Many who identify themselves as “conservatives” have grown accustomed in recent decades to referring to careerist Republicans in public life as “Republicans in Name Only—RINOs.” This moniker, no matter how seemingly clever and popular, is based upon the mistaken premise that the Republican Party has ever stood for anything other than its own electoral expediency.
Professional, careerist Republicans are poll-driven creatures who care only about the acquisition and retention of political power and influence who get to feed at an endless variety of troughs filled with all manner of lard provided them by lobbyists and the corporate interests they represent, not the least of which, it should be remembered, during the plandemic are the pharmaceutic and healthcare industries, noting as well the tremendously important financial influence wielded by financial corporations and Wall Street executives. These fat-cat Republican officials and their equally fat-cat operatives and spokesflacks live off the fat of the land and are thus content to do or to say as little as possible when they constitute a majority in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America that might, they believe, offend “swing” or “moderate” voters, no matter how much they might offend God in the process. It should go without saying that the concepts of constitutional restraints, governments of limited powers and the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity are foreign to their ears, which get tickled by their donor base and the deep state apparatchiks of the Washington, District of Columba, “establishment” all the time.
These same careerists, however, became brave rhetoricians in opposition to various statist polices when they careerists control only one house of Congress—or both houses during the presidency of an unapologetic statist of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” as they know full well that, if in control of only one house the other house will not agree with them and, as happened during the final two years of the administration of the leader on the ongoing coup to cripple the Presidency of Donald John Trump, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, will hold meaningless “show votes” for the sake of tricking their easily-duped supporters into “doing something” when they know full well that the statist in the White House will “save” them by vetoing their measures if they ever make it to his desk for such a veto.
For example, the constant “show votes” to repeal the so-called Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act (ObamaDeathCare) and to defund Planned Barrenhood during the administration of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., were not enacted when the Republican Party controlled the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate during the first two years of President Donald John Trump’s administration. The ObamaDeathCare repeal effort was scuttled in the United States Senate by a senator, since deceased, who had campaigned for reelection to his fifth term in 2010 in support of repealing Obama’s monstrous takeover of the healthcare industry, a chap named John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona). Talk, talk, talk. Meaningless talk, talk, talk.
The Republican Party is no more something akin to a “true” secular “church” for believing Catholics than the Democratic Party is a “true” secular “church” for pro-abortion, pro-perversity statist Catholics. Each of the two major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America is an instrument of naturalism, and the only thing that can come of naturalism is more naturalism, which means that the institutionalization of policies in support of moral evils is bound to increase at varying speeds over the course of time. The Democratic Party is composed of moral monsters who advance one evil after another, and their false opposites of naturalism in the Republican Party are afraid to do anything after these evils have become institutionalized and gain popular “acceptance” as the “new normal.” Indeed, many of these craven careerists are more than happy to express to hide behind the black robes of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America when they render decisions that declare as “constitutional” abject violations of the Constitution of the United States of America (or the clear reading of legislation passed by either the Congress of the United States of America or state legislatures) and/or render predetermined decisions based upon the “outcome” that the justices desire to advance and institutionalize moral evils as representative as a “evolution” in judicial and cultural “thinking” about “human rights.”
Although some careerist Republicans in the past were rhetorically against the surgical execution of the innocent preborn, they have been silent since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020, and some were positively giddy and fully accepting of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for the Court in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020, wherein the second most junior associate justice legislated from the bench to read into Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 a protection that was the farthest thing from the minds of its authors, namely, to include sodomites and other practitioners of perverted vices in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and nature itself as a “class” of human beings against whom it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of their self-identification of unrepentant sinners.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020, is so filled with tortured reasoning as to leave one cross-eyed after a through reading of its text as he went to extraordinary lengths to claim that to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their self-identification as practitioners of unnatural vice and who are have had their bodies mutilated to resemble that of the opposite gender than that which God gave at conception, although not specifically included in the text of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, is nevertheless prohibited because an employer cannot discriminate against a homosexual unless he is doing so on the basis of his sex.
Here is a brief excerpt from this extraordinary exercise of judicial sophistry and positivism:
The same holds here. There is no way for an applicant to decide whether to check the homosexual or transgender box without considering sex. To see why, imagine an applicant doesn’t know what the words homosexual or transgender mean. Then try writing out instructions for who should check the box without using the words man, woman, or sex (or some synonym). It can’t be done. Likewise, there is no way an employer can discriminate against those who check the homosexual or transgender box without discriminating in part because of an applicant’s sex. By discriminating against homosexuals, the employer intentionally penalizes men for being attracted to men and women for being attracted to women. By discriminating against transgender persons, the employer unavoidably discriminates against persons with one sex identified at birth and another today. Any way you slice it, the employer intentionally refuses to hire applicants in part because of the affected individuals’ sex, even if it never learns any applicant’s sex. (Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Opinion of the Court, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020.)
It is remarkable that a grown man sitting on the highest judicial body in his country can spend so much time trying to disprove the following:
 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.  And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:  And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-32.)
Is there any need for a further elaboration?
Associate Justice Samuel Alito opened his dissenting opinion the dismissed the Gorsuch opinion for the Court as follows:
There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list,1 and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well.2 But to date, none has passed both Houses.
Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty.3 This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.
Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the President, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.4 A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.
The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added). If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation––not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.
The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society. See A. Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation 22 (Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Dissenting Opinion, Bosock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020.)
The insanity of Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for the high court’s majority in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, forced Samuel Alito to spend a great deal of time explaining that his colleague had read a meaning into Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was not there to be found. However, Justice Alito did not state what needed to be stated: that no one ha the right to his human self-identification on the basis of his predilection to commit any sins, no less those of rank perversity.
As always, however, it gets worse.
Although Justice Alito listed a number of the legal consequences that would flow from the Court’s decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, including the cases that will be engendered by sodomites seeking employment in institutions run by religious bodies of one sort or another whose tenets teach that the use of the gift God has given to men for the continuation of the species is limited to a marriage between one man and one woman:
Employment by religious organizations. Briefs filed by a wide range of religious groups––Christian, Jewish, and Muslim––express deep concern that the position now adopted by the Court “will trigger open conflict with faith- based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions.”51 They argue that “[r]eligious organizations need employees who actually live the faith,”52 and that compelling a religious organization to employ individuals whose conduct flouts the tenets of the organization’s faith forces the group to communicate an objectionable message.
