Friday, June 26, 2015

Catholics in the New Sodom

In today’s act of naked judicial tyranny, the majority on the Supreme Court didn’t even bother looking for penumbras.  They merely engaged in acts of celebratory flatulence and then examined the gaseous emissions for the “right” to superimpose a trendy new definition of “marriage” on the whole country, a definition that sort of ignored the reality that when a man and a woman engage in heterosexual intercourse children, some of whom even end up on the Supreme Court someday (without, however, necessarily growing up) are frequently the result, but when two men engage in sex acts they can’t hope for anything but a variety of virulent diseases, while when two women engage in sex acts they are unlikely to experience anything but an increased need for therapy (along with a higher incidence of smoking and alcoholism than the general public).

But the Five, you know, are hopelessly hip and tragically trendy and can’t be bothered to use their brains or anything when pondering this thing called “marriage” or the reasons why states have even bothered in the past to care about what has now become the temporary legal recognition of a person’s primary sex buddy (which, by the way, is now all that “civil marriage” means; it is not permanent, not ordered toward children, not exclusive, and not even remotely meaningful--it is just a way to make sure that the person you are currently screwing gets your furniture and whatnot if you die).  The Four have given them a delightful scolding; if there is any bright spot in today’s noxious cloud of judicial emissions it is these dissenting opinions, which make one sort of proud in a “voices of the dying Republic” kind of way.

It is a small comfort.

But amid the chorus of celebration by the people who just can’t wait to start making us religious believers into second-class citizens while they shove rainbow cake in our faces and set the American Flag alight with the rainbow flames of Sodom, I think it might be a good idea to think about what this means for us Catholics and for those who share our beliefs going forward. What will it be like for Catholics to live in the new Sodom?

The Court pays some lip service to the idea that religious people, for some totally unfathomable reason, may not accept that relationships based on sodomitical acts are exactly the same as relationships which produce children as the natural and expected result of the kind of sex their parents are having.  With each other, that is.  But the Court is vague about this, and does not promise that religious people will be free to do anything much except quietly teach in our own homes and schools that gay “marriage” remains a totally insane ontological impossibility despite our country’s temporary insanity.

What that means is that quite likely it will soon be mandated that children in public schools be taught to celebrate sodomitical relationships and call them “marriage,” that they will be forced to chant that two moms are the same as a mom and dad and two dads are the same as a mom and a dad, and that they will be taught that anyone who says otherwise is a hateful bigot.

And soon in the military our armed forces members will be forced, under threat of court-martial and other punishments, to affirm and celebrate the sodomitical relationships of others in the service.

And soon in all sorts of charitable endeavors the Church will be told that she has to pay lip service to the fiction of gay “marriage” or else lose everything from federal funds to licenses to tax exemptions--which, true, are not the point of charitable works, but which may make it difficult or even impossible for the Church to participate in these endeavors.  (And the secular world will say, “Oh, so what?  Pour out your libations to gay “marriage” and go back to serving the homeless. What does it matter?”)

And soon Catholic schools, Catholic bookstores, and other Catholic businesses will be told they have to support the idiotic pretense of gay “marriage” in hiring and employment and benefits and other such things or else lose accreditation and funding and even the legal right to operate.

And that’s just the beginning.

It is time, now, to prepare for the fight ahead.  Some of us have already been preparing because we have known for almost a decade that this was coming.  What kinds of things will that fight involve?  Below I list a few of the possibilities:

1. Catholics and other believers will have to exit the public schools.  If you really have no other option to educate your children you will have to be prepared to tell them on a near-daily basis: “No, your teacher and your principal and your friends are wrong; two men are not a marriage, two women are not a marriage, and we are not bigots for believing that marriage is only between a man and a woman.”  Honestly, it’s far less exhausting to home school than to undo this level of frequent and persistent damage.

2. Catholics and other believers will have to exit the military. People of strong religious faith have often stressed the kind of service-mindedness that lends itself well to the defense of our nation, but let me ask my fellow parents this: are you okay with sending your child to fight and perhaps die in the name of gay “marriage” and knowing that his fellow soldiers and superior officers will see him as a bigot?

3. Catholics and others who run small faith-based charitable organizations will have to take steps to protect themselves from being forced, possibly by lawsuit, to support gay “marriage” in word or deed.  If they cannot do this they may have to become the sort of charity that only serves fellow Catholics.  If that is not an option and the state is trying to force them to violate their consciences they may have to shut down.

4. Catholic schools and other Catholic businesses will have to consider such things as contract language in hiring contracts etc. that will allow the school or business to continue to run in such a way that the business will not be coerced into supporting gay “marriage.” If this is not possible they, too, may have to shut down.

