26 May 2015

Events are Telescoping

The thud you heard when Ireland submitted to the sodomite zeitgeist was real.  

The reasons for the thud are mostly symbolic. A Western European nation putting into law its own suicide wish hardly qualifies as news these days. But for Ireland-- Ireland, for Paddy's sake-- to so enthusiastically cast off the natural law in favor of Sodom, with a stick in the eye of Holy Mother Church to boot, well that is just as depressing a symbol of how far we have fallen as I can think of.

I remember thinking in law school, back in the early '90s, when it became more obvious that the issue of equal rights for sodomy was the wedge issue of the left, that it was a grand overreach that would surely backfire. I mean, abortion, contraception, divorce-- these were all evils that involved the more-or-less natural relationship of man and woman, and people of the time would not have thought to put the act of sodomy on the level of marriage. It was only about that time that state criminal statutes against sodomy were being debated for repeal. Calling repeated sodomy "marriage" was beyond the pale.

How naive I was, because of course the illogic of contraception and divorce lead directly to sodomy and worse.

And how much do I wish to cite this naivete when I invite you to consider our imminent, miserable future. It took less than twenty years for sodomy to go from criminalized to human right. It will take far less than that to take real marriage from human right to criminalized.  

By that I mean, that those who actually act on the reality of what marriage is will be locked up. As the state will determine their views are unfit for children to believe, their children will be taken away from them. As faithful Catholic priests will refuse to go along with denying the truth of marriage, they will be locked up. You want the sacraments? Try getting them without priests. 

Mystics have predicted the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a sign of the end. "They will look for the red lamp in the sanctuary in vain." Well, maybe the sacrifice can take place in the priests' cells, but how are you going to go to Mass?

And all to the world's rejoicing.  You see, you had it coming all along, you bigots.

Making the gall of this all the more bitter, the majority of the hierarchs in the Church will stand by and let you suffer. Most mildly deploring the means of punishment, but not the fact of it. Some will cheer it on.  

You doubt this?

Consider the absolute lack of moral leadership in Ireland that led to this event. Consider the decay of morality brought about by a lack of catechesis and moral authority, brought on by an abandonment of the proper worship of God in the liturgy. Self-identified Catholics are pro-sodomy, pro-contraception, pro-divorce in more or less the same percentages as the pagan culture.  

This state of affairs is simply untenable.

Events are telescoping now.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!


18 comments:

ATW said...

"Making the gall of this all the more bitter, the majority of the hierarchs in the Church will stand by and let you suffer. Most mildly deploring the means of punishment, but not the fact of it. Some will cheer it on."

Yes, some will indeed cheer it on. The shepherds will enthusiastically toss their most loyal sheep to the wolves.

What a way to go. Not going down together, encouraging each other in the Faith, but betrayed by those sworn to defend you.

Curmudgeon said...

One of the few sane Irish MPs should propose to take the invocation of Holy Trinity out of the preamble to their constitution. It's a blashphemy.

Anonymous said...

You're paranoid. You appear to believe that straight couples who choose to get married will be persecuted -- targeted because they are straight, or targeted because they choose to have children. What world do you live in, Tinman? You say that straight marriage will be criminalized. Seriously? No one is going to FORCE you to marry a man. No one will force a woman to marry another woman. What's on the table is the right of consenting adults to choose which other adult -- of whichever sex -- to marry UNDER CIVIL LAW. You are a lawyer. Surely you understand that civil law represents a different realm than Church law? Has any federal, state, or local authority in the United States ever -- even once? -- required Catholic priests to perform a marriage for a couple with previous marriages in their past?

If you want to battle something that actually brings an end to heterosexual marriages, why are you not part of a large Christian movement to make divorce illegal in the United States? Surely more marriages (including Catholic marriages) fall apart because it's legal for a couple to divorce on almost any grounds (or no grounds whatsoever). So too, a straight couple has for a long time had the legal right to marry without any serious preparation for the commitment they are entering into. Remember how Brittany Spears married her friend in Vegas on Saturday, many years ago, and had filed for divorce by Monday or Tuesday because they were drunk when they got married? If you want to talk about threats to "traditional" marriage, how about starting with people -- straight people -- who hold an incredibly short-sighted, superficial view of marriage? As opposed to, say, the same-sex couple I know who have been committed to each other for three decades. That couple poses no threat to my heterosexual, sacramental marriage -- and no one is about to throw you and your spouse, or me and my spouse, in the slammer when my friends are allowed to marry. But if paranoia and a persecution complex is your thing, well hey, you have a constitutional right to splash it all over your blog. And no, that's not the police knocking on your door to take away your right to do so. You will still have the right to write about this subject, pray about it, march back and forth on the sidewalk with your anti-gay slogans on placards. What you do not have a right to do is determine whether a gay couple gets married by a judge or by a Protest minister -- or rabbi, etc. -- who choose to marry them, using a marriage license issued by civil (not Church) authorities.