This problem is perhaps most acute when it comes to the employment of teachers. A school’s standards for its faculty “communicate a particular way of life to its students,” and a “violation by the faculty of those precepts” may undermine the school’s “moral teaching.”53 Thus, if a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment. Yet today’s decision may lead to Title VII claims by such teachers and applicants for employment.
At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “ministerial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012). Two cases now pending before the Court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.”54 But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–1(a); see also §2000e–2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection.55 Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Dissenting Opinion, Bosock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020.)
In other words, the Gorsuch decision will only embolden the homosexualist collective to persecute, stigmatize and bleed their critics to a death by a thousand cuts imposed by the expensive costs of litigation (disclosures, depositions, trials, appeals). No one and no organization will be immune.
Justice Alito, however, does not realize that the very fact that the jurists who serve on the Court on which he himself sits are arguing incessantly about the inarguable is because the modern civil state, including the United States of America, is the product of Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry that leaves men who know better helpless in the face of the “Who are you to tell me what to do?” canard that furthers the descent of men and their societies in the depths of the abyss.
Protestantism was founded on the pursuit of lust and divorce.
Judeo-Masonry has sought to break down the family with the liberalization of divorce laws and thus the stability of families, something that Pope Leo XIII noted in Arcanum, February 10, 1890.
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.)
It is worth highlighting the text in bold above to illustrate just how prophetic Pope Leo XIII’s words were one hundred thirty years ago as there is no human means to retard the advance of outright bigamy, polygamy, pederasty and even bestiality. How long will it be until someone claims to have the “right” to “marry” an animal or even a robot? Not long. Not long at all. Thus, I ask of you to re-read the following passage and to consider that there is no legal, constitutional, political, cultural, educational, secular, humanistic, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist or interdenominational way to stop the spread of any evil, especially those evils associate with man’s lower passions that become so easily ingrained and so hard to break:
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.)
In like manner, of course, divorce led to contraception, which led to a rise in adultery, divorce, civil remarriages, broken families, the feminization of poverty, the rise of the welfare state and its agenda of alienating children from their parents. Contraception also led to the surgical execution of children in the womb, which has made the killing of anyone after birth by means of “brain death” and “palliative care” legal, accessible and a daily occurrence in American life.
Pope Pius XI explained how the rise of divorce and contraception had led to the call for “new species of unions” contrary to the laws of God and thus to the good of men and their societies:
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.)
Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions ninety years ago as “hateful abominations.” American jurists of both the naturalist “left” and their false opposite in the naturalist “right” believe that the civil law can recognize “new species of unions” if their elected representatives pass legislation or they themselves pass a referendum to so.
Sadly, Associate Justice Samuel Alito closed his dissenting opinion with his belief that the Congress of the United States of America could do by legislative what the Supreme Court did by judicial fiat in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia:
The updating desire to which the Court succumbs no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses. Today, many Americans know individuals who are gay, lesbian, or transgender and want them to be treated with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves. But the authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is.
The Court itself recognizes this:
“The place to make new legislation . . . lies in Congress. When it comes to statutory interpretation, our role is limited to applying the law’s demands as faithfully as we can in the cases that come before us.” Ante, at 31.
It is easy to utter such words. If only the Court would live by them. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Dissenting Opinion, Bosock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020.)
Congress hath no power to make “new legislation” to declare that a volitional choice to identify himself as a disciple of the sin of Sodom is a legitimate category under the civil demanding of legal protection, recognition, and respect. No institution of civil government hath such authority, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
It gets worse yet, however, as Associate Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh, who himself believes that Congress possesses a power that it doth not possess, closed his own dissenting opinion by congratulating the sodomites on their Court victory even though he disagree with the method by which it had been won:
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment. (Associate Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh Dissentng Opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020.)
Brett Michael Kavanaugh uses the language of the adversary to refer to people engaged in sins that brought down fire and brimstone upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and played a very large role in the internal corruption that made possible the fall of the Roman Empire.
So much for President Donald John Trump’s two appointees to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, both of whom are legal positivists who think that human legislatures can declare that which is morally illicit in the objective order of moral truth to be “legal” and thus “permissible,” Thus continuing the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia went on to state that it is was belief that abortion is neither permitted or prohibited by the words of the United States Constitution, a contention that is arguable solely on the grounds of a proper reading of the text of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. According to Scalia, therefore, as abortion is a matter "reserved" for the states to decide for themselves as baby-killing is neither prohibited or permitted by the Constitution itself. He would be duty bound, he said, to uphold the constitutionality of a state law permitting abortion as long as it had been passed legally and did not violate that state's own constitutional provisions. "You write it," he told the crowd, "and I'll enforce it." This prompted me to write an extensive critique for The Wanderer of the fallacy of this exercise in positivism entitled, "You write it, I'll enforce it."
Scalia was wrong.
Alito is wrong.
Kavanaugh is wrong.
No one should be surprised in the least by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s legislating from the bench in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Evidence was provided on this site three years ago that he was supportive of the agenda of the homosexualist collective:
Those who think that Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to replace the late advocate of using the blasphemous Talmud as a legitimate means of Constitutional interpretation in some cases, Antonin Scalia, as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, will "come to the rescue" to restore some semblance of sanity conerning the legal advances made by the homosexual collective ought to "sober up," shall we say, as such a hope may prove to be quite furtive:
Other examples of Gorsuch’s sociability with social liberals goes well beyond the norms of respectful professionalism. A former law clerk for Gorsuch named Joshua Goodbaum tells the New York Times and the Huffington Post that Gorsuch was downright enthusiastic about his decision to “marry” another homosexual male in 2014. Goodbaum told the Times that Gorsuch was “thrilled for us,” so much so that he was “actually kind of syrupy about it,” and assured Goodbaum, “You’re going to see how wonderful this is for your relationship.’’’