5. Catholics who own or operate ANY wedding-related business will need to prepare to find another line of work.  (I honestly think that one of the greatest acts of resistance for Catholics against today’s lunacy would be to boycott the entire Wedding Industrial Complex and return to the idea of the wedding as a religious ceremony only, to be celebrated, if possible, during a regular Sunday Mass and then to include either small parties at the bride’s home or a simple parish hall reception, but I realize that may be too radical for many at this point.)

These are just a few of the most obvious things we should be thinking about and preparing for.

In the meantime we should keep up the fight on other fronts.  I think that we should work to end no-fault divorce, for instance--if gay “marriage” is the nuclear assault on the nuclear family, no-fault divorce was the first laboratory experiment in splitting the atom.  Besides, if we were to toughen divorce laws so that divorce could only be for serious reasons and would require counseling etc. beforehand (except in extreme cases such as those involving domestic violence) how many of the less serious couples, gay or straight, would bother with marriage in the first place?  When marriage is seen, as it so often is these days, as the party you have to celebrate your long-term commitment to your contraceptive fornication partner with whom you have been sinning for years already, the first step is to make it obvious that the law takes the whole thing a bit more seriously.

We should also keep up the fight against IVF and manufactured parenthood.  A good place to start would be with laws that require donor children to be given full access to their biological parents’ identities and information about health etc.--no more anonymous sperm or egg donors anywhere in America. Another place to start would be banning all commercial surrogacy and making it illegal to import a surrogate-born child into America.

The truth is that we have not yet begun to fight.  And it will take a lot more than the repeated and obnoxious cerebral farting of five members of the Supreme Court to stop us from defending real marriage.


DJL said...

"Cerebral farting."

Thank you. That's about the only thing that could make me smile about any of this.

John InEastTX said...

"When marriage is seen, as it so often is these days, as the party you have to celebrate your long-term commitment to your contraceptive fornication partner with whom you have been sinning for years already..."

If you can spare a moment, could you divert some of that passionate energy towards prayers that the Diocese will get some motion going on my annulment?

I hate to think that someone in my parish might be thinking thoughts like that about my current putatively irregular marital situation.

freddy said...

John, just wanted to let you know that you're in my prayers. Church bureaucracy is proof that purgatory exists.
Erin: great piece! Too bad you're not on the Supreme Court -- you & Scalia could have so much fun.

jeninok said...

I sure wish you would post this on Facebook. Jen

jeninok said...

I sure wish you would publish this on Facebook.

Jen in OK

Red Cardigan said...

John, you’re in my prayers too. Hope things will get moving soon.

Jen, I linked to it on FB, but I don’t have a page for my blog there.

L. said...

I was hoping to read one of your signature rants, Erin, and you didn't disappoint me!
Now excuse me, while I go put more sprinkles on my pride cake.

Red Cardigan said...

Aw, L., you never disappoint me either. Have a slice for me (I’ve lost five pounds recently--gluttony is a sin too!).

Elizabeth said...

Good luck on finding political momentum for ending no-fault divorce. The population enjoys it too much, including a number of "conservative" politicians.

Elizabeth said...

There is nothing about lesbianism that inherently causes alcohol abuse. Lesbians, like everybody else, live in social milieux and need support. Below is a discussion of the findings and areas for future research.

zippycatholic said...

"Catholics and other believers will have to exit the public schools."

And the parochial schools too, thanks in no small part to efforts of many pro-lifers, in the grips of a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, to make sure that even parochial schools aren't permitted to stay distinctively Catholic:

The hostage-takers are becoming more emboldened all the time, and no amount of appeasement is going to keep them from continuing the murder-and-sodomy mill:

Red Cardigan said...

Zippy, we’ve disagreed on that issue enough, but let me just say that if the worst thing going on in a Catholic school is that they are not immediately tossing an unwed pregnant employee out into the streets in a time of high unemployment they’re probably not so bad. The ones that don’t teach actual Catholicism in any area are much more problematic.

You are, of course, free to believe that all Catholics must sever all contact and withdraw all help from unwed pregnant family members in order to lash them with perpetual shame for the duration of their lives (while continuing, of course, to welcome and support the men who fathered the children since we can’t know who they are without a paternity test); you can believe that no Catholic business owner ought ever to employ an unwed mother unless she can prove she was raped, or something (and even then you can insist that she has to put the baby up for adoption before she’s fit to be hired). But the Church doesn’t actually teach any of that, and I don’t believe it myself.

zippycatholic said...

I'll just note that you clearly haven't gotten any better at characterizing my views accurately in the intervening time.

Red Cardigan said...

