Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The Honeycomb, the Lily and the Bomb

Back in the seventies, the Brazilian newspaper, 
O Folha de S. Paulo, asked Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira if he favored the end of legal restrictions to divorce. His reply is very applicable to the present debate around same-sex “marriage.” We reproduce the newspaper interview here having in mind the similarity between the two issues.

The Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) had numerous jousts against divorce in its history. Employing every means of action in this struggle, the TFP fought against it until the final moment.

The victory of divorce did not result, however, from the fact that a particularly fervid or efficacious pro-divorce onslaught had finally managed to raze the glorious rampart of conjugal indissolubility. Rather, this victory resulted from the lamentable relaxations that occurred within the Catholic milieu itself! But, I insist, it is manifestly well known that the TFP fought against it until the end.

These facts come to my mind with regard to a question presented to me by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo about whether I am favorable to or against the “end of legal restrictions to divorce.” Clearly, I am against the revocation of these restrictions. If I see in divorce a catastrophe, I can only be enthusiastically favorable to that which curtails its effects.

I should add that the greatest catastrophe in this matter was not—nor does it continue to be—divorce, but rather the terrible dissolution of customs that has been spreading for many years in a gradual and inexorable way in our country. This is the profound final cause, of which the installation of divorce is only one of the catastrophic effects.

In other words, an increasingly growing number of Brazilians—practicing Catholics (!) or not, and even atheists—are agreeing in this matter.

For they hold that civil marriage between divorcees (or between a divorced person with a single person) lacks moral content, and thus they do not take it seriously. Thus, they agree, in innumerable cases, to live together without bothering with the empty ceremony of the civil contract. And by the time divorce had penetrated into our laws, concubinage had already been widely diffused in the customs of uncountable social sectors of the country—from the highest to the most modest.

It seems that certain persons favoring divorce seemed to think that, immediately after the approval of divorce, an avalanche of requests for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond would take place. It would be like a “stampede” of unhappily-married couples finally “liberated” from legal restraints and eager to form new unions. In fact, in certain places, the installation of more courts in the judiciary halls was quite seriously studied so that they might attend in some way to this avalanche.

However, this “stampede” did not take place simply because the greater majority of the unhappily-married who wanted a “formula” for escaping the conjugal bond did not by any means feel such an eagerness [for the solution], since they had already sunk into the  mud hole of concubinage, aggravated by adultery!

In comparison with the immensity of these moral ruins, what does the loosening—or suppression—of legal restraints for divorce signify? Quite little!

Let me say, however, that from the point of view of its repercussions in public opinion, the present controversy over this issue exerts a less than salutary effect, as long as all that was said above is not kept in mind.

In fact, this controversy presents many anti-divorcists with an occasion to reengage, on a small scale, in the battle lost with the approval of divorce. This they do by making shine, well in the background of a tenebrous horizon, the hope of a restoration of the indissoluble, monogamous marriage.

This can turn the attention of anti-divorcists to a terrain that is more important.
For the restoration of the indissoluble marriage to have viability, it is necessary that what should first be restored, in uncountable souls, is the desire for seriousness, austerity and mortification. This, and something more, which can be expressed by the word, sweet like a honeycomb, perfumed like a lily, and nonetheless, explosive like a bomb in today’s world. That word is purity. And it is closely followed by two sisters, no less sweet, no less suave, and with no less power of explosion. They are virginity and honor.

Until this happens, how can it be hoped that the country will revoke divorce.

Tradition, Family, and Property - The Honeycomb, the Lily and the Bomb

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Knowing What We Can't Not Know

Written by John Horvat II

In a world where baby body parts are bought and sold and marriage has been redefined, it is urgent that we reaffirm that there are certain broad, moral truths that we can’t not know. It needs to be said and proclaimed. We all know that one should not murder. We all know that one should not steal or lie. These are all written on the human heart to the point that they cannot be blotted out. In other words, there are no excuses for not knowing. Many people may live in denial of these truths, but they nevertheless perceive the objects of their denial.

In this sense, Prof. J. Budziszewski’s book, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide, is a refreshing oasis in a postmodern desert. This extremely logical and compelling work on natural law provides a much-needed refutation of the current assumption that moral truth is relative and even unobtainable.

