How the Steamroller Will Hit the Church

Monday, July 13, AD 2015

Homosexual Flag

There have been a lot of suggestions going around that in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage nationally, the Catholic Church in the US should announce that priests will no longer perform civil marriages.In order to be treated as married under the law in the United States, you need to file a witnessed marriage license in your state. The way it worked for us in California was: you go down to your city hall or other government building to pick the license up. The city clerk fills it out but then leaves the final signatures blank. You take the form with you and give it to the priest who is performing your marriage. After the ceremony, the priest signs the form, asserting that he has performed a marriage ceremony for you. It’s then signed by husband, wife, and two witnesses and filed with the state. At that point, the man and woman are considered married in the eyes of the law. Obviously, it’s not just priests that can process a marriage license for the state. Any kind of religious minister (Christian or non) can, as can “non denominational” ministers of their own religion. You can also have a strictly civil ceremony performed by a city official.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to How the Steamroller Will Hit the Church

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  • I think it will happen much sooner and the infrastructure for despotic action exists in, among other things, the income tax. The IRS can unilaterally and without restraint challenge tax status of a religious institutions as it did against Bob Jones University. Your contributions to Church and Church related organizations will not be deductible leading to Catholics and others paying a recusant tax for their beliefs. But note the IRS won’t challenge the tax status of associations similar to CAIR…..the enemy is the Church.

    It will also happen through the despotic administrative regulatory state. All federal monies have now a requirement that in taking money your group does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity and homosexual conduct. The repercussions of this will be almost immediate.

    You will also see the “shaming” from the public square but now with the full support and backing of federal, state and local governments. Where applicable, churches will lose property tax exemptions.

    And finally, when a bishop dare speak up forcefully, he will be summoned before a subcommittee where he will be embarrassed by people like Pelosi for a host of “sims” against the state.

  • We brought it on ourselves.

    The American Catholic bishops refused for decades to stand up to abortionist politicians. Perhaps, a few or more of these bishops, and their priests, agreed with these so-called Catholic abortionist politicians. Many of the most vocal abortion supporters – the Cuomos, the Kennedys, Durbin, Sebelius, Milkuski, et al, were NEVER confronted by their bishops.

    The priest sex abuse scandal trashed the good name of the American Catholic bishops, or what was left of it. Wrongly labeled pedophiles, these abusers craved pubescent teenage boys and should not have been allowed in seminaries in the first place – let alone ordained as priests.

    The American Catholic bishops’ fealty for the welfare state – and its continued expansion – led in part to Obumblercare. They want to import every poor Latino into the US – never mind we don’t have enough jobs and every state government is stretched to balance its budget and the federal government has drowned the future with red ink.

    We almost never hear about sin. The evils of abortion, artificial birth control, fornication, and pornography are never mentioned. Personal piety is a thing of the past. Pope St. John Paul II emphasized that the home should be the domestic church. How often is it if the man of the house is annoyed with Mass and rarely attends? How many Catholic families look at Mass as something to be squeezed in or skipped but there is always time for entertainment? The entertainment industry HATES the Catholic Church.

    I am by no means the best Catholic who writes or posts here. I point no fingers at you who participate. I like my entertainment – usually documentaries, or shows about cars, or sports. Regular TV programming and movies are wretched and I avoid them.

    I can’t even get my wife to go to Mass with me. this is the residue of being educated by Latin American Jesuits. She prefers sleeping on Sunday mornings so I take my seven year old son with me to the Tridentine Mass and to catechism afterwards – alone. Either I give in to my wife and go to a mediocre Mass with bad music, bad rubrics, etc. and repeat the mistakes of my parents or I do right by my sons – and I choose the latter.

    I have no patience for willing weakness and this is what I have seen in the Church in my lifetime. Homosexuals have rolled over us because we let it happen. Enough is enough.

    Big entertainment, big education and big government have been infested with the Smoke of Satan.
    It will take people with the backbone and inner strength to fight them. My dad didn’t care and my mother still bitches about the nasty old priest who celebrated at my parents’ wedding.

    I may fail,at a lot of things but the abortionist/homosexulaist/socialist thugs aren’t getting my sons. No way.

  • Hmm, I am thinking the same argument* might work for divorced/want to get married without getting a Declaration of Nullity crowd. Maybe even demanding being admitted to Holy Communion? Isn’t that a “service” of the Church?
    (*edited) The church is a public accommodation providing marriage services to its members. There are few members of the parish more active than Divorcee 1 and Divorcee 2. . . The only thing preventing St. Wishy Washy from performing the same service for Divorce 1 and Divorce 2 which it provides for any other couple that shows up wanting the same ceremony and the same reception in the hall is divorce prejudice.
    I wonder if those wanting polygamy could sue that argument? A lot of respected Biblical personalities were polygamous after all.

  • Incidentally, here is a good article on why the Church should never, ever accept tax payer dollars. It happened once before. The results were not good.
    . “Public Money for Private Charity”
    “When President Bush’s controversial “faith-based initiative” was announced last February, it brought to mind something I learned years ago from readings on ancient Roman history.

    After years of being shunned and even persecuted, Christians suddenly enjoyed the official blessing of the Roman state when Emperor Constantine came to power in 324 A.D. For the first time, imperial funds were used to subsidize priests and churches. Christians emerged from hiding in Rome’s catacombs to partake of the state’s largess. . . ”
    (Lawrence W. Reed, author)

  • The difference would be that roughly half of states currently ban discrimination due to sexual orientation, and in all probability there will be a national ban in the not distant future. Thus, people can sue on the basis of being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.

    Divorced people and polygamists are not protected classes.

  • “We brought it on ourselves.
    The American Catholic bishops refused for decades to stand up to abortionist politicians. ”
    Penguins fan: I think it goes even deeper than that. Even before abortion supporting politicians, the bishops and priests, refused to stand up to those who wanted to use contraception, who did NOT want to abstain from the marital embrace when a baby was “not wanted” (or possibly not wise to have, maybe due to illness or poor finances, etc)
    We will never know what those priests heard in the confessional, how many of them heard the little whispers of doubt inside their own heads: “You aren’t married. You aren’t a parent! You don’t know what it is like to have 4 children under 5 years old!!” I suspect a lot of them buckled, not knowing how to give good counsel or what to say.
    Or perhaps God is simply giving us our freedom to abuse, as He did Adam and Eve, and did not prevent bad people from getting into the seminaries. Would a good and holy priest say “Contraception? Yeah, whatever. Follow your conscience.” Or would a priest who isn’t following the rules himself (because he has girl or boy friend on the side) say that.

  • DJH—you raise an insight into the steamroller effect. The USCCB domestic policy and peace and justice groups are heavily subsidized by the federalis. A visit to its website to review the legislative agenda is like reading the democratic party platform. It operates as a tool of government and so you can expect collaboration through silence.

  • Here’s how I think it will go down: The test case will come at St. Wishy-Washy parish, in a state which has a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. There’s that nice, older, same sex couple that everyone basically knows about, but no one ever says anything rude about — except that nasty rules-obsessed fellow who objects when Father amends the creed to make it more gender inclusive. Pat is a Eucharistic minister. Sam leads the choir at the 5:30 mass and leads the inquiry sessions at RCIA. They’re always there to help out in every big parish activity and everyone likes them. One day, they file paperwork for marriage prep and ask to reserve the church for their wedding and the hall for the reception. Maybe that new secretary accidentally books it and takes a deposit check before realizing. Maybe it’s just believable at first that Fr. Trendy would celebrate the ceremony on his own authority. But of course, it’s not worth the poor man’s retirement to have the bishop find out about this one. He tell them he can’t do it and he returns Pat and Sam’s check to them.
    That’s when the lawsuit gets filed. Nothing against Fr. Trendy, of course. They know that he probably would agree with them if he was free to speak his mind. But Christ’s message of love will be held captive by the institutional hierarchy until they’re attacked the only place they understand: their wallets.

    I think you give Father Trendy and Mrs. Ditzy too much credit in your scenario, in the sense that I doubt they’ll be unwitting participants in the events leading up to the lawsuit getting filed. Father Trendy seems particularly culpable for allowing Pat and Sam to perform such public, ministerial roles in the parish.

    I guess that makes me the nasty rules-obsessed fellow.

  • In Scotland, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, provides that marriages between persons of the same sex can be solemnised only by a district registrar or assistant registrar (these are Crown appointments).

    A “religious or belief body”(RBB) may request permission from the Scottish Ministers to celebrate SSMs and nominate the persons to be authorised to celebrate them. Section 12 provides that not only is no RBB obliged to request permission to solemnise SSMs or to nominate a celebrant but that “nothing in the Act… imposes a duty on any person who is an approved celebrant in relation to marriages between persons of the same sex to solemnise such marriages.”

    In short (1) no RBB can solemnise an SSM unless it obtains permission from the Scottish Ministers to do so (2) it is under no duty to seek permission or to nominate celebrants and (3) even if it does, no individual minister, even though authorised to do so, is legally obliged to perform one. This is known as the “triple lock.”

  • It’s time to separate Sacramental Marriage from a civil marriage – theer has to be a difference in the eyes of God.

  • This is much like debating which path Christ will be forced to follow to Golgotha, rather than why he was betrayed. The damage and agenda for all this was established many years ago–and sadly–it was hardly covertly accomplished.

    It is our culture of license and privilege being abused systematically in every institution since at least the great revolution against all moral authority of the sixties. Those “Catholic” politicians, priests and bishop were allowed to get softened up by the Church which rushed to open its doors to the world instead of doubling down on that sacred trust which is the only way that could have provided a means of resisting the secularism that was unleashed by the powers and principalities.

    Better to be disliked, but untainted and strong of faith until the end, than to share in our own destruction by turning away from the Church’s God-given mission of salvation just to play footsie with the Godless world for the diabolically distorted mission of “social justice.

    No small wonder we now have church leaders embracing worldly hammer and sickle crucifixes.

  • “Divorced people and polygamists are not protected classes.”

    You do not have to be in a protected class to bring an equal protection claim. (One could of course argue that the whole concept of protected classes is an equal protection violation, at least as to how the concept has played out in practice.)

  • Don L.

    Agreed. Seems the tasteless salt is being propagated.

    If men can be tested in the crucible, like gold in the fire, why not the Holy Catholic Church?
    That might be what’s going on.
    The impurities must “rise first” before being obliterated in the furnace.

    Just wondering.

  • Don’t blame me. I never voted for a democrat.

    It’s bat-crap crazy out there. Get used to it. Or else, what are you prepared to do?

    Of course, the same-pervert couple can walk across the street and find an Episkie priestess, or whatever from the thousands of US cults, to “marry” them . . . [BARF]
    What we will experience are gay gestapo attacks or Church raids viciously demanding that priests perform for them marriage rites. The priests may need to do it.

    Here is a modest proposal. The bishop should be present. He steps forward and intones the Rite of Excommunication *(Bell, Book and Candle) over the public sinners. Americans (only) have the right to worship! Liberal air-heads exploding . . .

  • I’m waiting to see which of the liberal priests will first sanction and preside over a same-sex marital contract ceremony (what we call matrimony).

  • I think you’re overly optimistic about 10 years.

    I’ll bet you it happens within 2.

  • (T. Shaw Here is a modest proposal. The bishop should be present. He steps forward and intones the Rite of Excommunication *(Bell, Book and Candle) over the public sinners. Americans (only) have the right to worship! Liberal air-heads exploding . . .)

    The problem might be in finding someone to do that to the many bishops that also need purification…

  • An answer?

    Cardinal Burke resurrected The Holy League, , and our parish recently climbed on board. May was our first meeting.
    Just over forty men joined in. We meet every month. Guest speakers, dinner, then adoration with confessional’s ( two ) operational.

    This is a great start!

    Please check it out.
    Our future is bright… we’re just in the storm at the moment.

    PS. This is men only fellowship.
    Strong Men!

  • Wrong. The will come from within, not outside, the Church. It is already gaining steam.

  • The real diagnosis implicitly acknowledged by this article is that the Catholic Church has lost its faith. The majority of the institutions and even churches and parishes which call themselves Catholic are nothing but — I’m sorry to say — rotting corpses. Scenarios like the one described above could never happen in a SSPX parish. Essentially an SSPX parish is nothing but what a normal Catholic parish once was, before Vatican II. We are facing a catastrophe because we have let the enemy in. The biggest problem is not the neo-fascist gay movement, it is the completely accepted laxity in faith and morals in the Church, to the point that propagandists of sexual immorality are not only not expelled but actually protected by the hierarchy, the Pope himself included. This will not change, unless a “gang” of determined “warriors” arise who are prepared to use “rough” and unconvential methodes to rid the Church from this despicable sissies and pleasers.

  • R. Sevenster.

    The gang of rough warriors to rid the Freemason’s out of Holy Church is going to likely be a divine assault. A cleansing that comes from above. Two lightning strikes that followed the announcement of Pope Emeritus retirement was not coincidentally timed. Not in my opinion. It was a reminder of the one Who Is, Was and Is to come again. He will clean house when ready.

  • It seems to me that we may need to get used to foregoing taxpayer money to run our charitable programs. But that is just a start. Perhaps we can make the assets of the Church “un-get-at-able” by our rogue government. I believe that morally, this would be the same as hiding our assets, as the deacon Saint Lawrence did when he hid the golden chalices and patens that the early Christians were using for the celebrations of the Eucharist, together with the coin which had been raised to assist the poor. When Caesar’s henchmen demanded that Lawrence turn over the treasures of the Church, Lawrence pretended to acquiesce. Instead of presenting the golden vessels and the money, however, Saint Lawrence gathered together some of the destitute old and sick and presented these persons to the henchmen. “These,” Lawrence proclaimed, “are the treasures of the Church.” Which may be said to be true in a very highly spiritualized sort of sense, but Saint Lawrence knew perfectly well that these were not even close to what the henchmen were looking for, and the henchmen knew he knew.

    And so Lawrence ended up being roasted alive on a grill.

    Those of us who would be willing to be roasted to death as Saint Lawrence was rather than to see the presence of the Church disappear from our neighborhood streets and from our cities, might support a method that draws its inspiration from Saint Lawrence. (The disappearance, as we all know, would be caused by being driven into bankruptcy by lawsuits from the Dark Side as well as fines from the Dark Side using the powers of the government.) One solution would be to get together very clever lawyers and accountants, and to put the Church property in the name of some series of shell corporations (ABC Holdings Corp. dba DEF Corp. a wholly owned subsidiary of GHI Corp. JKL Corp. holds overall ownership, etc. etc.) And let the corporate owners listed be the mothers of U.S. priests, but the mothers are citizens and residents of Belgium or Costa Rica or the Philippines. Off-shore: can’t get at ’em. The same with the houses, and vehicles, and lawn-mowing equipment, and computers, and desk and chairs for the school – titled off-shore. Can’t get at ’em. And the cash goes into the vaults of a financial institution on the Canary Islands, or Saint Kitts, or the Hebrides, or wherever has a good financial system, but doesn’t allow agents of the Dark Side using the power of the U.S. government to seize customer assets.

    Off-shore, off-shore, off-shore. I say put all the paperwork and the paper money off-shore now. And let the accountants and the lawyers be the sharpest and cleverest and the most experienced we can afford because agents of the Dark Side will be coming after us hard sooner or later. And as we also know, the master of the Dark Side is very clever.

