The fascism in our country embedded now in the government and special interest groups with an ideology opposed to the Catholic Church seems to be hardly worth noting compared to the persecution and murder/martyrdom of Christians in the Middle East. Africa and other parts of the world.
But it is all cut from the same cloth.
This video clip should remind us of what the world wants to do to troublesome Catholics. The cardinal in this scene protects the Most Blessed Sacrament from profanation and sacrilege prior to his departure.
ARREST CATHOLIC TROUBLEMAKERS!
And the days of a new kind of fascism are not just coming, they are here for Christian troublemakers:
In the Washington Times:
Idaho city’s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail
Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to
Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an
ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail
time and fines.
The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and
Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding
chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller
A federal judge recently ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage
was unconstitutional, while the city of Coeur d‘Alene has an ordinance
that prevents discrimination based on sexual preference.
The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to take on gay rights’ appeals
from five states has opened the doors for same-sex marriages to go
The Knapps were just asked by a gay couple to perform their wedding ceremony, The Daily Caller reported.
“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and
the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps
now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline
to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”
Can you really see Cardinal ***** or the majority of American bishops rushing to their private chapels and consuming the Blessed Sacrament before the mob breaks down the door? I can't picture that. But I can see them standing in front of microphones and talk about compassion and justice and compromise. I don't think 99% of bishops in this country have anything to worry about when it comes to being persecuted for upholding the Faith. After all let's be truthful. We wouldn't be in the mess we are in with the majority of people identifying as Catholic agreeing with the current immorality sweeping the country if the bishops, priests and nuns had actually taught them the Catholic Faith for the past 50 years. No, we have had bishops, priests and nuns who have gone out of their way to compromise the Faith at every step of the way. And NOTHING was done to stop them. We deserve what we are going through because we have not been faithful to Christ. From the daily confusion now emanating from Rome to a lone faithful bishop in California being treated like a dog because he and he alone has the strength to face evil and call it what it is.
Honestly, I think it is less likely that priests will be required to do this than that such "couples" will ask a priest to do so in the first place. It would be like a Republican asking a Communist for financial advice.
Also, if a priest refuses to marry a Catholic and a Presbyterian, or if a bishop refuses dispensation for a Catholic to marry a Muslim, there is no legal recourse in civil law. It'll be the same for this homosexual nonsense.
I hope it doesn't come to this, but it appears to be the direction in which we are headed. While our safety may indeed be an illusion we can no longer afford to keep, at least we will be able to figure out who are the real Catholic priests and bishops and who are the sellouts.
Never attempt to appease a mob.
One can flee, one can surrender and join them, or one can fight back.
A mob has power in its anonymity. But when you fight back you are attacking individuals, individualizing them again. Suddenly when individuals realize they have no invulnerability due to sheer numbers, their courage will leave them, the drug will wear off...
Watching that video made me think of why shotguns were created. Talk about 'target rich environment!' 00 buck and #4 bird shot would do wonders for Nazis and fascists. It was the arming of black men that ended the Klan's rein of terror.
Ultimately though when the state comes after you sheer firepower won't help. What will help though is counter force (not counter violence). Counter force is political and economic.
For example, in that town, there are elections. If I was being fined by a town for something I'd immediately declare my candidacy for the top post, the boss of whomever is fining me. I'd get all my friends to run for city council too. Then I'd refuse to pay the fine until after the next election.
If I win, I cancel the fine and impose fines on those who lost. If I lose, then and only then do I fight in court to not pay the illegal fine.
Either way, they don't get their money and their tactic doesn't "win" hearts and minds.
People tend to repeat whatever "works". So bullies and terrorists do their bullying and terrorizing until they're stopped or their work begins to be a drain...less fun, less money, less notoriety, less return on their emotional investment. The higher the cost and lower the profit, the less their motivation will become.
So if every time a conservative is called "racist" he shuts up, conservatives will be called racists. If instead they begin turning the tables and showing that it's non-conservatives who are racists... the insult will cease being effective and cease being used.
Don't worry everything will be okay after the Global Warming encyclical comes out. Good thing Francis is focused on the important stuff.
A very interesting historical perspective...
There were 'bad guys' on both sides that led to the riots. Sometimes an armed Catholic citizenry saved buildings and other times it didn't matter.
