Same sex "marriage" and sanity

 As noted here:

"A legal fight in Kentucky that erupted when same-sex marriage activists demanded a Christian clerk violate state law and grant them a "marriage" license just hours after the Supreme Court created that status in America, now has returned to the Supreme Court.

The case is asking the justices to reverse their decision from 10 years ago, and it uses the same arguments used several years back to successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, that longstanding, and error-loaded, ruling from 1973 that created an abortion right.

The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against 'same-sex marriage.' Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both 'rights.'"

__________________________________________

When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest: "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...

Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family."

Let us all pray that the United States will return to sanity. Why do I say this? In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

Clarence Thomas: We won't be bullied by anti-life activists

 

As reported here

"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a message for the radical abortion activists who think they can bully the Supreme Court into revising its draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade: You can’t bully us.

Abortion activists plan to 'raise hell' at churches across the country on Mother’s Day with protests and, some fear, violence as outrage grows in response to a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade.

But Justice Thomas says those mislaid plans will not work in terms of bullying the high court to go back on its apparent decision."

The violence from anti-life activists has already begun.  See here and here for example.

In the same way that the Nazis waged a war against the Jewish People while denying the personhood of every Jewish person they sent to the gas chamber or placed before a firing squad, pro-death politicians in the Satanic Democratic Party attempt to justify the killing of innocent children in the womb by asserting that these victims of genocide cannot be considered human beings until they have reached "viability," which was defined by the United States Supreme Court as that stage of fetal development when the baby is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb [that is, can survive], albeit with artificial help." (Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 1973, p. 45).

Pope John Paul II addressed this fallacious argument in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

"Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, 'from the time the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and...modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capabilities requires time - a rather lengthy time - to find its place and to be in a position to act." (EV, No. 60).

But the pro-death crowd, servants of the demon Moloch, are prepared to commit acts of violence to create an atmosphere of fear in a feeble attempt to force their demonic agenda on the rest of the populace. 

Exorcism prayer:

POWERFUL EXORCISM PRAYER 

 

Kyrie eleison. God, our Lord, King of ages, All-powerful and Almighty, You Who made everything and Who transforms everything simply by Your will. You Who in Babylon changed into dew the flames of the "seven-times hotter" furnace and protected and saved the three holy children. You are the doctor and the physician of our souls. You are the salvation of those who turn to You. We beseech You to make powerless, banish, and drive out every diabolic power, presence and machination; every evil influence, malefice, or evil eye and all evil actions aimed against your servant. . . Where there is envy and malice, give us an abundance of goodness, endurance, victory, and charity. O Lord, You who love man, we beg You to reach out Your powerful hands and Your most high and mighty arms and come to our aid. Help us, who are made in Your image, send the angel of peace over us, to protect us body and soul. May he keep at bay and vanquish every evil power, every poison or malice invoked against us by corrupt and envious people. Then, under the protection of Your authority may we sing, in gratitude, "The Lord is my salvation; whom should I fear?" I will not fear evil because You are with me, my God, my strength, my powerful Lord, Lord of peace, Father of all ages. Yes, Lord our God, be merciful to us, Your image, and save your servant . . . from every threat or harm from the evil one, and protect him by raising him above all evil. We ask you this through the intercession of our Most Blessed, Glorious Lady, Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, of the most splendid archangels and all yours saints. Amen."

Make no mistake about it.  This is a spiritual war between the Children of Light and Satanic servants of Moloch who have found a home base in the Democratic Party.   See here.

The Biden Administration wants to treat some parents as domestic terrorists

 

Parents expressing concerns over mask mandates or critical race theory are being labeled as "domestic terrorists" who pose a threat to public school teachers and administrators as well as school board members.   See here.

This represents an attack on the role of parents as primary educators of their children. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio, No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances." And Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation which would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that legislation and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Victim of intellectual pride

 

From AKA Catholic :

On September 18, 2020, Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.

Thus, were the doors opened wide for members of the conciliar church, both lay and clerical, to demonstrate just how deeply imbued they’ve become with religious syncretism and, likewise, their inability to think and feel with the Holy Catholic Church.

Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, KY, for example, took to Twitter, writing:

I join the nation in mourning the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on this Rosh Hashanah. Let us carry on her passionate commitment to the words of Deuteronomy: “Justice, justice you shall pursue.”

According to multiple reports, the Hebrew text of those “words of Deuteronomy” are framed and hanging on three of the four walls of her chambers. They served as an ever-present reminder to Ginsburg, as the story goes, of the guiding principles inherent to her Jewish faith.

“The demand for justice,” she once explained, “runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition.”

And yet, she is best known as a champion for homo-deviance who left millions of slaughtered human beings in her wake. In other words, her legacy is, in sum, a mockery of Almighty God and Divine Revelation.

Even so, one Fr. Patrick Behm, an associate pastor at St. John Paul II parish in Carroll, IA, also took to Twitter following reports of Ginsburg’s death, saying:

Eternal rest grant unto her, oh Lord. I’ll remember her and ask for the eternal repose of her soul at Mass tomorrow.