--Steve

Tamsin said...

... the state will determine their views are unfit for children to believe, their children will be taken away from them.

Not enough parents, let alone grandparents, understand that the homosexuals are playing for keeps: for the right to indoctrinate your children, all children, whether they are "born that way" or no. Your religious freedom be damned, because homosexuality is now a religious movement. The central dogma is that individual sexual satisfaction is the highest good.

We may not be able to convince people that Christianity is a sexual identity, since chastity must be taught, but perhaps we can convince people that homosexuality is so far willed as to be a chosen religion which competes to be the sole established religion in these United States.

Long-Skirts said...

Steve said:

"If you want to talk about threats to "traditional" marriage, how about starting with people -- straight people -- who hold an incredibly short-sighted, superficial view of marriage? As opposed to, say, the same-sex couple I know who have been committed to each other for three decades"

A-PARTY-OF-TWO

There are some couples
O, so nice
As nice, as nice
Can be.

They have their weddings
Roses, rice
And plan forever
"We".

Everyday
A-party-of-two
A-party-of-two
No more.

They know the latest
Things to do
That pleasure their skins
And pore.

"What need for seeds
And eggs take space
We desire to be
In lust -

Our lives are erotic
Never neurotic
In cholesterol-free
We trust."

Some of these couples
Are Bob and Rick,
Some are Michael
And Sue,

No matter their genders
Each has his trick
Of blending secretions
Like stew.

Much money they'll save
On themselves these few
From their vows 'til their graves
They'll live well...

But because their INTENT
Was a-party-of-two...
Alone they'll be seated
In Hell!

TLM said...

Funny that this blog post brought to mind a sort of a 'prophecy' from Fr. Corapi quite a few years ago. 'Member him? He said that the Devil was poised and ready to annihilate 'marriage, family and the very priesthood of Christ with attacks from the 'inside' equal to the 'outside'. This was about 10 + years ago, and at the time, I thought to myself.....'It'll never happen, not in the Church of Christ, it will NEVER go that far.' I still pray for him, I think he was railroaded, but I also think his reaction was disordered, and he went off the rails himself, so?? But his 'prediction' was SPOT ON.

Elizabeth said...

And still....not a single peep from the Pope. Shame on every single Cardinal who voted for this guy.

Jane Chantal said...

Steve:

There is one thing about which you are spot-on correct: the reason that the idea of "gay marriage" has gained any traction whatsoever is that straight people in overwhelming numbers have chosen to abandon natural law and reject the virtue of chastity.

Even if every gay couple in the world were as mutually committed as your friends have been, "gay marriage" would be wrong. Why? Because the claim that acts of non-vaginal intercourse -- acts for which our bodies are not designed -- are harmless, normal behaviors is a LIE. I guarantee you that society's embrace of this lie will result in boys and girls being increasingly influenced against their own physical, psychological, and spiritual health, whether subtly via re-engineered "sex education", sexually harmful propaganda disguised as "anti-bullying" training, or less subtly in social situations. How are boys and girls to defend themselves against this lie when any attempt to do so, by themselves or by the adults they look to for help, is silenced by shrill accusations of "bigotry", "homophobia", "bullying", etc.?

If you think that is paranoia, just know that a friend of mine who is a teacher, now retired, told me several years ago that female fourth-grader had confided to her that she never wanted to get married because she "didn't want to have to [euphemism for being the active partner in an act of non-vaginal intercourse]." And that was then.

It is all well and good to insist that every sexual encounter must be consensual -- we know just how effective THAT has been in the ever darker and more dangerous sexual wilderness created by the contraceptive mentality. If you truly care about others, you will stop pretending that "sex is just sex" and that "gay marriage" is marriage.