Deterrence is preferable to force - so being heavily armed and letting it be known ahead of time that one is not a soft target is preferable to being secretly armed... in almost every case armed guards deterred rioters whereas sudden gun shots from cover only spurred them on.
If bullies and would-be fascists know ahead of time that there would be a high price to pay for anti-Catholic violence, the threshold for them kicking something off is raised...but if they feel that there is little down side, little price to pay for annihilating hated ideological foes, then the threshold for violence is lowered and becomes more not less likely.
Oooo! Escape through a secret passage way! How dramatic!
I think this all has reached the tipping point, at least for me. Up until now, as much as I despised the gay "marriage" politics that was going on, and spoke against it in comboxes whenever I could, and argued for Christianity, still, I wasn't willing to go so far as to suggest we must impose Christianity on them. Somehow now, that has changed.
I am openly stating in comboxes I DO think laws reflecting Judeo-Christian belief are best, and imposing Christian values through laws is best for society, and I am all for it. I'm called all kinds of names, and flamed like you wouldn't believe, but I don't care. At least it's out there.
It is time we actually draw the line in the sand. It is enough, already. It's time leaders in all areas of Christian life say NO. No, this is not right. No, we will not bend anymore. No, there is no room for the gay agenda in this society.
It is time for Church leaders to stop retreating, and go on the offensive.
Well, unless the number of gays among the clergy actually militates against this. Oh boy, I wonder if that is why the Church has nothing to say in the public square about this. God help us!
Today’s talk radio chatter is that the current supreme court effort is not primarily for the benefit of same-sex marriage per se—for which civil unions short of marriage would suffice—but a preliminary to a legal attack on the tax-exempt status of churches. The argument is that a favorable supreme court decision may provide basis for a claim that all church ministers must perform same-sex marriages to all who are otherwise qualified, else face a tax-exemption challenge to their church. And hence that the motivation is not intended to support civil and legal benefits for same-sex couples, but to provide legal ammunition for an attack on Christianity in the U.S. public square.
I don't know if this would circumvent that strategy, but I hope that the Church throughout the world, but certainly in the USA once same sex marriage is the law of the land, will simply get out of the legal marriage business.
By this I mean that a Catholic who wants to have their marriage in the Church must first have a civil ceremony where a justice of the peace or some other civil official does the secular part of marriage for the state.
Once this is done (and it could be the day before the wedding in the Church) the Catholic would then have the religious ceremony. Thus the bishop, priest or deacon would not be acting as an agent of the state in marriage as we currently do.
However, Church teachings requires legal, civil recognition of marriage, thus the necessity for a civil official to do the civil law part of the marriage.
"We have met the enemy, and he is...us!" Not the dying so-called "mainline denominations", and not even the Roman clergy, but I'll say it right here as one of them---the Catholic layman or the Catholic voter. How else do we explain the election over the years of the likes of Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Mario Cuomo, Duck Durbin and Jerry Brown? And even when it comes to Obama, who won nationally by just 4 percentage points last time---he could not have won with a sizable share of the Catholic vote (according to exit polls he narrowly edged Romney among Catholics). Even the Supreme Court is majority-Catholic, which would make it ironic that they might mandate same-sex marriage. We can't blame liberal Protestants for the moral demise of our country---their numbers don't come close to matching the number of Catholics in this country. So as I said earlier, "we have met the enemy...."
Fr. McD said: "...I hope that the Church throughout the world, ... will simply get out of the legal marriage business."
I understand that Father, and I think that would really be the only solution. But given how few people are marrying in the Church already, if that becomes the policy, I would expect even fewer would choose to come to church to have what amounts to a blessing of their marriage. I would expect they'd have the ceremony in the reception hall, and proceed with the banquet, all in one place. They'd never even bother to come to the church.
Whenever I get downhearted about the state of things in the U.S., and the destruction of the good and right, I think about history and instances of such destruction in the past; like the Bolshevik Revolution, or like what Henry VIII did to the Catholic Church in England, and I realize, it's not the first time this sort of thing has happened, and it won't be the last. I just hate having to live through it. I am confident, eventually, God will prevail, though lots of suffering will happen in the meantime.