Such a public response, by a priest no less, reveals a stunning lack of Catholic sense. One need only be reminded of the remainder of the traditional prayer cited by Fr. Brehm, the text of which can be found in the traditional Latin Requiem Mass, in order to gain the perspective of Holy Mother Church in the matter:

V. Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord

R. And let perpetual light shine upon her.

V. May she rest in peace.

R. Amen.

V. May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

R. Amen.

Did you get that? The faithful departed… When the Church and her members offer such public prayers for the deceased, they are offered with the understanding – or at the very least, the reasonable hope – that the decedent departed this world among the faithful.

In other words, there is a presumption of righteousness. To publicly offer such prayers when this is plainly unrealistic, as in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is to invite scandal, for obvious reasons. This is why Requiem Masses are not offered for notorious, unrepentant public Catholic sinners, much less is it offered for high profile evildoers who also rejected Christ and refused to enter His Church.

Evidently, I’m not the only person disturbed by such things. Writing for the Jewish Forward, David Ian Kline reports, Jewish Twitter claps back at Christian-inflected condolences for RBG.

Kline cited numerous tweets chastising non-Jews, all with a similar message. For example:

Hi! RBG was a Jewish woman, tweeting “RIP” is actually disrespectful, as is comes from a highly Christianized view of death/afterlife. The Jewish tradition is “may her memory be a blessing”, & some folks have been saying “be a revolution”, which I believe she would have liked.

That brings me to the Catholic response to Ginsburg’s death that is getting the most media attention; it comes from Christopher Scalia, the son of the late Antonin Scalia and brother of Fr. Paul Scalia, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, VA.

I’m very sad to hear about the passing of my parents’ good friend, and my father’s wonderful colleague, Justice Ginsburg. May her memory be a blessing.   

“May her memory be a blessing” is a traditional Jewish expression, a Hebrew anagram for which is often found written after the names of their departed.

In another Jewish Forward article, writer Molly Conway explains:

When we say “may her memory be for a blessing,” the blessing we speak of is not “may we remember her fondly” or “may her memory be a blessing to us.” The blessing implied is this: May you be like Ruth. Jewish thought teaches us that when a person dies, it is up to those who bear her memory to keep her goodness alive.

Yes, so much goodness (like dead babies and same sex “marriages”) to keep alive!

It’s not surprising given the conciliar church’s insatiable appetite for so-called “inter-religious dialogue,” that there are well-meaning Catholic commentators, like Scalia, who believe that invoking this phrase is a harmless, culturally sensitive, way of responding.

They are dead wrong.

You see, not unlike the Catholic prayer, “Eternal rest grant unto her…” there is a presumption of righteousness implied when one exclaims, “May her memory be a blessing.”

 As Molly Conway writes:

We do this [make Ginsburg’s memory a blessing] by remembering her, we do this by speaking her name, we do this by carrying on her legacy. We do this by continuing to pursue justice, righteousness, sustainability.

For this reason, it is scandalous for even a Jew to say, “May the memory of Ruth Bader Ginsburg be a blessing.”

To leave no room for confusion on this point, I spoke with the Founder of Jews for Morality, Rabbi Yehuda Levin, an Orthodox Jew who speaks with far more clarity and conviction about the grievous sins of abortion and homosexual deviance than every member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops combined.

[Note: Some readers may recognize Rabbi Levin’s name given his longtime friendship with Nellie Gray and the many fiery addresses he has delivered at the March for Life over the years.]

Rabbi Levin not only confirmed how inappropriate it is to declare in this case, “May her memory be a blessing,” he elaborated so as to be perfectly clear:

What kind of a blessing? There are no blessings involved here. This woman has been a catastrophe. We should breathe a sigh of relief that she’s no longer contributing to the commonweal of society.

“We don’t know what happens in the next world,” Rabbi Levin said with his inimitable wit, but Ginsburg is “not receiving laudatory hosanas when she goes upstairs.”

Not one to mince his words when it comes bedrock moral principles, he went on to say, “There was nothing righteous about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

He added that the same must be said for every lawmaker and judge that stands against what he called “a common morality that is older than the bible itself.” Specifically, he mentioned those who “believe in baby killing and same gender marriage perversion.”

So, how might a Catholic respond to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg given that she dedicated so much of her life to promoting and vigorously defending intrinsic evils?

I suppose one could offer something to the effect:

May the merciful Lord render perfect justice unto her, and may those who mourn her passing find comfort by drawing nearer to Him.

The important thing is that our public response gives witness to the goodness of Almighty God, while avoiding any statements that might serve to downplay the decedent’s well-known offenses against Him.

It would also seem appropriate to express hope, and even to pray in hope, that the decedent may have repented and turned back to God prior to death, even if in a way known only to Him.

Yes, one may ask, but isn’t it too late?

The answer is no, it is not.

In his magnificent encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor – On Reparation to the Sacred Heart – Pope Pius XI explained how the graces implored via prayerful acts of penance are applied by God in a way that is not timebound.