If I mischaracterize your views, Zippy, it’s because I don’t understand them. If you could wave a magic wand and transform America into a perfect Catholic society, recognizing that we are all still fallen and men and women will still sin, and that sometimes that sin will result in unwed pregnancy, what exactly would your perfect society do about the problem?

zippycatholic said...


I've never put forth any sweeping comprehensive theories on such things. I just expressed my views about right and wrong action in a very particular kind of situation.

One thing we seem to agree on though is that you (still) don't properly understand my views on that particular kind of situation. That may be in part because of your tendency to make sweeping generalizations from very particular views - views which you simultaneously admit that you don't grasp and badly caricature.

Red Cardigan said...

So, then, Zippy: what ARE your views? I will grant you that as a Catholic one’s view ought to be that in an unfallen world no child would ever be born out of wedlock. However, we live in a fallen one. Apart from saying that Catholic schools ought to fire any slut who gets pregnant out of wedlock, what exactly HAVE you said?

Red Cardigan said...

“...who gets HERSELF pregnant out of wedlock...” I should have said. You have already said multiple times that while it is unfair that men do not have to bear any responsibility in these situations, that’s just biology.

zippycatholic said...

There you go again.

I'm not advancing any comprehensive theories of action here, and what I have and have not actually said on the specific situation is in the public record from those old discussions.

I'm just noting in passing the irony of folks like yourself complaining about the fact that it is getting harder and harder to walk the walk after you've shot off both of your own feet.

Red Cardigan said...

So, Zippy, in other words, the SCOTUS decision on gay “marriage” is the fault of people who try to be compassionate to unwed mothers instead of, say, instituting new Magdalens or something to punish them properly.

Oh, wait, I forgot. You don’t advance comprehensive theories of action. You just blame everyone but yourself for all societal ills which grew out of tolerating unwed motherhood because tolerating unwed motherhood has caused abortion, divorce, and gay “marriage.” And probably global warming and US involvement in the Middle East, if we only knew it.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I have to disagree on a couple of points. First what two men can do with each other, or two women, is not "sex" and none of it constitutes "sex acts." Generally, only one organ that is engaged is sexual, and if it is seeking sexual contact, it is in the wrong place.

Also freddy, I have a lot more respect for Erin than I do for Antonin Scalia, although I don't think I would appoint either of them to the Supreme Court. In my seldom humble opinion, candidates for the Supreme Court should be people who have NEVER expressed a firm opinion that a given precedent of the court must, or must not, be overturned or preserved. We need justices who can look with some degree of objectivity at the arguments actually being presented at any given point in time. The rest belong in the advocacy bar. Or even not in the bar -- Erin is a very effective advocate. Scalia has his good days, but other days he is a raving maniac. As to the case under discussion, I much prefer Chief Justice Roberts's calm, reasoned, and precise dissent to any of the others.

Zippy, your thought process appears to be so advanced that nobody but yourself can understand it, not even a Protestant like me.

John Henry said...

From what I read, all Zippy is saying is that it's dangerous to put in place a contractual clause that you're not prepared to enforce, because it gives your ideological opponents the impression that they can push you around.

Zippy can correct me if I'm off base.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I have to disagree on a couple of points. First what two men can do with each other, or two women, is not "sex" and none of it constitutes "sex acts." Generally, only one organ that is engaged is sexual, and if it is seeking sexual contact, it is in the wrong place.

I believe President Clinton was trying to make the same point when he claimed he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

illyrianfields said...

Wow. You're attitude towards gay people is really hateful. You seem like someone who would most likely be polite to any gay person you met in real life, but the things you write...

Gay men can only get diseases? When people are demonized for their sexuality and told that they are wrong and bad and that who they innately are is sinful, then of course they're going to act out sexually, and of course they're going to be depressed. There are higher rates of STDs and depression among African-Americans too. It's not because there's something innately "wrong" with African-Americans--it's because that's what happens when groups face institutionalized prejudice. And as acceptance has grown over the last few decades, such incidences have decreased. Unsurprisingly.

Do you know any gay couples? I'm straight, but I know plenty. They're not different from straight couples. They love each other, they support each other, they raise children, they bring each other soup when they're sick, they have movie nights with friends, they go grocery shopping together, they comfort each other when one of them loses parent, they bring each other flowers just to make their partner's day, etc.

You can think that their behavior is immoral. But if you actually knew any gay couples--I mean really knew them, not just gazed at them disapprovingly--you would see that their love is extremely real.

And part of why you guys lost, and while you'll continue to lose, is that statements like the ones you make here do reflect prejudice, and as such, are easily seen through by people who don't share your prejudices. Your descriptions of gay people don't match the gay people that most of the population knows. And so your words have no effect.