His central thesis is very clear: there is an unchangeable and universal moral code based on human nature that everyone generally knows. This set of moral truths, called natural law, is “a universal possession, an emblem of a rational mind, an heirloom of the family of man.”

Formulations of this natural law have appeared in every culture, among all peoples and in all epochs. By far the most well known is the Ten Commandments, which succinctly summarizes those self-evident moral truths that should govern human action.

Unlike mutilated natural law theories from the Enlightenment, Prof. Budziszewski takes a classical and Thomistic natural law perspective that embraces as a given the existence of a Creator and the need to give Him honor. He masterfully demonstrates this by calling up what he terms the “witnesses” of natural law: “deep conscience, the witness of design as such, the witness of our own design, and the witness of natural consequences.” The result is a spectacular intellectual artifice of crystalline logic and clarity. 

However, this book is not a theoretic exposition of some ideal law that has little to do with the modern world. Quite the contrary, the author actually explains the present moral crisis through the prism of natural law. He answers the obvious question: Why do so many appear not to know that which they can’t not know?

To answer this question, the author does not claim we all have an innate, detailed, and precise vision of natural law. He only says that we all have a general knowledge of basic moral truths. This knowledge requires constant development and nurturing. We must find the applications and reach the conclusions of this primary knowledge with the help of faith, tradition, culture, institutions, and moral education.

The problem with the modern world is that we have taken away so many of those institutions and means that normally help people apply natural law well. Moreover, we have adopted so many mechanisms of denial, sin, rejection, rationalization and “just plain bad living” that make living according to natural law onerous.

As a result, many fail to live inside natural law and are in denial of it. However, this denial only proves its existence since when we fail to live in accordance to our nature and design, we pay the price of misery and disaster. Driven by the guilt from our consciences, we are indicted and punished by what the author calls the “Five Furies” of remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. These avenging modes of conscience are “inflexible, inexorable and relentless, demanding satisfaction.”

In a world where we are told we can know nothing, we need to be told what we can’t not know. The merit of What We Can’t Not Know is that it does this so well, and in so doing perfectly describes where we went wrong in our rebellious culture. For those who are seeking a return to order, this book is one that we shouldn’t not read.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/knowing_what_we_cant_not_know_.html#ixzz3gj2lsKL7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Tell the Boy Scouts NOT to accept homosexual scout leaders

July 21, 2015:  According to CNN, the executive committee of the Boy Scouts of America has adopted a new resolution to accept openly homosexual scout leaders.  The announcement clearly contradicts the original mission and oath of the Scouts, which is based on honor, duty to God, and moral uprightness.
Take action:  The national executive board will vote whether or not to accept this new resolution on July 27.  So please sign this petition, urging the Boy Scouts to REVERSE course.
But we only have until July 27 to make a difference.
Now is our LAST CHANCE to contact the Boy Scouts and tell them that faithful parents don't want this pro-homosexual agenda.  Faithful boys don't want it either.
Moreover, parents understand how the public acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle would not only undermine good morals, but also increase the risk of sexual abuse.  An in-depth study published by the Family Research Council demonstrates that homosexuals, who account for approximately two percent of the population, are responsible for up to one third of child sexual abuse cases.
Contact information (please be polite yet firm)
Boy Scouts of America
PR Department:  PR@scouting.orgFeedback:  Feedback@scouting.orgGeneral e-email:  MyScouting@scouting.org1325 W. Walnut Hill Lane
Irving, TX 75038
Phone: 972-580-2000

Tell the Boy Scouts NOT to accept homosexual scout leaders

Monday, July 20, 2015

Why We Need Beauty in Our Lives

Written by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

God created beauty for the life of the soul. It has no corporal usefulness. It does not satisfy hunger, shelter us from a storm or provide warmth. For the life of the body, it is perfectly useless.

However, beauty is more useful than food, shelter and warmth. This is because beauty is useful to the soul, and the soul is worth more than the body.

Let us say, for example, that a city has no bread. Without food, everyone dies. But can a soul live in a world without beauty?

When the Jewish nation under the Machabee family revolted against the foreign pagan domination of their country, the first Machabee, the one who started the revolt, launched it with this cry: “It is better to die than to live in a land devastated and without honor.” We could say: “It is better to die than to live in a land devastated and without beauty.” The beauty of the things of the earth is one of the reasons for their existence. Beauty makes life worth living.

