetworker, Mark Grisanti) who dare to be in favour of “not discriminating” against sodomites will justify in front of their electors their refusal (if any) to allow all other sort of abominations. Hey, are you not “discriminating” against them, then?
An evil genie has been let out of the bottle. The fight to get it back again starts now.
Read here on the National Catholic Register about the vote of the US Congress regarding the ban of the celebration of so-called same-sex marriages in naval bases on the ground that it violate the federal Defence of Marriage Act.
This amendment removes (for the time being) the possibility that a military chaplain may find himself threatened in his religious liberty (because, say, obliged to either perform the “ceremony” or find a substitute for its celebration) and the resulting predictable exodus of military chaplains (Catholics, but not only) from the US Navy. In addition, it reinforces the federal law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The US Congress has now a republican majority of course, but this vote is said to have been bipartisan.
The battle against the modern parody of reality called “same-sex marriage” has just begun; if the Christians in the US wake up and smell the coffee, it can have only one outcome.
For the moment though, and at least in the US Navy, “Loretta” will have to wait.
As every blogger does, I scout other blogs, news aggregators and press agencies to inform myself about what happens in the Catholic world and to decide what issues might be the subject of my next blog post. Some days are more eventful, others less and others still are positively boring.
What I have seen in the last days, though, is something of which I can’t remember the equal in this almost one year of blogging. The news of the so-called “same-sex marriage” has taken such a large place in the news panorama as to justify the opinion that this might become one of the biggest themes – if not the biggest one – of the 2012 US presidential race.
Mind, this is not the media storm raging one day and promptly substituted by other news the following one. The flow of angry reactions has been unabated for one week now; criticism has emerged from liberal outlets like the Boston Globe, and there are growing signs that the US episcopacy is going not to let this go.
In short, the times when homosexuals (we must stop calling them “gay”; we really do; would you call zoophiles “smart”?) could claim whatever “right” they wanted and the general population remained silent and embarrassed for fear of being considered “backward” and “oppressive” are rapidly coming to an end, the Christian ranks now slowly beginning to form.
When this happens, it will be the sure death of the homo agenda. What is generally not well perceived is that many societal issues are the pet of a tiny minority, imposed on the majority only because the latter is not upset enough to react against the imposition. It is like having a bad neighbour that is a nuisance only once in a while, and certainly not enough to start an all out fall out. But when the neighbour crosses some invisible line – or the homo agenda attacks the very foundation of Christian society; nay, of every society! – then the full mobilisation becomes, in time, unavoidable.
Or you can make a comparison with Pearl Harbour. The Japanese attacked the United States on the assumption that the country, satiated and corrupted, would have preferred to pay the price of peace rather than the one of war. But when the United States showed that this would not be the case, Japan’s war was already lost, the remaining 44 months being merely the time necessary to despatch the now already inevitable execution of Japan as a military power. Too big was the difference in military strenght, industrial capacity, technological potential. It was like a game of “Risk” by which one contestant can take an additional full handful of armies at every round. Already on the 8th December 1941, there was only one possible outcome.
The same happens in our days. Homosexuals comprise between 0.5% and 1.5% of the population. It is fair to say that they are, from the political point of view, less than a fringe group; they are, in fact, almost irrelevant. Their only hope is that they can make their issue the pet of some political group (liberals, say) and profit from the inertia of the population to get their agenda through. They are like Japan hoping that the United States don’t choose outright war.
If we look at the broader picture, we see that the combined forces of both the perverts and their assumed “intellectual” allies are vastly overwhelmed by the Christian base of the country, and that the pro-homo stance is by far not unanimous among the leftists. So much so, that even in time of prolonged media subservience to the homo agenda, and tepid resistance from the Church, they have lost all the 31 popular votes held on the matter, even in states like California! Let me stress this again: this is without the matter having become a dominant political issue, and without the Church having declared a holy war on this.
The decision in New York has, I think, changed the situation on the ground. New York State’s legislation is on its way to become the homos’ Pearl Harbour.
