Whom Will You Serve?

Kelli - St Ann

Kelli - St Ann

If somehow Catholics didn’t realize it before Friday, I hope the realization has dawned. We have a choice to make.

If you’re a Catholic who feels like celebrating this insane Supreme Court decision to impose same-sex “marriage” on the nation, may I strongly suggest that you reconsider your cheers.

I saw a lot of that on Facebook all day on Friday. Catholics, using the transparent rainbow on their profile pictures; Catholics repeating the secular line about “not imposing their beliefs” on anyone; Catholics talking about their unwillingness to “judge” anyone who supports same-sex “marriage”, and so forth.

It was discouraging to say the least.

It means that too many Catholics have been catechized only by the secular culture and not by the Church. They believe the lie that by speaking the truth, they are “imposing” their beliefs on others. They fear the accusations of hatred and bigotry from friends or family more than they fear the Lord.

That may sound harsh, but let’s cut through the crap and get right to the point. Each of us must choose whom we will serve. We can no longer live as though agreeing with the world isn’t disagreeing with God.
We’ve gotten away with such duplicity, it seemed to us anyway, until now because the culture tolerated it.

Those days are over.

The Supreme Court has declared a “new orthodoxy”, as Justice Samuel Alito called it. How fitting that he used religious terminology to describe Friday’s ruling and this new mandated form of “marriage” that we must all accept, by their decree.

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

Dissent from this new orthodoxy will certainly not be tolerated, even to the smallest degree. This brings us swiftly to the decision point: Who will it be? God or Caesar? There is no middle ground — that earth has been scorched.

If there remains confusion about what our Church teaches on the subject, let’s clear it up. From Canon lawyer Ed Peters:

“Catholic doctrine and discipline can never, ever, recognize as married two persons of the same sex, and any Catholic who regards “same-sex marriage” as marriage is, beyond question, “opposed to the doctrine for the Church” (Canon 750 § 2). I am sorry so many Catholics apparently think otherwise and I recognize that many who think that Church teaching on marriage can and should change, do so in good faith. But they are still wrong and their error leads them, among other things, to underestimate how non-negotiable is the Church’s opposition to the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.”

And from the United States Catholic Bishops:

“Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.”

It doesn’t matter how popular same-sex “marriage” becomes. It changes nothing, because the truth of the human person and marriage will never change. Catholics need to understand that marriage has an ontology that cannot be changed. There are no such things as round triangles; or green made from two similar shades of yellow; and there is simply no such thing as marriage between two men or two women. It is an impossibility.

In the beginning God created them male and female… Do we now think that God made a mistake? Are we really so arrogant as to insist that what God designed and ordained can be altered because the present age demands it?

On the one hand, I believe there are those, as Ed Peters said, of good will who think Church teaching should change. They are wrong, but I don’t doubt their good will.

I think there’s something else at play here as well though, and that’s self-image, fear, and personal cost. We want to be nice. No one wants to be called hateful. No one wants to be branded a bigot. Nobody wants to lose friends or family over the “issue” of marriage. No one wants to risk being publicly ridiculed and persecuted for not riding the rainbow parade float.

It’s hard to stand against the crowd. When the crowd looks like they want blood, nobody wants to offer theirs.

It’s very hard to withstand the accusations of being narrow-minded, discriminatory, homophobic, backwards, bigoted, and hateful. It means being very unpopular in a world that prizes popularity.

Christians who’ve not suffered for their faith often romanticize persecution. They imagine themselves willing to lose their jobs, their liberty, or even their lives for standing up for the Gospel. Yet when the moment comes, at least here in the United States, they often find that they simply can’t abide being called “hateful.” It creates a desperate, panicked response. “No, you don’t understand. I’m not like those people — the religious right.” Thus, at the end of the day, a church that descends from apostles who withstood beatings finds itself unable to withstand tweetings. Social scorn is worse than the lash.”

Indeed. It’s terrifying to risk great personal sacrifice; even real persecution in the loss of a business or job or position; or agonizing grief at losing a loved one or a friend. It takes some real inner steel, some unshakable conviction to stand firm in the face of all that.

But there is no compromise. If we choose to obey the world’s mandates, we will forsake the God we claim to love and forfeit our eternal inheritance.

Some will read those remarks and recoil, saying how can a God of love condemn me for supporting “equal rights” for all people?

Catholics need to understand there is no “right” for two men or two women to marry, just as there is no “right” to kill the unborn child in abortion. Just because people may want to do something doesn’t mean they have the right to do it.

