Worcester Diocese under attack from militant sodomites and Attorney General Martha Coakley

Writing for the Christian Post Reporter, Michael Gryboski notes that, "A Roman Catholic diocese in Massachusetts that refused to sell a historic mansion to a gay couple is facing mounting legal pressure. Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley recently filed a brief in support of the gay couple who are suing the Diocese of Worcester alleging discrimination. Filed before superior court earlier this month on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Coakley argued that the diocese's actions constituted 'sexual orientation discrimination.' 'The commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination derives from their status as a politically vulnerable minority that has suffered a history of discrimination, which continues to this day,' reads the brief in part. '… though the diocesan defendants assert a sincerely held religious belief, their free exercise claim fails the rest of the compelling interest test, and they are not entitled to an exemption.' The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General provided The Christian Post with a press release sent out last Thursday, wherein Coakley stated that her office respects the freedom of religion."  See here.

But what is tolerance? How do we define it? Dr. Montague Brown, a professor of philosophy at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, provides us with an excellent definition of tolerance. He writes, "Tolerance is the willingness to accept actions we believe to be inappropriate or even wrong because it would be worse to take action against them. Tolerance is community-oriented. Ideally, all bad behavior should cease, but it is unrealistic to think that society could succeed in enforcing this ideal. Tolerance understands this." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 166).

And how would we define relativism? Again, Dr. Montague: "Relativism is the assumption that there is no right or wrong. No action is considered better or worse than any other. If this is so, all actions are equally acceptable. Relativism is profoundly anti-community. If there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 167).

Does the Martha Coakley possess an adequate understanding of what constitutes tolerance?  Freedom of religion? Such would not appear to be the case.

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

We are involved in a spiritual war.  Martha Coakley's legal brief - see here - really represents a thinly disguised totalitarianism.  The twilight has become darkness.

 

"When religion is once discarded it follows of necessity that the surest foundations of the public welfare must give way.."

In his Encyclical Letter Annum Sacrum, No. 10, Pope Leo XIII warned that, "In these latter times especially, a policy has been followed which has resulted in a sort of wall being raised between the Church and civil society. In the constitution and administration of States the authority of sacred and divine law is utterly disregarded, with a view to the exclusion of religion from having any constant part in public life. This policy almost tends to the removal of the Christian faith from our midst, and, if that were possible, of the banishment of God Himself from the earth. When men's minds are raised to such a height of insolent pride, what wonder is it that the greater part of the human race should have fallen into such disquiet of mind and be buffeted by waves so rough that no one is suffered to be free from anxiety and peril? When religion is once discarded it follows of necessity that the surest foundations of the public welfare must give way, whilst God, to inflict on His enemies the punishment they so richly deserve, has left them the prey of their own evil desires, so that they give themselves up to their passions and finally wear themselves out by excess of liberty."

This punishment, this chastisement, is in evidence everywhere in the latter times. A federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts, has ruled that the federal ban on homosexual "marriage," the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional. And Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has called the ruling "a victory for civil rights."* This is, of course, complete nonsense. As human beings, we possess only contingent rights. Those which have been given to us by God. There can never be a "right" to choose that which is evil. And homosexual acts are evil.

When moral liberty is detached from Natural and Divine Law, it degenerates into license. Pope Leo XIII reminds us in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana that, "Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...

Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

Although a great physical chastisement is coming because of man's rebellion and his rejection of God's Law of Love (John 14: 15), we are already experiencing a moral chastisement. Witness how quickly sodomy, which was a crime in many states, has been legitimized by judicial fabrication into a constitutionally protected form of "liberty."

Such moral blindness is a punishment from God as Saint Paul explains, "The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness...they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While proclaiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man...Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 18, 21-25).

Human laws are incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law. This is crystal clear Catholic teaching. There is no room for doubt. All other "laws" are unjust and are, therefore, not laws at all. And Catholics are not bound to obey them. In fact, Catholics have a duty to resist them. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Any law supportive of same-sex 'marriage' is no law at all. This because any law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law. No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good. Laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5)."