When the Christian giant awakens, it will take time and effort to get rid of their agenda, as it took time and effort to the United States to obliterate Japan as a military threat. But in one case as in the other, there is only one possible outcome.
We live, as you all know, in “strange and disturbing times”. Christianity is challenged all over the West and whilst in the United States the fight to take back our Christian values already rages, in old and tired Europe the attitude is rather one of resignation, ignorance, and apathy. This has in part to do with the demographics (every European travelling to a big city in the United States would, I think, soon notice the difference; it is like being in a small European university city like Cambridge, or Tuebingen), but in greater measure with the fact that whilst in the United States the religious feeling has continued to play a big part in people’s daily lives, in Europe it has been allowed (not least, by the Catholic clergy) to be considered like a beautiful piece of art you put on a shelf and look at, with mild satisfaction, every now and then.
Moreover, at times it seems that everything is going from bad to worse. With the abortion industry now surpassing Hitler’s wildest dreams of extermination and Nazi thinking now spreading all over Europe in other matters – you know how the 1939 German Euthanasia law called it? Gnadentod, which means “merciful death” or “death out of mercy”. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…. – we are now confronted with repeated calls for euthanasia laws (out of mercy, of course; like old Adolf did…) and, it goes without saying, with a delirious fashion for the toleration of everything that is sexually deviant, provided that the “no rules rule” is applied to everyone else.
My comment box – and not only mine – is, as a result, at times used to post comments reflecting this atmosphere; comments in which resignation, desperation, expectation of the worse, or even a clear “end of the world” mood is reflected. This is not only bad for the individual concerned – provided the individual concerned doesn’t draw a strange pleasure from being a prophet of misfortune; which I sometimes suspect – but, more relevantly, it is bad for the cause. Therefore, your humble correspondent wants to try to give a different – nay, the opposite – perspective.
1. If you think that we live in exceptionally difficult times, think again. Only in the last century, Nazism and Communism have done their worst to obliterate Christianity. Not only entire countries, but half the European continent have contracted a cancerous disease which took decades to eradicate. Countless priests and laymen have been persecuted, thrown in re-education camps, died tormented by their torturers and forgotten by the world. More than 2500 priests landed only in Dachau, the concentration camp in Germany, and more than 1000 never returned.
Do you want an “end of the world”-feeling? Try France during the Terror.
Mind, those times could come back sooner than you think if we allow the liberal terror regime to set foot in Christian countries. But we are not there. By far not.
2. Empires have crushed. The Church has remained. The Church has a promise of indefectibility. It will never, ever go down. Yes, Christianity might be completely wiped out in your country, but no one will ever succeed in wiping out Christianity. No Country, no Empire, no army can say the same. The alleged thousand-years Reich literally went down in flames in twelve years, and even Communism’s great moment in history was no longer than the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s. Nothing that is made by man escapes this rule of rise and fall; not the extremely mighty (but rather short-lived) Assyrian empire, not the British Raj, not even the greatest of all political wonders ever devised, the Roman Empire. The Church, and only the Church, will always stand, in the middle of crushing worlds, seeing Empires become dust. Therefore, don’t be upset when the friends of abortion, euthanasia or sexual deviancy squeak their little slogans. The rat trap awaits them already. They are like little hamsters thinking that by desperately running in their little stupid wheel they will change human nature, or defeat Christianity. Fools.
3. There was no age without fight. A golden age in which Christianity wasn’t challenged has, in fact, never existed. Even in times which seem now to us dominated by an iron Christian orthodoxy, challenges were everywhere; the only difference is that in past times the defence of Christian values was taken seriously, whereas today there are people, even among the clergy, ashamed of what once was considered “sacred” (yes: the Inquisition!). From the Cathars to the Hussites, from the Lollards to the Waldensians, heresies were present – and were a real threat – even in those most Christian of times. There’s no age without fight, or without dangers. Christ came with a sword, not with a cocktail. Similarly, there has been almost no age without its own prophets of misfortune, and its own army of people thinking that the end must be near because things are oh so very bad…… Call me cynic, but to me “the end is near” is on the same plane as “we are soon going to run out of oil” and “the weather ain’t what it used to be”.