  • I’m looking forward to how the church is going to respond pastorally to her own. Mother Church does not neglect her own.

  • In other countries like France, couples go to the local magestrate and obtain a civil marriage. then the couple comes back to the Church for a “con- validation.Maybe this could work in the United States.

  • Somewhat OT but I spent a lovely day with 6 ladies at a flea market on Saturday. One of them I’ve known all my life, 2 I just met that day, the other 4 I know to varying degrees. We had a wonderful day – talking, laughing & shopping and we ended up 8 hours later at a delightful restaurant for dinner. Unfortunately, the talk turned to the Supreme Court SSM ruling. I wasn’t surprised that it got heated but even the cynic in me was taken aback that 4 of these ‘nice’ women stated without irony that the Roman Catholic faith was going to have to change to accommodate SSM! No ifs, ands, or buts about it. “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

  • I like Phillip’s solution and
    I also think a solution is embedded in Penguins Fan’s “we brought it on ourselves comment:
    ” bad music, bad rubrics, etc. It would help if we turn around – and get back to worshipping God in a manner befitting Him.

  • This is confusing, because the Church recognizes civil and non-Catholic marriages as valid, but Catholic couples who marry outside the church are not recognized by the Church, and there is a special ceremony called Convalidation. Would they be forced to convalidate same sex couples?

  • Would they be forced to convalidate same sex couples?

    Hard to say what Justice Kennedy’s muse will tell him. Historically, for the most part, government is constrained from telling you what to believe, but you are constrained in the ways you can act on your beliefs (egregious e.g., if you’re an Aztec, no human sacrificing for you, but feel to believe the gods demand it or no more sunshine; less egregious e.g., you can believe that the OT legitimates plural wives, but polygamy is still against the law –for now). Increasingly, however, government is moving away from telling you what you can’t do to telling you what you must do. Thus far the coercion is hidden behind a sort of Hobson’s Choice (you don’t have to buy this ridiculously expensive health insurance plan, you’re free to choose to pay the obscenely expensive fee/penalty/tax), so how much longer before certain wrong beliefs/symbols are no longer protected because they’re implicated by beliefs about other wrong beliefs/symbols?
    We’d have to ask the Sons of Confederate Veterans I think.

    (Full Disclosure, I’m going off of what I remember of Con Law from the Political Science half of my double major from 20 years ago. For the most part I’m a historian by training, so grain of salt and all that.)

  • Bit confused by the last paragraph; in France e.g., and Italy I think also, you must have a civil marriage and (if a Catholic) a separate Church marriage. Seems to me that though not perfect from Church’s point of view it solves the problem unless, of course, the State were to become pro-active and outlaw any form of sacramental (addition) or act that looked like a marriage.

  • This might also bring a second exodus of homosexual priests and nuns to leave the Church since Vatican II in order to get married.

  • After Obergerfell v. Hodges, how long will it be before we see Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice v. Hodges? How long after that will we see Fido v. Hodges? P.E.T.A. will pick up the attorney fees, of course.

  • Deacon Mike Chesley and Skypilot
    France has had mandatory civil marriage (le mariage civil obligatoire)since 9 November 1791. It is illegal for a minister of religion “habitually” to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple not already legally married (Code Pénal Art 433-21) “Habitually” provides an exception for death-bed marriages and “marriages of conscience.”
    For Catholics, the chief importance of the civil marriage is the registration of the marriage settlement, in which the parties elect one of the matrimonial régimes provided under the Code Civil – community of property, community of acquisitions only, separation of property, conjunct usufructs &c and also the settlement of property on the issue. Remember that French law knows nothing of trusts.
    Wedding invitations usually refer to the two ceremonies as « le mariage » and « La bénédiction nuptiale » the marriage and the nuptial blessing. Not a few Canonists have argued over the years that the Church should revert to the pre-Tridentate law and recognise the civil marriage as sufficient for validity, but “solemnisation in the face of the Church” as a grave religious obligation – the position before 1563. Tametsi was aimed at “clandestine marriages,” but the Civil Register now provides a public and accessible record, which adequately addresses that problem.

  • A little more than a year ago 100,000 conservative French people marched through Paris on behalf of traditional marriage and family. I think conservatism is on the rise.

  • “authentic reform must be grounded in organic development” .

    I think that’s a quote from B16 but it applies to our Western Culture, and to our American politics too.
    Conservatives evangelize the culture when we don’t form circular firing squads. Also we have to pay attention to the signs of hope around us (even if they seem rare ) and build on them

Archbishop Cordileone Responds

Tuesday, June 17, AD 2014

Archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone has responded to calls by Nancy Pelosi and other California Democrat politicians that he not join the June 19th March for Marriage, and he is not backing down:



Dear Fellow Citizens,


Your letter sharing with me your thoughts on the upcoming “March for Marriage” in Washington, D.C., was forwarded to me while I was attending meetings out of town, and I have reflected on what you have to say.  I appreciate your affirmation of my Church’s teaching—not unique to our religion, but a truth accessible to anyone of good will—on the intrinsic human dignity of all people, irrespective of their stage and condition in life.  That principle requires us to respect and protect each and every member of the human family, from the precious child in the womb to the frail elderly person nearing death.  It also requires me, as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing.  I must do that in season and out of season, even when truths that it is my duty to uphold and teach are unpopular, including especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.  That is what will be doing on June 19th


With regard to your request that I not attend the March, and the reasons you give for this request, allow me to explain the following points. 


The March for Marriage is not “anti-LGBT” (as some have described it); it is not anti-anyone or  anti-anything.  Rather, it is a pro-marriage March.  The latter does not imply the former.  Rather, it affirms the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union.  This is precisely the vision promoted by Pope Francis, who recently said, “We must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and mother.” Rest assured that if the point of this event were to single out a group of individuals and target them for hatred, I most certainly would not be there. 

While I cannot go into all of the details here of your allegations against the sponsors of this event and scheduled speakers, I do know that at least some of what you say is based on misinterpretation or is simply factually incorrect.  For example, it is not true that the National Organization for Marriage connects homosexuality with pedophilia and incest.  What is true is that three years ago a conference was sponsored in Baltimore by the group B4U-ACT for the purpose of finding ways to encourage tolerance for pedophilia.  A statement on NOM’s blogpost objecting to this conference affirmed that this is something that would outrage people in the gay community as well.  Unfortunately, many conclusions are being drawn about those involved in the March for Marriage based on false impressions. 

It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric.  It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction.  In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks have not stopped at rhetoric.  Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence.  It is true that historically in our society violence has been perpetrated against persons who experience attraction to members of the same sex, and this is to be deplored and eradicated.  Sadly, though, we are now beginning to see examples, although thankfully not widespread, of even physical violence against those who hold to the conjugal view of marriage (such as, most notably, the attempted gunning down of those who work in the offices of the Family Research Council).  While it is true that free speech can be used to offend others, it is not so much people exercising their right to free speech that drives us further apart than people punished precisely for doing so that does. 

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Archbishop Cordileone Responds

  • But he and his brother bishops still need to publicly excommunicate that heretic Pelosi, treating her in the same way that St Paul treated the sex pervert at the Church in Corinth in 1st Corinthians 5 and the same way St John treated that false prophetess Jezebel at the Church in Thyatira in Revelation 2. It is time to publicly put these heretics and apostates in their proper place. It is one thing for a person to privately fail and sin, and repent and try again to do what is right. It is another to persist in publicly manifest sin as Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and all the rest of the Katholyck Demoncraps do.

  • Pelosi and the gay gestapo deserve a one word response: “Nuts!”

  • Paul: “But he and his brother bishops still need to publicly excommunicate that heretic Pelosi,”
    I agree. Excommunication will have an impact on people considering their position of marriage and the Right to Life. If we do not stop the imposters, good people will suffer. The rape of minor children who do not have informed consent to give or incest with one’s child ought to be punished most severely. The child’s informed sexual consent and all civil rights are held in trust for them by God, their parents and finally by the state. Yes, God’s law is violated every time a child is violated. Atheism is unconstitutional (or prohibit the free exercise thereof) and the repugnant fruit of atheism is lawlessness and savagery.
    Marriage, the marital act, makes a husband of a man and a wife of a woman, as a child makes a mother of a woman and a father of a man. Marriage and family have already been defined.Redefining marriage and family is co-opting the law of God, plagiarizing God’s law, stealing from and cheating the people.
    The bishops in unison need to move on this as there is little time left. The barbarians are at the gate.

  • My sentinments exactly.

  • I wish the Fellow Citizens to exercise their attention spans as regards this letter.

  • Thanks Bishop Cordileone!

    Beautiful letter. Seasons come and go, but the Truth remains the same. God bless courageous religious!

  • Nancy must need more campaign finance $$$ for this fall’s election contests.

  • What a beautiful letter from the archbishop! Wouldn’t it be great if she would continue the exchange, instead of just firing off a volley and then walking away with her ears and heart closed. As he said, love is the answer. And the courtesy to dialogue. I hope she responds with the same respect he has shown.

  • Hi praise for the Archbishop’s courage and clarity as well as his reaching out a hand. I have done so many times myself on all things related to these concerns. Tolerance and love goes both ways and when it is authentically present, I very much concur: miracles CAN and DO happen.

  • “And so I ask you: V. Do you renounce Satan? R. I do. V. And all his works? R. I do. V. And all his empty show? R. I do.” Why, then, does the archbishop feel it is necessary to say that the “March for Marriage is not … anti-anyone or anti-anything”?

  • How refreshing and inspiring to meet a TRUE Shepherd for a change. There might be one counter offer the good Archbishop my make to Ms. Pelosi and the other elected officials that I would consider, and that is – To ask her and the others to renounce their support of abortion publicly and pledge to support all pro-life legislation in the future including nominees to the U.S. Courts who would support a Constitutional Right to Life.

  • Imagine what you could accomplish if you and your kind worked to promote peace, an end to poverty, and an end to malnutrition and starvation instead of using your time and energy to promote hate and discrimination. WWJD?

  • “instead of using your time and energy to promote hate and discrimination.”

    The flaw in your argument Tim is that is not what we are doing. Refusing to bow to the transformation of marriage is neither hatred nor discrimination but standing up for common sense.


    Judging from the Gospels, He would tell us all to go and sin no more and also tell us in graphic detail what will happen to us in the world to come if we do not.

  • He gives me hope in the True Church.

  • “Imagine what you could accomplish if you and your kind..” No prejudicial slant in that introduction to a comment?.. hmm. I wonder who “me and my kind” are to this person…

  • “You and your kind” – typical liberal prejudice. No tolerance. No respect. No kindness. No niceness. No diversity of thought. No freedom of expression. Just godless putrid liberalism.

  • From the Bible, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

    I do not see the gay gestapo (if one disagrees one is evil, hateful and must be destroyed), Tim and his kind aren’t making any progress in the areas of “promote peace; end poverty; or end malnutrition and starvation.”

    St. Augustine summed it up. “The only evils these people recognize are having to endure hunger, disease, and murder (war). It is as though man’s greatest good were to have everything good, except himself.”

    Paraphrasing A. Lincoln: Calling two men a “married couple” is equally as invalid as calling a dog’s tail a leg. That dog still has only four legs.

  • What Would Jesus Do? {WWJD]

    We already know:

    “..Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh” Matthew 19.4-5

  • “worked to promote peace”

    Working to protect traditional marriage is an effort to promote peace. A redefinition of marriage is a war against tradition, gender and the child.

    ” an end to malnutrition and starvation”

    The Church’s mission first and foremost is the salvation of souls. It was not established to be Meals on Wheels.

  • Hey, Tim.

    Here’s a tiny slice of what “our kind” does to promote peace, an end to poverty, and an end to malnutrition and starvation:
    Not to mention the food pantries located in almost every parish, as well as free clinics, unemployment services, mental health services and an address for almost every human need, all done at little or no cost. Google “Catholic free clinics” or “Catholic food pantries” for listings in your area.
    I don’t know where you got your information, but whoever told you that “our kind” doesn’t do these things, but rather ‘promotes hate and discrimination,’ obviously believes that you are a complete and utter moron. The truth is so incredibly evident with just the slightest bit of research, that they, whoever they are, must take you for an unquestioning, illiterate boob with no capacity for critical thought whatsoever. I would sincerely doubt their honest concern for your well-being if I were you.

  • Hey Paul Primavera, where is Rudy Giuliani and Senator Susan Collins on your list to be excommunicated? If there is any doubt why we are getting our butts kicked on this issue, look no further then the hypocrisy of a political party that is loud on homosexuality but virtually silent on pornography and “strip clubs”.

  • I agree completely, Tom M. And I would add George Pataki to that list as well.

  • Good for you Paul on your consistency. I do wonder though what you think would happen if the Church started mass excommunicating the Biden, Pelosi, Pataki and Giuliani’s of the world? My guess is that we would become about as relevant as the Orthodox Church. Maybe that’s a good thing but I’m glad I’m not making those decisions.

  • Tom M, the Church isn’t about relevance. It is about worshiping and serving God. Sts Paul, John, James and Peter didn’t give a hoot about this liberal penchant for relevance. St Ignatius of Antioch preferred to be eaten by the wild beasts in the Coliseum before being relevant. I say to hades with relevance, liberalism and RINO-ism. Vive Christe Rex!

Pope Addresses Our Truly Confused Age

Friday, December 28, AD 2012



We live in a time of technological wonders and “let’s pretend” denial of basic facts of the human condition.  Pope Benedict looked at one pernicious aspect of this “let’s pretend” mindset in an address on December 21:

 The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Pope Addresses Our Truly Confused Age

  • Extraordinary letter!
    Thanks for the post.

    When Jesus asked the new followers; “What do you seek?”, my thoughts turned to the confused minority of deniers that struggle with their identity. Are they seeking to be equal to God? Are they saying God made a mistake, I decide what & who I am?

    Thank you for passing this along.

  • “Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will.”

    It is remarkable how many self-professed materialists adopt a sort of Cartesian mind-body dualism that often really does amount to “a ghost in a machine,” in the hackneyed, but expressive phrase. Not only are they oblivious of the fact that “mind” is merely an hypostasised abstraction, they have even turned the humble reflexive pronoun “self” into the very ground of their existence.

    Is the concept of “rational animal” really too hard to grasp?

  • St. Michael the Archangels words echo throughout the ages; “Who is like unto God.”

  • Pingback: Obedience and Freedom | St. John
  • “the only meaning sex will have is copulation, and that will have no greater significance than merely satisfying a physical appetite.”

    I was alarmed recently by the disturbingly obvious parallels in Aldous Huxley’s “A Brave New World,” with much of the “social engineering” being carried out today by organizations like Planned Parenthood, and aided/fueled by the homosexual and communist agendas.

    1) The demand for the acceptance of the contraceptive mentality and more recent push for free contraceptives and abortion.
    2) The whole scale attempt to rob children of their innocence through graphic sex education programs beginning in elementary school
    3) The reversal of the virtues with PP’s recent instructional videos telling the youth that being a slut should by viewed positively
    4) The normalization of homosexuality and so called same sex “marriage”
    5) The undermining of parental authority and rights
    6) The proposal to replace Father and Mother with Parent 1 & Parent 2 on birth certificates
    And most importantly for their plan to work, remove God from the public sphere and undermine the moral authority of the Church.
    The list goes on and on, but I don’t want to stray far from the context of the Pope’s address. If they have their way, we’re headed for a Godless, parentless over-sexualized socialist society.
    Lord help us!