Because of this, one who wants to love God must be sensitive to beauty. Normally, a person insensitive to art is insensitive to God. In Catholic civilizations, art is cultivated as much as possible. That is why a church building as a whole is beautiful, or at least attempts to be beautiful. This is why even in the catacombs in the bowels of the earth, we find chapels that were attempts at beauty. The worship of God ought to take place in beautiful circumstances so that the soul might be truly led to God by means of the worship rendered. This is the reason for being for beauty.

Since everything that is beautiful leads to God, it is natural that those who would destroy Christian civilization would want to diminish and eliminate beauty from the world.

Tradition, Family, and Property - Why We Need Beauty in Our Lives

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Five Ways the Same-Sex "Marriage" Movement Has Failed

Written by John Horvat II

The Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” took place with predictable media fanfare. There were endless scenes of jubilant promoters, doting commentators and kowtowing politicians. Everything was done to give the impression that the issue is finally settled.

However, despite the narrow 5-4 victory, the issue is far from settled. People across the country are upset not only because of the actual decision itself but also because of the strong-armed manner in which it was carried out. As it now stands, the ruling leaves the country more divided than ever.

The ideal for the movement would have been if all America had been on board. In this sense, the same-sex “marriage” movement has failed in five important ways.

Liberals Do Not Value the Votes of Americans
It became evident that votes no longer matter to liberals in America. The movement unmasked itself by abandoning any pretense that acceptance was in any way democratic. Instead, the matter was put in the hands of all powerful courts to get the “right” decisions. Federal court rulings prepared the ground by trampling upon state constitutional amendments and nullifying the votes of tens of millions of Americans. After railroading same-sex “marriage” upon states that had successfully apposed it, the Supreme Court finished the job with its ruling.

Failed to Frame as Civil Rights Issue
The failure was particularly evident in the African-American community which largely opposed any efforts to equate the homosexual movement with the civil rights movement of the sixties. Moreover, the African-American community, especially its religious leaders, opposed same-sex “marriage” on a grand scale on moral grounds.

Forced From The Top
There was evident use of enormous pressure to force through the same-sex marriage agenda. Every stop was pulled out to belittle those who oppose same-sex marriage. Far from being a movement of the “people,” this was a top-down campaign that counted on the full weight of big government, big media and big business to push its agenda forward.

Alienated Supporters
The movement failed yet again by disenchanting countless Americans by its forced politicization of everything from chicken sandwiches to Facebook posts to pizza weddings. Everything had to have a homosexual angle attached to it and those who did not conform to politically correct norms could face harassment or boycotts. Pro-marriage advocates soon found that tolerance was a one way street.

However, such strong-arm tactics often resulted in spectacular failures as when Chick-fil-A’s pro-family position led to record sales in support. Other times however, florist shops and bakeries have been fined and shut down—something rarely seen on America’s shores.

Strengthening The Opposition
Perhaps the movement’s biggest failure was its inability to discourage its opposition by the overwhelming magnitude of its massive propaganda machine. Ironically, it has only strengthened the resolve of pro-family activists who now see they cannot depend on human solutions but need now confide only in God. Indeed, two weeks before the Supreme Court decision, for example, Americans nationwide gathered for 3,265 prayer rallies in the public square calling upon God’s aid in defense of traditional marriage.

The bottom line is that the pro-homosexual movement has managed to win an important battle with the Supreme Court decision, but it has failed to win the hearts and souls of all Americans. To the contrary, the brutal ram rodding of same-sex marriage upon the nation has only alienated many who feel completely disregarded by the political process and has put them in the hands of a powerful and almighty God. Like Roe v. Wade before it, Obergefell v. Hodges is an unsettling law.