Feelings are not the barometer of moral rightness. Love is not a feeling!

Is all this hatred toward homosexual persons? No, it is not! At least not what is being called hatred. If by hatred, you mean saying that homosexual sex is not licit or morally right, then there’s the problem. If by hatred, you mean believing that marriage only exists between a man and a woman, then there’s the second problem. If by hatred, you mean upholding the Natural law and the truth of the human person created male and female, then that’s the trouble.

It isn’t hatred to say what is true. It isn’t hatred to obey the sovereignty of God’s law, and to recognize the Natural law. (For the record, it’s also true that adultery, fornication, and pornography are also immoral, illicit, unacceptable. It isn’t hatred to say so.)

Frankly, Catholics have got to stop being so emotional about all this. We’ve got to stop worshiping everyone’s feelings, including our own.

Don’t be deluded into thinking it ends with marriage. Oh, no. Far from it.

The end goal is the family. The militant activists in this movement to normalize homosexual sex will not stop until they have decimated the family unit of father, mother, and children. They call it “heteronormative” as though being male and female is by its very nature discriminatory against homosexuals.

The movement to wipe out gender entirely is well underway and gaining tremendous steam. A man can chemically castrate himself, get breast implants, hair extensions, wear a push-up bra and make-up and voila! He’s a woman, because “gender is a social construct” that must now be rendered meaningless.

“Sex Ed” beginning in Kindergarten now will indoctrinate children into this kind of thinking, and cause healthy, normal, impressionable young kids to question their own sexuality, their own gender, and reject the natural differences between boys and girls in favor of “gender fluidity”. They will be taught to see their God-given bodies as separate and even opposed to how they feel, then told all that matters is how they feel.

We’re on a luge going at breakneck speed toward this depraved societal revolution. Catholics who are celebrating this as a “victory” for equal rights are as sorely deceived as the rest of the crowd, but far more accountable because they are obligated to know better.

Now that marriage means anything (and thus, nothing), now that being male or female either means nothing or whatever we want it to mean, the assault on the family by the enemy of our souls will gain a power and intensity most of us are not prepared for.

We have to stop being afraid of hurting someone’s feelings and start focusing on eternal truths.

The goal isn’t to discriminate against anyone or deny anyone their human rights. The goal is to not be deceived into believing that sin is no longer sin just because that sin has become wildly popular and celebrated by the whole world.

“And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

It’s decision time for every Catholic in America: the false gods of our culture, or the Lord. There’s no fence to straddle. It’s time for courage and fidelity.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

32 thoughts on “Whom Will You Serve?”

  1. Phil-How is honoring those engaged in “special and unique way love” like bestiality love, SM love, and necrophilic love working out for you? No liberal fascist can argue, based on constitutional “Principles” as they now exist, that there is no constitutional right to polyamory, no constitutional right to bestiality, no constitutional right to necrophilia. And – this really is no stretch – that the First Amendment guarantees their rights to publicly engage in their “Love” on a Bestiality Pride Parade float ? Guy Mcclung, San Antonio

  2. I choose to serve The Source, The Life Force, all that which represents Love. I find no contradiction between serving the Source of All and honoring those who Love each in the special and unique way. I do not choose to honor a discipline which restricts Love in the way fundamentalist Catholics interpret Love. I choose and have no problem standing in the face of The Source with my decision.

    1. Jennifer Hartline

      Marriage certainly requires love, encourages love, and flourishes with love. It’s the best opportunity we have to learn sacrificial love. But marriage is the conjugal union of man and woman — becoming “one flesh” as God designed from the very beginning. He created them male and female, that they might come together as one. Marriage is the lifelong union of husband and wife, open and welcoming of new life as God sees fit to create.

      If marriage were simply based on feelings or romance or “commitment” it would have no fundamental meaning at all, since all those fickle things constantly change according to people’s wants.

    2. Jennifer Hartline

      I also clearly articulated what is knowable by reason and observation. Male and female are made for each other. God does nothing without purpose and intention: He designed us that way for a reason. It is biologically absurd to think that woman was made for another woman, or man for another man. That is a biological dead-end. The Natural law is not self-defeating.

    3. Phil…I’m not Catholic, I’m Protestant — and Jennifer gave the Biblical definition of marriage. Don’t assume that this is merely a Catholic doctrine. There are millions of us, non-Catholics, who also believe the Scriptures. If you don’t, that is certainly your choice, and I’m not going to get into “bible authenticity argument” with you.

