Aruging About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide

Holy Writ, which was written upon the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, contains several passages that clearly condemn acts of perversity in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, a Catholic who is in “good standing” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite his consistent judicial support for the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and his support for the “right” of those engaged in perverse acts condemned by God and contrary to nature itself, believes that human sentiment, not the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, is the guiding force of civil law and morality.

As the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, a decision written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, is but a continuation of the use of sentimentality and a false understanding of human liberty, it is necessary for those prone to agitation at the court’s decision to remember a few basic facts in order to call to mind that we are witnessing only the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of the founding principles, devised as they were by men who had a a founding hatred for Christ the King, just as much as we are witnessing the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of the guiding principles of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the “postconciliar ‘popes’.”

A reading of the entirety of the court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was delivered by Anthony Kennedy but drafted, of course, by his law clerks for his approval and redaction, and of the dissenting opinions written by Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, who has been ObamaCare’s best friend (a subject for another commentary soon), and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito reveals that each of justices wrote in purely sophistic terms. None argued from right principles.

Indeed, two of the dissenters went to great lengths to make it clear that the matter of “same-sex” marriage was of no concern to them personally. The only thing that concerned Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia was the means by which “gay marriage” was adopted, not its inherent perversity and absurdity in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, or of the very Natural Law that He inscribed on the very flesh of human hearts.

While Anthony Kennedy used sentimentality and pseudo-social science (as well as endless references to the amicus curiae briefs that were submitted in support of "same-sex marriage") to justify “finding” a “right” to “same-sex” marriage in the Fifth Amendment as applied to state governments through the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, something that will be explained in part two of this commentary, Roberts and Scalia appealed to “democracy” and the need to have the “people” “decide” a matter that is beyond the ability of mere creatures to change:

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.)  

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. (Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.)

In other words, “same-sex marriage” is a matter of complete indifference to these two Catholic legal positivists just as the true religion was a matter of complete indifference to the framers of the Constitution themselves. It is the “right” of the “people,” acting through their elected representatives, to govern themselves that matters, not the Sovereignty of Christ the King over men individually and their nations collectively.

In this regard, my patient readers who have to wait much longer for commentaries these days, something that I regret but is entirely unavoidable, Roberts and Scalia argued only about “who” decides the issue of “same-sex marriage,” not about the fact that such a thing is absurdity according to the Order of Nature (Creation) and an abomination in the Order of Grace (Redemption).

These two Catholics, trained as they have been to put aside their “personal” beliefs when considering matters of the law, disagreed their fellow, similarly-trained Catholic, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, principally on this matter alone when the truth of the matter is that each of these three jurists ignore the simple truth that there is nothing for anyone to “decide” on marriage any more than there has been for the “people” or for state legislatures or the Supreme Court of the United States of America to “decide” on contraception and abortion.

There is nothing to “decide” as contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave prior to the General Judgment of the living and the dead on the Last Day have more authority to “change” the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law than they do to “change” the physical laws of the universe.

This is why legal argumentation on purely naturalistic grounds will result in the gradual triumph of ultimate evil. The “who decides” issue is a both a red herring and at the same time a slender thread upon which to hold together the common temporal good of society, which must be undertaken in light of the man’s Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, for all eternity in Heaven.

Obviously, this has application also to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s upcoming “synod of bishops” on the family in October as the assembled apostates seek to “find” the “beauty” of “lifelong commitments.” Conciliarism is as much the work of “slender threads” as is the Constitution of the United States of America in that it makes short work of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition just as effectively and thoroughly as the naturalism of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity makes short work of constitutions and civil statutes. Everything must shift according to the “changes” that take place in society.

Bergoglio seeks to find ways to “listen” to the “people” with his council of apostates, appealing to the “sensus fidei” as a guiding principle of morality and pastoral praxis in order to justify “new approaches” to assuage unrepentant sinners who flaunt their evil ways publicly.

Similarly, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America argue only about differing ways by which that which is evil of its nature be “permitted” or “prohibited.” Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan believe in the ability of mere humans who serve on courts to determine right and wrong in accordance with social change while Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas believe that mere humans who serve in state legislatures and are responsible to the “people” in elections determine legal recognitions of right and wrong. Both sets of positivists are wrong as they argue from false principles to false conclusions.

First, God, not the “people” acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil government, has the one and only about marriage:

[21] Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. [22] And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. [23] And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [25] And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed. (Genesis 1: 21-25.)

[1] And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan. [2] And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there. [3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. (Matthew 19: 6-10. Bishop Richard Challoner noted in his commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible that a man may separate from his wife if she has committed adultery, but that he is not permitted to marry another while she is alive. The lords of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not believe this.)