4. Things do change for the better. It is a legend that once something has been corrupted, there is no way back. In fact, the pendulum always swings, given time, the other way. The French Revolution wanted to wipe out Catholicism from France, but after just a few years Napoleon was allowing her to rebuild her structures again. The once ferociously persecuted Catholic Church has now millions of followers in the United Kingdom. Poland and Hungary, once prey of the communist beast, are now so Christian that they can be of example for every other country on the planet. The very worldy eighteen century was followed by the beautifully spiritual nineteen century, the corruption of the Church during the early Sixteen century was the starting point for the beautiful, energetic Counter-Reformation. The examples are endless. Things do get reversed.
5. It is our duty to fight the good fight. Instead of moaning for the last initiative of the cretins most recently blinded by Satan, reflect that this is one of the ways our generation – like every generation before us – has been given to escape Hell and, one day, merit Heaven. Be a brave soldier. Know that in the end your side will be victorious; not in your lifetime perhaps, not in your country perhaps; but victorious nevertheless. No soldier, no Communist party officer, no Pol Pot follower ever had such a solid reassurance of this as you do. Bask in this feeling, and draw energy by it. By all the anger that the enemies of Christianity cause to you – I know something of that, being of unhealthily emotional nature even for the Italian standard myself – never lose sight of the big picture. We must get rid of this effeminate mentality by which we get persecuted and react by showing how very meek we are, all the while basking in our cowardice and calling our submission to the pagans and infidels “Christian”. Submission, my aunt. Take the sword that Christ offers you, and fight the good fight. With your relatives, with your friends, with your colleagues, don’t be tired of defending our values; is this not what perverts, post-nazis and now even atheists do all the time? Be prudent, but be clear. Carry your faith written in your forehead, and show it with visible signs of devotion. Even little things count; no sign of the cross made when you walk past a church goes unnoticed; seldom by passers-by, and never by the Blessed Virgin. Look at how great saints like St Francis and Padre Pio were extremely meek in their interior attitude, but at all times tireless warriors of the faith.
et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Don’t be a pussycat. Be a brave Christian.
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.
The question is, my dear readers, not a rhetoric one.
One wonders whether the Jesuits should not be consigned to forced extinction before the sheer force of mortality extinguishes them; which it will do before long unless they recover sanity.
This here is the latest example. A Jesuit Catholic University decides that “domestic partners” should get the same benefits as married couples. Notice that the term of “domestic partner” is used, which might be a local particularity but might also be a clumsy attempt not to say (oh, that word…) “same-sex marriage”.
Most astonishing, though, is that such a scandalous decision is justified by the University with the allegedly Jesuit principle of cura personalis. In the nuChristianity of these deluded heretics such a principle justifies both scandal and being accessory to another’s sin; and this from an institution controlled by a religious organisation, led by a Jesuit; an organisation known the world over and therefore more easily confused by poorly instructed Catholic with authentic bearers of Christian values.
Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius would roll in their own grave at knowing that their successors disfigure their principles in the most cretinous of ways, even leaving the most elementary Christian principles out of the equation.
It is truly better that such cancerous organisations are abolished par ordre du mufti than to allow them to further sabotage the cause of Christianity.
The Church has closed long-standing institutions when they have covered themselves with such a shame that their survival could not be justified any more. The homo-seminary in Austria comes to mind, and various orders of “sisters irreligious” in the United States could soon follow the example. There is no reason why the Jesuits should be allowed to continue to sabotage Christianity in such a way. When they don’t deserve to live anymore they should die, the good ones among them (if any) moved to other orders to be properly re-instructed and the bad deprived of their habit and left to fend for themselves, as they didn’t want to fend for Christ.
Cura personalis, my aunt.
Cura te ipsum, rather.