  • Aldous Huxley, the prophet of our sad, confused time.

  • “Like all attempts by Man to play God, this will all end in tears after immense human suffering.”

    Good line, DM.

    BTW friends; you may notice on some other internet forums that “gender” is listed for users. You will see a few listed viz: “I don’t have a gender, I have a sex”
    (Gender is a grammatical term). Small victory over PC. Let’s all do it.

The Anti-Catholic Party

Thursday, May 10, AD 2012

Cardinal Dolan yesterday released this statement regarding Obama’s announcement that he had “evolved” and now, as he did in 1996 when first asked about it, supports gay marriage:


May 9, 2012 WASHINGTON—Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), issued the following statement:

President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better. Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage. I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.

When the Tokugawa shogunate was stamping out Christianity in Japan, it made use of Fumi-e (stepping on pictures).  Regime officials would place pictures of Jesus or Mary before suspected Christians and order them to step on them.  Refusal to do so, if persisted in, would end in execution.  In our own country we are seeing the growth of a movement just as antithetical in theory to Catholicism and traditional Christianity as the Tokugawa shogunate, and it finds its home in the Democrat party. 

What we have seen over the past few decades is the evolution of the Democrat party into an overtly anti-Catholic party.  The Obama administration is the culmination of this trend.  This of course is deeply ironic, because the Democrat party is a major party in this country with the help of the votes of tens of millions of purported Catholics.

In the past four decades the Democrats, with honorable exceptions, have championed abortion which is anathema to the teachings of the Church.  The embrace of homosexuality followed, which has caused governments around the nation to drive the Church out of adoptions because the Church refuses to arrange adoptions by homosexual couples.  In California, a state wholly controlled by the Democrat party, homosexual indoctrination, masquerading as education, is now mandated in public schools.  For cynical political purposes the Obama administration this year has proposed that Catholic institutions, and individual Catholic employers, be required to provide “free” contraceptive coverage, and is quite willing to run roughshod over the First Amendment to accomplish this goal.  Now we have the President’s support of gay marriage, although, until he further “evolves” I guess, he “generously” stated his opinion that churches opposed to gay marriages should not be required to officiate at them.  These changes in society are the modern Fumi-e by which believing Catholics and traditional Christians are made to renounce, in effect, the teachings of Christ step by step.

Continue reading...

64 Responses to The Anti-Catholic Party

  • I don’t see how any Catholic can now vote Democratic unless they are so ideologically blinded that they cannot see what they are doing. I also believe that one now has to vote to limit the evil that is the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, at least as I see it, one must vote for Romney unless they are in a very red state.

  • No thanks to you traitors that keep voting democrat.

    You and your politicians are enemies of the Kingdom of God.

    The worst president in history needs gay marriage, class hatred, etc. in order to distract drones and serfs from endless war and the depressed economy.

  • There are two Catholics from birth at my place of work. One (I know) goes to Mass regularly. Both support gay marriage and contraception. One (the individual who goes to Mass) supports abortion. I have spent hours (and many written pages) discussing these things with each of them. Even last night I discussed for 45 minutes with one of them why I supported NC Amendment One (in response to his question). Nothing I have done or said can persuade them, though both admit that I know much more about the Catechism and the Bible. They are blind – completely, totally and hopelessly blind – as is perhaps 50% of the Church.

    BTW, the company for which I work is completely in favor of LGBT rights. We have to go through annual diversity training on this very issue. We’re not good nuclear professionals unless we support and agree with LGBT rights. I suspect this is true in any large, mulitnational or regulated company or corporation nowadays. You cannot imagine my disgust and anger.

  • On a positive note: Obama is not all failure all the time.

    Using mathematical formulas, math geniuses have calculated based on Ministry of Truth methods for calculating the unemployment rate, it will be zero by 2022, and negative a month later.

  • Here’s our old friend Tony trying to pretend that his party is anything BUT the overtly anti-Catholic monstrosity that it has become:

    “Support the Big Tent of the Democratic Party

    With the Republican party becoming completely unacceptable as a valid electoral choice, this initiative assumes greater importance than ever. Please sign, and please pass on!

    The idea is to support the following language in the Democratic platform:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

    However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term.”

    I’ll agree with Tony re: the Republicans (at the very least for this presidential election cycle), but for different reasons than he would conclude. But he’s either completely delusional or completely dishonest (and those really ARE the ONLY options) regarding his party of choice. I’ll be charitable and go with delusional.

  • There are no big tents in Heaven.

    “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, * that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7:13-14

  • Obama’s announcement that he had “evolved” and now, as he did in 1996 when first asked about it, supports gay marriage

    I suppose it’s more accurate to say he “revolved” than evolved. Although the truth is he simply lied about his ambivalence or lack of support.

    As far as I know, abortion and the death penalty are not issues of personal conscience, and certainly not from a Catholic perspective. There is an objectively right and objectively wrong answer on both.

    And what is this pablum about diversity of views being a source of strength?!?! HA! The Demoncratic Party has the LEAST diversity of views of any organization on Earth!!

  • I don’t know who “our old friend Tony is,” but at the risk of sounding naive, the piece has a snarky, passive-aggressive sarcastic demeanor to it; a kind of “if they were who they said they were, this is what they would do, but we all know the truth” nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

    The very notion of a “Big Tent” Democrat Party is so absurd that there really can’t be anything but absurdity in the whole thing. It can’t be seriously taken seriously.


  • One (I know) goes to Mass regularly. Both support gay marriage and contraception. One (the individual who goes to Mass) supports abortion. I have spent hours (and many written pages) discussing these things with each of them. Even last night I discussed for 45 minutes with one of them why I supported NC Amendment One (in response to his question). Nothing I have done or said can persuade them, though both admit that I know much more about the Catechism and the Bible. They are blind – completely, totally and hopelessly blind – as is perhaps 50% of the Church.

    What is their counter-argument? From where are they taking their cues?

  • WK,

    If you knew Morning’s Minion (aka Tony) like we know him, you’d know that he’s 100% serious.

  • If I recall, Tony is either Irish or Canadian. He is not to my understanding a naturalized American citizen. He showed up on blogs before the last election using the wars and torture issues to turn votes away from Republicans. Used the standard “social justice” lines to justify voting for the most anti-social justice President in history.

    Now going about spreading his distorted presentation of Catholic Social Teaching to enshrine voting for Democrats.

    Why he doesn’t just go back home is beyond me. Unless he is some fellow traveller type presenting himself as Catholic.

  • Paul, I can relate to what you’re saying. Unbelievably, the people that I work with who voted for Obama the first time are going to vote for him again. And I work for a Catholic Church! I do not for the life of me understand their logic and blindness. This man is an “anti-christ” and they cannot see his evil. I know we must pray for them, and I too have on occasion discussed the issues with them, but it is no longer any good. We are at a point where we have to pray to Our Lord and Our Lady for ourselves and everyone we love to be placed under their protection and to be a part of the remnant that will remain faithful to Him during the coming chastisement that is now inevitable.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MID-DAY EXTRA: Catholic Reaction to President Obama on Same-Sex Marriage | The Pulpit
  • While EVERY person may choose to love God in his own way, public funds and those in public office compensated by public taxes may not deconstruct our Declaration of Independence by removing “their Creator”, the Person of God, WHO endows unalienable rights to all men, WHO created all men equal and keeps them in existence, from one moment to the next. The Person of God speaks to us through our founding principles, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution for the United States of America, with laws that protect and provide for each and every Person, especially the PERSON OF GOD, because the Person of God is “their Creator”, and as persons, all men are the image of God in sovereignty expressed as free will in FREEDOM, the will of the people and the voice of the people. God gives us freedom and the state may not remove our freedom nor the knowledge of our freedom, such as conscience, from the people using the public money. Private persons may agree with the HHS mandate, gay marriage, abortion, but they are not free to use tax dollars to deconstruct out First Amendment rights to freedom, or to use the public forum to deny people knowledge of their First Amendment civil rights, or any freedom of our founding principles.

  • Only a shameless partisan hack would somehow turn Obama’s support for gay marriage into a post condemning Cardinal Dolan and Lockean liberalism. And luckily, Tony is just that kind of partisan hack.

  • The USA doesn’t have an anti-Catholic party. It is an anti-Catholic country, founded by anti-Catholics, using an anti-Catholic political philosophy. The USA isn’t just anti-Catholic by inclination. It is anti-Catholic by design. (Which means that it’s point of reference is still the Catholic Church in that the program models itself upon being against what so ever the Catholic Church is for.)*

    Root meet fruit.

    The point of attack has to be against the the tacit assumptions upon which this castle of sand is founded: Protestantism, and it’s unnatural progeny Liberalism. Every ounce of Catholic effort has to directed towards completing the counter-reformation. The Roman Catholic Church is the higher order of government. Washington must be brought to renounce London and kneel before the Chair of Peter.^

    *First Rule of Catholic blogging: make sure to write “Catholic” as many times as possible.
    ^Second Rule of Catholic blogging: aim high (be ye not lukewarm). God likes to do the miraculous.

  • It is an anti-Catholic country, founded by anti-Catholics, using an anti-Catholic political philosophy.

    Channeling Don here: rubbish. Although your writing does vaguely resemble that of the blogger mentioned in the previous comment. You even have that first name, last initial thing going for you.

    General Rule of Blogging: try to be at least minimally coherent.

  • Paul Zummo:
    You might want to check the best-before-date on your Ph.D in politics. Have you investigated going back and trying to get a refund? What? No warranty? Sucker.

    General rule of history: read it. Oh, wait, you are a political science guy. Never mind.

  • Darren:

    You might want to check this out. It more than ably refutes your contention that this country was founded on an anti-Catholic political philosophy:

  • Paul Zummo:

    Look, I am sorry. I’m new here and I don’t know you. Nobody likes to get their comments treated so dismissively, but that doesn’t give me the right to resort to snark. I hope that you can accept my apology.

    My name is Darren Ouellette. I’m from Canada, which I gather is a negative around here. Whatever. We like to surf.

  • Greg Mockeridge:
    Well, that establishes that Jefferson was highly influenced Catholic sources, but it would surely be a leap to say that this establishes Jefferson as a Catholic. Important distinction, no? In addition, he was probably the only framer that knew he cribbed from Catholic sources. It is safe to say that he was very well read. In deed, this has to be one of the great cover-ups of history to only now have the DOI unmasked as a stealth Catholic document. The article you link to actually only pertains to the DOI. An insufficient counter-balance to the otherwise thorough-going Protestant character of War of Independence-era colonial America, IMHO.

    Interesting never the less.

  • “My name is Darren Ouellette. I’m from Canada, which I gather is a negative around here.”

    Not by me since my late mother was a proud Newfie and I spent most of the first four years of my life in Saint John’s. My mother became a naturalized citizen of the United States, but she never lost her fondness for her home land, a fondness I share as the previous blog posts I have done on aspects of Newfoundland culture can attest.

    “It is an anti-Catholic country, founded by anti-Catholics, using an anti-Catholic political philosophy.”

    No. The Founding Fathers, although some of them shared in the anti-Catholic prejudices of their day, established a country where Catholics, as well as Protestants, could live in freedom, practice their faith, and participate in the government. The greatest of the Founding Fathers, George Washington, was ever a friend to Catholics:

    Here is what Pope Leo Xiii had to say about American and its founding:

  • No worries Darren. I certainly instigated with my own snark, and I do apologize to you.

    But yes, considering the time period the Framers were generally respectful of Catholicism, with certain exceptions of course. John Adams had a grudging respect for the Church, though I recall him not caring much for the Latin Mass.

    And while I know the comment was made in sarcastic jest, some of us poly sci guys still love our history – at least those of us not trying to find the median voter in Chicago’s 11th ward on windy and rainy Tuesdays in March.

  • Jay Anderson, thanks for the insight. In that case, the man truly is certifiable.

    “My name is Darren Ouellette. I’m from Canada, which I gather is a negative around here.”

    Not a chance, unless some NDP blather starts leaking out . . .

    My Dad is the first American on his side of the family tree. Nowadays the clan hails from Trenton, Ontario, and there’s even an “Aiken’s Road” that leads out to where the RCAF base is, or used to be if it isn’t anymore.

    I have an Uncle Danny who used to work for Chrysler Canada, the makers of the largest cargo van Chrysler made. I had an Uncle Sonny who used to work for Labatt’s, and supervised the loading dock. Back in the day, we had family reunions up in the area every July.

    You do the math.

  • Wow, Darren. Think about what you’re saying. Massive colonial territories in the Western hemisphere were ruled by a country where to be Catholic meant either persecution (executions, having monasteries stolen or destroyed, priests hiding in tiny holes in the floor of homes) at worst and second class status at best (a lot of history on these in Ireland). To this day no Catholic can become the Monarch. The War of Independence freed Catholics of that rule and the resulting government reaffirmed their dignity and free exercise of religion.

    Your last name indicates that you’re French, at least partly so. You realize that while Quebec was French (The US attained french territories as well), most of the rest of your nation was ruled by an anti-Catholic regime, right? You realize that Canada wasn’t borne out of explicitly Catholic principles either? Though I would argue that while the founding of the United States wasn’t borne out of explicit Catholic principles, most were compatible with Catholic understanding of the dignity of man. These were ahead of their time and answer to a seriously problem of an older age. This has been affirmed repeatedly over the last 200 years by popes and bishops.

  • The USA isn’t just anti-Catholic by inclination. It is anti-Catholic by design.

    I think I recognize the writings of John Rao here. That is spoilt Vegemite you should not eat.

  • Art Deco:
    I have no idea who John Rao is. My reading of history in this instance is more influenced by Hilaire Belloc. I will look him up.

    I am not saying any other countries are better and freely acknowledge that some were significantly worse. In fact it would not occur to me to separate out the developments in European culture and its transatlantic extension in terms of one country vs. another. I view it to be all of a piece, namely: to watch how a house turned against itself falls.

    My name indicates that I am Canadien (you will not find it in France prior to Quebec), and I am well aware that many of my cousins were loosing their heads to anti-Catholic traitors in France, but my kin had been away from France for well over 100 years by then.

    The DOI was compatible with natural law reasoning which, being written upon our hearts by Him who created us, should not cause surprise. Men, in searching their hearts for the truth, will often make recourse to natural law reasoning. The Catholic faith is truly the teaching of the heart, so, no surprise that there is a rich load of natural law reasoning tradition to be sieved by those with the charitable inclination. Never the less, I do not see the recourse to natural law reasoning by the F. F. as sufficient grounds to admit that this indicates a widespread pro-Catholic inclination (at best a toleration) among the general population or intelligentsia. They were Protestants and Masons, keenly given over to reasoning models fully untethered from sound Orthodoxy. I just do not see how these clearly anti-Catholic dispositions can be of no account when the foundation of the USA and it’s subsequent course of development is brought before one’s consideration.

    No, the most compatible understanding of the true nature of Man is the Catholic understanding. The inherent contradictions of those traditions that explicitly reject or do not fully assent to the Catholic understanding bring forth the fruits we in the West enjoy {sic} today.