    4. It doesn’t, but I would assume and hopefully not mistakenly that the people entering into this contract have a very high degree of affinity for each other…..I must be missing something, which is likely for a 67 year old, but why else would you voluntarily make such a life commitment. Or am I just dumb and missing a trick question? Either case is quite likely…

    5. Jennifer Hartline

      Except that countless people have entered into arranged marriages where they met each other on the wedding day. I doubt there were romantic feelings. Yet, no doubt those couples (most, let’s hope!) grew to love each other in time.

    6. Sure I have and I consider arranged marriages to be forced marriages and an abomination. I suppose that “love” could develop but that love would be the result if a slavery to a man. I would assume that an arranged marriage is a function of primitivism and misogyny where women are treated as possessions and vehicles for breeding. I wonder if the RCC would consider anyone who arranges a marriage and forces one to marry an unknown the worst of sins. Ain’t the way it should be and I don’t know where this conversation is going, but you asked.

    7. Phil, perhaps you should read up on modern arranged marriages. It’s not a forced marriage at all. Both parties have the opportunity to reject the match if they are not satisfied with the choice of partner. I wouldn’t say would be my preference but for some cultures it works quite well. Perhaps you should be more open-minded and tolerant of other cultures?

    8. If you would give me such links as appropriate, I am open to learning and reading… and hence more accepting about that which have little knowledge.

    9. Ah, JoAnna….never took you for a “cosmo girl”; now I am giving up my staid preconceptions. Seriously, I did learn much about pre-arranged or in this case pre-screened marriage. It was a singular story and it appears to work. I suspect it works because of culture and family and deeply ingrained Hindii beliefs. But that is not what surprised me. The article caused to research further.

      A UNICEF April 15, 2015 study reveals:Arranged Marriage StatisticsDataAverage divorce rate globally on arranged marriages4.2 %India divorce rate1.2 %Global divorce rate for arranged marriages6.3 %Average number of years older the male is from the female in an arrange marriage4.5 yearsPercent of marriages in India that are arranged89 %Percent of marriages in the world that are arranged54 %Percent of U.S. men between the age of 40 and 50 who have never been married14 %Percent of U.S. women between the age of 40 and 50 who have never been married10 %Percent of girls who were forced to marry before a certain agePercentSouth Asia before age 1846.4 %Bangladesh before age 1527.3 %Africa before age 1842 %Niger before age 1526 %Kyrgyzstan before age 1821.2 %Kazakhstan before age 1814.4 %Arranged marriage is a type of marital union where the bride and groom are selected by a third party rather than by each other. It was common worldwide until the 18th century.

      Jumbled but I tried to copy an paste a chart.

      A better view:

      http://www.statisticbrain.com/arranged-marriage-statistics/

      What amazed me is that the global divorce rate for arranged marriages is 4.2%; and the divorce rate for arranged marriages in India is 1.2%….compared that to the nearly 50% rate in the U.S. That’s pretty amazing. I did learn much. Also I learned that 54% of marriages globally are arranged. This was quite eye-opening.

      So I did do a lot of reading about arranged marriage, Hindii family culture, divorce rates, age of marriage, etc. I now await an invitation from CS to write a post about arranged marriage. I think it would low many minds. Thanks for sharing.

    10. Jennifer Hartline

      Also, from where does The Source derive its moral authority, and how is that authority explained and expressed? I’m curious.

    11. The Source is my definition of that which you consider the Trinity, others Allah, Yawheh, “I Am”, etc. The Alpha and the Omega … many names for the same One. The Source is the Authority and authority is expressed by constant union with the Source … in silence, in meditation, in the chi, in the Life Force ….that which expresses unconditional Love is a union with the Source.

    12. Jennifer Hartline

      And where can we discover The Source’s moral commands? How can we know what The Source says is right and wrong?