Specifically, the Holy Father was addressing those who may wonder how our acts of reparation can “bring solace to Our Lord now, when Christ is already reigning in the beatitude of Heaven.”

The Holy Father tells us that Our Lord died even for our sins “which were as yet in the future, but were foreseen.” In a similar way, he continued, “it cannot be doubted that then, too, already He derived somewhat of solace from our reparation, which was likewise foreseen.”

The point is that our prayers for one another are, to God, timeless.

With all of this said, if one were absolutely determined to respond to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a way that is in keeping with Jewish tradition, there is yet another, far more fitting way, of doing so:

“May her name be blotted out.”

In other words, may we not be like Ruth; may we labor to cleanse her regrettable legacy from every corner of society as we pursue authentic justice and righteousness, all for the greater glory of God, blessed be He.

______________________________________________

Acts 17: 19-33

A meditation on Saint Paul by Father James E. Sullivan, m.s.:

"Some of the philosophers seemed anxious to hear more of Paul's strange teaching so they invited him to address the Areopagus, the famous council of learned men which decided on all questions religion, culture and education. Paul was happy to consent, although he felt a little uneasy in that setting which was purely pagan. In his speech to the semi-circle of scholars, Paul tried very hard to be 'a Greek to the Greeks.'

He spoke with kindness: 'Men of Athens, I see that...you are extremely religious.' He incited their curiosity about 'the Unknown God' whom he would proclaim to them. He spoke in philosophical terms. All the beautiful things of nature must have been made by Someone. That Someone is the Lord of heaven and earth - not an image in gold or silver; not aloof from us or disinterested in us, whom He made in His own likeness; not in need of anything from us - as the false, childish gods they had been worshipping. - Up to this point they listened attentively. But when Paul implied that their religious ideas were childish, they began to seethe. Who was this funny little Jew to be teaching them, the intellectual lights of the world!

Paul continued. It wasn't exactly their fault and God had certainly forgiven these mistaken ideas. But now they were able to understand the true God because He had sent a messenger to men. And He had given this messenger unmistakable credentials by raising Him from the dead. Paul was about to mention the name of Jesus and tell of His life, but 'some began to sneer' openly. Paul stopped. He couldn't mention that Sacred Name to scoffers. The president of the Council tried to be polite: 'We will hear thee again on this matter.' Paul nodded. Disheartened and sad, he left the Council.

Lord, there is no armor harder to pierce than this shield of intellectual pride. St. Paul would preach in cities that were moral cesspools - like Corinth and Antioch in Syria. He would address men with little education as in Galatia and Beroea - And all these he could reach, influence for good, win for Christ. But not the Athenians! Not the men who thought they knew it all! Their pride was an armor plate which deflected Paul's sincerest points and most brilliant proofs as though they were little toy arrows.

The proud man is basically insecure, Lord. The only way he can have any peace is to imagine that he is self-sufficient, that he knows all that is important to know. The moment someone comes along with fine ideas different from his own, the proud man is threatened! His dream-world of all-sufficiency is about to be torn down. So up go his defenses! He laughs and sneers at the other's ideas. 'That man's a fool,' he cries out. 'He doesn't know what he's talking about. Might as well end the conversation here and now!' His defenses become impenetrable.

What peace humility would bring to the intellectually proud! We are none of us self-sufficient. All of us have things to learn - Once we are honest enough to admit this, new ideas are never a threat! We learn and we grow!

Dear Master, humility is truth. And truth is the key to freedom and peace. Let me listen then without anxiety to each person's ideas. Whatever is good or beautiful or true in what they have to say enriches me - and also them for sharing it with me! Lord, how can that be a threat! Let me love truth - and open my arms wide to it, wherever I find it!"

- My Meditations on St. Paul, pp. 243-246.

There is a famous hymn written by Martin Luther which begins, "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.." For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.

For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, becomes a mighty fortress which shuts the truth out. Have we built an interior castle, as did St. Teresa of Avila, which remains open to the demands of truth and the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or has our conscience become a mighty fortress built to prevent our encounter with truth?

Suggested reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos. 1783-1785.

Soon Christianity will be outlawed

Writing for Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz explains that:

"When Anthony Kennedy discovered a right to force states to redefine marriage in the 2015 Obergefell case, he promised that religious liberty would remain untouched. 'The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,' wrote the former justice for the majority at the time.

Yeah, right.

Thanks to Justice Gorsuch’s contorted reading of the word 'sex' in anti-discrimination law, you now have a right to sue for protection for biological traits you do not possess. This means that legitimate rights of others will now have to yield. Anyone who can’t see the devastating real-world effects of this decision – well beyond firing someone simply because you hate their private behavior – is clearly not paying attention.

Codifying into anti-discrimination law the concept that a man who says he is a woman must be treated according to his mental illness is not something we can live with as a society. Gorsuch might want to dismiss the earth-shattering ramifications of his opinion, but he knows well that there are already pending lawsuits to demand that men be treated as women, in very dangerous or disruptive ways that go well beyond trying to use the boot of government to stamp out mean or discriminatory behavior.