The Times quotes another former classmate, Phil Berg, who said that he told Gorsuch as early as the early 1990s that he had a “boyfriend,” and the news was so well-received by Gorsuch that it led to a “special bond” between them. Berg has since “married” his boyfriend, Ronald Riqueros, and according to Berg, “Since Ronald and I married we have had a standing invitation to stay with Neil and Louise in Denver. And just last week, Neil told me that if they should move to D.C., ‘Our guest room will be waiting.’” (What Can Defenders of Life Exepect from Neil Gorsuch.)
That's nice. A nominee to serve on the nation's highest court has promised to make a guest room available for two sodomites so as to give them a suitable place to practice their vice whenever they are in the nation's capital. Neil Gorsuch as never heard of the nine ways by which one can be an accessory to the sins of others:
- 1. By counsel.
- 2. By command.
- 3. By consent.
- 7. By connivance.
- 8. By partaking.
- 4. By provocation.
- 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
- 6. By silence.
- 9. By defense of the ill done.
Those trying to assess Judge Gorsuch's record by claiming that he may turn out to be another David Souter do not have to live in suspense. The evidence is clear that Neil Gorsuch is shaped by the sentimentality of an age that has descended to depravity as a result of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry as the driving force of civil society:
Gorsuch’s liberal Episcopal affiliations and his ambiguous views on some social issues have resonance with those who find him uncomfortably similar to David Souter, a vaguely conservative Republican and Episcopalian whose views on social issues were largely unknown when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by George H. W. Bush in 1990. Souter went on to side with the Supreme Court’s liberal wing in crucial decisions upholding Roe v. Wade and striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law. He resigned in 2009 before reaching the age of 70 and only a few months after the swearing-in of Barack Obama, which allowed the president to appoint leftist Democrat Sonia Sotomayor in his place. At least one conservative activist, Andy Schlafly, an opponent of Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination, has compared Gorsuch to Souter. (What Can Defenders of Life Exepect from Neil Gorsuch.)
Contrary to what was contended in the article cited just above, everything that was needed to be known about the horrors of David Souter were made public during his confirmation process in 1990. Here is Howard Phillips’s actual testimony against David Souter before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 19, 1990, the Feast of Saint Januarius:
In considering David Souter’s suitability to cast what, in many cases, will be the deciding opinion on the Supreme Court of the United States, it is necessary to go beyond Mr. Souter’s intellectual capacity and his stated opinions, and to assess his character and moral courage in their relationship to the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice.
DAVID SOUTER His pro-abortion record was there for those who wanted to know the truth. One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February, 1973 when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at the hospital.
Advocacy of, or even acquiescence in, such a decision is morally distinguishable from the judicial conclusion, profoundly incorrect in my view, that women have a constitutional right to destroy their unborn children.
It is also distinguishable from and far more troubling than the political argument by politicians who maintain that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, even as they advocate its decriminalization.
It is one thing to intellectually rationalize the case for permitting legal abortions, while still opposing the exercise of such legal authority. It is quite another - something far more invidious, morally - to actually join in a real world decision to cause abortions to be performed, routinely, at a particular hospital.
Those abortions whose performance was authorized by David Souter were not mandated by law or court opinion. In fact, laws have remained to this day on the books in New Hampshire which provide criminal penalties for any “attempt to procure miscarriage” or “intent to destroy quick child.” Indeed, section 585:14 of the New Hampshire Criminal Code establishes the charge of second degree murder for the death of a pregnant woman in consequence of an attempted abortion. Nor were those abortions which Mr. Souter authorized performed merely to save the life of the mother, nor were they limited to cases of rape or incest.
If the unborn child is human, and if innocent human life is to be defended and safeguarded, why did Mr. Souter acquiesce in those abortions? Why did he not speak out against them? Why did he, through twelve years on the Concord Hospital board, in a position of responsibility, help cause those abortions to be performed, and invest his personal reputation in clearly implied approval of those abortions?
The overarching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion. Is the unborn child a human person, entitled to the protections pledged to each of us by the Founders of our Nation?
The issue is much more than one of legal or judicial philosophy. There are men and women in the legal profession, in elected office, and on the bench who acknowledge abortion to be morally repugnant, but who assert that, in present circumstances, it cannot be constitutionally prohibited.
Whatever Mr. Souter’s legal and judicial philosophy may be - and, on the record, it seems to be one which rejects the higher law theories implicit in the Declaration of Independence - it is a chilling fact which the Senate must consider that Judge Souter has personally participated in decisions resulting in the performance of abortions, where such abortions were in no way mandated or required by law or court decision.
By his own account, Mr. Souter served as a member of the board of trustees for the Concord Hospital from 1971 until 1985. Following service as board secretary, he was president of the board from 1978 to 1984.
In 1973, shortly after the Supreme Court’s January 22 Roe v. Wade decision, the Concord Hospital trustees voted to initiate a policy of performing abortions at Concord Hospital.
Similarly, Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, which is associated with the Dartmouth Medical School, of which Judge Souter has been an overseer, has performed abortion up to the end of the second trimester.
During the period of Mr. Souter’s tenure as a decision-maker of these two institutions, many hundreds of abortions were performed under his authority, with no indication that he ever objected to or protested the performance of these abortions. Even though the Roe v. Wade decision did, in fact, authorize abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy, nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision required or obliged any hospital to conduct abortions, whether in the ninth month, the sixth month, or even in the first month of pregnancy.
If Judge Souter is confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he will, in all likelihood, be given the opportunity to address not only the issue of Roe v. Wade, but broader issues involving the sanctity of innocent human life.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the 1986 Thornburgh case, “there is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being. Indeed, if there is not such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the State legislatures.”
Justice Stevens was wrong in a very deadly way. If an unborn child is not human, I would ask Justice Stevens, what is he, what is she? But as least Mr. Stevens was logical in defending his support for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that, “If the personhood of the unborn child is established, the pro-abortion case collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
As Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has pointed out, “This is so, because the common law does not permit a person to kill an innocent non-aggressor, even to save his own life.”
