Christian conservatives must file for divorce from abusive bride, the GOP
This story was published originally on Mike Church’s website.
PersonalLiberty.com
Mandeville, La. — I have been warning you that the Republican Party cannot and will not be the entity that helps “take back America” if the taking back includes a revival of the Christian moral teaching of 1,900 years.
We now have the proof that this is becoming reality and that Christian conservatives better prepare themselves for the martyrdom that is to come as a result of the error of the secular conversion of moral dogma into moral “choice.” “Opinion” never had any say-so in this teaching, and truth says and always will say that it still doesn’t; yet that is what is driving this greatest of all heresies that “liberty” has become. Pope Leo XIII pointed this out as succinctly as is possible in his encyclical “Libertas.”
[I]n treating of the so-called modern liberties, distinguished between their good and evil elements; and We have shown that whatsoever is good in those liberties is as ancient as truth itself, and that the Church has always most willingly approved and practiced that good: but whatsoever has been added as new is, to tell the plain truth, of a vitiated kind, the fruit of the disorders of the age, and of an insatiate longing after novelties.
Seeing, however, that many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived, We feel it a pressing duty, for the sake of the common good, to treat separately of this subject.
It may shock you to learn that the composition date of the above is June 20, 1888. That the Holy Father could see our current preference for perversion as the destiny of the West, 85 years before Roe and the advent of a sexual “revolution” that has yet to reach peak deviancy, can only be explained by his being gifted the power of foresight by the Holy Ghost. Laugh all you want, mock all you wish and ignore Leo’s solution all you wish; but do so knowing his solution has the benefit of 1,900 years of success in familial and societal stability.
Leo concluded his admonition to the future advocates of a porn industry that is nearly ubiquitous in its presence in American households; near majority acceptance — nay, embrace — of homosexual “marriage” and acts (“lifestyle”); immodesty in dress to the point of public nudity being of no concern to children or their equally provocative parents and on and on and …. oh, but we must acknowledge the liberty to dress and act and fornicate according to our opinion of “morality.”
Leo warned that if the state would not accept and discharge its responsibility to stand athwart the growing hedonism (i.e., to become like animals) then “liberalism” would prove to be the vehicle that carried the seeds of societal “perversion.”
[M]an, by a necessity of his nature, is wholly subject to the most faithful and ever-enduring power of God; and that, as a consequence, any liberty, except that which consists in submission to God and in subjection to His will, is unintelligible.
To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists….For, to reject the supreme authority to God, and to cast off all obedience to Him in public matters, or even in private and domestic affairs, is the greatest perversion of liberty and the worst kind of liberalism; and what We have said must be understood to apply to this alone in its fullest sense.
Leo wasn’t alone; enter Patrick Henry.
Eighty-seven years before Pope Leo XIII wrote the above prophecy and admonition, that most famous and formerly beloved of the Founders, Patrick Henry, saw the same thing coming to America. Henry had been chastened by the horrors of the French Revolution and had no doubt read Jefferson’s infamous “Adam & Eve” letter:
The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the [French Revolution], and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is.
It is true enough that the Great Terror had yet to begin; but there were ample amounts of executions and atrocities, including the infamous elimination of all Catholic religious orders, including priests who were then ordered to take an oath to the new revolutionary government (Congress).
And if they failed to do so, priests were forbidden to perform Mass or remain in their parishes; these were called non-juring priests. On Sept. 2, 1793, 200 priests and three bishops were brutally massacred by the Revolutionary Guard for refusing to take the oath. These atrocities continued and on July 17, 1794, 14 Carmelite Nuns were executed by the guillotine for refusing the same oath. Of this blood, to say nothing of the estimated 200,000 Catholics who perished in the Vendee, Jefferson wrote to John Adams:
(sic)…all Europe, Russia excepted, has caught the spirit; and all will attain representative government, more or less perfect. this is now well understood to be a necessary check on kings, whom they will probably think it more prudent to chain and tame, than to exterminate. to attain all this however rivers of blood must yet flow, & years of desolation pass over, yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation. for what inheritance, so valuable, can man leave to his posterity?