Here is an outline of some of the most immediate threats from this decision. These are not hypothetical societal and legal problems; these issues are in contention as we speak and have now been decided by this court.

Forcing states and doctors to perform castrations

Forcing employers to retain gay employees and not fire them simply because of their private behavior sounds very innocuous and even laudatory. But what about forcing doctors to perform 'sex change' operations and forcing states to fund them? Codifying the desires of someone afflicted with gender dysphoria into sex-based anti-discrimination law will force states and hospitals to treat anyone who believes they are really the opposite gender as that preferred gender.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already tacitly mandated this. In May, justices declined to take Idaho’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit, where the lower court ordered the state to pay for a castration surgery for a male serving time in Idaho prison for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy.

Similarly, a federal judge in Wisconsin mandated that the Badger State use its Medicaid funding to pay for 'gender confirmation' mutilations, which can include castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction, and breast augmentation.

Those radical decisions will now be backed up in all circuits. There are already numerous lawsuits suing employers to provide castration and hormone procedures under the employer health insurance mandate of Obamacare. Obamacare uses civil rights laws to bar discrimination in offering health care coverage. It would be easy for the courts to now apply Gorsuch’s interpretation of Title VII to other areas of discrimination in the ACA statute.

Will Gorsuch be there for us to overturn those decisions?

Women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and all-female sports

Barring a male who says he is a female from an all-girls sports team, bathroom, or locker room now constitutes sex-based discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 reads as follows:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

It’s not even a jump to apply this ruling to that law; it’s a logical outgrowth. All separate gender school activities and private dressing rooms are out the window because the 1972 law, which liberals already felt included transgenderism, will now be so interpreted.

College dorms

As Justice Alito warns, similar lawsuits may be brought under the Fair Housing Act against colleges that have separate dorms for males and females. Also, female prisoners will be subjected to males living with them. Again, once sex is redefined, it is no longer limited to employment or animus-based discrimination. As Alito warned, “The Court … argues, not merely that the terms of Title VII can be interpreted that way but that they cannot reasonably be interpreted any other way. According to the Court, the text is unambiguous.” This wasn’t even a close call for the majority, and it will therefore reverberate across all areas of law, politics, and society.

Religious schools must become pagan

We were told not to worry about Obergefell creating a right to gay marriage because it was merely an issue of a marriage certificate and would never affect private religious institutions. Well, what happens now if a cross-dresser or a prominent homosexual activist wants to teach in a Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim school? The majority opinion blithely denied these concerns and noted how title VII protects religious liberty by offering some long-standing exceptions. However, those exceptions have been interpreted more and more narrowly as time goes on. The same way Gorsuch has evolved on the definition of a sex, the courts are evolving on religious protections, and the former will now accelerate the latter.

What about pedophilia, nudity, and the next frontier in our “evolving” society?

Justice Gorsuch dismissed (p. 30-32) the dissent’s charge that he was backfilling into the statute ideas that its crafters would regard as absurd and immoral as “naked policy appeals” and as complaints about “undesirable policy consequences.”

What happens when the next letters of the alphabet get codified into the sacrilege of the sexual behavior legal protections, such as “N” for nudity and “P” for pedophilia?

“My sexual orientation is to be with children.”

“My sexual orientation is to express myself freely and be proud of my body, not to hide it.”

You might laugh, but at the speed with which transgenderism became in vogue, there is nothing stopping more sexual fetishes from joining the quasi “legal” distinction with a fancy acronym. The mainstreaming of pedophilia is already under way. Could employers still not fire those individuals for being disruptive to the decorum of the office the same way they can’t fire a man who walks in one day dressed like a woman, even if he has to deal with clients? Those ideals can be read into the word “sex” of a 1964 statute just as much as transgenderism can. After all, gay expanded to LGB and T, and then an undefined “Q” got added in. Others add on IAPK to include “intersex, asexual, pansexual, and kink.” It has broadly become known in those circles as “LGBTQ+.”

So, Justice Gorsuch, now that man and woman no longer mean what they mean, can you tell us what is and is not included in “sex” and why there should be protection for some fetishes or mental disorders over others? Can we lay down that marker now so that it doesn’t grow?

Freedom of speech

As Justice Alito warned in his dissent, the New York City government has already made it a criminal offense not to address someone by his or her preferred pronoun.

'After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,' wrote Alito..."

______________________________________________

For 30 years, I've been warning this was coming.  Back in 2005, on this Blog, I wrote:

Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).

Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process:

"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."


America has become a filthy termite kingdom, a haunt of demons.  Faithful Christians, Jews and others of good will now see the handwriting on the wall.  Soon their religious beliefs will be deemed criminal and it will be necessary to go underground.

Preparation for the Reign of Antichrist.

California usurps parental rights with regard to education of their children: Will the Vatican address this act of violence and homosexualist terrorism?

California Catholic reports:

"California has become the first state in the union to mandate the use of LGBT-inclusive textbooks in elementary schools and have given parents no way to opt out. The choice has been made for them. It’s the law.

That law requires a “fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful” treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian Americans despite the historical insignificance...."


The Pontifical Council for the Family, in its document entitled The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, had this to say:

"Today parents should be attentive to ways in which an immoral education can be passed on to their children through various methods promoted by groups with positions and interests contrary to Christian morality. It would be impossible to indicate all unacceptable methods. Here are presented only some of the more widely diffused methods that threaten the rights of parents and the moral life of their children.

In the first place, parents must reject secularized and anti-natalist sex education, which puts God at the margin of life and regards the birth of a child as a threat. This sex education is spread by large organizations and international associations that promote abortion, sterilization and contraception. These organizations want to impose a false lifestyle against the truth of human sexuality. Working at national or state levels, these organizations try to arouse the fear of the "threat of over-population" among children and young people to promote the contraceptive mentality, that is, the "anti- life" mentality. They spread false ideas about the "reproductive health" and "sexual and reproductive rights" of young people. Furthermore, some antinatalist organizations maintain those clinics which, violating the rights of parents, provide abortion and contraception for young people, thus promoting promiscuity and consequently an increase in teenage pregnancies...

As we look towards the year 2000, how can we fail to think of the young? What is being held up to them? A society of ?things' and not of ?persons'. The right to do as they will from their earliest years, without any constraint, provided it is ?safe'. The unreserved gift of self, mastery of one's instincts, the sense of responsibility — these are notions considered as belonging to another age." (Nos. 135, 136).

California's decision represents an act of violence against the child's right to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles: "Since each child or young person must be able to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles, and hence be able to exercise the virtue of chastity, no educator — not even parents — can interfere with this right to chastity (cf. Matthew 18: 4-7)." (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 118).

The decision of California also represents an attack on parental rights. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Increasingly, the rights of Christian children and their parents are coming under attack. Why? No one has ever put it more eloquently than Randy Engel:

"Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force." (The Family Under Siege, The Wanderer, March 6, 1980).

This is a satanic war against the family. The state wants to impose immoral sex education and to usurp parental rights. The state wants to educate children for the Reign of Antichrist, the Moloch State where vices will be turned into gods and perversion will be celebrated as a sort of ersatz sacrament in the unholy church of the Man of Sin.

Will the Vatican, under Francis, speak out?

Francis?

Was Justice Scalia murdered?

Justice Antonin Scalia was found with a pillow over his head.  And, as we all know, it's perfectly natural to sleep in that fashion.

He did not have a heart attack.  See here.

Suffocation by pillow has long been a favorite assassination technique.  See here.

Ignore Cardinal Donald Wuerl

As noted here:

WASHINGTON — The District’s top Catholic leader has weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

“The law of the land is the law of the land,” says Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl. “We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn’t mean we change the word of God. That doesn’t mean we change the scriptures, or the church’s millennia-long tradition of what marriage is.”

Sodomy is the law of the land?  Sure it is, and I play spin the bottle with Carmen Electra every Friday evening.

And now....sanity.

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear from the teaching of Pope John XXIII, "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".

This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Cardinal Wuerl has obviously succumbed to the diabolical disorientation of our time.

Ignore him.

The "Supreme Court's" ruling "legalizing" same-sex "marriage" has no basis in the Constitution

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy respect for Divine Revelation and Natural Law. Homosexual acts were viewed as crimes against nature. Since the Natural Law is immutable, or unchangeable, they still are.

Which is why, as "Supreme Court" Chief Justice John Roberts stressed in his dissenting view over the court's 5-4 ruling "legalizing" same-sex "marriage," "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent.."

Roberts added in his dissent. "Just who do we think we are?"  See here.

Precisely.

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).

"Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.

NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.

CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.

GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years.

MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor.

PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods.

SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death."

In ruling for same-sex "marriage," the so-called "Supreme Court" hastens this once great nation toward destruction

The so-called "Supreme Court," (the members of which will have a rude awakening when they stand before the real Supreme Court-  the Lord Jesus and His saints who will judge the world) has ruled in favor of same-sex "marriage," as America races headlong down the ugly and demonic path towards Gomorrah and, ultimately, the lake of fire which is never extinguished.

This represents a real defeat for a once great nation which has become a haunt of demons.

In his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, Pope Leo XIII explained that:

"It is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man,but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he please, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the state; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law . . . the binding force of the human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law . . . where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man we become disobedient to God."

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)."


In America, there are homosexuals who are now play-acting at getting married, much as a young boy might play at being a priest. We don't say that the child's play at being a priest really makes him a priest. Likewise, homosexuals might play at being married, but this doesn't make it so. We are sane when our minds conform to reality. I might tell people that I am Napoleon. But my saying so doesn't make me Napoleon. And if I really believe that I am Napoleon, I am not sane.