Anonymous said...

3) Many argue it is unfair to deny the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, which is akin to arguing a man with hearing too poor for military service should still get veterans’ benefits because (a) he has every other qualification for military service in excess, (b) he really, really wants to be a veteran, and (c) he did not choose to have bad hearing. Many legal benefits of marriage were enacted to bolster couples who might, intentionally or unintentionally, have tiny non-breadwinners running around the house one day. Others not related to childbearing, such as hospital visitation rights, can be handled by power of attorney or separate legislation.

In short, the claim of marriage “inequality” rests on a flawed premise that legal marriage arose because of some strange need to have government license relationships. But common sense and human experience suggest marriage is a child-centric institution, and it is not hateful to rule someone ineligible for an institution if he/she/they cannot fulfill its foundational purposes. (Which is why comparisons of anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage bans are inaccurate – nothing about an interracial couple frustrates the purposes of marriage, which is why those bans were wrong.) A colorblind man may want to be an interior decorator, having excellent spatial sense and professional know-how – forget that color selection is a key reason we have interior decorating, declare that he simply has an “alternative” type of vision, and hire him to do your sales office? A woman born with an inner ear defect may have dreamed of being a ballerina since she was a little girl – ignore that use of balance to execute aesthetic poses and moves is the reason ballet came about and give her the role? A Caucasian student may have every qualification for a minority scholarship in spades, save skin color, and may even feel “trapped” in a body of “the wrong race” – award it to her? The obvious answer to these questions is “no”, because no matter how nice, civic-minded, determined, and otherwise qualified they might be, they are inculpably missing something essential to the reason their desired roles exist. So, too, with same-sex relationships and marriage, even when people like your friends have so many qualities helpful to marriage.
Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm and your loyalty to friends and your cause. I would just submit the cause is based on an unspoken, and inaccurate, premise. Have a blessed week.

Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis

Anonymous said...

2) You raise a sincere misunderstanding common among same-sex marriage advocates’ that traditional marriage defenders think a gay couple on the block will somehow spark a divorce in a heterosexual couple down the street, a misperception partly fed by our use of the phrase “marriage is under attack”. Actually, marriage will be weakened not by attack, but by dilution – when a marriage license becomes a governmental “attaboy” for a consensual adult relationship, then society becomes logically obligated to recognize other consensual adult relationships, and marriage stretched to mean anything eventually means nothing. Polygamy is already cropping up in the court system. Last year the German government-sponsored Ethics Commission asserted social disfavor is no longer a valid reason to ban incest. Temporary marriages are being batted around in academic conversations. Unmarried Italian couples began demonstrating for certain rights of the married back in 2007. One can even envision “marriage” for live-in caregivers and their charges – after all, why “discriminate” against a consensual adult household, bound by common interest and perhaps affection, just because the “couple” is not physically intimate? Sound preposterous? Last year, two male friends in New Zealand were legally wed as part of a radio promotion to win Rugby World Cup tickets.

Anonymous said...

Steve,
I appreciate your very zealous and sincere argument, and I hope my response exudes the same sincerity. Your text actually illuminates some of the weakness in the Church defense, namely that it has defended traditional marriage on the grounds of “religious freedom” and “religious morality”. The problem is that wider society views religious moral codes as simply a set of pious hoops made up by God (or the Church hierarchy) to see who wants heaven bad enough. I would argue God gave us traditional morality not just as a path to heaven, but also as a discipline to help build a healthy society in the here and now, just as the discipline of exercise requires the sacrifice of some comfort for the sake of larger gains.
So with that as a backdrop, I would make three points:

1) We start by posing the seldom-asked question “Why did civil society adopt the legal institution of marriage in the first place?” (Indeed, it is intriguing that said question is nearly absent from the debate.) We have had wills to handle passage of property for centuries (and do you really need marriage to manage the passage of property anyway?), and the generic “social stability” sometimes cited by same-sex advocates would imply those same advocates would seek to curtail divorce with equal fervor. The only answer that makes sense is that society subconsciously wanted a test of seriousness and a legal reinforcement to those couples who wished to be so close they might procreate and raise society’s future, i.e. children.