    Now to the meat of your point: the FF’s allowed room for Catholics to practice the “cult” aspect of their religion, so long as accepted the Protestant-style deal with the secular powers. That deal, while probably better than nothing, is less than it should be.

  • Oh, and thank you to all for your expressions of affection for your northern neighbours. Perhaps the feeling will not last towards me, but at least I will know it will be centred in your disagreement with my historical interpretations and not a knee-jerk reaction to my non-US subjecthood.

    Again, my thanks.

  • Don McClarey:
    Please accept my thanks for your efforts in providing this wonder blog with so many richly interesting posts. It pains me that I am in disagreement with you upon your assessment of the USA has having an if not pro- then at least not anti-Catholic character, but I just do not see sufficient grounds on the basis of a few isolated instances of less than a handful of FF having a magnanimity towards Catholicism in general and Catholics in particular, to accept that, in the great tumult of post-reformation European culture (noting that I do not separate the USA from the European nations for purposes of culture), the USA can be considered as a Catholic nation.
    Granted, I’d be hard pressed to actually name ANY nation that would be considered Catholic by my admittedly high standard, but in affirming to all the tenants which the Catholic faith purposes to my reasoning, I am obliged to expect nothing less.

    I do not wish to be an ungrateful guest. I hope that I do not become an unwelcome one in my dissent.

  • Now to the meat of your point: the FF’s allowed room for Catholics to practice the “cult” aspect of their religion, so long as accepted the Protestant-style deal with the secular powers. That deal, while probably better than nothing, is less than it should be.

    The ‘meat’ is institutional architecture, not cogitations about institutional architecture. The architecture may have its defects, but it is neither more nor less compatible with a Catholic society than any other architecture. As for the ‘Protestant-style’ deal, there was and is no Catholic society upon which to construct a confessional state. There was a modest (and much abused minority) in Maryland and a presence in three other colonies. The society was not merely protestant but modally Calvinist. A confessional state would have injured the Church and would continue to injure it (see the relation between state and society surrounding the “Church of Sweden”).

  • Art Deco:
    No, I do not mean a confessional state, I mean a subsidiary governing structure, ie: a state, but necessarily a state, being in acknowledgement of the fact that the Pope and the Hierarchy of the Church is the superior source of governing authority because it maintains the deposit of faith upon which truth in society may be maintained. The USA most definitely does not acknowledge this relationship. That is an architectural, not dispositional, element of the governing structure of the USA. The concept I put forward supposes that those states that so acknowledge the Chair of St. Peter will have a sizable percentage of the population actively practicing the faith and forming their morality in accord there with, while the balance of the people do not actively attempt to undermine it.

    My reading of the Protestant revolution is that the rebel novel confessions sought to place themselves under the protection of secular rulers violating the relationship between the Christian religion and secular authority by inverting it. Supporting this inversion paid hansom dividends for some, but rent Christendom.

    For Catholics in Protestant dominated states, as I said above, you are free to engage in those aspects of the Catholic faith that can be placed under the distinction of cult, for it is held that one “cult” be of no different value than any other denomination (heresy of denominationalism), but Catholics may not make claims, in defense, that the law of the Church (teaching magisterium, code of canon law, traditional worship) precludes the practicing Catholic from actions of the secular state that violate the Faith. Nor is appealing to the Pope likely to do one much good today as the praxis of “how many divisions does the Pope command?” or “You and what army?” is the order of the day for almost all states. This is the out come of the Protestant rebellion. I do not see how the USA, in drawing so heavily upon the claims constellation of Protestantism, specific exceptions noted, can be considered as Catholophilic except in so far as Catholics accept the deal to abjure the status of the Magisterium as higher authority. In practice, so long as it is convenient for the interests which have domiciled themselves in the governing architecture of the USA, there can be good times. Inherent, however, is the inevitability of a clash between the unable to change Catholics and the change as needed secularists.

  • being in acknowledgement of the fact that the Pope and the Hierarchy of the Church is the superior source of governing authority because it maintains the deposit of faith upon which truth in society may be maintained. The USA most definitely does not acknowledge this relationship. That is an architectural, not dispositional, element of the governing structure of the USA

    No, it is a dispositional and not architectural feature. There is a distinction between spiritual and temporal power.

    Parastatal authority could be found in the hands of diocesan bishops and also abbots, but the papacy was not typically the locus of temporal power outside of central Italy.

  • I am not claiming that the Church Hierarchy is, except in tertiary functions, a temporal power.

    It could relent in the dispositional/architectural distinction.* The USA could, in theory, start acknowledging the authority of the Church Hierarchy, making it dispositional. I am incapable of determining if that would affect governing structures in already in place and active for some period of time within the USA, leaving aside the obvious cultural issues.

    *I could also not relent. I highly doubt, for example, that the SCOTUS could overturn federal law because it was deemed to be in conflict with the teachings of the RCC, no? That would be architectural.

  • Correction:
    I could relent in the…

  • “The USA could, in theory, start acknowledging the authority of the Church Hierarchy, making it dispositional.”

    That would never happen. The great thing for Catholicism in this country is that the State left the Church alone. One of the popes in the early portion of the nineteenth century, no fan of new fangled democracies, said that in no country was he more the Pope than in the United States. The experience of the Church with Catholic confessional states has often been far from happy, because of constant government interference with the Church, up to and including controlling the nomination of bishops. The Church in America has flourished with the hands off policy of the government. Currently we are battling against the Obama administration because it is diverging from that salutary policy, but for over two centuries freedom from government interference has been a boon for the Church in this country.

  • Donald R. McClarey:
    Which is largely my point, in that the Obamba reading of American liberal democracy is not without source material, even if that potential has been rarely actuated over the course of American history.

    It is my purpose to attempt to understand this phenomenon and search for more suitable ground upon which the Faith may flourish. It will likely be difficult to now have status quo ante.

  • What Obama is attempting to do is in direct contradiction to the intention of the Founding Fathers and the express language of the Constitution. There is no source material in our country’s history for his actions against the Church. That is why his actions are being challenged in our courts and why Obama has an excellent chance of being a one term president.

    I do not think you can find a government in history where the Church has so rapidly expanded as it has in the United States over the past two centuries and with virtually zero interference from the State.

  • Darren:

    I was not asserting Jefferson was a proto-Catholic, but that the political philosophy that undergirds the Declaration of Independence and thus America herself, is in line with Catholic political thought. In any case, the U.S. was not founded on an anti-Catholic political philosophy.

  • Greg:
    I thought you were suggesting that he was a crypto-Catholic. By your standard, Protestants are in line with Catholic theology because they read the Bible. You overstate your case. Congruence in a few particulars is not synonymous with concordance in generalities.

    It is my position that every post 1517 Western intellectual development – in the non- and anti-Catholic camp – is an ostracon of the Catholic Faith. Why should I drop my panties when someone manages to finds a fragment of what was lost in the Frankenstein cobbled together to save face after the original was shattered?

    Seriously, how does one find a political philosophy that is “of this world” that isn’t anti-Catholic? The capital “T” Truth has been established. Any other attempts at restatement are necessarily going to be bizarre fun house mirror images.

    I realize that being a foreigner & pulling out the j’accuse is likely to cause the wagons to circle, but I at least thought on a site for those claiming fealty to the RCC there would be a little more awareness of how American Exceptionalism probably isn’t quite so.

    My bad.

  • Let me give another perspective from a political progressive. Our sense is that there is a distinct movement in the Church hierarchy to a “take or leave it” mentality as it relates to issues like abortion, birth control and homosexuality. The USCBB has been uneven, if not totally hypocritical in its use of a false “religious liberty” argument with respect to PPACA regulations relating to access to birth control. The Church’ teaching on that matter is certainly not an inerrant one and as recently as 1968 a commission sent a recommendation to Paul VI to allow birth control, which he unfortunately declined to do.

    It is the liberal perspective that the Church lives and thrives when it engages in constructive dialogue with all parties and evolves in its teachings that are not core to the faith. Revealed Gospels say little if not anything authoritative about marriage, birth control, abortion and homosexuality once you read the texts and understand the context. From my personal perspective, it’s the lack of textual literacy, bad interpretations and lack of constructive dialogue within the Church itself that leads to our current divisions.

    I just listened to a Town Hall in which Cardinal Dolan spoke. He sounds like a very nice man on a personal basis. My sense is that he is either so out of touch with how a large number, if not the majority of US Catholics feel about these issues, or doesn’t care. That ultimately is sad.

  • Don:
    I get that you rebuff my suit on the basis of the intention of the FF*, but the original effort to found/constitute the USA isn’t the only instance of an act of constituting in the course of American political development. I believe that it is fair game to state that there have been other acts of constituting AKA re-constituting. I forward for your consideration, the Gettysburg Address in which Lincoln re-constituted America. I suspect that the New Deal would be an additional candidate as would Marbury vs. Madison, as would the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve, or Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I do not agree with what he is doing, quite the contrary, but it is upon this president that, rightly or wrongly, Obama draws.

    Cavet: I am not putting his actions in the same class as the above noble/ignoble events, and would suggest his reading of history is on par with his recent demonstrations of his understanding of Christian theology.

    *and your position of “proof in the pudding” numbers of Catholics on the ground. To paraphrase your position, “How could there be an anti-Catholic character to this great nation, when there are so many Catholics around?”

  • Correction:
    … it is upon this precedent…

  • “Our sense is that there is a distinct movement in the Church hierarchy to a “take or leave it” mentality as it relates to issues like abortion, birth control and homosexuality.”

    Your problem Stephen is with 2000 years of Church teaching on these issues. The Church since the time of Christ has consistently condemned abortion, birth control and homosexuality. This quotation from the Didache from the first century demonstrates the antiquity of the teaching on abortion and homosexual acts:

    “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.”
    The condemnation of birth control is of equal vintage. Your quarrel is not with the current bishops but with the clear teaching of the Church founded by Christ for the past two millenia.

  • “I forward for your consideration, the Gettysburg Address in which Lincoln re-constituted America.”

    Lincoln’s entire political career was spent upholding the Declaration of Independence.

    Here is my take on the Gettysburg address:

  • ” I suspect that the New Deal would be an additional candidate as would Marbury vs. Madison, as would the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve, or Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
    Yes as to the New Deal. No as to Marbury as to judicial review as the courts in colonial America played that type of role in numerous cases citing the unwritten English constitution. No as to the Federal Reserve, crazy Glenn Beck notwithstanding. No as to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. American political history since the beginning has largely been a fight over the legacy of the Founding Fathers, and that fight continues today and is the true major issue in the 2012 Presidential election.

  • “To paraphrase your position, “How could there be an anti-Catholic character to this great nation, when there are so many Catholics around?””

    My position is that the Church has flourished where the government has left it alone. Church-State conflicts have been a constant theme in the history of the Church. American history, until very, very recently, largely avoided such conflicts, to the great benefit of the Church.

  • This may be opening up a huge can of worms and might be a topic for another thread, but I’ll tackle it anyway.

    Some conservative/libertarian types seem to push the idea that if you truly believe in conservative or federalist ideals, you have to view Lincoln as a villain who created the intrusive big federal government we know today, and the Civil War as an unjust War of Northern Aggression.

    Well, I don’t agree with either premise. But I am beginning to wonder if a situation might not eventually develop where some “red” states would secede in order to preserve something resembling a Judeo-Christian culture based on the rule of law against a tyrannical and aggressively secularist/atheistic federal government dominated by (ahem) Democrats. I’d almost rather it came to that, than to have Catholics or evangelicals forced to flee to South America or some remote, dirt poor Third World country in order to practice their faith. It would certainly be a lot easier to emigrate to Texas than to Chile or Argentina, right?

    My question is, it is possible, or logically sound, to believe that Lincoln did the right thing and the Southern states weren’t morally justified in seceding in 1860, yet also believe that secession MIGHT be morally justified in the 21st or 22nd century if things get really, really bad?

  • If there is any seceding to be done Elaine it will be by blue states. I intend to win this fight for the political future of this country, and I believe I am far from alone in that determination.

  • Don:
    Declaration of Independence is not a constitutional document. At the G. A. he reconstituted on the basis of the preamble of the DoI.

  • No, it is more important than the Constitution. The Declaration established the United States of America and what this nation stands for. The Constitution is merely the mechanism to carry forward the philosophy of govenment embodied in the Declaration.

  • “The Church since the time of Christ has consistently condemned abortion, birth control and homosexuality.”

    Actually, the Church has NOT condemned birth control per se, but contraception. Otherwise, even so-called NFP (which if used to avoid pregnancy is a form of birth control) would have to be likewise condemned by the Church. This is not by any means splitting hairs. Contraception acts against the meaning and purpose of the body regarding the reproductive system, whereas so-called NFP acts according the natural function of the reproductive system. That’s a major distinction. In fact, not understanding this distinction, which the “Church has condemned birth control” mistakenly implies, has contributed in no small part to the misunderstandings people have about the Church’s teaching and thus to its rejection of it.

  • Not to change the subject or anything, but did everyone notice how today’s Gospel reading is so relevant to our society’s normalization of sexual promiscuity, abortion and homosexuality with its concurrent ridicule and marginalization of Christianity?

    John 15:18-21

    Jesus said to his disciples:
    “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
    If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own;
    but because you do not belong to the world,
    and I have chosen you out of the world,
    the world hates you.
    Remember the word I spoke to you,
    ‘No slave is greater than his master.’
    If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.
    If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
    And they will do all these things to you on account of my name,
    because they do not know the one who sent me.”

  • “This is not by any means splitting hairs.”

    Oh there is nothing wrong about splitting hairs Greg, I make a decent living doing it. 🙂

    Pius XII was the first pope to give limited approval to abstinence during infertile periods in his allocution to midwives in 1951:

    “Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

    However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

    The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.”

    Humane Vitae 16 broadened this approval:
    Recourse to Infertile Periods

    “16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

    If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

    Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

  • “The USCBB has been uneven, if not totally hypocritical in its use of a false “religious liberty” argument with respect to PPACA regulations relating to access to birth control.”

    Yes, because it’s so painfully difficult to get ahold of contraceptives these days.

    One has to go as far as one’s local gas station, and that’s such an injustice.

  • Don:

    Do you know what they call a lawyer with a .0000001 IQ?

    Your honor.

  • The 1951 allocution to Midwives was also a veiled slap at theologians who were basically equating NFP with contraception. Founding father of the present day pro-life movement the late Fr. Paul Marx put it this way:

    “In 1951, Pope Pius XII twice addressed the subject of natural fertility control. In his first address (to midwives) he said, ‘There are serious motives…that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the duration of marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act. From this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful only under a moral aspect.’ (Address to Midwives, 29 October 1951, n. 36). He studiously refused to use the term ‘birth control,’ which implies that babies are a kind of a product to be manufactured through the whim and will of the individual couple. In that first address, Pius XII showed himself quite aware of what had developed and was still developing in the field of NFP. He therefore admonished the midwives to base their advice not on popular publications but on scientific objectivity and the authoritative judgment of specialists in medicine and biology (n.30).