Second, as it is God Himself Who made men and women complementary to each other and ordained that they marry to procreate and educate children, the civil state has no authority over marriage or to declare a valid marriage as having “ended,” something that Pope Leo XIII noted in Arcanum:

Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages which had been sanctioned by imperial law.

Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship, certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada, Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire. Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also, hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."

Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon -- the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

Each of the nine justices concedes the “authority” of the civil state over marriage. Such authority does not exist.

Third, no human institution can “change” what God has decreed.

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan believe that the court can legitimize that which is illegitimate of its nature. John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito believe that it is up to the “people” to decide. Both sets of positivists are wrong.

Pope Leo XIII wrote the following in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)  

Yes, the madness of the universal franchise, as Pope Pius IX termed it in an allocution in 1874, arrogates unto the people what belongs to Christ the King. The "people" come to believe in a governmental system based on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles that "they" get decide the inherent morality of human actions by means of their legislative bodies and/or by means of direct plebiscites (votes of the "people" on ballot propositions--initiatives and referenda--that become the civil law once approved in a general or special election). This is one of the major consequences of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the triumph, albeit temporary, of the reign of the devil by means of the "reign of man" wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry.

Time and time again we have heard from various libertarians and careerists that the matter of surgical abortion is one to be "decided" by state legislatures according to "the will of the people" in each of the fifty states. This is an egregious offense to the rights of God and to the immutability of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that He has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for their infallible explication and eternal safekeeping. God has decreed these laws. They exist in the very nature of things. Their existence has been ratified and their application explained by Holy Mother Church.

Ballot propositions, therefore, that are designed to retard certain evils in society are founded upon the fatal premise that the "people" do indeed have legitimate authority to "determine" which of laws God's eternal laws will be binding under cover of civil law. While these ballot propositions are certainly well-intentioned and are made by people of genuine good will in an effort to circumvent state legislatures and/or to overturn judicial edicts, the concession that such matters can be put to a vote of "the people" makes God's law subject to the whims of the prevailing majoritarian sentiments at any particular time. Nothing is stable. Everything is subject to being reversed at some later point as "sentiments" change. Live by the "will of the people" and you may very well die by "the will of the people." And the "will of the people" at this time is in the direction of a very "liberal" acceptance of "gay marriage" as part of "human rights" and "equality."

Pope Pius IX recognized this in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864:

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

What I am attempting to point out in this particular commentary, which is part one of three parts, is the fact that there are inherent dangers that exist in a system that does not recognize and accept the Catholic Church as the ultimate arbiter on all that pertains to the good of souls. Nothing is stable. Nothing is ever settled "permanently"--unless, that is, it is settled to the liking of those steeped in and/or profiting financially from the particular moral evil in question.

The devil knows this, which is why he wants to keep us perpetually agitated by this or that issue to such an extent that any consideration of root and proximate causes of our difficulties is considered to be an inconvenience and/or a waste of time. Alas, there is no truly lasting means to guarantee the subordination of civil law to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law absent a docile and humble submission of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the true Church that He Himself created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

To concede anything to false premises is to find oneself in a gigantic trap of the devil from which there is no natural means of escape. None whatsoever. Although I have tried, most unsuccessfully, it appears, to document the grave evils that have been promoted by the outgoing "conservative," "pro-life" administration (a documentation that was noted in 2005 a Calvinist and past candidate of the Constitution Party candidate for President of the United States of America this year, Chuck Baldwin, Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?), this commentary and the ones that follow are aimed at proving once again the devil is mocking us as we fall for his naturalistic traps here in the United States of America.

This is all a realization of what Pope Gregory XVI described in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, would be the world's lot if the civil "freedoms" of Modernity were permitted to expand unchecked:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.) 

We are in the bottomless pit caused by "immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty."

One of the striking things about opposing the promotion of various moral evils by means of ballot propositions is that such efforts must be based in secular, naturalistic, interdenominational or non-denominational terms rather than in a frank and open acknowledgment of the Sovereignty of Christ the King over every aspect of our lives. This renders these efforts, which are undoubtedly well-intentioned, open to attack from those who believe in the naturalist lie of egalitarianism and thus reject even all notion of a hierarchy of truths that exist in the nature of things."Who are you to tell me that marriage is only between a man and a woman?" some of these naturalists will ask.

Yes, even arguments based in the logic of the Natural Law must lose their force over the course of time in a pluralistic society as the ultimate authority given us by God Himself to teach us and to sanctify us is rejected in favor of the sovereignty of "the people" and in favor of generic, Judeo-Masonic references to God that were specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.

None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xl, 15). (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Pope Leo XIII explained in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that the reduction of public policy to the natural level alone results in public life being stained with crime. While we can and must take measures to protect the common temporal welfare and to punish malefactors, it is simply insufficient to take these measures absent a subordination to the Deposit of Faith as It has been entrusted by Our Lord Himself exclusively to the Catholic Church and absent any consideration of how public policy assists or hinders man in the pursuit of his Last End:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.) 

Anyone who says that public life is not stained with crime is as delusional as those who think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is the "pope." And the electoral process is closed. Closed. Chiusa. Naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" have made their "peace" with "gay marriage." They have heard "the people" sing. So have the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

"Stopgap" measures based on the "lowest common" naturalistic denominator will always collapse as they are built on the quicksand of naturalism. The Church Militant on earth can be battered. She will never suffer a final defeat. "Stopgap" measures based on the "lowest common" naturalistic denominator must, because they are based on naturalism, consist of internal contradictions and inconsistencies that render its objectives merely symbolic and rhetorical in nature.

Silvio Cardinal Antoniano explained over four hundred fifty years ago that things repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity can never be the foundation of temporal order:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.) 

It is indeed impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquility by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. Attempting to base opposition to the "marriage" of individuals steeped in unnatural vice in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments on the existence of a legal "recognition" of that vice that is short of "marriage" but contains many of the same legal "benefits" as marriage is indeed repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity. Live by the "will of the people," my friends, and you will die by the "will of the people." We must live and die by the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church.

In a Catholic world, good readers, there would be no need for all manner of laws and ballot propositions to "inform" the citizenry as to what was considered permissible as they, the citizenry, would know what was permissible according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church. That such disjointed laws and ballot propositions are considered necessary to combat the very social evils that have grown precisely because of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry is proof yet again of the utter madness and insanity of a world where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign as King over men and their nations as they recognize the authority He has entrusted to His Catholic Church.

The false premises of the Modern civil state have led to angry men singing various songs to secure the approve of a majority of their fellow men. Each of those songs are, however, simply a variation of the naturalist theme that it is not absolutely necessary for each human being and for each nation on this earth to profess the true Faith and to be governed thereby at every moment of human existence. These songs of the angry men of naturalism produce cacophony in a society, not the symphony that produced by the harmonizing of everyday life with the truths of the Holy Faith.

Catholicism is the one and only way out of this mess. Arguments and propositions based on naturalism will fail sooner or later as the demographics of the various states change and as the influence wrought by the evils taught in the public and conciliar schools continues to make itself manifest over the years.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has played its own role in helping to worsen the situation caused by the false premises of Modernity. It has made its "reconciliation" with the principles of 1787 as millions upon millions of young Catholics detained in conciliar schools have had their souls spiritually aborted.

Remember, it was none other than that great “discoverer” of the supposed “truth” that specific dogmatic formulations are the product of “contingent” circumstances that require modification and adjustment as conditions change, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology:

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)  

Pope Leo XIII warned solemnly in  Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, that there can be no "reconciliation" with the principles of the Revolution:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God  (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.) 

Future voters, my friends, including those produced by Catholic schools in conciliar captivity, will indeed be singing the songs of angry "modern men," and the "will of the people" tomorrow may well be something quite different than the "will of the people" now.

Alas, it is not the "will of the people" or decisions of courts that matter. It is the law of God as He has revealed It to us through His Catholic Church, which is why all of our efforts, including those to try to conform the civil law to His eternal Law, must be must on right principles without any compromises and without any concessions to error whatsoever.

We must have confidence in Our Lady of Perpetual Help, whose feast we commemorated yesterday,  June 27, 2015, consecrating ourselves to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life. The only election that really matters is the one that took place in the Baptismal font when we were elected to be citizens of Heaven. There is only one judicial verdict that matters: that of Christ the King upon our immortal souls at the moment of our Particular Judgment.

This is our destiny, please God and by the graces that flow forth from the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother we persevere to the points of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace.

No matter the results of a particular election or the results of a particular plebiscite, we can be assured that our efforts to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King by means of our total consecration to Him through Mary our Immaculate Queen will help to plant a few seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith as we, recidivist sinners that we are, attempt to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, remembering to say each day:

O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

These are the words spoken by the Mother of God in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-six years ago. They should be on our lips at all times so that there will come a day when the words uttered by the Cristeros in Mexico and the brave Catholics during the Spanish Revolution will be on the lips of all men and heralded on the flags of all nations:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray for us.  

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.