Even childless-by-choice, infertile, and older couples have a tiny, but nonzero, chance of procreation, whether by change of mind, “accident”, surgical remedy, or plain biological quirk. And that tiny percentage of heterosexual couples who have absolutely zero prospect of conception (such as where the wife has had a hysterectomy) still serve as a model of an adult male-female relationship to others’ kids, kids who have a 90% - 95% of being heterosexual (if one accepts the reasonable premise that orientation is inborn), and a likelihood of growing up into such relationships and even becoming parents themselves. (Which is why adoption, surrogacy, and artificial reproduction do not resolve the issue – to argue that parent gender does not matter is to argue kids pick up cues from their parents on everything but relationship, and that nature is erroneously picky in having children born to a man and woman.) To confer marriage on same-sex couples, who – through no fault of their own – cannot fulfill the very reasons marriage came into existence is for the state to get into the business of licensing people’s emotional attachments. Ponder the sweep of that precedent for a moment.

TLMer said...

I have a hard time getting excited about this topic. If the State wishes to license homosexual unions what difference should that make to me?

The State approves of all kinds of evil, so how is this one any more vile? I am more concerned with the autodemolition of the Catholic Church, Timman.

I don't believe we are going to go 1984 here, but rather Brave New World, where the Truth is not outlawed, but it is irrelevant to most.

My $.02.

Karen said...

TLMer said...
"I don't believe we are going to go 1984 here, but rather Brave New World, where the Truth is not outlawed, but it is irrelevant to most.

We are there now; it is irrelevant to most or at least now worth the discomfort involved in defending it. But the Truth WILL be outlawed in the public square.

Roke said...

Dear Long-Skirts,
This may be your finest work.

c matt said...

You will still have the right to write about this subject, pray about it, march back and forth on the sidewalk with your anti-gay slogans on placards. What you do not have a right to do is determine whether a gay couple gets married by a judge or by a Protest minister -- or rabbi, etc. -- who choose to marry them, using a marriage license issued by civil (not Church) authorities.

And you won't have the right not to participate in a faux-wedding ceremony, and you won't have the right to state disapproval of faux-weddings and run for office or hold a job or possibly own a business or hold a professional license.

Pete said...

Bryan Kirchoff and Anon: Nicely done.

To TLMer: I heard a slogan by a radio host who I think has it right: "You will be made to care." Erick Erickson, an evangelical conservative blogger. Just blog that phrase to see how he came up with it and examples of its application. He is right. We won't be allowed to remain on the sidelines, indifferent and unaffected.

LMG said...

Tim Man is very much a worrier, but what he says about Christian marriage is true! Do not think for a minute that Gay "Marriage" is not putting Christian marriage in jeopardy! Next will be the "marriage" of several other disordered relationships. It is being discussed around the world and will be a reality if we do not stop this sin now.

I challenge everybody whom is reading this blog to have your families pray the rosary at least every Friday together, preferably daily! IF even 50 percent of the Catholics in America would pray the family rosary for our country, the evilness would start to fall away and the good would spread quickly. We can lament the sadness of our country, but until all families take up the"sword" of the beautiful rosary, there will not be peace and the evil will prevail.

PRAY, PRAY, PRAY the rosary. It is a gift from God and you will grow in holiness as Blessed Mother promised.

TLMer said...

But, again, why is THIS state-approved sin any worse than the myriad of other sins the state sanctions? Federal intrusion into states rights, old history (1865). Approval of slave labor to continue our way of life, still ongoing. Occupation of foreign countires and killing of foreign civilians, with neither a declaration of war nor clear, objective proof of a real and immanent threat to America, ongoing. Approval of the slaughter of millions of innocent American pre-born people, ongoing. State-funded contraception, in-progress. Deep and insipid spying on American citizens, still happening. The outright celebration of adultery and sexual immorality, ibid. And so on, and so on.

This nation has persistently ignorered or persecuted, Catholicism from our origins unto this very day, and it has violated or allowed to be violated natural and divine laws all throughout.

Why is the legalization of homosexual unions such a special boogey man?

Isn't it rather more likely that all of these evils, including the legalization of homosexual unions are merely the fruit of a tree that was evil from the get-go, and still persists in wickedness?

Even more troubling to me, aren't these signs of the autodemolition of the Church in the West, especially in America?