Tradition, Family, and Property - Five Ways the Same-Sex "Marriage" Movement Has Failed

Thursday, July 9, 2015

The Gambler: Symbol of Frenetic Intemperance -

If there is a figure that represents the idea of an economy out of balance, that character is the gambler. The gambler is someone who must satisfy his passions instantly, regardless of the consequences. He is frenetically intemperate to the point of disregarding reality.
Matthew Crawford in his book, The World Beyond Your Head, gives a startling report on what happens in the gambler’s world and how the gambling establishment cultivates intemperate behaviors.
He reports that gamblers will frequently stand eight or even twelve hours at a time in front of a slot machine. They will stay even to the point of developing blood clots or other serious conditions. He writes:
“Paramedics in Las Vegas dread getting calls from casinos, which usually turn out to be heart attacks. The problem is that when someone collapses, the other gamblers won’t get out of the way to let the paramedics do their job; they won’t leave their machines. Deafening fire alarms are similarly ignored; there have been incidents when rising flood waters didn’t dislodge them.”
In addition, the gambling establishments do everything possible to keep gamblers on the casino floor, even employing technology to track behavior. Crawford reports that some casinos have facial recognition software that records the habits of frequent gamblers. When such a gambler heads for exits, his favorite slot machines will call out his name asking him to return.

The Gambler: Symbol of Frenetic Intemperance -

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Tradition, Family, and Property - Return to Order Now Available as Audio Book on Audible by Amazon

CHANDLER, AZ (June 22, 2015) – A storm is brewing on America’s horizon, according to John Horvat II, author ofReturn to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society—Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go. The book, which offers solutions on how to address that storm before it is upon us, is now available in audio format onAudible by Amazon.

“The economy continues on its course of self-destruction as a result of ignoring our God-given moral compass, which ultimately keeps everything in balance,” according to Horvat.

His messages have been heard by more than one million listeners through radio and television appearances and during nearly 200 presentations around America and Europe. Now, through the convenience of the audio version of Return to Order, many more listeners will hear Horvat demonstrating clearly how society’s blind embrace of an economy driven by the pursuit of instant gratification has thrown the country into a state of socioeconomic chaos.

Horvat is not alone in his studied belief that it’s time to get the “lifeboats” ready. Central bankers from around the globe are now sounding their own alarms.

“There are plenty of naysayers weighing in on the major problems with the tractionless, hobbling economic recovery,” says Horvat. “However, they are now joined by important players in the financial establishment who point to strong indicators that something big, and bad, is coming down the line.”

The Return to Order audio book is approximately 10 hours in length and is richly narrated by Dude Walker. The book itself has sold more than 40,000 copies and boasts a long list of accolades from scholars, clergy and politicians, and has earned a five-star rating from 81 percent of those who reviewed it on Amazon since its release in 2013.

“I think that everyone should have a copy of this book. It is truly an eye-opener,” said Amazon commenter Vicky Barker in January of 2015.

Hundreds of Horvat’s articles have been published by top conservative websites such as The Blaze,American ThinkerAmerican SpectatorSpero NewsCNS News and The Christian Post. His articles have also appeared in The Wall Street JournalThe Washington Times, and other publications and websites.

The audio book, Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society—Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go, can easily be purchased onAudible.com by Amazon. The 400-page hardcover book
(ISBN: 978-0988214804) retails for $21.95 US, while the e-book version (ASIN: B00B5HED8W) retails for $4.95.

For more information or to purchase copies of the book in any format, call 855-861-8420 or visitwww.ReturnToOrder.org. To request and interview with or presentation by Horvat, please put “Return to Order appearance request” in the subject line, and email Linda F. Radke at info@fivestarpublications.com.

Tradition, Family, and Property - Return to Order Now Available as Audio Book on Audible by Amazon

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Life as a Chess Piece

Written by Mark Serafino

If you were a chess piece, which piece would you be? A pawn? A Knight? The Queen? If you’ve ever played chess you know that each piece bears it’s own unique power to attack it opponent or defend its King and you are keenly aware that in spite of her unmatched power on the board the highest piece, the Queen can be taken by the lowest, the Pawn in one move when you least expect it to happen.

Why is this? How can this happen? The answer lies in the tactical strategy of the chess player. Without his direction, even the most powerful piece on the board is impotent and left to stand powerless to accomplish anything unless his ‘master’ places his hands on it and ‘moves’ it further in the game.

I would like to suggest that life is very much like a chess game and we are the chess pieces waiting for our Master to move us. What piece are you? Who is your Chess Master? 

In truth, there is only one Chess Master, God our Creator, the Author of life. He controls the ‘chess board’ of life and He moves each piece, each one of us to the very spot (square) He needs us, at the very moment He needs us to be there.