Does David Souter believe that the unborn child - the fetus in the mother’s womb - is a human person, deserving of all the protections which are guaranteed to human beings after the moment of birth?
Seemingly, Mr. Souter’s answer is an unequivocal “no.” by agreeing that abortions be performed at institutions under his authority, Mr. Souter established clearly that he did not recognize the personhood of the unborn child. For surely, if he did acknowledge the unborn child to be a human person, Mr. Souter would not have agreed to authorize the extinguishment of so many precious lives at medical facilities for which he bore responsibility.
One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that, despite his recognition of the fact that each unborn child is human, a handiwork of God’s creation, he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives when he had the authority, indeed, the responsibility, to do so.
Either way, in such circumstances, unless there are mitigating factors or extenuating considerations which have not yet been brought to public attention, it is difficult to regard Mr. Souter as one suitable for participation in judicial decisions at the highest level of our Nation.
If, during his years of responsibility at Concord Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, Mr. Souter believed each fetus to be a human person, and failed to act against the performance of abortion, he was morally delinquent.
If, on the other hand, he justified himself by denying the human qualities of the unborn child, then he placed himself in the ambit of those who have argued against the very philosophy which his sponsor, President George Bush, purported to embrace during his 1988 presidential campaign.
On the basis of the information now available, Mr. Souter, in my opinion, should not be confirmed. (Testimony of: HOWARD PHILLIPS Chairman, The Conservative Caucus Foundation.)
Did this factual presentation matter to any of the "pro-life" senators, including two future Republican presidential nominees, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and John Sidney McCain III?
Not one little bit.
To this day, these craven careerists have hid behind the abject lie that they were "misled" by then President George Herbert Walker Bush's White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu, the former Governor of the State of New Hampshire, about David Souter. This is a lie. An abject lie. Howard Phillips presented incontrovertible evidence about David Souter's support for abortion. This did not matter one little bit to Bob Dole or to John McCain. Not one little bit. The facts were presented. They did not care. Not one little bit.
What about John Glover Roberts, the Chief Justice appointed by President George Walker Bush in 2005 who has saved ObamaCare on two different occasions?
Well, I can help you out in his case as well.
Let me put this into context. People say you can't tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it'' very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor because it was very clear that she had a pro-abortion record in the Arizona state senate and as a judge in Arizona. She was also allied with Planned Parenthood. I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard in which he said he was a legal positivist and one of his heroes was Oliver Wendell Holmes and that he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence. In addition, he was a trustee of two hospitals: Dartmouth Hitchcock and Concord Memorial. He successfully changed the policy of those two hospitals from 'zero abortion' to 'convenience abortion.' I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg because her record was clear. She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature. She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts, I'm in the midst of an extensive and intensive study of his record. Several things become clear, although I'm not ready to reach a final conclusion. It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream. (Flynn Files - Howard Phillips Interview Part I.)
Wasn’t that an accurate observation of John Glover Roberts nearly fourteen years ago?
You thought things were going to be different with Neil Gosuch after he had been nominated by President Donald John Trump three years ago?
To quote Briscoe Darling, "More power to ya."
Why should anyone be surprised at what Neil Gorsuch did in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, on June 15, 2020?
None of the current members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America believe any of the following:
- Human beings choose to engage in the sin of Sodom and/or its related vices of perversity.
- Human beings choose to mutilate their bodies by surgical and chemical means in the furtive attempt to become that which they can never be, a member of the opposite gender.
- Such volitional decisions can never receive the recognition of the civil law as legitimate categories of self-identification and legal protection.
- Each human being should enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the civil law because they are human beings who, whether or not they know it or accept it as such, have been made in the image and likeness of God in that they have an immortal soul endowed with a rational intellect and will capable of choosing between right and wrong, and because they have been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ whether they or not they know or accept it.
- That is, we are to treat all people with kindness and to do our best to exhort publicly unrepentant sinners who are “proud” to tell others about their sins as they demand approval upon penalty terming anyone who disagrees with them as a “hater,” which is nothing other than exercise in infantile behavior (how many times has a parent heard a child exclaim “You don’t me, well, I hate you” because he has not gotten his way?), to reform their lives lest they die in their sins without even having any kind of sorrow for them.
Sodomy Used to Carry a Justified Social Stigma
It used to be the case in the not too distant past that those who know to commit sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance carried with them a fully justified stigma as men used to have a horror and detestation of such sins when the world was ordered properly according to the right principles of Catholic teaching. This is why famous actors such as Raymond Burr and Rock Hudson and entertainers such as Wladyslaw Liberace never confirmed their perverse ways as they knew that their careers would be ended by the shame that they would have to carry with them for the rest of their lives unless they repented and converted. They knew that they could lose their employment and that most people would not have had pity for them as they had chosen their own plight. Public sins must carry public stigmas.
Instead, however, today’s world glorifies, celebrates, and protects what should be stigmatized as believing Catholics pray for the conversion of those so stigmatized and seek to make reparation for their own sins.
While we are called to treat all people with dignity and respect, it is not unjust for an employer to refuse to hire or to fire someone who is so intent on identifying himself by that which is opposed to the law of God and thus opposed to his own temporal good and that of those around him.
We are faced at present with an aggressive, in-your-face “accept what I do or I will take you to the Supreme Court” mentality that has forced bakers, photographers/videographers and others to go out of business and has caused those who criticize what is considered to be “normal” expressions of “love” to be stigmatized as “haters” by the “mainslime” media, academics galore and the Christophobic likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Those who “identify” themselves on the basis of their perverse behavior are not entitled to any legal recognition or protection because of their own freely chosen decisions to succumb to the temptations of the adversary to live indecent and perverse lives that let loose the gates of hell upon themselves and their nations. Sodomy confers no right before the law. None.
While we must pray for the conversion of those steeped in unrepentant sins and for those who support them while we pray every day for the graces we need to work on our own daily conversion away from our sins, our selfishness, our disordered love of self and spiritual tepidity, we can never do anything—either by omission or commission—that reaffirms anyone a life of grievous sin as to do so may very well send us to perdition in the process.
Indeed, Pope Saint Pius V himself that men must seek to root out the evil of sodomy as it is one of the four sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance:
Pope Saint Pius V explained the just penalty due clerics caught in the act of unnatural vice:'
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)
Death, not “brotherhood” and “mainstreaming” for the sake of “inclusivity,” was what Pope Saint Pius V, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Roman cited above, believed should be imposed on the clergy as well as the laity who were caught in “such an execrable crime” that caused him “such better sorrow” and shocked his papal mind as he sought to “repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.”
Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.
Alas, everything must “be up for grabs” when the souls of men are not taught, sanctified, and governed by Holy Mother Church. Unrepentant sins of the most vile manner imaginable must abound, resulting ultimate in entire races of walking "blank slates," human beings who must decide "for themselves" that which has been ordained by God Himself in the Order of Nature (Creation) and the Order of Redemption (Grace.) Men come to think that they are demigods, beings who have the ability “to decide” what to think in matters to pertaining to Faith and Morals without assenting their intellects completely and without any reservation at all to what Holy Mother Church teaches infallibly.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, specifically and categorically rejected the diabolical falsehood of the “sovereignty of the people”:
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.)
The lowest common denominator in American politics and jurisprudence is practical atheism's rotten fruit of law by sentimentality, which is the same thing as mobocracy.
Careerist Republicans Continue to Hide Behind the Black Robes of Supreme Court Justices
Yet it is, of course, that many careerist Republicans are perfectly at peace as they sit back and let the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America remove that they, the careerist Republicans, consider to be “controversial” “moral issues” which can cost them votes. Although they use to “cluck, cluck” about some Supreme Court decisions, such is the case no longer. These careerists breathe a collective sigh of relief when the Supreme Court helps them by taking a “hot potato” political issue off the stove for them.
Consider the reactions of a few careerist Republicans to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia:
(CNN) Republican senators were mostly upbeat about the landmark Supreme Court decision Monday to ban workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender Americans, and they defended conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch's role in writing for the 6-3 majority.
"They interpreted our statute and I'm OK with it," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, who added that Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first pick for the high court, "is a good judge."
Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking GOP leader argued the decision "demonstrated Gorsuch's independence."
Thune said he had not had a chance to study the details of the case but said, "The country has obviously changed a lot on that issue. I assume he looked at the facts and the law and he came to that conclusion. When we nominated and confirmed him, that's what we wanted him to do."
"It's a big deal," said Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who has worked -- unsuccessfully so far -- to pass a law banning workplace discrimination against gay and transgender people.
"I don't think people should be discriminated against, specifically, I don't think someone should lose his or her job because they're gay. So I like the result," said Portman, adding that he would need to study whether Congress still needs to change the law now that there is a "Supreme Court case that speaks to the civil rights acts applying to employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday that he's "OK" with the Supreme Court's decision.
"That's the ruling of the court. I accept it," the Republican from South Carolina said in a brief interview.
One critic of both the decision and Gorsuch was Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican of Missouri, who complained the majority was legislating from the bench.
"My big issue with the majority opinion was that substitutes a contemporary understanding of a legal textual term for one that was written in 1964. To me, the principle of textualism, which is rooted in the separation of powers, is that the courts are bound by the meaning of the words at the time they are written, and any updating ought to be done Congress. This amounts to a form of legislation," he told reporters in the Capitol.
Hawley was asked if he is disappointed with Gorsuch.
"I was surprised at his method of reaching a conclusion. You can tell he's sensitive about it because he goes to some length to say, 'No, I really am a textualist and this is a textualist approach,'" Hawley said.
Sen. Mitt Romney seemed to share Hawley's concern that it was Congress' role to update the law, not the Supreme Court. The Utah Republican told reporters that while he was supportive of protecting LGBTQ people's rights not to be fired because of their sexual orientation, "I wish that decision would have been reached by Congress rather than the court."
Some GOP senators declined to comment since they had not studied the decision.
"I haven't seen the rulings," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a member of the GOP leadership.
"I haven't read the opinion," said Sen. Todd Young on Indiana, who chairs the Senate Republican reelection committee. "I like to read major opinions before commenting on them."
Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican of Nebraska, said she was "fine" with both the decision and Gorsuch.
"I think it's important that we recognize that all Americans have equal rights under our Constitution," she said. "I want to have justices who look at these cases and make decisions based on their review of the case and look at the constitution and apply it equally." (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/gop-senators-reaction-supreme-court-ruling/index.html.)
There are several things worthy of note before examining one excerpt from the Gorsuch opinion.
- No senator dared to say the truth: That the free will choice in engage in the sin of Sodom and its perverted vices and/or to identify oneself on the basis of his predilection to do so is unnatural, abhorrent, indecent and ruinous for those who self-identify and for the nations whose laws indemnify their descent into the moral abyss to the harm of all.
- Several of these Republicans (John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Deb Fischer and Robert Portman were in favor of the ruling and had no problem with how Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch legislated from the bench.
- Two other senators, John Barrasso and Todd Young, refused any comment before they had read the text of the Court’s decision, meaning that they do not want offend their core supporters on the one hand while appearing to be “open minded” about an issue about which there is nothing to debate.
- The treacherous Willard Mitt Romney would have preferred for Congress to have amended Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, meaning that he believes that self-identification as a practitioner of perverse vices constitutes a legitimate category that is deserving of legal protection and cultural acceptance.
- Senator Joshua Hawley (R-Missouri), confined his comments to the way in which Justice Gorsuch arrived at his decision and said nothing—as in absolutely nothing—about the fact that human beings are not free to “identify” themselves on the basis of any sinful tendencies, natural or unnatural.
In other words, moral relativism and moral cowardice rule the day in the Capitol of the United States of American among the do-nothing and good-for-nothing political gang of the false opposite of the naturalist right.
There is one other Republican, one who is not a career politician, said that his administration “would live” the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia:
President Trump said the White House would "live" with the Supreme Court's ruling earlier on Monday that gay and transgender employees are protected by civil rights laws against employer discrimination.
The Trump administration had argued on behalf of a group of employers in the case, arguing that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees.
"I’ve read the decision, and some people were surprised," Trump said. "But they’ve ruled and we live with their decision.
