It is worth pausing here and noting that the continual slide into Hell of America has been aided and abetted and in many cases even led by traitorous Catholics — some of them lay people, others clerics. Doctor John Rock, a Catholic, invented the birth control pill. Ted Kennedy, even from his death bed, championed Obamacare with its contraceptive mandate and abortion funding. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius and a host of others from the Catholic Rogues Gallery have all turned traitor.
What he fails to discuss here is that these traitorous, apostate "Catholics" have been aided and abetted by the lily-livered Catholic hierarchy, particularly those in this country.
These results were predicted long ago. For example, when Pope Leo XIII wrote Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, back in 1899 (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae), he cautioned against watering down the Faith in order to make it more palatable:
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.
But what did the hierarchy continue to do? Water down the hard truths of the Faith in order to make it more "in accord with the spirit of the age." What did it get us?
I've heard Voris elsewhere identify this problem. But not here...in a report where it was so desperately needed.
The JUDASes seem to be multiplying!
How is this the Catholic Church’s fault? A couple of really bad, fallen away Catholics sit on the highest court in the land and it’s the Church’s fault? The usual blame-the-Catholic stuff that gets wide support on FR.
Gay Marriage....I am being forced to participate...I must bake cake, or take photographs, or issue licenses.
The law is wrong when it takes away others rights.
It also applies to abortions...that unborn child has rights. It's ridiculous to say they don't because if you kill the child after birth...there is no doubt....you're a murderer.
Statistically, one of the 3 women should have voted against gay marriage.
Why is June 26 a homo holiday? Stonewall was June 28th.
Kennedy also addressed the issue of the children of homosexual couples, saying they had a right not to be humiliated by their parents not being legally recognized as married.
Are they going to force hetero shack-up/single parents to get married? How about mandatory fat camps for obese parents so the children aren't humiliated by their parents' appearance?
Obviously the prisons need to be shut down. Children have a right not to be humiliated by their parents being in jail.
Egads. It's not the parents' behaviors at fault, it's the rest of society's fault for not validating and embracing every vice.
It's for the children.
I am currently reading the entire decision (it's lengthy) and have a few comments on this notion.
First, if the good Justice is so concerned about children being humiliated, maybe he should focus on addressing the perversion the child's "parents" practice. Instead of lowering the river, maybe he should raise the bridge.
Secondly, does no such stigma attach to children of unmarried heterosexual couples? Would that then not compel a state interest in preventing children of unwed couples? Yet the Court has remained silent on that matter, or where it has ruled, has ruled in favor of permissiveness rather than conservation.
Thirdly, maybe the children of queers SHOULD be humiliated, just as the children of other deviants should be ashamed of their parents. Not all behavior is equally respectable, and often the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons. It may be unfair, but an adult would recognize the danger of exposing his offspring to such ridicule, and would rein in his carnal instincts accordingly. This ruling obviates that need.
Finally, it is hard to conceive that the embarrassment of a few children is the rightful concern of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that redefining a cornerstone cultural institution is the logical consequence of that concern. It is also unlikely that "legitimizing" homosexual relations will change many minds about its true MORAL legitimacy. Thus, the children will STILL be subject to taunts and torments until it can be proven that homosexual "marriage" is the MORAL equal of heterosexual marriage. And since the biological imperative behind the latter is unattainable in the former, that is not likely to happen any time in the foreseeable future.
In light of the above, Justice Kennedy's "reasoning" is little more than shallow justification for imposing a personal set of values on history, under the guise of judicial equity.
This is an interesting observation. He refuses to criticize the pope, but now it seems he doesn't criticize the bishops either.
Michael Voris becomes more and more irrelevant. I used to think he spoke the truth, no longer.
Voris needs some work. At this point, the only defensible position for Catholics would appear to be Sedevacantism. How can this Pope be a true Pope when NOBODY is excommunicated over this?
bump
the 3 branches of the government are RANCID
there is NO LAW AND THUS EVENTUALLY no freedom
WHEN THE OBAMACARE FULLY KICKS IN
WHEN THE WAVES OF ILLEGALS START VOTING
when the TPP and the fast track kick in
the economy will totally collapse, the government will default and then it will all be up for grabs...
i would not want to be a high profile government official at that time .... hung on a lamp post and lit on fire.. ouch
GOODBYE AMERICA...... HELLO AMERIKA
I was very disappointed in Kennedy’s vote on the Supreme Court. Was glad that Roberts got it right.
Sotomayor is a lost cause in my estimation. She needs lots of prayers.
Actually all nine of the court members need prayers.
To reinforce something this article begins to mention, I would like to point out the current religious affiliations of each member of the U. S. Supreme Court:
There are six Roman Catholics currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen).
Nary a Protestant Christian.