As chess pieces go, are we a good chess piece? Do we wait to be moved, or are we taking the game into our own hands? Is God capable of making a wrong move? How often in life do we try to take matters into our own hands and move from our current square to another, because we are impatient for results, in our family relationships, our daily responsibilities or our vocation? When you think about it, if we were to focus our effort on Earth to being the perfect chess piece we could never be moved in the wrong direction or prematurely eliminated from the ‘game’, because our ‘moves’ will have been directed by God and our suffering while we wait to be moved would be rewarded by Him on Earth and in Heaven.

Painful as it may be, our best and perhaps only option in life is to be His obedient chess piece, waiting for His touch while preparing ourselves spiritually to fulfill the mission He has chosen for us in the next move. The silence and waiting can feel unbearable, and the lack of action makes us feel abandoned and alone. It is in these moments, when we are our most vulnerable that we actually have the most power as a chess piece because it is our love and faith in Him that strengthens us, molding us to be ready for Him to place us in the perfect square and serve Him.

So tomorrow when you wake up, think about being that chess piece. Wait quietly and patiently for Him to touch you, then, move with Him confident that His moves are unmatched and that His love for you is immeasurable. Your faith and obedience are the keys to making your next move one with His.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Tradition, Family, and Property - In Legalizing Same-Sex “Marriage” U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Natural Law and Provokes God’s Wrath

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property—TFP vehemently protests the “profoundly immoral and unjust”[1] majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court inObergefell v. Hodges which imposed same-sex “marriage” on America by judicial fiat.

The sacred institution of marriage—established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve,[2] and which has been seriously undermined by the moral crisis devastating Western society since the sixties—suffered a tremendous blow on June 26, 2015.

In the most powerful nation on earth today, five liberal judges reinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to discover that it contains a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”

The Court Rejects God and His Law
When declaring America’s independence from Great Britain and forming a new political unity, our founding fathers placed “the rectitude of [their] intentions” before God as the “Supreme Judge of the world.”

In this landmark decision, however, the majority basks cynically in an atheistic, implied rejection of God and His right to be adored and obeyed by men, His creatures, not just individually, but as a society.

A Skewed Understanding of Liberty...
The majority opinion ignores the physical liberty plainly meant by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Written by liberal Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy—who was joined by fellow liberal Catholic Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg—the majority opinion ignores the physical liberty plainly meant by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment[3] and embraces an evolving and anarchy-favoring reading of what human moral liberty is supposed to be: Liberty understood as license, whereby man is free to do as he pleases, regardless if the action is good or evil. In doing this, the Court implicitly rejected a proper understanding of liberty found in the perennial moral teaching of the Catholic Church, which, echoing natural law[4] and the Ten Commandments, defines human moral liberty as our freedom to pursue all that is good and our duty to avoid all that is evil.[5]

…Informed by Moral Relativism
In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy builds on the moral relativism undergirding the majority opinion he authored in Lawrence v. Texas— a decision that went down in history as having “decreed the end of all morals legislation”[6]—when the Supreme Court discovered in the same Fourteenth Amendment a constitutional right to the practice of sodomy. Now, twelve years later, Justice Kennedy explains further his liberty-as-license perspective:

Lawrence therefore drew upon principles of liberty and equality to define and protect the rights of gays and lesbians, holding the State “cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality.[7]

The Court Breaks with History and Tradition
Kennedy cynically affirms that this “Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order”[8] and that “[t]he right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”[9]

“[T]hese [fundamental] liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”[10]

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimension, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”[11]

“The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way though they set forth independent principles….This interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding ofwhat freedom is and must become.”[12]

This evolving notion of liberty is the Supreme Court’s justification for rupturing with history, destroying tradition, and redefining marriage. Since Herodotus started recording the history of nations and peoples, thousands of years ago, nowhere do we find lawful same-sex “marriage.”[13]Not in lustful Rome. Not in dissolute Greece. Not in the horrors of Communist China or Castro’s Cuba. Not even in the divinely chastised cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Chief Justice Roberts’ Inexcusably Weak Dissent
Regrettably, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was weak and included concessions to the homosexual movement such as: “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us….”  “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling….” “The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.”[14]