    Note that he recognized the possibility that some couples would find themselves in such a difficult situation that they could legitimately avoid all births; they would place their sexual relations in the infertile phase of the cycle exclusively. The rule that couples consult a priest before practicing NFP was the unfortunate invention of theologians, not of Pope or Church. This Pope once told a confidant that he would give his right arm if he could solve the problem of regulating births.

    I recall theologians of that era who thought that the conservative Pius XII had become rather liberal about the control of fertility through use of only the infertile phase of the cycle. Apparently their opinion was reported to him Less than a month later, 26 November 1951, he spoke as follows to the Congress of the Family Front. He did not hesitate to affirm a wide latitude in the legitimacy of regulating births by using the infertile times only: ‘ Therefore, in our last allocution on conjugal morality, we affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time, the limits–in truth very wide–of a regulation of offspring, which is unlike so-called ‘birth control’ is compatible with the law of God’ (n.21)” (Faithful for Life pp 101-102)

  • “The USCBB has been uneven, if not totally hypocritical in its use of a false “religious liberty” argument with respect to PPACA regulations relating to access to birth control.”


    Perhaps in the spirit of dialogue you can explain why arguing from religious liberty is hypocritical. You cite the theological commission’s recommendations to Paul VI to allow birth control. But such commissions’ recommendations are not Magisterial pronouncements. Such pronouncments are the Pope’s and those bishops in union with him. A minor analogy would be Obama and his debt commission. The commission made recommendations to cut the deficit. Obama did nothing with these recommendations even though he set up the commission. Again not a precise analogy but, just because there is a commission, does not mean the recommendations need to be followed by those with the ultimate authority.

    “It is the liberal perspective that the Church lives and thrives when it engages in constructive dialogue with all parties and evolves in its teachings that are not core to the faith. Revealed Gospels say little if not anything authoritative about marriage, birth control, abortion and homosexuality once you read the texts and understand the context. From my personal perspective, it’s the lack of textual literacy, bad interpretations and lack of constructive dialogue within the Church itself that leads to our current divisions.”

    Please take this in the spirit of dialogue. The Gospels say little about many things. They say nothing about welfare being provided by the state. Does this mean it shouldn’t be done? Of course not. Jesus said precious little about many things. That’s why he gave us the Church to continue His mission in the world. This includes, as noted above, the Pope and bishiops in union with him teaching on morals and Faith. This is their charism given to them from God. A charism which theologians do not share in the same way. So, going back to your argument about the Pontifical Commission, no number of commissions will have an authority that the Pope has.

    And Revelation is not limited to the Gospels. It includes the whole of the Bible and the Churches Tradition. So for a little of the Bible see here:

  • “It is the liberal perspective that the Church lives and thrives when it engages in constructive dialogue with all parties and evolves in its teachings that are not core to the faith.”

    /gas station snark off

    That sounds nice, almost persuasive even, but quickly gets shoaled by vagueness. Starting with the insurmountable obstacle that there is no agreement as to what is “core to the faith.”

    Roger Haight, after all, argues that an empty tomb is not “core to the faith.” With one honorable exception, the liberals I read defended the poor confused apostate tooth and nail.

    Without agreement as to the core (and the liberal understanding is that this is a much smaller sphere than those to their “right”), “dialogue” is an exercise in dumbshow.

  • Liberals have no use for the Truth except to subvert it to serve the vile agenda.

    The Truth is not susceptible to dialogue or debate; nor to whining and gnashing of teeth.

    Plato: “Opinion is not Truth.”

  • Maryland has a Catholic name but is filled with protestants so most people pronounce it “Ma-riland”. In comparison with it’s neighbor Delaware where at least in Newcastle county lots of people are baptized Catholics but there are also a lot of Heretics like Mike Castle and Vice President Joe Biden, And if you live in Newark lots of College professors.

  • T Shaw has a point people should have their opinion tailored to the truth.

  • “He who is not with me, is against me.” Jesus Christ, Luke 11:23. Simple as that.

  • I totally agree with His Eminence but would adjust it to anti-Christian and anti-Jewish and Moslem (except for the Christians and Jews who have let today’s un-Natural Law views contradict their official Bibles which endorse the Natural Law that is imprinted in our Nature)

Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  I guess some public schools must not be quite clear on the First Amendment.  Jerry Buell is a 22 year veteran social studies teacher at Mount Dora high school in Florida, and he was teacher of the year for his school district in 2010.  However, after offending the gods of political correctness, he will not be in the classroom when school begins this year.  On July 25, 2011 he posted these comments on his Facebook page:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up.  And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

The school district suspended Buell because they are afraid that a homosexual student might be frightened or intimated by him.  Go here to see a video report of this farce.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

  • Democrats are practitioners of freedom only when you agree with them.

  • Democrats/liberals/progressives: You are either on the bus or you are under the bus.

    Brave new world indeed.

    I hope Mr. Buell is lawyered up.

  • Sadly, not just schools– although schools are probably why it’s spreading.

    I just lost a friend over what he would call “politics”– when I shared an article on facebook that pointed out the top 1% are earning 20% of the AGI and paying nearly 40% of the income taxes, he attacked my math skills and said of course lower taxes on those who make more will get more income, it’s only fair that people “give” more….

    Remember, attacks, be they personal, physical, or on folks’ ability to get a job are fair game…if it’s for the right cause.


  • One way to put it is to say that Democrats are Platonic while Republicans are Aristotelian. The Democrats know from an elitiest vantage point what’s best for everyone else. So they have a right to make that happen and that regardless of the means. Republicans think individuals make choices and should make good ones because it’s their responsibliy. So it’s a war between Platonists and Aristotelians.

  • There was a time when the ACLU would have had the back of a man like Mr. Buell.
    Sadly, the ACLU no longer seems to be in the business of fighting for the preser-
    vation of civil liberties. T. Shaw was correct in his post above– Mr. Buell should
    lawyer up.

    It’s amazing that the school district suspended this otherwise sterling teacher not
    because of anything that he actually did, but because a homosexual student
    might be frightened or intimidated by him because of what he had posted
    on Facebook. No student actually complained about Mr. Buell.

    Would it be consistent with the dubious ‘logic’ used by the school district to call
    for the suspension of those officials responsible for Mr. Buell’s suspension? After
    all, Christian staff and students might be frightened or intimidated by
    them because of how they punished Mr. Buell for voicing his religious and
    political beliefs outside of the school. Just sayin’.

  • Pat,

    I need to break out my philosphy primer because I don’t remember ever having heard Plato and Aristotle reduced to those points? Could you elaborate?

  • As I recall, in the famous painting, The School of Athens, Plato is pointing to the heavens and Aristotle to the earth. Plato represented the ideal, Aristotle the “real world.” Choose your philosophers.

    As for Mr. Buell, Bravo! I hope he sues the pants off the school district on 1st Amendment grounds.

  • Well, E-Veg, I meant it only on the most general level, in the sense that Republicans do acknowledge the world as it is. Demoncrats have a vision, think of the world in terms of that vision, and demand that it materialize.

  • The Democrat vision is murdered unborn babies, and homosexual filth sanctified as marriage.

  • So that’s the opposition I meant to clarity. Democrats have got a vision that’s impracticable given human nature, and they try to impose that vision anyway. Republicans acknowledge human nature for what it is and go from there. God has promised a New Jerusalem. But he never said that it would come about through human effort. It would arrive from outside and beyond. Nevertheless, secular and religious ‘Calvinists’ are always trying to implement it in their own power. Silly. Silly. Very silly. Not to mention all the harm they do, whether it’s Oliver Cromwell or Hillary Clinton.

  • When you’re young you’re a Platonist. As you age you turn Aristotelian. You get afraid. You see how people really are. You know that some things can’t be done. You deal with reality as you find it and go from there. Can’t impose that vision; the material you have to work with just isn’t fit for it. Further, you learn it’s not your job. People have to be respected for their individuality and choices. Share the light you have. But don’t think you can impose it after your fashion.

  • The crowd now ruining the country has no experience and so no knowledge (I’m being charitable not charging them with intentionally destroying the USA, which they hate) that think they know everything.

    Camus: “All attempts to create Heaven on Earth result in Hell on Earth.”

    Part of destructive plan is polarization. Name one policy or goal that d’rats push which benefits, or asks for sacrifices from, the entire citizenry as a unit.

    Question for whomever on that Bd. of Ed.

    What will you do when normal (not sexual vampires) children living in fecund, sanctified households feel frightened, intimidated and threatened by the school’s imposition of sodomy on them? We know what Stalin would do.

  • Well you hit on something interesting…there are people who think we ARE the problem in the world. There are folks who think America stands in the way of a better world. It’s rediculous, of course. But they beleive that. They beleive that if the world had our money and we had their brains we’d have universal peace. Silly. But they DO believe it. And remember, as in psychology, reality is ninety-nine percent perception. If someone believes a thing, they’re acting in accordance with that. So you get this political type, a certain kind of Democrat or whateverf, that sees America as bad and the rest of the world as benign and victimized by us. This democratic type really believesthat, and you’d best acknwoledge it. They’re acting on that perception!

  • What’s the difference between America and the People’s Republic of China? In America, government coercion is used to force people to pretend sham marriages are real. In China, government coercion is used to force people to pretend sham ordinations of bishops are real.

  • A follow-up question to T. Shaw’s for the whomever on that Bd. of Ed.

    What will you do when homosexual children feel frightened, intimidated and threatened by the school’s imposition of an expection that they must someday marry upon them – and sue that Bd. of Id.?


Wednesday, May 18, AD 2011

A round-up of some of the best punditry in the Catholic Blogosphere, courtesy of

“Why Is Mugabe Visiting the Vatican?” – James Kirchick, New Republic

. . .Mark Stricherz of Catholic Vote wrote about this here. . .

God & Political Science – Timothy Shah, Daniel Philpott & Monica Toft, PD

Exposing the Death Dealers – Amy Welborn, Crisis Magazine

Syria Christians Fear for Religious Freedom – Reuters

Pro-Lifers Help Win Canadian Baby Battle – Maryann Gogniat Eidemiller, OSV

About Face on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ – Joan Frawley Desmond, NCRegister

Abp. Jose Gomez: You Have a Duty to Confront This Culture – Cal Cth Daily

Fig Leaves & Falsehoods (Lying & Planned Parenthood) – Janet E. Smith, FT

Quaeritur: Selling a Rosary & Other Sacred Things – Father John Zuhlsdorf

Paternalistic Violence in the New World – David, The School of Salamanca

Monster Baptism & Chemical Pregnancy – Doctor Stacy Trasancos

The Sistine Chapel, In the Depths of Wales! – Richard Collins, The Guild


If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit for daily updates twice a day.

For click here.

Continue reading...

Not So Fast…

Monday, August 16, AD 2010

A Panel of the 9th Circuit has surprisingly issued a wise decision, deciding to allow Proposition 8 to remain in place while the 9th Circuit considers its constitutionality.

This was undoubtedly the right decision. It makes no sense to force a state to marry people while knowing that a later decision could invalidate all those marriages.

One hopes that this is the beginning of a trend in reversing Judge Walker, whose rulings in this case can best be described as what happens when judicial activism meets the dictatorship of relativism.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Not So Fast…

  • Judge Walker’s performance in this case would warrant impeachment if we were living in a just world. His bias in this case has been clear from the beginning and totally shameless.

  • Was this actually surprising? Wasn’t everyone expecting a stay? I was half expecting Judge Walker to stay his own decision.

  • I was half expecting Judge Walker to stay his own decision.


  • I was, but I was hoping Walker would be impartial enough to grant the stay himself. I hadn’t been paying attention to the trial, but I think Don is right: this is a really poor performance by a judge, and I sincerely hope Christians who handle abortion trials learn from Walker’s example of how not to behave.

  • Isn’t it awesome how the people of the state can decide the matter, but its really up to a judge or a panel of judges to decide what’s good for them.

  • I’m really curious about how the law schools will spin this. There was so much effort spent “debunking the myth” that Left-leaning judges are “activist.” Some decisions though have got to be hard to re-cast. This is probably one of them.

  • I’m really curious about how the law schools will spin this. There was so much effort spent “debunking the myth” that Left-leaning judges are “activist.”

    Actually, that’s not been my experience. The current spin (and I got it today in the opening class for Con Law II, which is about the Bill of Rights) is that all judges today are activist, not just liberals. Basically, when Scalia (their favorite target) or any conservative attacks activism, they’re being hypocrites and point to the gun rights decisions, among others.

  • when Scalia (their favorite target) or any conservative attacks activism, they’re being hypocrites and point to the gun rights decisions, among others.

    Judge A thinks the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, in a brief article which concerns that subject and the utility of the militia, refers to a personal right. Judge B fancies the phrase, “deny any person the equal protection of the laws” in an omnibus amendment granting freed slaves citizenship and cleaning up some other business from the civil war, requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes no matter what the various elected officials and general referenda say. Both are equally ‘activist’ to your classmates in Con Law II. Emphasis on ‘con’.

  • Good Morning Mr. Denton,

    1st – I hope your law school years are good and fruitful. Good luck and God bless.

    2nd – The narratives keep ranging back to what the Constitution IS – the whole Originalist vs. Living Constitutionalist debate. Since you are in law school, I’ll remind you that the Constitution is whatever your prof says it is. Work with their narrative and your grades will reflect your wisdom. (That is something I often found hard to do and my grades reflected that pig-headedness.)

  • In my experience, liberals embrace judicial activism. I think that’s a much more intellectually honest position than claiming that originalists are equally activist.

  • In my experience, liberals embrace judicial activism. I think that’s a much more intellectually honest position

    The notion that the phrases “The Judicial power shall extend to all cases under this Constitution” and “deny any person the equal protection of the laws” give you a roving mandate to arbitrarily annul any social policy you care to can be called many things. “Intellectually honest” is not one of them.

  • RR,

    How about a gravatar pic for your handle?

Culture War

Thursday, August 5, AD 2010

People justly tire of the term “culture war” and find themselves asking, like the philosopher Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

And yet watching the disparate reactions to yesterday’s Federal Court ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8 (for now) it struck me that the culture war terminology is quite apt. What is termed the culture was is essentially a zero sum game over which of two roughly equally numerous groups will be allowed to define the dominant understandings of culture and society in our country. by taking this to the federal level, same sex marriage advocates have made it clear that no degree of regional acceptance is satisfactory — their understanding of the nature of marriage must be the single dominant understanding enforced throughout the country, and those with a traditional understanding of marriage must be the ones who find themselves aliens within their country. And, presumably, is same sex marriage advocates lose, they will in turn consider themselves aliens within the country. Given that it is the most basic units and purposes of society which are in dispute, it seems hard to see how it can be any other way. And while the dispute is to an extent regional, it is much more so philosophical and ideological, making the culture war more resemble the Spanish Civil War than the American. Every city and region has representatives of both sides.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Culture War

  • To your point about it being impossible to make the traditionalist case: I thought Frank Beckwith’s following comment over at What’s Wrong With the World was spot on:

    Political liberalism was invented in the mid-1980s in order to provide a theoretical foundation that can exclude religiously-informed policy proposals while seeming to defend religious liberty and citizen participation. There had, of course, always been many liberalisms, including the Lockean, Kantian, Millean, Hobbsean, and Roussean varieties. But each suffered from the same problem: each presupposed a particular philosophical anthropology as the correct account of humanity. This was a problem because popular liberalism suggested neutrality on matters of worldview. So, you could not very well say that the state should be neutral on such matters while requiring it to embrace a particular one. Social conservatives understood this since the mid-1950s, as seen in what Bill Buckley called “the great liberal dilemma.” But with the ascendancy of the religious right and its insistence that “liberalism” is not as neutral as its proponents claim–that it too tries to answer the same questions that traditional religions answer–folks like Rawls needed a new way to defend liberalism in a pluralistic society that was both morally required but did not depend on a particular metaphysics. Presto, we get “political liberalism,” and with its numerous defenders including Rawls, Gaus (who is more of a libertarian), Nagel, and to a certain extent Dworkin.