* Martha Coakley is not being honest when she paints the homosexual movement as being about "civil rights." The homosexual movement is not about civil rights or equal rights under the law. As I explained in a previous post, it is an attempt to impose a moral revolution. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, See here).

Culture of Sodomy: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley supports the techniques of degradation

Mass Resistance is reporting that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has a rather extensive record of radical pro-homosexual activism, has filed an amicus brief in support of KnowThyNeighbor. See here. KnowThyNeighbor is a radical homosexual hate organization which specializes in intimidation and harassment and in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).

Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical homosexual activists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill (suffering from a "phobia"), as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Sodomy.

Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose*] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).

In the New Order, those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds must be degraded. They must be placed in a ghetto. Just as the National Socialists employed the techniques of degradation in their propaganda war against the Jewish People, portraying them as rats emerging from a sewer, as subhuman people who stood in the way of a new republic and a more glorious era, so too radical homosexual activists seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and will use any and all means to achieve that end.

The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is a moral revolution. And Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has shown that she supports this moral revolution.

* The Church proposes, the world imposes. See here.

Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics "probably shouldn't work in the emergency room."

In Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) No. 89, Pope John Paul II reminds us that:


"A unique responsibility belongs to health-care personnel: doctors, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, men and women religious, administrators and volunteers. Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today's cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness.

Absolute respect for every innocent human life also requires the exercise of conscientious objection in relation to procured abortion and euthanasia. "Causing death" can never be considered a form of medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with the patient's request. Rather, it runs completely counter to the health- care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life. Bio- medical research too, a field which promises great benefits for humanity, must always reject experimentation, research or applications which disregard the inviolable dignity of the human being, and thus cease to be at the service of people and become instead means which, under the guise of helping people, actually harm them."

Health-care personnel are called to be "guardians and servants of human life." But Martha Coakley rejects this idea and apears to believe that Catholics should not work in an emergency room if they take their responsibility to safeguard human life and dignity seriously.

Like Obama, Martha Coakley would create a Moloch State where physicians and other health-care personnel can play God. In fact, it was President Obama who remarked, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

Who is Martha Coakley?

Courtesy of Mass Resistance:

"How horrible is Martha Coakley? Besides the hideous list of Coakley's positions and actions that we already published, we just dug up the keynote speech that Coakley -- as Massachusetts Attorney General -- gave at the fundraising dinner for the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association on May 11, 2007.

Coakley discussed her unwavering support for homosexual and transgender "rights" and her readiness to fight any challenges to the "legality" of same-sex "marriage".

(This despite the fact that the legislature STILL has not changed the statutes to enable same-sex couples to "marry", as instructed by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2003! See the homosexual lobby's pending bill here. What "law" is Attorney General Coakley upholding?)

Make no mistake about this: If you believe in traditional values, Martha Coakley really despises you.*

Here are some quotes from her speech:

On fighting challenges to same-sex "marriage":

". . . We also know that if the proposed [anti-gay marriage] amendment goes on the ballot, Massachusetts will spend the next year and a half besieged by anti-gay activists and will be the recipient of zealous rhetoric and invective from across the country. If that battle is necessary, you have my support."

On using the controversial Matthew Shepherd murder to push hate crime legislation and homosexual programs in the schools:

"Nine years after Matthew Shepard was left to die on a fence post in Wyoming, members of the GLBT community still remain at risk for discrimination in schools, employment and in places of public accommodation, as well as being targets of violent hate crimes.

"We cannot allow hate to occupy any legal space in Massachusetts. We cannot legislate hate away, but we can hold those accountable who act upon it and that's why it is important to develop and implement effective civil rights programs in our schools."

This is Martha Coakley's vision for America that she would bring to Washington, D.C.

Read the entire 2007 speech HERE."

* As does the Obama administration. See here.

Related reading on the Homosexual Hate Movement here.

Republican Scott Brown reminds Coakley: "It's the people's seat..."

The Kennedy/Coakley political machine would have us believe that the vacant seat in the U.S. Senate is somehow the "Kennedy Seat." There seems to be a sense of entitlement. But Republican Scott Brown is right. It's the people's seat.


"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them."

Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No.2, September 28, 1787