More importantly, Roberts’ dissent shares by omission in the majority’s implied denial of the obligation of every man, and therefore of society, to do good and to avoid evil. There is no discussion much less condemnation of the unnaturalness and intrinsic immorality of the homosexual act, which lies at the root of every same-sex “marriage.”[15]

With the attention of America riveted on the issue, Roberts’ dissent could have been used as an ideal “teaching moment” that a moral wrong can never become a civil right, steering America’s conservative reaction onto the high ground where it belongs.
None of the Dissents Defended Natural Law

Of the three other dissenting opinions only that of Justice Thomas comes close to mentioning our obligations under Natural Law, but only in a fleeting manner. He quotes John Locke and Thomas Rutherforth but does not develop this line of thought.[16] While he expounds ably our constitutional political liberty and correctly denounces the majority’s misconception of thephysical liberty alluded to in the Fourteenth Amendment, he does not denounce their erroneous view of man’s moral liberty.

On the Cusp of a Religious Persecution
The world knows how religious Americans are. What will happen when our fundamental right to adore God above all things and obey His Law is effectively denied because it runs contrary to the new constitutional right of homosexuals and their media- and now government-privileged status?
Both majority and dissenting opinions talk about the impact of this decision on the free exercise of religion in America. The latter show evident concern that it stands threatened, and they should be worried. Just as the homosexual movement fought for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” so that homosexuality would be accepted as normal and homosexual acts would be considered equal to the marital act, it will now push to further erode and eventually extirpate the expression of Christian morality from society.[17]

This decision increases the country’s growing polarization. If before this decision anti-discrimination laws around the country were already being used to elevate homosexuals to a privileged class, giving rise to many incidents of egregious and unjust persecution (e.g. bakers, florists, photographers, CEOs, teachers, etc.), what will the nation witness in the decision’s wake?

The world knows how religious Americans are. What will happen when our fundamental right to adore God above all things and obey His Law is effectively denied because it runs contrary to the new constitutional right of homosexuals and their media- and now government-privileged status? What conflicts will this religious persecution engender? Will it lead to civil war?

Did the Court’s majority weigh possible outcomes before opening this Pandora’s Box?

Christians Must Resist This Unjust Law
In this ever more intense Culture War, all Americans who consider themselves faithful disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ “must obey God rather than men”[18] and peacefully and legally resist legalized same-sex “marriage” for the unjust and unconstitutional law it is.

As Most Rev. Joseph E. Strickland, Bishop of Tyler, Texas, reminds us:

We know that unjust laws and other measures contrary to the moral order are not binding in conscience, thus we must now exercise our right to conscientious objection against this interpretation of our law which is contrary to the common good and the true understanding of marriage.[19]

In 2003, addressing the growing threat of legalized homosexual unions around the world, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. This instruction to the universal Church was signed by the Congregation’s Prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and Secretary, Archbishop Angelo Amato. The Vatican document insists that, “any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws” and even any “material cooperation on the level of their application” must be avoided. “In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”[20]
"We know that unjust laws and other measures contrary to the moral order are not binding in conscience, thus we must now exercise our right to conscientious objection against this interpretation of our law which is contrary to the common good and the true understanding of marriage."
- Bishop Joseph E. Strickland

Our Bishops Should Excommunicate Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor
In this monumental fight, we pray that our spiritual leaders will wield their shepherds’ staffs courageously, reinvigorating discipline, strengthening the faith of good Catholics, and dispensing appropriate punishment to bad ones.

The Vatican Considerations document quoted above also addresses the responsibility of Catholic politicians (and, by extension, judges who legislate from the bench) whose public lives must be “consistent with Christian conscience.” The document states:
If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians…. The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.[21]

For the great harm done to the sacred institution of marriage, the family in America, and the common good of the nation, Associate Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Legalized Same-Sex “Marriage”: A Sin of the Nation

As in its unjust Roe v. Wade decision, which imposed legal procured abortion on America, so too now, and abusing its authority, the U.S. Supreme Court has consummated a collective sin of the nation, which will draw God’s justice and chastisement upon us, because the sins of nations are punished in this life, not in the next. In His justice, God rewards or chastises nations in this life for the good or evil they do, because unlike individuals they are incapable of being rewarded or chastised in eternity.[22]

This truth makes us fear for the nation. We draw comfort, however, that principled and loyal resistance to this sin does not pass unnoticed by God. The resistance that needs to occur is precisely the means of averting Divine wrath and drawing instead His mercy on America.