It is no secret that Jefferson had a dismissive opinion of Henry. Henry would learn of this through friends and remained puzzled over it, thinking he and Jefferson had fought for the same revolution in America together. Unlike Jefferson though, Henry never stopped fretting over the rise of the secular state and remained a devout Episcopalian to his dying breath. Shortly before his death, Henry wrote to his friend Archibald Blair, the memory of the French Revolution Jefferson was so enamored by, fresh in his mind:
I do acknowledge that I am not capable to form a correct judgment on the present politics of the world. The wide extent to which the present contentions have gone will scarcely permit any observer to see enough in detail to enable him to form anything like a tolerable judgment on the final result, as it may respect the nations in general.
But, as to France, I have no doubt in saying that to her it will be calamitous. Her conduct has made it the interest of the great family of mankind to wish the downfall of her present government; because its existence is incompatible with that of all others within its reach.
And, whilst I see the dangers that threaten ours from her intrigues and her arms, I am not so much alarmed as at the apprehension of her destroying the great pillars of all government and of social life, — I mean virtue, morality, and religion.
This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed. In vain may France show and vaunt her diplomatic skill, and brave troops: so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger. But believing, as I do, that these are in danger, that infidelity in its broadest sense, under the name of philosophy, is fast spreading, and that, under the patronage of French manners and principles, everything that ought to be dear to man is covertly but successfully assailed…
Henry wasn’t quite as specific as Pope Leo but he certainly shared the same sentiment. To his lament and ours, the French infection spread over all of the West including the United States.
Thanks to the “separation of church and state” which is now regurgitated as though it came from the pen of St Paul, there is no political force to stop our current moral slide and as we shall see, there is no political party to participate in that endeavor either.
Having written all this as prelude, let’s move to the modern day “defender” of the “social order” and the political home of “social conservatives”, the GOP. Witness that the Log Cabin Republicans have filed an amicus brief on behalf of a lawsuit before the SCOTUS that alleges it’s purpose to be “speech equality” which is directly linked to “marriage equality”. How is “free speech” linked to marriage, you ask?
“No two justices on the Supreme Court have been more vocal about their opposition to curtailments of the First Amendment that exist because of restrictions on campaign contributions than Justices [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Liberty Education Forum and Log Cabin Republicans National Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo stated.
“In states that ban marriage equality, straight couples literally have twice the freedom of speech as their same-sex counterparts. While we hope this argument resonates with all nine members of the Supreme Court, our amicus brief, formally filed with the Supreme Court last week, was prepared with the express purpose of appealing to the conservative wing of the Court by expressing the very real and quantifiable limits to the First Amendment that exist because of marriage equality bans.”
It is highly doubtful that the writers of this brief have any belief in the idea that the so-called freedom of speech has any application to the sexual “unions” they endorse. Further, this statement is so full of logical and moral errors it is difficult to choose a starting place to repel the arguments; but here is a simple suggestion.
If “speech” now equals sexual “freedom,” then where does a future court draw the line? Will adults who “enjoy” the sexual company of minor children be denied “speech equality?”
Will adults who enjoy the sexual company of multiple adults in public be denied “speech equality?”
I could compose a query about adults and animals, but I hope that is not necessary (although quite probable).
Note also that this brief is directed at Catholic Justices Scalia and Thomas. This suggests that any Catholic clinging to the church’s catechism on the matter cannot be a Republican, cannot be a promoter of “free speech” and, indeed, must be condemned by some pejorative, perhaps “bigot” or “homophobe” — and that’s the best-case scenario.
For if the court is to rule this “speech” as protected, then that will afford it legal protections; these would then unleash legislatures to proscribe punishments be meted out to offenders — that is, those who cling to speaking moral truths — to say nothing of the economic and social costs to be borne by the faithful.