Men might actually believe that they have the right to change the definition of marriage, but this is merely symptomatic of an illusion which is rooted in pride. As such, it represents a form of insanity. Men are not free to change God's eternal law to suit their own pleasures. Recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his famous Encyclical "On Christian Marriage":

"First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen 1:27; 2:22f.; Mt 19:3ff.; Eph 5:23ff.); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1603-1605, explain marriage in the order of creation:

"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."


God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"


Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Again, we may choose to reject these truths. But in so doing, we lose our grip on sanity as it were. In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed:

"..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him [such as marriage, my note] is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

The choice is ours: We either view marriage within the context of the order of creation with God as its Author, or we sink into insanity.

We've made our decision.  Where do we go from here? Toward destruction.

America is finished.  She has become the author of her own destruction.

Deuteronomy 18:28.

Justice Elena Kagan: Not as clever as she thinks on same-sex "marriage"

Surpreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, responding to Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, the California "gay marriage" ban, after he insisted that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, responded sarcastically, "..if the couple - I can assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage."  See here.

Yes, it's entirely true that people marry for a variety of motives: for love, for companionship, for money or economic considerations, for position.  And the idea of having children may be very secondary and perhaps only tolerated rather than desired, in the minds of couples marrying.  The idea of having children need not be uppermost in their minds.  But there is no doubt that within marriage, procreation is primary in nature's design.  We eat mostly for the pleasure we obtain from eating and we rarely think of its necessity for sustaining life.  Nevertheless, the latter is the primary purpose of eating.  The same is true for the sexual act.  It may be done for pleasure, but its primary purpose is to sustain the race - procreation.

Marriage must conform to the natural law which is promulgated by God and is the objective order established by Him.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The 'divine and natural' law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end." (CCC, 1955).  And again: "The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.  It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties." (CCC, 1956).

The eternal law is in God.  When applied to creatures, this eternal law is called the natural law.  In nature we see that all things are bound by constant and uniform inclinations to attain definite ends.  For example, it is natural for the sun to rise and light and heat the earth, for flowers to grow and bloom, for fish to swim and birds to fly, and for man to think thoughts and to share them with others.  In each case, these things are simply obeying the law which is stamped on their natures by their Creator.  This temporal effect of the eternal law which shows itself in creatures is what we mean by the natural law.  It is called natural law because it is grounded in nature itself and manifests itself through nature, or essence or the constitution of things.

Now, getting back to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.  Her response to attorney Charles Cooper was not amusing and betrays her ignorance of the natural law, which is the basis for all civil law.  The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.  Besides this primary purpose, marriage has secondary ends, the mutual material and spiritual assistance to the married parties and protection from the abuse of sex life.  But the primary purpose of marriage is essential for its validity to the extent that the right to marital commerce may never be excluded.  The marriage contract is valid even when it is certain that there is no possibility of having children (some couples are unable to have children), provided that the primary purpose of marriage, which is procreation, is not excluded.  But two people of the same sex are not able to have children.  In a homosexual union, procreation is excluded.  As we read in the Catechism, homosexual acts are, "..contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life." (CCC, 2357).

Justice Kagan's response to attorney Cooper does not invalidate his argument.  It only serves to highlight her paucity of intellect.  But then, this is the same Elena Kagan who issued a Socialist call to action to change America

and to defeat the "entrenched foe."  Presumably, this entrenched foe is the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which America was built.

Thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, bestiality will soon be justified

I've been warning for years that the acceptance of sodomy would lead inevitably to the acceptance of bestiality as well. For example, back in December of 2010, I noted that according to Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, "...there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.


These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

And I asserted that:

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality."

Cody Beck, who is sexually attracted to dogs and horses, complains that being a "zoophile" in modern American society is "like being gay in the 1950s.  You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak."

Beck believes that he and other members of this minority sexual orientation  can, and should, follow in the footsteps of the homosexual movement.  He hopes that this minority group can begin appealing to the "open-minded" for acceptance.  See here.  The push for societal acceptance of bestiality will undoubtedly intensify.  Some have already tested the waters as it were. 

Back in the 1970s, the Archdiocese of Boston knew that one of its priests, Fr. Paul Shanley, spoke in favor of sex between men and boys at a 1979 meeting which led to the founding of NAMBLA, a national group advocating the practice.  The Archdiocese was also informed (in 1977),  that during a meeting about homosexuality, Shanley said that he could "think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage - 'not even incest or bestiality.'" See here.

It is only a matter of time before all state laws banning evils such as adultery, prostitution, incest, bigamy, sadomasochism, pedophilia and bestiality are struck down.  Why?  Because in Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court created the legal framework for the complete and utter destruction of those legal constructs of every state which safeguard public morality.  Lawrence v. Texas essentially said that there is no morality and that "liberty presumes an autonomy of self."

By contrast, Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, said 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' [see Ecclus 15: 14] 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."

Constructing a New World Order Police State

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  But there are forces in this country which are striving to undermine these constitutional protections.

This past Thursday the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.  Justice Steven David, writing for the court, said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.  See here.