    So, instead of explicitly defending metaphysical liberalism, we get political liberalism with allegedly none of the metaphysical commitments. But, strangely, on every issue about which metaphysical liberalism would take a stand–e.g., abortion, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, etc.–political liberalism gets the exact same results. Wow, what a coincidence! But the benefit of political liberalism is you can rule your opponents’ views as a priori violations of political liberalism while saying that their views are still “rational.” This means you get to sound like you respect pluralism, diversity, and the rationality of your opponents’ point of view while shutting them out of the debate on “principled grounds.”

    This is why on the issue of homosexual conduct, those that are critical of it for moral reasons cannot be considered reasonable actors who simply disagree with others on the issue. They must be irrational. For if they are rational–that is, if there views are not unreasonable to hold–then the state cannot, according to the canons of liberalism, force these citizens to acquiesce in their public and private lives. But this means that same-sex unions would not be treated equally, since political liberalism would grant the legitimacy of those who think homosexual acts are immoral. Consequently, the bigot charge is so fierce and not well-argued. It is meant to intimidate and silence, not persuade or convince. For, again, to suggest the position is arguable is to grant it legitimacy, and that simply cannot be allowed.

    So, despite Rawls’ wonderful intention to provide a theoretical grounding on which people with differing points of view on worldview matters can dialogue in a climate of mutual respect and understanding, he failed miserably. For what he in fact did was give to either side in the culture war, the ultimate weapon: declare the other side “unreasonable,” for once that sticks the game is over and there is no need to treat the other with respect or equal regard.

  • Well, apparently the history standards used in CA are even worse than I thought if Judge Walker can say with a straight face that historically there were no restrictions on marriage based on gender and that marriage was traditionally a matter of mutual consent. Heck in many parts of the world today, mutual consent STILL has nothing to do with marriage. I bet he would die before giving the Catholic Church credit with introducing consent as a feature of marriage.

    And since when does marriage have nothing to do with procreation? Many states require blood tests for Ruebella, which has everything to do with preventing birth defects in the future children of the marriage. (They don’t excuse you from the blood test just because you say you don’t plan on having children.)

    Also, inheritance law is very much intertwined with marriage both now and historically. But hey, with after death conceptions now due to IVF technology, maybe our culture should just declare children chattel and stop trying to pretend everything that the adults want magically is good for the children. We can just declare it so and move on with clear consciences!

  • Why should they (gays) be happy? They may as well be miserable like the rest fo us. Farce/OFF

    Did the judge rule YOU cannot have religious morailty in LAW? I like that part. Get the welfare (Catholic Social Justice) state off our backs.

    To your point: J. M. Barrie, “God gave us memory so that we could have roses in December.”

  • The following comment of mine was censored by the Huffington Post and taken off the site. It stated, “This comment was removed in accordance with HuffPost’s moderation guidelines.” I was totally taken aback. My words were neither offensive or in bad taste in anyway. Here is what I wrote:

    When anyone is vocal against gay marriage and homosexuality, supporters of gay rights like to label them as intolerant, prejudice and ignorant. I don’t consider myself any of the three. I was taught that we are all part of the human race and, therefore, no one is better than anyone else, regardless of race, class or religion. I feel I have always been on the right side, fighting for the poor, the minority, etc. But being gay is a desire and not a right.
    Whatever people do in the privacy of their homes is their business. It is not anyone’s place on this earth to judge others’ actions and desires. I know people who are gay, and I treat them no differently, than I do anybody else. Everyone should be free from ridicule and attack, but to go so far as to give rights to an abnormal desire that contradicts nature since the beginning of time is wrong and can only lead to an untested and precarious road. You don’t have to be religious or a moralist to know that what isn’t natural shouldn’t be. Gay people should neither be attacked nor encouraged, but helped and prayed for. This ruling is misguided because the law has no place in sanctioning unnatural and defective desires and acts.

  • Well now you’ve said several offensive things. Calling homosexuality a “desire” and not a “right”. Calling it an “abnormal desire that contradicts nature” and labelling it “wrong.” Finally you call for us to “pray” for them. You are engaging in hate speech you know.

  • by taking this to the federal level, same sex marriage advocates have made it clear that no degree of regional acceptance is satisfactory — their understanding of the nature of marriage must be the single dominant understanding enforced throughout the country, and those with a traditional understanding of marriage must be the ones who find themselves aliens within their country

    well, obviously that was the goal all along. But they would not have gone the federal route if they could have won state by state. when the people are asked, they emphatically say no.

    Today, gender is not
    relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law.

    where the hell does he come up with this?

    It is not anyone’s place on this earth to judge others’ actions and desires.

    I would have to quibble with this. It is precisely our place to judge actions and desires. We do that all the time – it’s called enforcing the law. The judge himself did it in this case by judging that those whose actions/desires are that same sex couples should not be recognized as married are wrong.

    It is not our place to judge the eternal destination of someone’s soul because of those actions and desires.

  • The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household

    Great. So when does polygamy kick in? I chose a spouse in 2010, then I chose another spouse in 2011, then I chose another in 2012….

    Someone owes the Mormons a BIG time apology!

  • If those words were offensive, then most comments would be pulled, since I have seen a lot worse on the web. We have something in this country called freedom of speech. You may not agree with me, but I kept it clean. I guess they just thought my simple words would sway others.

  • I was being sarcastic. I actually agree with you.

  • But I suspect others would not be sarcastic if they said such to you. That’s why your post was pulled. Soon you may not be able to say it publicly.

  • Ruth,

    It’s pure and simple censorship.

    You are evil if you disagree with them. At least they are not planning to destroy you, yet.

  • Jess,

    …maybe our culture should just declare children chattel…

    Welcome to the Roman Republic circa 150 BC.

    Where children were actually described as property of the father (they were a strictly paternally driven society back then).

    So with that, progressives are advocating for a regression towards olde tyme Roman Law.

  • Dear Judge: repeat after me: The state did not create marriage. The state does not own marriage. The state receives marriage as a cultural institution. The state is not the culture, it serves the culture. The state is a servant obligated to respect and foster the culture’s pre-existing and more fundamental institutions. Marriage is a cultural institution constituting relations between a man and a woman, period.

  • Tony-
    Judge Walker would take your framework of thinking about marriage and say that homosexual unions are apart of the contemporary culture and that Prop 8 was the state trying to own marriage.

    But of course, I get what you are saying and you are correct: marriage is a pre-political, natural institution; the state has no competency to alter it.

    There is no chance for common ground on this issue: as Elizabeth Anscombe noted decades ago, this battle was lost when artificial contraception became normal.

    Time to get out your MacIntyre, reread it and weep.

  • Also, Frank Beckwith noted a key logical flaw in Walker’s opinion:

    “Oddly, the judge claims that the belief that heterosexual monogamy is better than homosexual unions cannot be one of the reasons. But in that case, the judge begs the question, since that is precisely why we should privilege male-female marriage. So, it turns out male-female marriage is unconstitutional become it is male-female marriage. That’s called begging the question.”

  • For the sake of a view from the other side, here’s a post by a Christian who voted against Prop 8 & now regrets it…good illustration of how constant media exposure can muddle thinking:

  • Fellow Catholics, we must beat on our own chests. Judge Walker’s reasoning is largely unassailable and may well be upheld by the Supreme Court, perhaps even with the votes of some Catholic justices. The case in favor of Prop 8 was prepared weakly, and the defendant (Gov. Schwarzenegger) didn’t really want to fight it. Both Schwarzenegger and the Attorney General of CA have since come out in support of same-sex marriage. Nobody saw that the issue shouldn’t be presented as about the nature of marriage but as about the nature of sex. It should have been built on “Male and female He created them” (Gen 1:26), by arguing that individuals (or, for Catholics, persons) by nature belong to one of two sexes and that there is no artificially chosen “gender”. Catholics appear to be about the only ones left who have an interest in pursuing the case. Will we even be strong enough to grasp the last and minute chance before the Supreme Court? Now or never. Unified and strong leadership by our bishops is necessary, as is support by our universities, media, and best legal minds.

  • Do any of you know anyone who is gay? Do any of you know any gay couples? There are many, many, gay couples in committed relationships who simply want the same benefits under the law. Spousal inheritance, survivor benefits, next of kin rights at the hospital, visitation rights. Have any of you read the science on homosexuality? It is not a choice, and it is natural. Homosexuality is present in nature in many different animal species. Homosexual people are physiologically different than straight people. 10% of all populations are historically gay, and not something people can control and not something you should discriminate against in civil law. It is the American Law we are talking about here. Now you can decide.. do you want to live in a Free country, where we are all able to pursue life, liberty and happiness, or would you rather your homosexual brothers and sisters just continue to commit suicide for fear of rejection by their families, be forced from their homes when their partners of sixty years pass away and their relatives come and take everything, or lose rights to children they raised in a break-up? Jesus Christ never spoke of homosexuality, and by the majority of theologians he was the radical liberal of his day. Learn to live and let live. The agreement two people have to each other under the law affects none but those two people. In a pluralistic, free society we have to learn that the law applies to EVERYONE, not just the majority. A man and a woman can still get married as they always could have so tell me how does this impact them? This is about equal protection under U.S. law for all families in this country. If you want the rule of religion to to be the basis of civil law in the country you live in, please go look at Muslim countries that run on Sharia law as an example of how backwards it could become. Separation of Church and state, as well as Freedom of Religion are a beautiful thing. Now, if you want to really focus on ridding the world of sexual deviance, take a look at your own “celibate”, child molesting priests and the Popes who shelter them.

  • David,

    There is an unselfconscious irony in someone showing up to demand tolerance, while loudly displaying his own intolerance of anyone with a view different from his own. A great deal of what you say is ignorant, or untrue, but what comes through very clearly is that you absolutely and unconditionally despise anyone who thinks different from you. How you expect this to be persuasive from those who differ from you because they have thought long and deeply about their beliefs is beyond me.

WJBA? In 2010 Would Jesus (Along With His Apostles & Saints) Be Arrested For Hate Speech?

Wednesday, August 4, AD 2010

A few short years ago the mere suggestion that the Son of God, His Apostles and Saints would face arrest for hate speech would have seemed absolutely ludicrous. However, events have spiraled out of control across the western world. In his opinion that strikes down California’s recently voter approved marriage law, Judge Vaughn Walker wrote that those who speak in the name of religion to put across their views that same sex marriage is wrong are “harmful to gays and lesbians.”

Across Europe and Canada, faithful Christians speaking out for traditional marriage face the threat of being hauled off to court for citing the teachings of the Catholic Church and various Evangelical Churches. Where will this all end? Some see a great persecution coming against the Christian faithful. Though possible, one need remember that the Christian faith always grew when persecuted.

The Catholic Church has long taught that some individuals have an inclination toward same sex attraction; they are to be loved as all people are to be loved. The Church teaches that these feelings are not to be acted upon. The Church goes on to teach that all individuals are given a cross to carry in this world and for those who are same sex attracted; this is their cross. An organization exists for those who are same sex attracted called COURAGE. It has many chapters and members.

Recently a profile was done in The New York Times on same sex attracted Eve Tushnet, the Ivy League educated Catholic daughter of Harvard Law professors. She has chronicled her growth in Catholicism and the logic of the Church’s teachings on sexuality. For years the Catholic Church took some heat from some quarters of Christianity for not stating that anyone who is same sex attracted would be going to hell. The Church now is facing a maelstrom of vitriol from those who claim the Church hates homosexuals.

For the Church to change her teachings would be to deny not only what Christ said (Matthew 11:20-24,) but his Apostles, not to mention Saint Paul’s lengthy discourse on the subject (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.)  In addition to the Apostles and saints, there is a rich history of saints writing on the subject, particularly the Early Church Fathers like Saint Augustine, St Justin Martyr, St. Basil and St John Chrysostom as well as Church intellectuals like St Thomas Aquinas, Saint Albert the Great (the greatest scientist of his time,) along with mystics like St Catherine of Sienna to name but a few. To say that the greatest minds of their respective eras were all wrong is simply breathtaking.

Many who disagree with the Church tend to forget that homosexuality was much more common and approved of by the Roman government in the early Christian era than it is even in 2010. Many in the upper echelons of Greek and Roman culture experimented with all sorts of sexual practices. It would have been far easier for Jesus, the apostles, saints and popes to approve of this conduct than it would to disapprove of it. Christianity might have grown at a faster pace. However, there was a reason for this swimming against the tide, and the faithful accepted it.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to WJBA? In 2010 Would Jesus (Along With His Apostles & Saints) Be Arrested For Hate Speech?

  • Great column as usual, Dave. It just blows my mind that our nation is no longer a republic of, for and by the people but an elite and arrogant oligarchy that is unleashing one perverted social experiment after another on us.

    The far left have the nerve to needle the conservatives for wanting to have less government yet have government restrict marriage. Quite the contrary, we want to be able to decide how our society should function, not have the government do so.

    It’s a shame that the voters in my state of California were robbed once again, but we can still hope for the Supreme Court to save the day. In the meantime, this should serve as a wakeup call for the voters, especially those in the 45 states who have kept marriage to one man and one woman, to vote the radicals out in the fall and make sure the Democrats never control government again as long as the militant secularists who are ruining this nation continue to call the shots for the party.

  • This is almost a grand slam!

    This is government hate speech against, and injurious to, Christians, Jews and Muslims.

    Oh, that’s okay!?

    Never mind.

    Thanks for voting for them dems.

  • Prepare for the worst. There is little doubt that in the near future Christians will be arrested and imprisoned by the American Socialist State if they continue to preach the gospel and traditional morality. The American politicians have created their long desired Atheistic State which will have no tolerance for believers. Prepare for the dark days of persecution but the good news is that it will separate the wheat from the shaff and the sheep from the goats.

  • But Jesus and the Apostles were arrested and even put to death for their speech.

    When DeGaulle was reproached for not taking more care against assassination, he replied: “It comes with the job”.

It's About the Children. Seriously.

Wednesday, August 4, AD 2010

I must confess that today’s judicial ruling out of California which overturned Proposition 8 has riled me up, suprisingly so. I heard about the ruling while listening to the livestream of a tech podcast in which one of the three podcasters is a lesbian (previously “married” in CA) and the other two (middle-aged married men) evidently supported the decision. The ease with which they threw out bromides (“finally, equality!”) bothered me, primarily because it revealed two things: 1. a group of intelligent people couldn’t grasp that there might be real objections to same sex “marriage”, and 2. as I’ve noted previously, too many (probably most) Americans simply don’t understand the essential nature of marriage. Simply put, the state’s interest isn’t strong feelings or commitment… it’s children. And — to state the obvious — a homosexual relationship isn’t structured towards procreation the way marriage is.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to It's About the Children. Seriously.