We Are Certain of Final Victory
If Christians in America fight in this way they have every reason to confide in God’s assistance, for as Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the first TFP in Brazil, reminded us:
Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat” (“I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” - Phil. 4:13).

When men resolve to cooperate with the grace of God, the marvels of history are worked: the conversion of the Roman Empire; the formation of the Middle Ages; the reconquest of Spain, starting from Covadonga; all the events that result from the great resurrections of soul of which peoples are also capable. These resurrections are invincible, because nothing can defeat a people that is virtuous and truly loves God.[23]
In her seemingly impossible quest, Saint Joan of Arc ever reminded her troops: “If we fight, God will give the victory!”

And in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, when appearing to the three little shepherd children to deliver the Message for our times, the Mother of God assured us of Her ultimate victory: “Finally, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

May the loving and faithful resistance of millions of Americans to this unjust law attract God’s mercy and blessings on the nation, and may the prayers of Mary Most Holy bring special graces that change hearts and minds, thus making America truly and enduringly “one nation under God.”
Spring Grove, Penn., June 29, 2015
The American TFP

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand
In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or
 disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against 
any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or 
organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only
 intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family,
 and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and
 pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent
 temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall 
into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may
 assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these
 individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to 
overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason
 for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, 
in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and 
natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials
 who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality
 and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, 
interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our 
liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional
 rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed
 public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with
 arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and 
same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right 
reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or
 another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic.
 Such is not our intention.

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, “Supreme Court Decision on Marriage ‘A Tragic Error’ Says President of Bishops’ Conference,” June 26, 2015, at http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm, accessed June 29, 2015. 
“And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said….Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.” (Gen. 2:22-24). 
“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section 1. (Our emphasis.) 
Natural law informs our oldest legal traditions as evidenced by this quote from Sir William Blackstone: “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (Commentaries on the Laws of England [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1765], 1:41). 
Cf. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Libertas, June 1888, at http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html, accessed June 29, 2015. 
Lawrence v. Texas, J. Scalia, dissenting opinion, section IV. 
Obergefell v. Hodges, majority opinion, p. 22. (Our emphasis.) 
Ibid., p. 16. 
Ibid., pp. 18-19. (Our emphasis.) 
Ibid., p. 10. 
Ibid., p. 11. (Our emphasis.) 
Ibid., p. 19. (Our emphasis.) 
“No country allowed same-sex couples to marry until the Netherlands did so in 2000.” Obergefell v. Hodges, J. Alito, dissenting opinion, p. 3. 
Obergefell v. Hodges, C.J. Roberts, dissenting opinion, p. 2. 
Sacred Scripture and the perennial moral teaching of the Church have always categorized homosexual acts as intrinsically evil as they are contrary to nature, and always sterile, closing the sexual act to the gift of life. 
“Locke described men as existing in a state of nature, possessed of the ‘perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature…” J. Thomas, dissenting opinion, p. 7. (Our emphasis.) “Rutherforth explained that ‘[t]he only restraint, which a mans right over his own actions is originally under, is the obligation of governing himself by the law of nature, and the law of God.'” Ibid., p. 8fn. 
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people helps us understand better what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote: “The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.” Paul Varnell, “Defending Our Morality,” Chicago Free Press, Aug. 16, 2000. 
Acts 5:29. 
Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, “Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision,” June 26, 2015, athttps://www.dioceseoftyler.org/news/2015/06/bishop-stricklands-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-decision/ accessed June 28, 2015. 
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, no. 5, atwww.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html, accessed June 28, 2015. 
Ibid., no. 10. 
This is the underlying thesis expressed throughout Saint Augustine’s famous City of God
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution (York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993), p. 104, at http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/books/revolution-and-counter-revolution-v15-1370.html, accessed June 29, 2015. 

Tradition, Family, and Property - In Legalizing Same-Sex “Marriage” U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Natural Law and Provokes God’s Wrath