"That’s what it’s all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court," the president said of the 6-3 decision, which irked many conservatives in part because Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the majority.
"Very powerful. Very powerful decision actually," Trump added. "But they have so ruled."
The court ruled earlier Monday that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex," applies to gay and transgender people. The decision was one of the most highly anticipated of the Supreme Court term and came in the middle of Pride Month. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/502812-trump-says-we-live-with-scotus-decision-on-lgbtq-worker-rights .)
This is no surprise.
Here is a review of his statements and actions in support of sodomites and their agenda, starting with the statement he issued after the Orlando, Florida, nightclub massacre on Sunday, June 13, 2016, and including statements he made later during the general election campaign against Madame Defarge, aka Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton:
We express our deepest sympathies to the victims, the wounded, and their families. We mourn as one people for our nation’s loss, and pledge our support to any and all who need it. I would like to ask now that we all observe a moment of silence for the victims of this attack.
Thank you. Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT community. They have been through something that nobody could ever experience. This is a very dark moment in America’s history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens, because of their sexual orientation.
It’s a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It’s an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity. It’s an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country. (Donald John Trump's Remark on the Orlando Shooting.)
Moreover, it must be mentioned that the man who believes in statist security measures that violate the privacy of innocent citizens and who believes that what is best for businesses will "make America great again" expressed has expressed his true beliefs about those steeped in perversity on a number of occasions.
All right, you asked for it:
Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You--
Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And--
Lesley Stahl: You did.
Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.
Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?
Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.
Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--
Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that. (60 Minutes Interview With Donald Trump and Family.)
Please note that Donald John Trump is very sanguine about so-called “marriage equality,” calling himself a “supporter” of the “LGTBQ” agenda. A supporter, something that he indicated very clearly in his acceptance address at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday, July 21, 2016:
“49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted LGBTQ community – no good and we're going to stop it.
As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology – beleive me.”
And as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you. (Donald John Trump Acceptance Address, Republican National Convention, Cleveland, Ohio July 21, 2016.)
Donald John Trump considers that one can base his identity by his willful decision commit and to persist in the commission of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a a belief that he shares with many of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is otherwise at odds with the new president on almost every other issue.
Remember also this important post at Call Me Jorge just before November 8, 2016, presidential election:
Careerist Republicans gave up whatever limited resistance they expressed rhetorically to “gay marriage” after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, the Feast of Saints John and Paul. United States Senate Majority Leader Addison Mitchel Connell (R-Kentucky) was among the first to fly the rainbow flag, figuratively speaking, of surrender after the decision in that case was announced:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says there's not much Congress can do in the wake of the ruling by the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage.
In an interview Tuesday night on Kentucky television station WDRB, McConnell restated that he still holds to the traditional view of marriage.
"I’ve always felt that marriage is between one man and one woman and the Supreme Court has held otherwise. That’s the law of the land," the Kentucky Republican said.
When he was asked if there is anything Congress can do, he answered: "I don’t think so. I think the courts have pretty well spoken."
However, McConnell said he is now concerned about "the potential problems with regard to religious liberty." There are number of institutions, which in practicing their religion, may run up against this," which he predicts will result "in a lot of additional litigation, as this decision is weighed against the strongly held religious beliefs of a number of Americans."
The Senate leader said that lawmakers will be looking to see "if religious liberty needs to be enhanced by statute."
Following the Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage and Obamacare, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said that he is proposing a constitutional amendment subjecting Supreme Court justices "to periodic judicial-retention elections."
But McConnell said "it isn't going to pass ... we've only done that 27 times in the history of our country." (Mitch McConnell: Gay Marriage Is ' Law of the Land.)
“The law of the land.”
Well, that was another veritable profile in courage from the imperious Kentuckian.
One can be “personally opposed” to the abomination of “same-sex” marriage while being “reconciled” to the irreversible nature of its institutionalization as a matter of fact and as a matter of a constitutional “right” that was “found” and applied by Associate Justices Anthony McLeod Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Isn’t this the same stunt that many Catholics in the Democratic Party have been using since January 22, 1973, to support the legal fact of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn despite their alleged “personal opposition”?
The confusion that exists in the minds of most men in the world at this time has, of course, been exacerbated by the apostasies of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian (the belief that human beings can more or less "save themselves" by "stirring up" graces in their own immortal souls) principles of Modernity. Long before conciliarism came to light at the "Second" Vatican Council, however, even the minds of many, if not most, Catholics were deformed as a result of living in a world of pluralism and unfettered "free speech" and "freedom of the press" and "freedom of religion," resulting in most of them accepting the premises of naturalism most uncritically as both natural and normal and as perfectly compatible with the truths of the Catholic Faith.
Christ or Chaos: It Is One or the Other
It is either Christ or chaos. There is nothing in between. Nothing at all.
The Incarnation has occurred.
The Word has become Flesh, and dwelt amongst us.
Christ the King, the Word made Flesh in his Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, has redeemed us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.
The Divine Redeemer has risen from the dead and has ascended to the right hand of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Heaven.
God the Holy Ghost hath descended upon the Apostles, Our Lady and the others gathered in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday.
The Holy Gospel of Christ the King has been preached to every quarter of the world.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and our situation must get worse and worse as men not only remain steeped in their sins but then celebrate them publicly, browbeat others into accepting them and are ever ready to bring litigation to defend their “right” to be instruments of their own eternal perdition and social decay.
As the then Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen noted in “A Plea for Intolerance” eighty-nine years ago:
America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broadminded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and, lastly, the love of novelty….
Religion is not an open question, like the League of Nations, while science is a closed question, like the addition table. Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics. But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God. In the ordinary affairs of life, these same people would never summon a Christian Science practitioner to fix a broken windowpane; they would never call in an optician because they had broken the eye of a needle; they would never call in a florist because they hurt the palm of their hand, nor go to a carpenter to take care of their nails. They would never call in a Collector of Internal Revenue to extract the nickel swallowed by the baby. They would refuse to listen to a Kiwanis booster discussing the authenticity of a painting, or to a tree‐surgeon settling a moot question of law. And yet for the all‐important subject of religion, on which our eternal destinies hinge, on the all‐important question of the relations of man to his environment and to his God, they are willing to listen to anyone who calls himself a prophet. And so our journals are filled with articles for these “broadminded” people, in which everyone from Jack Dempsey to the chief cook of the Ritz Carlton tells about his idea of God and his view of religion. These same individuals, who would become exasperated if their child played with a wrongly colored lollipop, would not become the least bit worried if the child grew up without ever having heard the name of God….