  • Well said.

  • Exactly. Americans, even conservative Protestants, have removed children from marriage. Without a procreative intent, admittedly, there is little reason to ban gay marriage. Or incest for that matter.

  • Americans?

    Westerners. America still has the highest birth rate in the Western world, and Utah has the highest birth rate out of all the states.

    Supposedly “family friendly” Europe cut children out of the picture a long time ago. All of the welfare provisions, reduced work weeks, paid maternity/paternity leave didn’t do a damned thing to reinforce families or birth rates.

    This is because Europe not only removed children from the marriage, but God from their lives and culture. Mormon Utah thrives for exactly the opposite reason. When will Catholics get it?

  • Actually, welfare did help increase the birth rate in Europe. The Scandinavian countries have the highest birth rates in Western Europe.

  • How would things look if marriage were dead? Out-of-wedlock births, acceptance of any cohabitation arrangement, the presumption that any relationship in non-binding…exactly what we have today. Marriage is dead as a norm in the West. There are only pockets and subcultures that preserve it.

    We talk about the “war on Christmas”. Christmas has been stripped of its old meaning and given a new purpose; a few of its traditions are unthinkingly continued. By the time the courts started enforcing “holiday pageants” in public schools, the war was long lost. That’s exactly what’s happened to marriage.

    Maybe my blood sugar is low or something, because even I am not usually this pessimistic. I’m just not seeing any reason to be encouraged.

  • Marriage is dead as a norm in the West.

    Yes, this is what I’ve been saying about the SSM debate all along. To those who ask, “How is SSM going to harm your (traditional) marriage?” I say, “It’s not — the damage has already been done. I just don’t see the reason to codify the death of marriage in law.”

  • Marriage is certainly in disrepair in the west. Many forces contributed to that, but the disentanglement of sex, children and marriage via modern birth control options is certainly a key part of it, resulting in the normalization of premarital sex, cohabitation, divorce, serial monogamy, etc. That said infidelity (i.e., extramarital sex) is still largely unaccepted in the US. Marriage may be in the ICU, but it is not dead yet.

  • Pingback: Supporting Gay Marriage: It’s Not About the Children. Seriously. « Agree to Disagree
  • The trolls are out.

  • restrainedradical wrote Thursday, August 5, 2010 A.D. at 8:29 am
    “Actually, welfare did help increase the birth rate in Europe. The Scandinavian countries have the highest birth rates in Western Europe”.

    The birth rate in Sweden is 1.67 children born/woman (2010 est.), i.e., less than replacement. Much of this is probably due to immigrant populations.

  • It seems to me that there is an assumption that the U.S. is a fine moral country.
    The opposite seems to be true. The number of child murders continues to increase.
    Poverty is widespread despite “Wars on Poverty” [because of?].
    The immigration question continues to fester. {On what moral basis can immigrants be denied entry?].
    The continued base treatment of Indians reeks to heaven.
    Justice Ginsberg speaks of “undesirable populations”.
    Multi-skillionaires give much money to killing babies in this country and abroad.
    Pornography becomes more and more widespread like a plague.
    Actors are treated as moral gurus, because their faces are familiar, not because they know how to behave.
    To put it succinctly: what is it in the U.S. which gives it any claim to be a light unto the nations?

  • I’m not sure I understand the argument. People who don’t procreate shouldn’t get married? Then where are the rallies against childless marriages? Why aren’t we banning people whose disabilities prevent them from having children from marrying? Or the elderly? Why aren’t we protecting the procreative institution of marriage from these barren impostors? And what about adoption? Since adoption by same-sex couples would challenge your argument, you must be against that, too. In which case, shouldn’t we stop straight couples from adopting, too? Those children may be in need of care, but of course the bigger need is for people to have their own babies. Please help me understand how we can include the disabled, the elderly, adoptive parents and those who are childless by choice into the Prop 8 campaign, because clearly we’re leaving a lot of people out.

  • Thanks for the comment, Maisha. You raise a common but good question with regard to our position, and it’s one that certainly seems to follow from my post. I somewhat oversimplified the argument last night, but in so doing left the door open for your objection. Let me see if I can offer at least a beginning of a response.

    Our position is that marriage is an institution in which a man and a woman come together with a desire to grow more deeply in love and with an openness to children, *even if children are for some reason impossible for them*. For us, the act of marital love — sexual union — is itself ordered towards procreation, even if in at any particular time procreation is impossible (perhaps due to infertility, because the woman is not in the fertile stage of her cycle, or whatever). So in the case of an elderly couple beyond childbearing years, the sexual union remains structurally oriented towards procreation.

    Such is obviously not the case for the same sex couple, however: same sexual acts of their nature cannot be procreative, while — all things being equal — heterosexual acts are always structurally procreative.

    That’s the beginning of a response… let me know where I’m unclear, and I’ll try to clarify.

  • When I comment on subjects like this my post is in danger of being deleted, which is ok, I have to answer to God for me, not whomever does the deleting.

    That being said:

    With the Catholic Church, the children are really just pawns. The real battle is keeping the pews full, I think for the power that gives the Church. I would like to think otherwise but I really do not, based upon personal experience.

    When divorce happens, the Church does and says nothing, to heal a marriage, when it is clear to the Church, as they have all the evidence they need in nullity cases, that a marriage has simply been abandoned and the abandoner has taken the spoils, including the children.

    Rather, should not individual priests and bishops in authority, address the situations, especially when these are presented to the Church for nullity investigations and work, tirelessly, pastorally and with canonical strictures, to restore marital union? Especially so when nullity is shown NOT to exist?

    No such thing happens, at all!

    No, Chris. I do not agree it is about the children. It is about power and control, although it should not be that way.

    If you must delete this, go ahead. I did not mean any disrespect by it. I just commented on my personal experience and from what I have heard from others, who have been through it.

    Regarding marriage, I believe, the chemical inability to make the sperm/egg do not invalidate, the inability to “perform the act” necessary for procreation, either physiologically or psychologically, is what validity and hence, real marriage, hinges on, provided the people are free of all other impediments.

  • If I’m following you correctly, Karl, two comments come to mind.

    First, there are programs present in the Church which try to heal broken/dying/weak marriages… Retrouvaille comes to mind.

    Second, I’m not sure what you think clerics can do to get two people back together who refuse to do so.

    Can you elaborate or clarify?

  • Going there would hijack the topic. I simply wanted to infuse my personal experience into my comment.

    I have never, once, seen the slightest concern for the scandal and abuse our five children have experienced by any of the priests or bishops who were supposed to pastor them. To this day the scandal is encouraged.

    Our acceptance of divorce has prepared the groundwork for this “dumbingdown” of marriage.

    It is about the children and their souls, that is clear, but I do not see the Catholic Church as having the moral high ground. Not over divorce, Chris.

    God is teaching his Church, if it will listen to spouses like myself and others who have seen its evil deeds, to repent and to LISTEN. Bur for twenty years, the ears of the Church have been sealed, in my personal experience.

    I hope, whatever it takes to break the back of the dead consciences of the Catholic intelligencia, lay and clerical, is done. They do not listen. They listen to “experts” they DONOT

  • LISTEN to their victims.

  • The Church must defend marriage, period, not selectively in the face of a homosexual challenge.

    It must cease allowing its teachers to stress the “benign” nature of divorce. It must do so with strong canonical sanctions. It must hold to account, with formal canonical sanctions those who abandon marriages, particularly when they do not seek counsel from the bishop or when they abuse those few specified canonically allowed circumstances when separation is allowed.
    Wrongful divorce must not be unaddressed, in public and those who refuse, without substantive, serious reasons, to work, endlessly if necessary, at reconciliation, especially if there are children involved, should be formally and very much in public, be admonished and in short order, formally excommunicated, if the refusal to work toward healing the marriage continues. All those who cooperate, formally, with the support of the unrepentant, should similarly be held to account, with more vigor if they are a religious or in any position of authority/importance in the Church.

    The Church has lost all credibiliy due to its generations of laxity regarding marriage. This is constantly used against the Church and justifiably so.

    Unless this is addressed and addressed, last year, the Church is the hypocrite it is so often accused of being.

    May God have mercy on His, very unfaithful Bride. It is those of us who are struggling to be faithful to both our spouses and our faith, who God requires
    His Bride to listen to. The Pope and the rest of the Catholic clergy need to understand how much harm they do each day our cries are left unanswered with almost anything but disdain, from those who should know better.

  • Karl,
    When you write that “the Church” has been moving in the direction of accepting divorce, I believe you should modify that by saying many [most?] priests and bishops have been moving in this direction. And it is, as you rightly note, part and parcel of the sexual scandals. Once start hedging – even in the smallest manner – on matters of Church teaching, the hedging simply grows.
    The hierarchy is mealy mouthed when it comes to the use of the pill. Most of the pills are abortifacient. All of them sterilize. How often do priests and bishops note this? How often do they remind the faithful that they are committing a mortal sin by the use of the pill?
    But I believe there is a mistaken notion that our bishops, as such, are a saintly lot. They are not. You have but to read a bit of the history of the episcopacy to realize that bishops do not contribute much to the list of saints, to those we are enjoined to emulate. They are for some reason a timid lot.

  • Unfortunately too true. We must remember that the priesthood and episcopacy are charisms, gifts for the good of the Church, and not holiness. A mother at home raising her children may have a far greater place in heaven than many a bishop.

  • How is SSM going to harm your (traditional) marriage?

    That is really the incorrect question – it should be “How is SSM going to strengthen marriage as an institution?”

    And the answer is, it is not. It will only further hide the now barely recognized fact that the proper end of intercourse is procreation.

  • I think there’s a real serious question whether ANY church in the USA takes marriage seriously–with (ironically) the possible exception of the Mormons. Among Catholics, even those who cannot remember the number of the commandments, let alone the content of the list, can tell you that when we want to divorce and remarry in church, we just get an annulment on some (frequently bogus) “psychological” ground. This happens no matter how long the supposedly invalid marriage has lasted or how many children it produced. This last point is especially important; the annulment regime now in force is saying that it is NOT important to stay married “for the children’s sake.”

  • ron chandonia, I agree that there have been serious abuses in Catholic Church annulments. But the idea of an annulment does not hinge on whether the apparent marriage lasted many years, nor on how many kids there are, nor on whether it is better for the kids’ sake to stay together. If a couple never did get married to begin with, despite appearances, then it means that they have been living an error for however long the apparent marriage has been going on, whether short or long. I accept that a long-lasting arrangement suggests that there must have been a real commitment to permanence, but there are other commitments needed for the marriage to have taken place to begin with.

    I know a couple who got married 20 years ago, and got an annulment 2 years ago: the guy had been a pornography addict and sexual deviant the entire period. He was incapable of a real commitment to marital fidelity at the time of the wedding, because he was addicted to porn.

    The Church usually states that if a couple has kids, they both have a deep, serious obligation to see to their welfare even if a divorce or annulment occurs. How can it be better for the kids for the Church and society to pretend that a marriage took place when it didn’t. I should think, generally, that a couple with young kids, who discover that they never did truly marry, ought to ask themselves whether they might have a moral obligation to actually make real the apparent marriage that they had been living in action, for the sake of the kids. But of course, nobody discovers this without a marital breakdown, and at that point it is often difficult to establish that it really would be better for the kids if their mom and dad got married even when they hate each other.

    Given that at least 30% of heterosexuals don’t seem to have a grave problem with the very idea of homosexual marriage, it is probable that many, many people don’t understand marriage enough to actually form a marriage bond with another person. Given that, it should not be surprising that many annulments are granted correctly.

  • May one not also ask what is the difference between gay “marriages” [sodomy] and marriages in which the female uses the pill to sterilize herself? Marriage is not even chiefly for procreation. Procreation is an added blessing. To reject that blessing is to reject the Almighty.

    Consider also the vow “until death”. As Harry Truman remarked “if a man will not keep his word to his wife, to whom will he keep it”? The Church does not prohibit divorce when it is but separation. It prohibits divorce – it points out the breaking of the vow – for “remarriage”.

  • Gabriel,
    It is my understanding that the Church does not so much prohibit divorce as simply not recognize it. Indeed, while legal separations may be favored over divorce as such, I believe that the Church understands that divorce under civil law is often necessary in order to ensure protection of the weak — usually but not always the wife or children. Consequently, what is not permitted is remarriage (absent an annulment of course), since the first (without an annulment) the marital sacrament remains in place and remarriage constitutes adultary.

    Thanks for the Truman quote. I was unaware of it.

  • How mislead and scandalous these comments are.

    How easily you have swallowed the Kool Aid of divorce to think that it is anything but condemned.

    Do you reacall it says…..God Hates Divorce. How easily man has rejected the expressed Will of God and searches for rationalizations for his sins.

    Watch and learn as society and the Catholic Church decay for their self-serving attitudes, especially towards marriage. The reconing will come.

  • Karl,
    Emoting about Kool Aid is not productive. While I’m hardly an advocate of divorce, and it is certainly true that the rate of broken marriages is scandalous, the fact is that obtaining a divorce in and of itself is not understood by the Church to be a sin. Indeed, the Church views a civil separation and a civil divorce indentically. Neither has any effect whatsoever on the marital Sacrament. The Church recognizes that the parties are not morally enjoined from selecting whichever legal route leads to greater justice under our civil law system. This is especially important in the case of serious abuse. Neither legal approach, however, permits “re-marriage” in the Christian sense, even if civil divorce does so under civil law. The sin occurs if a person bound by the marital sacrament to his spouse remarries or otherwise has relations with another regardless whether the married couple are separated, divorced, or neither. Note the important fact that the Church does not view civil divorce as disturbing the status of a Christian marriage.
    Of course, as I noted the rate of divorce is evidence of deep and disturbing problems within our society. The wounds, especially to children, are incalculable. But divorce is a symptom of sin, not the sin itself. This is pretty straightforward Church teaching.

  • Karl,
    Catechism 2383:
    “The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

    Which is to say “divorce” is a civil separation, not a breaking of the marriage vow.

Proposition 8 Struck Down, For The Time Being

Wednesday, August 4, AD 2010

By now I’m sure you all know that Proposition 8 was struck down by a federal judge. Who knows what will happen on appeal. There is much to be said, but I want to focus on one narrow and possibly tangential point. This phrase from the judge’s ruling, a phrase being reposted on facebook in many statuses:

“A private moral view that Same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”

The absurdity of that sentence really struck me. There was nothing “private” about the view of the “superiority” of hetereosexual couples. It has been carried on through generations of communities and in the present day was represented by 52% of Californians. How a popular decision that represented thousands of years of ethical thinking and concern for the family became a private morality is baffling.

More troubling is the implication of the judge that a “moral view” is not a proper basis for legislation. Since when has this been the case? Our laws on pedophilia, minimum wage, health care, torture, human rights, etc. are based at least on part on “moral views,” views that in some respects may be just as if not more private than the ones the judge rejects today.

If morality is not a basis for legislation, what on earth is? Morality guides us in making decisions; without a moral or ethical compass (or perhaps even without a religious one) there is no basis for legislation to be made. Laws are supposed to help make society run better, but there is no way to make society run better unless you have a notion of what a “better society” looks like, and you don’t get to that notion without morality.