It's foolish to think that carving out a two tier system for marriage (secular vs. religious) will work.
SCOTUS making gay marriage a super-duper right will instantly be brought into every public school room - added to every reading list and including auto de fes to require students accept the new moral code "or else" and like racism, there will be sanctions leveled against anyone who disagrees with "rights".
There are laws on the books right now that will allow fines leveled at people who refuse to celebrate gay marriages. Laws originally intended to make life hard for racists like the klan etc will be used for Churches - goodbye permits to use city parks, etc.
There are all manner of ordinances and fines and permits revoked etc. that can make life hard for Churches who won't submit to the new Puritans.
Everything we're told we did in the bad old days (dogmatic folk that we were) will be done unto us.
I think the Catholic Church is exempt from civil rights laws, isn't it?
Anonymous above, I also heard that today on talk radio, I believe it was Sean Hannity or Rush? And it got me thinking this:
Maybe all of this is happening for a reason. I've long thought for the past 2 years that the reason Pope Francis was elected, the craziness at the Synod on the Family, and the apparent resurgence of the Spirit of VII, is all happening because sides are clearly being drawn. We are becoming more and more able to see which prelates and clergy are TRULY faithful to the teachings of the Church, in a way that was more subtle under Benedict and JPII, the wolves are acting in the open now without their sheeps clothing and we are now able to see them for who they truly are. I try to remain an eternal optimist, and that's how I am looking at this situation; IF priests are required to perform SSM's we will definitely be able to tell who the faithful clergy is. This could very well be the separation of the wheat from the tares. God always gives us a pope that we need at that particular time, I personally think he gave us Francis so that all of the rot in the Church would finally come to the light, because we have a pope that makes them feel embolden. But there is hope, the faithful cardinals, the priests of England who signed the petition, all of Africa. I think the Church will look vastly different in the next 10-15-20 years, and the modernist know this, this is their last gasp and they have gone for the greatest treasures of the Church, her doctrine. If we as Catholics trust in the Holy Spirit to guard and protect the teachings of the Church, then we should believe no different about this situation. If the Church can outlast the Arians, Nestorians, Borgia Pope's, Protestants, then She most certainly can outlast Francis and the modernists. This could very well just be the "darkest before the dawn" part. Meanwhile pray the Rosary for the pope, and for the "smoke of Satan" to leave the Vatican.
The Idaho story is false (in some quarters, we call that "false witness") and was debunked months ago.
Here's a bit from the National Catholic Reporter on this issue, just written Wednesday:
"In fact, just yesterday in the ongoing Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage, the attorney arguing for imposing same-sex “marriage” specifically said that it was “obviously” not the case that pastors of churches could be forced to go against their church’s religious precepts — and two of the court’s liberal justices, Kagan and Breyer, agreed. (Kagan, in particular, pointed out that under the First Amendment rabbis can refuse to marry Jews to Gentiles, although this would obviously be illegal discrimination in any non-religious context.)
"So the Supreme Court is not about to steamroll over the First Amendment and require pastors of churches to marry same-sex couples.
"And it’s not happening in Idaho either."
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/pastors-not-facing-jail-time/#ixzz3YohZpzNR
This news item quoting Supreme Court Justice Scalia lays out the stark imprudence of those who think the US can have a two tier system of marriage.
If the SCOTUS claims that the US Constitution obligates states to recognize gay marriage, it follows by all the logic of the system that no one can opt out and remain a legal representative of the state.
So priests and others will necessarily have to get out of the marriage business entirely or be forced to marry gays.... Catholic marriages won't be civilly recognized until the couple goes to the court house in such a scheme and that allows the federal government to have some say on who gets the marriage license or not.
3% of the population is Lesbian or Gay. Of these, perhaps only 10% get married. For the sake of the feelings of 0.3% of the US population we're turning ourselves inside out and handing more power to the federal government?
JusadBellum: A priest or a rabbi or minister is not the state and therefore is not bound.
Nobody who's argued this case before the Supreme Court, on either side, is suggesting otherwise.
Just as all states recognize the legal right of divorced people to marry, but Catholic priests are not compelled to perform their services. This has been doing on in this country for 230 years or so.
So I should take the word of "Daniel" over the word of Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia?
That seems reasonable.
Post a Comment