    13. Please do not include the Christian God in your list of false gods! Thats New Age , not Catholic, or Christain.

      Allah, The Force, The Source, or whomever, never “became man” and never sent His Holy Spirit to guide His Church, His Body. Only God The Father of Jesus is Trinitarian. I am warning you out of Christian Charity: Be careful, your “source” may be a false god or even a demonic entity posing as a creature of light. It may want “union” with you, but that “love” is not Caritas. There is a spirit of confusion in the world, and it is appearing as “light” and “love”, but it is a false spirit. Repent and beleive in Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

    14. I try, although not always successfully, to question and reject certain tenets of religions which I find do not have a basis in human dignity. I find that many of the tenets of the RCC on human sexuality (many, not all) denigrate human dignity. Attacking a tenet of a belief which I consider odious is not an an attack on religion per se. I strongly support Matthew 25 which I believes outweighs many of the tenets that people infer about human sexuality. My Source is the Life Force and that energetic encompassing energy commands me to confront that which I believe offends human dignity. If it requires a serious questioning and rejection of a religious tenet, it is necessary. By the way, for a man whom I respect for his strong and vigilant beliefs, I found your comment a tad snarky.

    15. “My Source is the Life Force and that energetic encompassing energy commands me to confront that which I believe offends human dignity.”

      Phil, how does your Source command you? Please be specific.

    16. I use the word Source, Jamey as a man-made word for that prime energy from which all flows…some use the word Creator, Master Architect, God, Yahweh, “I AM”, etc.
      I connect to the “The Source” through intense meditation, through study of spirituality which is common to all mankind. I study the knowledge from the hard sciences and the soft sciences. I study interpolation in religious texts and history of religious and spiritual thought. I place ultimate Trust in the universe and the totality of energy to provide me what I need. All these sources and many others “form my conscience” and dictate what is right to do to enhance human dignity. I have worked on my past lives with guides. I have connected with my spiritual masters for guidance and connection to Source through spiritual advisement. I believe I have an “old soul.” These sources of knowledge have formed my conscience and direct my actions at removing barriers which affront the dignity of the human. I meditate much and try to connect with my Source, especially in connecting with Source’s energy to preserve my son’s life who should have died 17 years ago. I have learned to use the energy and power of the Source’s strength to heal him in many physical crises. We work together.

      Jamey, please read as this will help in understanding where I draw belief from:

      http://www.the-open-mind.com/7-differences-between-religion-and-spirituality-1/

    17. Thanks for answering openly, Phil. If I sounded snarky I am sorry. I should have been more considerate. My question is, “If you were in a religious order for 8 years, for what reason did you choose your new beliefs over the Catholic Faith?

      As for Matthew 25, Jesus did not say, “Now homosexual acts, adultery, fornication, prostitution, incest, pedophilia are no longer sins.” We should aid and comfort people no matter what their sins are. We don’t deny their sin, we should tell them to repent and start again. He told the prostitute, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11).

      I disagree with everything in your link. Briefly, I used to follow him. But with spirituality, if you make up your own rules, your own laws, your own morality, what you think is divinity, your own path, who is to correct you if you are in error? We have our doctrine which thousands upon thousands of brilliant men and women have developed over the millennia to help us in every troubled area of life. Developed with reason and faith to guide us. It is a way of life.

      The Catholic Faith follows the laws of God who came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. He showed us how to be really human, how to live to the fullest, to flourish. There’s only 10 rules, the Commandments; there are 10 million things we are free to do if we obey them. They are not rules to imprison us, but to free us to get closer to God and to get a foretaste of heaven, where we hopefully will spend eternity with our Savior.

      Sure it takes great sacrifice, and harnessing our passions, and selflessly thinking and doing for others first. But we are following the path of our good Lord who laid down his life for our salvation. We humble ourselves to the incalculable intelligence and sacrifice of God. But, oh, the rewards are great. Here on earth, and hopefully for eternity.

    18. As I have often said, I honor the tenacity of your beliefs. I chose my new beliefs very simply because of (1) they made more sense to me; (2) they allowed me to make sense of my son’s life and my relationship to him as a caregiver. I also believe many principles the Christ elucidated. I reject man’s interpretation of those principles and creation of new ones because of the way they interpolate scripture. I do not believe that The Catholic Church bear any resemblance to what Jesus preached. I’m sorry for giving you a blunt answer, but it is my answer based on my spiritual experience.

    19. That’s okay, Phil, I asked for a straight answer. But you know you’re now missing the grace of the Sacrament of the Eucharist? What is different in the Church now than in the time of Christ?

      The Church interprets Scripture the same way now as then. It has been poured over and written about by thousands of holy and learned men and women down through the ages. Some of the commentaries are by Church Fathers from the very first centuries. Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch were actual disciples of John the Apostle.

      Scripture doesn’t say just anything you imagines it is saying. (Like Justice Kennedy with the Constitution). I hope you’re not influenced by the Justice Kennedy Effect?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.