"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).

John H. Garvey: Falsifying the Very Essence of the Family

Diogenes, over at The Catholic World Report, writes: "When he introduced John Garvey as the new president of Catholic University, Archbishop Allen Vigneron, the chairman of the board of trustees, told the Washington Post that he expected Garvey to continue the work begun by his predecessor “to reclaim a Catholic identity” for the school. That sounds good.

But what does it mean, in concrete terms? A school named the Catholic University of America has a degree of “Catholic identity” by default; everyone knows that the university is affiliated with the Catholic Church. That’s obviously not what the archbishop has in mind. He is thinking, one assumes, of a school whose faculty members are proud to hold and teach the Catholic faith, and unafraid to bring the principles of Catholic teaching into the public square.

Just last fall, one bold faculty member at a Catholic institution of higher learning did just that. Scott Fitzgibbon, a professor at Boston College Law School, went to Maine to record a television commercial making the argument against legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Regrettably, Fitzgibbon drew very little support from his faculty colleagues at the Jesuit-run school. While the most strident extremists charged that Fitzgibbon was a 'homophobe,' a group of 76 professors at BC law school signed a statement affirming their 'commitment to making our institution a welcome and safe place for all students, including LGBT students.' The dean of the law school—who was one of the 76 signatories on that statement—made a point of telling reporters that Fitzgibbon was only speaking for himself, and BC Law was happy to have faculty members who would argue strenuously in support of homosexual marriage. In short, the professor who stood up for Catholic moral teaching found himself isolated. Not much 'Catholic identity' at that school.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention: At the time that incident occurred on the BC Law campus, the dean was John Garvey.

Now let me raise the question again. How do Archbishop Vigneron and his colleagues on the board of Catholic University expect the new president to promote a Catholic identity? (See here).

Homosexuality undermines the family which is the basis of society. In his February 20, 1994 Angelus Address in which he protested a special resolution of the European Parliament which encouraged the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II said that, "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." (See here).

The push for homosexual "marriage" falsifies the very essence of the family. And yet, John Garvey was happy to have faculty members at Boston College Law School who would argue strenuously in support of this moral evil, this deviance.

The right choice for Catholic University of America?

What do you think?