William Parker, in an article entitled "Your fourth amendment rights under attack by Obama, DOJ," writes:


There is no talk of 'the slippery slope' anymore, which so many people used as an argument against many policies enacted by the Bush administration. Yet, now more than ever, it seems the slippery slope has given way to the sheer drop from the cliffs of sanity. There are intentional actions already in progress to simply take from us the rights we have apparently taken for granted. The Dept. of Justice apparently believes that U.S. citizens do not enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to cell phone use, and have been attempting to acquire the ability to simply demand user information from the cell phone companies without going through standard procedures to obtain a warrant for specific information on specific individuals for use in specific prosecutions. They are assaulting the fourth amendment in yet another case, asserting that "email over 181 days old should not be protected from warrantless search and seizure."

Where is the outrage? These are not things that are occurring as a consequence of, or as a by-product of, some other action being taken for some otherwise lofty purpose. The government means to take these freedoms, piece by piece, with the hopes that nobody will care until it's too late."  Full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Two years ago I argued that the United States was in twilight.  It would appear that the darkness is now falling swiftly.  And where is all of this leading?

Another chilling development noted here.

Perez Hilton on Rick Santorum...

I don't know why a Washington think-tank hasn't snatched up celebrity gossip suckhound Perez Hilton.  The man is obviously a wordsmith as well as an intellectual.  Responding to Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who questioned President Obama's pro-abortion stance saying, "The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer, is that human life a person under the Constitution?..And Barack Obama says no.  Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people," Mr. Hilton writes, "Dear Rick Santorum...This sucks.  Wow.  Just wow.  What makes him think that anything about what he says is okay?"  See here.

Obviously Senator Santorum has hit a nerve in the liberal anti-life community, a community which claims to be interested in civil rights while denying the civil rights of the unborn.  It was Lisa Graas, a former lobbyist for Kentucky Right to Life, who framed this issue so eloquently:

"...it’s clear that had the Dred Scott decision been allowed to stand, our world would be a far different place right now and there would be no black candidate serving in elected office anywhere in this nation, let alone running for president. Indeed, Senator Barack Obama, who claims it was the Civil Rights movement of the sixties that is responsible for his being conceived, may never have been born. How ironic, then, that Mr. Obama is such a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that did the same thing to children in the womb that Dred Scott did to people of African descent – stripped them of 'personhood' status under the law."

As Dr. Germain Grisez has said, "Abortion and its legalization are great evils.  They differ in some ways from the mass murders carried out under Stalin, Hitler, and others, but also in some ways are comparable to those crimes and in other ways even worse; because of the greater numbers being killed, their total innocence and defenselessness, the essential role played by those primarily responsible for nurturing the victims, the widespread support of this slaughter by both rulers and people in so-called liberal democratic nations, and the complicity in the killings of so many religious leaders, educators, people trained in law, health care professionals, people in the mass media, and so on..Everyone who recognizes the evils of abortion and its legalization should do something to oppose them."

Yes indeed.  Mr. Hilton has a firm grasp of this issue.  And I date supermodels on the weekend.


Related reading: Stubborness and stupidity.

Does Elena Kagan also believe that judicial power is unlimited?

During her time as Dean of Harvard Law, Elena Kagan referred to Aharon Barak , a professor of law who served as a judge on the Supreme Court of Israel from 1978 to 1995 and as President of that Court from 1995 to 2006, as "my judicial hero." Kagan added, "He is the judge who best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice." But, as C-FAM has noted, "Barak is known amongst both conservative and liberal legal minds as one of the most activist judges on record." Kagan's own views are so disturbing that C-FAM notes, "Based on a review of the rather meager writings and public statements by Kagan, a picture still emerges of a liberal activist whose sympathies for foreign law raise serious questions about how she would follow the U.S. Constitution if she is confirmed."

Just how radical is Elena Kagan's "hero" Aharon Barak? Professor Amnon Rubinstein of Israel has been quoted as having said that, "..in many respects the Supreme Court under Barak has become an alternate government." And Richard Posner, a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as well as a highly-respected authority on jurisprudence, has been critical of Barak's view of the separation of powers, arguing that, in effect, his view is that "judicial power is unlimited and the legislature cannot remove judges."

Does Elena Kagan share this view? In our own time, many federal judges have strayed from their constitutional role of interpreting the law to actively legislating from the bench in order to impose their radical vision for America. This violates the separation of powers, that political doctrine by which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept distinct in order to prevent an abuse of power. What is Elena Kagan's vision for America?


Related reading here. And here.