State recognition of homosexual marriage is one thing, but this ruling attacks the foundation of our government. Morality must have a place in the public sphere and must be one of the foremost foundations of legislation.

To be sure, the judge is simply smoke-screening for the fact that he is imposing his own standards of morality. But the fact that his statement rejecting a moral basis for legislation is being so celebrated should worry all Americans.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Proposition 8 Struck Down, For The Time Being

  • I heard several commentators on the radio using this language today. We need to put a stop to this “inferior” vs. “superior” language altogether. It is irrelevant to the question at hand and just pulls on the emotional strings of those on the fence who are concerned about “equality.”

    Gay marriages are not some form of marriage which we think is an “inferior form” to the “superior form” between heterosexuals. Gay marriage quite simply isn’t a “form” of marriage at all. It doesn’t exist. To let the pro-gay-marriage crowd frame it in these emotional, egalatarian-based terms is to get off track and play into their hands.

  • From the ruling:

    “Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage….. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage…”

    This passage from the ruling is the real core of this debate. Gender historically had and currently has nothing to do with the core of marriage? What an astonishingly bold and bald lie. That’s the level of unreality we are up against.

  • This is stupidity on afterburner. I’m actually ashamed of our judicial system; these judges are a joke. Between this and the “sweet mystery of life” passage, the rule of law is effectively dead. Pack up and go home.

    I suggest as a form of mass civil disobedience that all Christians commit a petty crime and use this decision and Casey as a defense. “The heart of liberty is to define one’s own concept of existence, and morality is no basis for legislation.” Our robed masters said so.

    There is no such thing as law free from morality; there is no metaphysically neutral politics. I have no sense for what greater good this progressive-liberal culture is aiming; what is its summum bonum? At least with Christianity, one knows where one stands. But where will this nonsense end? What moral outrage will we be forced to accept next year and the year after that?

    Not that I would do it, but I’m sort of starting to see why people burn American flags. I’m disgusted by this.

  • Really good article and pertinent to the points made here. I met the author, Thomas Messner, in my travels a few weeks ago, really smart with a law degree. Forgive me if it has already been discussed/posted here.

  • Given that the Dems control the Senate, is there any point to pushing for a removal from office of this judge? At this time the push would lose. Would that losing effort help or hurt the larger cultural war?

  • Depends on how strong a push you could mount. If anything, it should make those Senators up for re-election nervous to see the natives restless.

    The best push would be to push some of those Senators out (although I heard this guy was a Republican appointee).

All That Is Necessary For The Triumph Of The Same Sex Agenda Is That Good Men Do Nothing

Friday, July 23, AD 2010

All that is necessary for the triumph of the same sex agenda is that good men do nothing.  The fear of reprisal, both materially and physically, can cause good men to do nothing.

Having not experienced this form of intimidation, I am still disturbed by the tactics that are utilized by the more militant arm of the same sex marriage agenda.  This exposure to such violence is almost non-existent for me.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to All That Is Necessary For The Triumph Of The Same Sex Agenda Is That Good Men Do Nothing

  • I fully agree that prayer is the answer. I believe that both action and informing the public about the purpose of traditional marriage, how it relates to Christianity, and explaining the reasons why same-sex “marriage” goes against the purpose of marriage- procreation- is very important for traditional marriage defenders to be able to win this debate or culture war. It is impossible for same-sex couples to have an openness to procreate. Traditional marriage couples have that openness (to procreate) regardless of whether the couple is having infertility issues or not. But, it is an impossibility for two males or two females to procreate naturally.

  • Seems extreme/fanatical narcissists believe in free speech for themselves but not for us. That they can silence those who may believe differently than they. The Age of Enlightenment is past.

    When we find ourselves alone and the government is derelict in its duties to protect liberties and persons. There are instances wherein physical force is justified.

  • I just can’t take this debate seriously any more.

  • Anthony,

    Should I laugh at your comment?

  • Do what you like, Tito.

    I just think that its near impossible to discuss the matter in a rational way.

  • I think I agree with Anthony.

    As Orwell (or was it Gibbon?) said (I think, I don’t have it here.) “I never make the mistake of arguing with irrational people over beliefs/issues to which they they cling that have no moral or rational basis.”

  • I’m just a little blogger, myself, and yet I’ve had a radio host suggest that people beat me up, while a kind person over at Daily Kos once opined that I should be strung up from a street lamp with a meat hook. Meanwhile, my partner in blogging was once upon a time roughed up by union goons who didn’t like his opinion being expressed in the public square.

    Some years back I managed to catch some flak for calling our progressive friends “junior-league Leninists” – it was a “how dare I?” moment. But that is what they are: narrow minded, bitter, hate-filled fanatics. They don’t want debate – to debate implies that the other side might have a valid point, and they’ll never accept that.

    And so, this is what we see – and I really doubt its a new phenomena; its likely that we’re just seeing more of it due to the advent of the New Media. In the end, this is a good thing – the more these kooks are exposed, the more outrage builds among average Americans and thus comes the greater chance of securing the power necessary to make real changes.

    Mark Noonan

  • Anthony,

    I understand now.

    n4nadmin, Teresa, T. Shaw,

    Yeah, at times (maybe most) it is impossible to engage in any dialogue with people that are this intolerant and bigoted against us.

  • “the more these kooks are exposed, the more outrage builds among average Americans and thus comes the greater chance of securing the power necessary to make real changes.”

    Just to ruffle feathers, I will say that I have little confidence that once power is obtained it is utilized properly. Power is predictably used to (1) bring reprisal on political enemies and/or (2) make it difficult to dislodge who’s in power.

    Supporters of “traditional marriage” are just as susceptible to that kind of corruption as the pro-gay marriage side.

    To this day I still believe the only peaceful way out of the argument is to walk away from state-sanctioned marriage. Both sides of this debate concede a crucial (and I think, fatal) point: that governments, even secular ones, have authority to tinker with the personal relationships between consenting adults.

    There are moral hazards on both sides of that coin. On the pro-gay marriage side there is a real risk that the next logical step is a breach into theological issues by governments, forcing religions to accept same-sex marriage or finding ways to punish them for not. On the traditional side, there is a real risk of some individuals hiding behind the issue in order to enact homophobic policies (the genuine kind, not the trumped-up kind).

    The only role I could possibly see for governments is in their authority to enforce contracts and mediate contractual disputes between individuals. There’s nothing about that power which requires the word “marriage” attached to it.

  • I tend to lean to Anthony’s side–the State didn’t create marriage, and if it were to get out of the marriage business entirely there wouldn’t be much to yell about, would there?

    Realistically, I don’t see that happening. It may be useful to remind folks who think their “tolerance” badge will be tarnished if they don’t give in to this exercise in social engineering that the State really shouldn’t be meddling if it can’t demonstrate a compelling interest. The State’s interest in traditional marriage is that it provides the best environment for raising children who do not subsequently become problems for the State. I believe that compelling interest is largely absent (or at least, highly optional) in same-sex relationships.

  • My qualm with “the State’s interest” is that it shifts with the political winds.

    Under certain circumstances it could be in the state’s “interest” that abortion become illegal. The need for cheap labor, future soldiers, taxpayers and population collapse could all be reasons for the state to do away with abortion. On the other hand, reducing costs, freeing the supply of goods, eliminating undesirable traits and population control could (and are) used to justify abortion.

    Take marriage. I could just as easily justify allowing gay marriage by saying the practice would (or could) stabilize promiscuous behavior, “normalize” certain consensual sexual acts, reduce instances of violence against gays while providing the state with fiscally stable homes in which to place unwanted children. All are reasons to be a-okay with letting gay marriage move forward. And, selfishly, the State will undermine the Church, thus increasing government’s sway with people over that of religion.

    Where do we really go to worship? The Church, or the State? It’s an important question to answer because it seems that both sides wish to see their values either codified or validated through the coercive powers held by government. If “my values” receive the government’s stamp of approval then “the Truth” be damned.

    These are questions Christians of all stripes should think long and hard on before rushing to pass laws or fire shots in the culture wars.

  • The State isn’t going to get out of the marriage business. Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock foundation of our society. Homosexual “marriage” is a travesty being foisted upon society by those who wish the State to give its stamp of approval to homosexuality and use the coercive power of the State against those who dissent. This is an important battle and should be fought against by all those who realize that this is part of a struggle waged by those who wish to turn the concept of family on its head.

American Bar Association Considering to Support Same Sex Marriage

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

The American Bar Association will be considering supporting same-sex marriage at their next meeting in San Francisco.

It urges state, territorial and tribal governments to eliminate laws restricting marriage between same-sex partners.

Supporters say the adoption of the measure would build on past ABA policies supporting protections for gay couples and their families. The House of Delegates in 2004 approved a recommendation opposing efforts to enact federal legislation preventing states from allowing same-sex marriage. “Everyone who worked on it is hopeful,” said Michele Kahn, a partner at Kahn & Goldberg who chairs a New York State Bar committee on gay rights. The State Bar in June 2009 came out in support of same-sex marriage, dropping its support of civil unions or domestic partnerships as alternative measures.

Kahn said so far no formal opposition has come forward against the measure.

What I find amazing is that there is no formal opposition.

I know a lot of pro-life and practicing Christian lawyers, how can this be?

Continue reading...

17 Responses to American Bar Association Considering to Support Same Sex Marriage

  • There are a lot of pro-life doctors, too, yet the AMA and the ACOG are officially pro-abortion. There are pro-life teachers, but nobody would ever know that if the NEA were the only voice of that profession.

    It’s not about what the average professional wants. It’s about who is in power.

  • There may well be formal opposition to this within the legal profession, but it may not be widely known.

  • You’d be surprised by how many pro-lifers are for gay marriage, especially among the young. I think polls bear that out. I’d suspect that there are more among lawyers. Today, even pro-choice lawyers will concede that Roe v. Wade was a weak decision. The legal case for gay marriage may be stronger. The government interest in preventing abortion is stronger than in banning gay marriage. If you separate procreation from marriage as we have done in the US, there’s little reason to ban gay marriage.

  • Lawyers aren’t required to be members of the ABA to practice. So I oppose this kind of stuff the ABA does by simply not joining it.

  • I’m a member of the ABA but haven’t a clue how to express “organized opposition.”

    The ABA isn’t like the K of C. There aren’t any local monthly meetings in which policy is discussed. Instead, you are regularly invited to events like meet-and-greats or seminars – all useful to an aspiring lawyer but not a venue for expressing discontent with ABA support of particular political or social issues.

    In other words, her statement seems to me to be a misrepresentation since it presumes that there is a venue for such discussion – that ABA members are asked whether they support same sex marriage policies or not. This simply isn’t so.

  • The ABA is a completely voluntary association. About 29% of all American attorneys are members. I have never belonged simply because the ABA, like most professional associations in this country, has long been dominated by leftist activist members.

    A good alternative for conservative attorneys is the Federalist Society.

  • I agree with Don. The sort of lawyers who are strongly pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage aren’t the sort of lawyers who would involve themselves in the ABA.

  • I quit the ABA years ago. It has a terrific Tax Section that is very valuable to tax lawyers, but I could not stomach the lefty politics. Most tax attorneys lean conservative and ignore the liberal politics of the ABA. I just couldn’t take it. Unfortunately I do not believe that the Federalist Society has a tax section.

  • Many of us left when it adopted a pro-abortion position in the early 90s. I had the privilege of resigning twice. My firm inadvertently re-enrolled us the year after I first resigned. I got the chance to write a second letter of protest and resignation.

  • A very similar thing happened to me, ctd.

  • I don’t disagree with the analysis of the ABA’s policy stances. Indeed, there are few law schools that are not as far Left. However, there is a caveat that need be stated: new lawyers cannot afford to paint targets on themselves by publicly stating their politics.

    The Bush Administration was not the first to use the internet to vet CVs and resumes and will not be the last. The present administration – in all of its departments down to the lowest level that hires attorneys – looks for the writings and affiliations of applicants to determine whether the prospective attorney has the right “temperment” to be hired. This is true for non-profit and for-profit corporations as well. Certainly the law firms are doing the same.

    Unless new attorneys wish to go right into their own practice – a choice that few can afford to make – newly minted lawyers should, in general, not donate money to campaigns, join organizations that betray their political leanings (e.g. like the Federalist Society or the St. Thomas Moore Law Society), or become active in local politics. They SHOULD join their local bar association, if nothing else than for the contact opportunities and in order to get notification of Continuing Legal Education opportunities. The ABA also provides these opportunities and the new lawyer ignores it at their own peril.

    Some would say that this position suggests a lack of conviction. Such a view is short-sighted.

    In order to have conservative judges, justices, prosecutors, and the like, there must first be lawyers that can find a job after passing the bar. Rashly putting one’s politics out there is foolish. I would even go so far as to say that first year law students should be advised by thier administrations to take down their social networking sites and adopt a pseudonym when commenting anywhere on the net.

    Such is the world we live in.

  • Well since i am only a pre-baby lawyer i can’t say too much about the ABA. I haven’t joined the organization and my only dealings are with Model Rules. I agree with G-Veg. I am weary of the internet and posting my views until i figure out the job plan. I don’t want to burn bridges before I get into the practice.

  • I don’t know how to respond to B-Veg’s rather sober assesment as a general matter, but I will say that at my law firm (which has decidely more Dems than Repubs), we hire plenty of lawyers with STM Federalist Soc memberships on their resumes. Thankfully, very few of my lib partners are intolerant of conservatives and vice versa. We disagree plenty, but are seldom disagreeable about our differences. I have a hunch that this is true at many other large law firms, but can’t really for sure.

  • Very sorry for my clumsy typo, G-Veg.

  • I think G-Veg outlines one of several possible approaches new lawyers can take. It really depends on the individual. As far as I know, my friends in both the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society listed those affiliations on their resumes. I listed STM, but not FedSoc or (for obvious reasons) ACS. None of my classmates relayed any horror stories or uncomfortable conversations in the interview process as a result of listing those affiliations; although a fellow summer clerk said he had once been treated to a lengthy lecture by a left-leaning partner who saw FedSoc on his resume (and a swiftly sent rejection letter).

    With regard to blogging and social networking, I think prospective new lawyers would be well-advised to make sure they monitor their Facebook pages, and comment under a pseudonym or handle of some type while blogging(although that may just be because I occasionally wish I could take back something I wrote, and wouldn’t want a prospective employer evaluating me based on that). Blogging and social networking are somewhat informal, and carry greater risks than a simple listing of membership on a resume.

  • I wish that “liberals” would actually be liberals and live up to the standards of their “coexist” bumper stickers. Aren’t they opposed to marginalization? Here we have the ABA marginalizing some lawyers; there we have the University of Illinois outright dismissing a professor. I just read a story in the local rag about eHarmony moving its corporate HQ out of Pasadena; the local hopenchangers are absoulutely giddy to be rid of that “homophobic” company.

    Where’s the tolerance? Where’s the love, man??

  • I never have joined the ABA although they keep calling me every couple years to sign up. Why would I pay $$ to a group that supports abortion and now, apparently, gay marriage?

    I just politely tell them I cannot join because of their pro-abort position. I guess I will now be able to add anti-marriage as well the next time they call.

    Not being a member of the ABA hasn’t hurt my career at all. You are better off (at least as a litigator) joining groups like your local bar associations.