The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth maybe contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults. But for any one to say, ʺSome say this, some say that, therefore there is no truth,ʺ is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus, who heard some say, ʺThe earth is round,ʺ and other say, ʺThe earth is flat,ʺ to conclude: ʺTherefore there is no earth at allʺ….
The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a ʺmental projectionʺ; who equate Christ and Buddha, St. Paul and John Dewey, and then enlarge their broad‐mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world‐religion is just as good as another. The great god ʺProgressʺ is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshipers are asked, ʺProgress towards what?ʺ The tolerant answer comes back, ʺMore progress.ʺ All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a ʺfixed point,ʺ they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.
In the face of this false broad‐mindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers, ʺYou owe meʺ and ʺI owe you,ʺ but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms ʺtoleranceʺ and ʺintolerance.ʺ There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ʺintoleranceʺ mean hate, narrow‐ mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad‐mindedness, American good nature.
What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error….
Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability. The government must be intolerant about malicious propaganda, and during the World War it made an index of forbidden books to defend national stability, as the Church, who is in constant warfare with error, made her index of forbidden books to defend the permanency of Christʹs life in the souls of men. The government during the war was intolerant about the national heretics who refused to accept her principles concerning the necessity of democratic institutions, and took physical means to enforce such principles. The soldiers who went to war were intolerant about the principles they were fighting for, in the same way that a gardener must be intolerant about the weeds that grow in his garden. The Supreme Court of the United States is intolerant about any private interpretation of the first principle of the Constitution that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the particular citizen who would interpret ʺlibertyʺ in even such a small way as meaning the privilege to ʺgoʺ on a red traffic‐light, would find himself very soon in a cell where there were no lights, not even the yellow — the color of the timid souls who know not whether to stop or go. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in their laboratories, and as all of us are intolerant of a particularly broad‐minded, ʺtolerant,ʺ and good‐natured grocer who, in making our bills, adds seven and ten to make twenty.
No matter his correctness about the necessity of an intolerance for evil and vice, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was an Americanist, and the passages highlighted immediately above about the Supreme Court’s intolerance was even wrong in its day as the Court had endorsed the immoral practice of mandatory sterilization for career criminals and imbeciles in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, that was championed by the legal positivist named Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208] But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Buck v. Bell)
Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of law was indeed based on "experience" and not "logic." He used the discredited, diabolical precepts of utilitarianism (public policy must be based upon the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" even if "traditional" concepts of morality are violated in the process) and the sort of Social Darwinism that was near and dear to the heart of the woman who started the Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger (whose motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief issue of birth control"), as the foundation for his decision in the case of Buck v. Bell. Indeed, Holmes's overt rejection of the Natural Law as the foundation of jurisprudence (legal reasoning) and the civil law in favor of legal positivism extended quite explicitly to a rejection of the inviolability of innocent human life under of cover of the civil law, as Holmes made clear in a 1918 essay against the Natural Law in the Harvard Law Review:
The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.
Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)
One of the many paradoxes found in a system where a nation's constitution and civil laws, whether passed at the Federal or state levels, do not explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is that it spawns competing teams of naturalists and positivists to vie with each other as to whether they will be bound by a “strict constructionist” approach to the interpretation of the words of the Constitution of the United States of America or bound only by a general, Roussean sense of "experience" that was described as follows by the late Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:
Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.
The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.
The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.
To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
Behold the monstrous tyranny that is upon us.
With this, good readers, we turn our attention once again to the then Monsignor Sheen’s essay:
Now, if it is right — and it is right — for governments to be intolerant about the principles of government, and the bridge builder to be intolerant about the laws of stress and strain, and the physicist to be intolerant about the principles of gravitation, why should it not be the right of Christ, the right of His Church, and the right of thinking men to be intolerant about the truths of Christ, the doctrines of the Church, and the principles of reason? Can the truths of God be less exacting than the truths of mathematics? Can the laws of the mind be less binding than the laws of science, which are known only through the laws of the mind? Shall man, gifted with natural truth, who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on the mathematician who says two and two make five and the one who says two and two make four, be called a wise man, and shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of ʺWisdom,ʺ and be called an ʺintolerantʺ God?…
Why, then, sneer at dogmas as intolerant? On all sides we hear it said today, ʺThe modern world wants a religion without dogmas,ʺ which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith. A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone. All sciences have dogmas. ʺWashington is the capital of the United Statesʺ is a dogma of geography. ʺWater is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygenʺ is a dogma of chemistry. Should we be broad‐minded and say that Washington is a sea in Switzerland? Should we be broad‐minded and say that H2O is a symbol for sulfuric acid? …
But it is anything but progress to act like mice and eat the foundations of the very roof over our heads. Intolerance about principles is the foundation of growth, and the mathematician who would deride a square for always having four sides, and in the name of progress would encourage it to throw away even only one of its sides, would soon discover that he had lost all his squares. So too with the dogmas of the Church, of science, and of reason; they are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is ʺreligious experience,ʺ fit only for burning.
A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. [G. K.] Chesterton tells us, ʺnot a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong.ʺ
The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon [see 3 Kings 3:16-28]. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth — it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad‐mindedness. (Monsignor Fulton Sheen, Old Errors and New Labels. New York, New York, The Century Company, 1931. Although I have the book itself, this excerpt was taken from Novus Ordo Watch Wire .)
Although the subject for a different commentary, Monsignor Sheen’s observation that “The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom” describes why the counterfeit church of conciliarism cannot be the Catholic Church as its false “popes” have quite indeed welcome heresy into the treasury of its teaching by means of dogmatic evolutionism. The legal positivists use a similar method of evolutionism (“the living constitution”) to do their own dirty work of the sort that was done in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020, and in June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020.
The cardinal “sin” of conciliarism is thus the same as that found in the world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism: to make people feel “uncomfortable” or “guilty” about their sins. The corollary perverse commandment of conciliarism: Thou shalt make everyone feel happy and welcomed—other than those who believe in Catholic truth, including that of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
The late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, France, put the matter as follows in the Nineteenth Century:
Neither in His Person," Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction, "nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: 'He is our peace, Who hat made both one." (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: 'every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world' (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7). "So then, Card. Pie continues, "when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., 'Separation of Church and State,' for one, and the enigmatic axiom 'A free Church in a free State,' for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist." (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, pp. 21-23.)
Why can't we recognize once and for all that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ must reign as King over men and their nations and that all “compromises” with this truth are from the devil?
We must always be champions of Christ the King and Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen, as we make reparation for the blasphemous rejection of Our King's Social Reign over men and their nations by the conciliar “popes” and their confederates, mindful of our need to make reparation for our own sins of pride, for our own refusal to let Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to reign as the King over every single aspect of our hearts and souls without any exception whatsoever.
Vivat Christus Rex
Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, 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.
A Few Scriptural Condemnations of Sodomy and Its Related Vices
 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.  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.  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.)
 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,  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)
 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.  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.  In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty.  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.  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.)
As Excerpted From “Jorge Blasphemes God (Again!) to Tickle the Itching Ears of Men
Those who are unchaste must be exhorted to quit their immoral behavior, seeking out the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance at the hands of a true priest as he acts in persona Christi as an alter Christus, resolved from thence on to live penitentially as the consecrated slaves of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as their state-in-life permits. You will hear no such exhortations from the lips of the conciliar "bishops," staring with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself.
We do not base human self-identification on the basis of an inclination to commit various sins. If we did, of course, perhaps we could refer to the "blasphemers' community" and the "killers' community" and the "thieves' community" and the "adulterers' community" and the "gossipers' community" and the "enviers' community." (Well, come to think of it, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a collection of blasphemers, isn't it?) Human self-identification is not based on the inclination to commit any sins, and for Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries to reaffirm those inclined to the commission of perverse sins demonstrates that they, the conciliar revolutionaries, do not understand that true love of God requires us will the good of others. the ultimate good of others is the salvation of their immortal souls, which they conciliar revolutionaries impede, not advance, as they write about the "elements of true love" and concern that perverse sinners have for each other than can "inspire" others by the "sacrifices" they make for each other.
Let me reprise the following once again for those who have been away from this site for a while:
1) God's love for us is an act of His divine will, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of our immortal souls.
2) Our love for others must be premised on willing for them what God wills for us: their salvation.
3) We love no one authentically if we do or say anything, either by omission or commission, which reaffirms him in a life of unrepentant sin.
4) God hates sin. He wills the sinner to repent of his sins by cooperating with the graces He won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross.
5) Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer unspeakable horrors on the wood of the Holy Cross and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be thrust through with Seven Swords of Sorrow.
6) No one can say that he loves Our Lord or Our Lady if he persist in sin unrepentantly and/or celebrates the commission of sin in public acts of defiance against the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the Natural Law.
7) Each sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will, inclining us all the more to sin and sin again. We must, therefore, resolve never to sin again and to do penance for our sins as Our Lady herself implored us to do when she appeared in th Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety years ago.
8) It is therefore forbidden for anyone of this parish or diocese to participate or support, whether morally or financially, any event whatsoever that celebrates any sin, whether natural or unnatural, and/or encourages people to persist in sin as a legitimate "lifestyle."
9) One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to admonish the sinner. We have an obligation to admonish those who are in lives on unrepentant sin to turn away from their lives of sin and to strive to pursue the heights of sanctity.
10) God has compassion on all erring sinners, meaning each one of us. He understands our weakness. He exhorts us, as He exhorted the woman caught in adultery, to "Go, and commit this sin no more."
11) It is not an act of "love" for people to persist in unrepentant sins with others.
12) It is not an act of "judgmentalness" or "intolerance" to exhort people who are living lives of unrepentant sin to reform their lives lest their souls wind up in Hell for eternity.
13) Mortal Sins cast out Sanctifying Grace from the soul. Those steeped in unrepentant mortal sin are the captives of the devil until they make a good and sincere Confession.
14) Certain sins cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
15) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments do not "love" the individuals with whom they are sinning. Authentic love cannot exist in a soul committed to a life against the Commandments of God and the eternal welfare of one's own soul, no less the souls of others.
16) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children.
17) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children because their very sinful lives put into jeopardy the eternal of the souls of the children they seek to adopt. It is not possible for people who are sinning unrepentantly to teach children to hate sin as God hates sin. They are immersed in sin. Pope Pius XI put it this way in Casti Connubii, December 31,1930:
But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household, that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31,1930.)
18) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are further unfit to adopt children because they have no right in the Divine positive law or the natural law to live together as a "couple." Once again, Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii:
Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31,1930.)
19) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandment have no right in the Divine positive law or the natural law to present a "model" of parenthood that is from the devil himself. The words that Saint Paul wrote about perversity in Rome in his own day are quite apropos of our own:
Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their 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: 24-32)
20) Matrimony was elevated to a Sacrament by Our Lord at the wedding feast in Cana. The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is entered into by one man and by one woman to achieve these ends: the procreation and education of children, the mutual good of the spouses, a remedy for concupiscence. Pope Pius XI noted this in Casti Connubii:
This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints.
This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
21) It is never permissible to put even one child into spiritual, if not physical, jeopardy by claiming that so many others would be helped if the Church did not cooperate with an unjust law. Our Lord said that it would be better for one to have a millstone thrown around his neck and thrown into a lake than to lead one of his little ones astray. He was not joking.
22) Sinners must repent of the evil they have done in order to live lives of penance and mortification worthy of Saint Francis of Assisi. Pray as many Rosaries as you can each day of our life. They must repent and pray and work for the conversion of those with whom they have sinned, sure to make a full, integral confession to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance on a weekly basis.