Toward a New Religion: A Humanist Cult of the Secular

"Christ becomes the flame of human efforts, he reveals himself as the form of faith which is most appropriate for modern needs - a religion for progress, the religion even for progress on earth; I dare say: the religion of evolution." - Pere Teilhard de Chardin

We are witnessing the gradual emergence of a new humanitarian religion which proposes man, instead of God, as the object of worship. This "religion for progress," as Teilhard de Chardin referred to it, is anti-supernatural. Robert Hugh Benson describes it in his classic "The Lord of the World" thusly:

"Humanitarianism...is becoming the an actual religion itself, though anti-supernatural. It is a Pantheism. Pantheism deifies all nature, God is the world, but naturally, man above all is God since he is the highest expression of nature. It is a religion devoid of the 'super' natural, because since God is nature itself, there is no longer a distinction between Creator and creature. The creature is God and hence arbitrator of his own destinyand establishes the moral law for himself. Nature, and man is its highest expression, has all the divine attributes. Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural. It is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest. It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes, and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties. Then, they have the use of all the churches except ours, and of all the Cathedrals; and they are beginning at last to encourage sentiment. Then they may display their symbols and we may not..."

Marxism was an expression of the humanitarian religion. It worshipped society and the state symbols of the party: Lenin, Stalin and Mao. National Socialism deified the state and its Fuhrer Adolph Hitler. Today the United States is moving toward Socialism and that "..supreme religious deception..that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675).

How can Vice-President Joseph Biden, a Catholic (at least in name) make an appearance on Good Morning America and defend the nomination of an avowed Socialist for the Supreme Court of the United States? Albert Drexel, in Ein Neuer Prophet? (Stein am Rhein: Christiana, 1971) explains that:

"The modernism or neo-modernism within Christianity, and especially within the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council, is above all characterized by a turning away from the supernatural and an exclusive predilection for this world, the Aggiornamento of Pope John XXIII interpreted one-sidedly and hence misapplied. Teilhard's ideology was was a definitive precondition for this. Inasmuch as he turned his back to the past, fused God and the supernatural with the process of a universal evolutionism, and proclaimed religion to be an active participation in a progressive development ending in Point Omega, the basis was given for a humanist cult of the secular." (p. 115).

In the New World Order, man will no longer believe in a God whom he cannot control. Man will worship himself and his new leader who will, like Hitler, be deified: the man spoken of by Saint Paul as the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition. This world ruler will not tolerate anyone who adores any god other than himself. As Romano Guardini has noted, "The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed.." (The Lord, p. 513).

Solicitor General Elena Kagan has called for Socialists to unite in order to defeat the "entrenched foe."

"We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest." - Archbishop Fulton John Sheen.

White House aides expect President Obama to select Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. See here. Ms. Kagan, while attending Princeton University as an undergraduate, entitled her senior thesis "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In her thesis, Ms. Kagan wrote, "In our times [this was 30 years ago], a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of Capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?" (p. 127).

And then Ms. Kagan issues her call to action, her call for Socialists to unite in order to defeat "the entrenched foe." She writes, "Through its own internal feuding..the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." (pp. 129-130).

And who is this "entrenched foe"? Primarily the Church. What Ms. Kagan refers to as the "final conflict," Pope John Paul II called the "final confrontation." Just two years before he was elected to the papacy, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla visited the United States. This was 1976. In his farewell speech, Cardinal Wojtyla said:


"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think the wide circle of the American society or the wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence; it is a trial which the whole Church, and the Polish Church in particular, must take up. It is a trial not only of our nation and the Church, but in a sense, it is a test of 2,000 years of culture and Christian civilization with all its consequences for human dignity, individual rights, human rights and the rights of nations."


In short, two camps are aligning for a final conflict, a final confrontation: the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist. The Democratic Party has been radicalized and is now advancing Socialism. It is merely a tool of a Satanic worldwide movement to neutralize the Catholic Church and to prepare the way for the Man of Sin.

Fitchburg City Councilor Kevin Starr: "No place" for pro-life views

As reported in the Sentinel & Enterprise, Fitchburg City Councilor Kevin Starr, speaking of pro-life Christians who oppose Planned Parenthood opening an office in the city and who wish to express their views to local government, has said that he "will not tolerate those morals" and that "there's no place for those discussions to take place in here" [City Council meetings]. See here.

The United States Supreme Court, in its Opinion in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (June 7, 1993), said that, 'The principle that has emerged from our cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others." And yet, Fitchburg City government appears to be doing just that as Catholic blogger JayG reports here.

Related reading: Mayor Wong wants Planned Parenthood in the city.

Related reading: Mayor Wong and recycling.

Settled Law or Judicial Fabrication?

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said on Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights to be "settled law" and that there is a constitutional right to privacy. See here. Here is where we enter the murky world of judicial fabrication. In its infamous Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court said that, "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy...This right of privacy [which the Court said is implied, my note] whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty..or..in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." (For full text of Roe v. Wade go here). The paragraph cited may be found on page 5.

Now astute readers will note how the Court stated clearly that there is no explicit mention of "any right to privacy." Nevertheless, the Court insisted that there is an implied right to privacy, which they couldn't locate with any certainty - unsure whether it may be found in the Ninth or Fourteenth Amendment - and that this implied and hard-to-locate "right to privacy" was nevertheless "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" - in other words, whether or not to have her child murdered.

If that's what Sonia Sotomayor calls "settled law," God help her. And us.

Related reading here.