Now, if you think I am exaggerating for the sake of provocation, let’s take a look at the precise language the church uses today to describe the “free speech” acts of homosexuals.
In 1986, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI clarified the church’s message on this matter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the “Pastoral Care of Homosexuals.” I have added emphasis where Log Cabin Republicans, and soon the rank and file GOP, must certainly recoil in horror. Disassociation will give way to an acrimony formally reserved for “hippies” and “liberals.”
Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975.
That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence.
At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions.
These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
One must pay close attention to the language used here, especially the term “objective” to describe the disorder.
In Thomastic Philosophy, man is what is known as a “universal,” meaning we know what a man is by his nature and his nature is known to all other men. As an example, if you are at home watching TV and there is a knock on your door, you don’t wonder if it is the neighbor’s dog or a stray raccoon is doing the knocking, you know it is a man.
We can then think about the man’s actions and thought in one of two ways: subjective and objective. The modern philosopher, of course, thinks subjectively, meaning the man has no true purpose other than what “purpose” he can imagine for himself.
But when we think properly that man does have a true purpose granted him by Almighty God, then his actions become objective, meaning we know what man is allowed to use his free will to do and what he is to use his free will to abstain from.
The church is, thus, holding that homosexuality is an objective disorder, meaning this falls into the category of things God has told man he is forbidden from doing.
To oppose this teaching is to oppose God’s law and, thus, commit mortal sin and place one’s soul outside of the state of grace needed to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven.
What I have just explained to you has been true since creation and affirmed by the Son of God himself in the teaching of his Apostles and His church since its inception.
If the church and the faithful waiver on this, officially, they will have entered a state of heresy and will cease being the church, established by Christ who gave the keys to Saint Peter as vicar (Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:17-19) and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The ramifications are clear as is the identity of the culprit in this well-conceived conspiracy.
I understand those who say that because all we have is the two-party system, then we have to use its eggs, break them and “make a few omelets.”
OK, what of the consideration that the souls of entire nations are in peril and to acquiesce may guarantee their surrender to Hades, but it should be done for the sake of the chance of obtaining an earthly, political “victory?”
Question: Where might I cash this victory in at? Then there is the “other, other” political solution: Leave it to the voters and state legislatures. The same ones that have bowed before the altar of federal Medicaid funds for 40 years and accepted abortion in their states in exchange for school lunch and interstate repaving funds!?
Sure, they pass their acts and then go meekly into that ghastly night when an elder in black robes, bearing a federal judge ID card, orders them to. I cannot blame them because they have been taught since birth that “federalism pays” and that where a state interest, like marriage (not that the state should have control over marriage; it should not) clashes with a federal statute or judges diktat, then “the Feds are Supreme.”
The British evasion
If you persist in thinking this issue can be solved by the states’ having power to check homosexual marriages at the courthouse, the history of this error and the others of “liberty” says you’re wrong. Pray that it will not cost you your head. Hilaire Belloc, the great Catholic historian, summed up the future for American Catholics and Christians. (Note: I’ve replaced “England” with “America.”)
… though there is not the least chance yet America’s conversion — many disasters must come upon her first — still the immediate future is going to be chaos of opinion, and in that chaos the order, the civility of the Faith will make a deep impression if it is presented, but it has to be presented.The difficulty just now is that American Catholics do not present it at all. They fiddle about with unimportant things of detail…
Sixty-two years after Belloc’s death, England, despite the existence of two entrenched political parties, both claiming to “represent the people,” is more secular and punishing of the faith than ever before.
The largest two parties war over war and banning cigarettes, making abortions more common, and accommodating Muslim immigrants, even if they are pedophiles. To illustrate where we are headed (the Democrats are already there) in staying as part of the GOP, I went to the Labour Party main site and ran a simple search for “Christianity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment