Co-blogger Darwin has a remarkably clear sighted post at his blog which lays out just how the Church will come under attack in the wake of the Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage:


There’s a group out there which is very, very determined to win cultural and moral legitimacy for homosexual relationships, and to punish those who do not share those beliefs. Currently that group is at the cultural helm. In time, it will crumble and lose its ascendancy simply because it is not compatible with the realities of human nature. However, until that happens, the marriage equality group will not be satisfied by seeing Catholic priests stop signing civil marriage licenses, while continuing to celebrate religious marriage ceremonies only for opposite sex couples.  They’re not stupid, and it’s recognition they want, not getting priests to stop signing a form for straight couples.  Nor would “separating” civil and religious marriage be coherent from a Catholic point of view. Indeed, a non-Catholic couple who get married in front of a city clerk are (absent obstacles such as already being married to someone else or being of the same sex) viewed by the Church as being married, since the Church does not recognize there as being two levels of marriage.  So the idea of “getting out of the civil marriage business” fails to protect us from the looming threat, while at the same time abandoning our Catholic principles as to the nature of marriage.  There is no reason to do it.

Go here to read the brilliant rest.

This fight we are in will not be resolved by tricks, “we simply won’t participate in the civil side of marriage”, or a delusional retreat from the world, “the Benedict option”, but rather by a whole hearted reconversion by Catholics to being Catholic.  Persecution will help in this process, as it usually has, by making Catholicism not a safe, comfortable choice of life, but what it in reality always has been:  a radical leap of faith in Christ.  A Faith that demands much is quite powerful and attractive to converts, while a Faith that demands little, and that is what Catholicism has been for the past half century, is a Faith in trouble.  Faith and courage will see us through, as they have over the past 2000 years, as we go about the task of making disciples of all the nations.

More to explorer


  1. I believe the separation of the civil and religious aspects of marriage to be desirable in itself.

    Marriage affects civil status, not only of the parties, but of any children they may have. The rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father, a rule that the French Senate declared “is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value” and that is enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code.

    This rule is concerned with purely civil matters, the upbringing and welfare of the child, protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and the orderly succession to property. It makes republican marriage “a pillar of the lay republic,” standing clear of the religious sacrament.

    This is why the Code Pénal Art 433-21 forbids ministers of religion to conduct marriage ceremonies for couples not legally married, as an attack on civil status. This rests on the constitutional principle that “No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.”

    I am told that much soul-searching goes into deciding who is invited to « le mariage » at the mairie, to « la bénédiction nuptiale » in church, and the favoured few invited or to both. It can involve formidable logistical problems.

  2. Atheism is at the heart of same sex marriage. The proponents of same sex marriage must deny the rational, immortal human soul and its endowed freedoms to embrace the evil of sodomy. Atheistic sodomy and lesbianism must be devoid of anything holy or admitting of God or the eternal life or any reality of love. The imposition of atheism has already begun to remove any vestige of conscience and human freedom from man. The atheist has taken man by the neck and set his boot on his face, and man has become a beast of burden to the very state he has constituted with his sovereign personhood.

  3. I am thinking that I do not like this persecution thing. And when I find my backbone I will resist untruth, lies, perjury, indecency and injustice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg performed same sex weddings before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision automatically recusing herself, leaving the Court with a 4 to 4 decision. This would require, nay demand, that the voice of the people be heard at the ballot box to repulse any imposition of tyranny upon the people. But the Court assumed its sovereignty over the people and inflicted its version of atheism, the denial of the human being, body and soul. The immortal, rational human soul that separates man from the animals is reduced to hearsay in the Court and man is reduced to a beast of burden; taxation without representation, in atheism as an individual citizen with no soul…the court’s version of Frankenstein. “I AM” not to be subjected to atheism. My Creator told me so, in the Ten Commandments.

  4. Legally, a church — certainly not a Catholic church — is not a place of public accommodation. (Try suing the Mormons because they won’t let you undergo their secret initiation.) In order for this scenario to happen, 14th amendment jurisprudence would have to be overturned, and the 1st Amendment repealed. They can accomplish much mischief around the edges, but I think they have their symbolic victory. I suppose you could argue, “Well, judges can do whatever they want,” which is theoretically true, but they have an interest, too, in not completely throwing the legal system overboard. So I don’t see it. A first year law student could defeat such a claim.

  5. I would have agreed with you my Bruin friend until after the gay marriage decision was handed down. I believe we crossed a line there, where a majority of the court isn’t really pretending anymore that they are interpreting the Constitution rather than making it up as they go along. In the past, even in Roe, they had the good grace to pretend otherwise.

  6. The Bear wrote, “Legally, a church — certainly not a Catholic church — is not a place of public accommodation”

    Leaving aside established churches, which are, in any event, irrelevant in the American context, a church is simply a voluntary association, on all fours with a trade union, the governing body of a sport, a literary society or a football supporters’ club.

    The rules of the club (written or customary) constitute a contract between each member and all the rest and contain a term, express or implied, that the members will abide by the decisions of the governing body, in the administration of its affairs.

    Usually, a member can only raise an action on the contract where some patrimonial interest is involved, such as the expulsion of a trade union member, leading to the loss of his employment or the refusal of the Jockey Club to renew a trainer’s licence, or the suspension sine die of a church minister, involving the loss of his manse and stipend.

    Thus, the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) had no civil remedy, when his church, the Wee Frees, excommunicated him for attending a requiem mass for Lord Wheatley, the former Lord Justice-Clerk in 1988.

  7. I believe we crossed a line there, where a majority of the court isn’t really pretending anymore that they are interpreting the Constitution rather than making it up as they go along. In the past, even in Roe, they had the good grace to pretend otherwise.
    Again, no more appropriations. And if Mr. Justice Breyer wants the salary that constitutional language says he’s entitled to, mail him a copy of his most recent judicial opinion about capital sentences (also referred to in explicit constitutional language). If he complains again, send him a hospital menu and he can choose whether he wants $244,000 worth of macaroni salad, mashed potatoes, or dry little half-dollar hamburger patties.

  8. If you are right, then it really will be the moment to remember H.L. Mencken, and spit on our hands, raise the black flag, and start slitting throats. (Note to the overly literate: this is a quote not to be taken seriously. By humans.)

  9. I have a feeling that Pope “who am I to judge” Francis would not have a problem with marrying a same sex couple. Anyone have the same thought?

  10. Michael, that you can seriously ask that question defines the problem. Personally, I don’t believe he would do that. I think he is a stubborn, “progressive” bishop that is from a problematical area of the world, and a country with a particularly odd history. (Sorry, but that’s the way way I see it.) He has VERY idiosyncratic ideas and obviously does not see himself in the “hermeneutic of continuity” LOL. He wants to use what limited time he has to jam through as many changes as he can get away with, and that is why he cultivates his public image the way he does.

  11. The Bear. I hope you are right, of course. But my belief is Pope Francis has a very “advanced”–Pierre Teilhard deChardin–view of what it means to be a Catholic which would find gay marriage quite acceptable as we all evolve together to a heaven on earth.

  12. Were he employed in some non-commercial occupation in New York, you’d say there was nothing idiosyncratic about him. The only oddity is that he’s a Catholic clergyman of some consequence.

  13. Actually the next attack won’t be the direct frontline assault of demanding clergy marry homosexuals. The attacks will be flanking maneuvers but with serious consequences. The tax status of the Church can be administratively challenged by the IRS (see Bob Jones University). Or, it may be challenged by legislation or the new post constitutuional means of executive fiat. In any event, this will happen. It’s not that the Church, and its affiliated organizations such as schools, hospitals, food banks, etc, will pay a tax on any profit, as none will be shown. Rather your contributions will not be qualified as a deduction and so good, loyal Catholics who are generous in the Spirit will be paying the equivalent of a recusant tax.

    Also, I noticed in our church bulletin this Sunday that our parish school accepts Agricultue Departmemt funding for some sort of food or dairy product….so in the bulletin was a required DOA notice that we do not discriminate on the basis of……gender identity or preference. Thus, along with the tax issue, the issue of accepting the kimg’s shilling will become a hedge weapon to separate our institutions from our Faith. But hey, we can blame global warming….it’s all interrelated.

  14. Is the Benedict option really “a delusional retreat from the world”? When the Oregon state government fines Christian bakers hundreds of thousands of dollars, what else are we supposed to do?

  15. Fight, and there are many ways of fighting. The Bakers who were fined 135,000 have raised 201,000. Additionally, our enemies are not going to allow us to retreat peacefully from the world, so it is a dead proposition from the start. Finally, Catholics are not Amish. We are out to convert the world, not to maintain a small sect of believers. Catholics need to man up, get a grip, stop whining and start fighting!

  16. Like the state that is constituted by “We, the people” who are every person since our nation was founded by George Washington et al, our ancestors, this generation and all future generations of American citizens, our constitutional posterity, the Catholic Church too, is all triumphant in heaven, the Church Triumphant, the Church Militant here on earth and the Church Suffering, those poor souls in purgatory beyond the reach of of corrupt government.The Church is more than a place of accommodation. The church is the people. The people hold the legacy from the Saints in heaven, the trust of the parishioners on earth (IN GOD WE TRUST) and the inheritance of the future generations of Catholics. Imposing atheism, which is what Obergofell v. Hodges did, and must happen to eradicate the truth of our Creator and the sovereign personhood of the individual person. There is no person who can replace an infinite God. The devil is not an atheist. Atheism must be imposed to remove the sovereign personhood of the citizen

  17. No business proprietor must accommodate a sodomite. Accommodation laws cannot force another person to countenance a sodomite. A gay wedding ceremony is a promise to perform sodomy. Accommodation laws are based on the sovereign citizen. Sodomites relinquish their sovereignty by performing sodomy. The question business proprietors must ask of their customers is: “Are you a sodomite?” A sign in the window might say: “NO SODOMITES SERVED”. The Court may redefine the conjugal act, but sodomy cannot be forced onto the people. Atheism cannot be forced on the people. Satanism cannot be forced on the people. Equal Justice precludes half truths.

  18. The gay gestapo constitute about 3% of we the people. They have the active support of about 20% of we the people that are the hate-filled, intolerant liberals who need to destroy the Church because it’s Object Truth and the Supremacy of God Almighty are the main roadblocks to the people’s enslavement to the totalitarian state. Peace and justice!

  19. T Shaw wrote, “The gay gestapo constitute about 3% of we the people. They have the active support of about 20% of we the people…”

    The Irish referendum is interesting in this respect. To nearly 40% (39.48%) of the electorate, the result was a matter of supine indifference, for the turnout was only 60.52%. Compare that with the 80.35% turnout in the 2012 French Presidential election, with the media lamenting that the “missing 20%” spelled the end of democracy or the 84.5% who voted in the Independence referendum in Scotland.

    Of the 60.52% who bothered to vote, 62.07 voted in favour of SSM, that is 37.56% of eligible voters. Only 22.95% of the electorate, or a little over one-fifth, felt strongly enough to register their opposition.

    Do you imagine the figures in the US would be very different?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: