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.
The Church (and for that matter our nation) will have great need of Catholics who understand and accept the teaching of Christ and his Church on marriage if the damage done by the Supreme Court today is ever to be repaired. Appreciating the infallible character of this teaching on marriage is the first step.

As for whether we succeed in righting this wrong, that’s not our concern. The question we will be asked at Judgment will be, Did we try?

abe lincoln

You can follow Father Z on twitter.: @fatherz

THE BATTLE PLAN PART 2 ” If abortion had nothing to do with sex, it would never have been legalized”

Satan continues writing,(excerpts)

So they let their guard down there, to such an extent that we’ve been able to foster the finest, most advanced form of sophism in history as the avant-garde, politically correct philosophy in their universities: Deconstructionism, which gets away with explicitly saying that truth itself is nothing but the hypocritical mask on the face of power. Bravo! A+ for that! I couldn’t have put it better myself.

We usually have to tolerate a little truth to sell a big lie, and a little virtue to sell vice, but not with this philosophy. Even the philosophy of the old heroes of hatred, like Hitler, had some virtues that we had to tolerate in order to twist, like patriotism and courage and passion. Even the nihilistic existentialist atheists like Sartre and Camus and Beckett rose to the dignity of despair. But the philosophy of those slimy Deconstructionist snakes is nothing but a cleverly worded sneer.

 it’s the fifth principle that has proved the most spectacularly successful of all, beyond our wildest dreams.

But it’s the fifth principle that has proved the most spectacularly successful of all, beyond our wildest dreams. I call it Satan’s Spectacularly Successful Seven Step Sexual Strategy. Seven S’s (the sacred, serpentine letter).

NOTE:Read this part several times:

Step 3: The most powerful means to destroy society is to destroy its one absolutely fundamental building block, the family, the only institution where most of them learn life’s most disgusting lesson, unselfish love.

Step 4: The family is destroyed by destroying its foundation, stable marriage.

Step 5: Marriage is destroyed by loosening its glue, sexual fidelity.

Step 6: Fidelity is destroyed by the Sexual Revolution.

Step 7: The Sexual Revolution is propagated mainly by the media, which are now massively in our hands.

The simple tactic of getting to their hearts through their hormones has proved incredibly successful. Their moralists now tremble in terror at old truisms like “natural law” and terms like “objective,” “universal,” and “absolute” not because they really believe there is no real morality any more anywhere, only no real sexual morality. They don’t defend rape, pillage, insider trading, nuclear war, bank robbery, racism, or even smoking. But they do defend fornication, masturbation, contraception, adultery, sodomy, divorce, bisexuality.

“Anything goes” is their new morality, but only if it has anything to do with sex. It’s hilarious to observe. They don’t defend murder, unless it’s in the name of sex. That is abortion, of course. If abortion had nothing to do with sex, it would never have been legalized. Abortion is backup birth control, and birth control is the demand to have sex without babies. If storks brought babies, Planned Parenthood would go broke (perish the thought!).

Again, this is an excerpt from Peter Kreeft’s Satan’s Battle Plan
Introduction to Peter Kreeft
Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College.

The Battle Plan PART I

genesisGenesis 9:13

benedict xviPope Benedict the XVI May 28,2006 @ Auschwitz-Birkenau

I saw this live & the rainbow suddenly appeared.Will never forget!

Someone else mentioned it already, but it seems we have the need to mention it again.

WP can take down their little rainbow message anytime. If the bloggers at WP wanted to put up a rainbow as a message for the SCOTUS ruling I’m sure each of us could have decided that for ourselves. We get your point. Now can we get on?

If this is going to be an indefinite feature of WP maybe it’s time to move on and start elsewhere?

I promised in the last entry to jump into the ethics and morality re marriage [and so called same sex marriage] in the next one.

Here we go. No,I am not trying to shove my morality down anyone’s throat.

Let’s put it this way. If you knew someone was going to murder another human being I’m sure you wouldn’t conclude’,i can’t shove my morality down so and so’s throat. ‘

Nobody in their right mind would do that.

We ALL Know murder is morally wrong. You could say legally wrong but it’s still wrong even if the perpetrator is never caught or brought to justice.

Objective morality is the glue of civilized society.The closer we live in the objective morality the more civilized we become.

Objective reality is the glue of a civilized sane functioning society.

It’s why we stop at stop signs,red lights and go on green.It’s why we know enough not to put our hands on a hot stove and we teach our children DON’T TOUCH.

Before we go much further,a qualifier. I’ve been on both sides of the fence.

I’ve seen how far we can fall and drift away from objective morality. If you think i’m some sanctimonious twit you guessed wrong. Twit. .sure. Sanctimonious-perhaps. I just know the good we are capable of and the evil we are capable of. I also know how we can rationalize our own behavior. It’s called MORAL RELATIVISM.

You go down that path; both objective morality and reality will go out the window.

Now for the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage-you can also apply it to the SCOTUS ruling on abortion.

Reality is now what the court says it is.

They may as well say up is down and down is up.

How did we get here? From an article written by Peter Kreeft PHD. These are excerpts divided into parts 1 and 2.

Keep in mind as you read it,he is asking you to imagine there is a letter that is written by Satan himself and it has leaked out. Whether you believe in Satan or not you’ll still get the points(should).

“Satan’s Battle Plan for the Third Millennium”
by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D.

I will not tell you how the following speech fell into my hands. It is apparently written by Satan himself. It has been Number One on Hell’s Best Seller List for quite a few years, and promises to remain there into the next millennium, because it is about the next millennium. This particular collection of satanic verses is the transcript of a recent speech by Satan. His listeners are demons, a truly “captive audience.” It is a mix of self-serving autobiography, military exhortation (from a general to his troops) and a CEO’s report on gains made by his company and prospects for the future. Please keep in mind that Satan is the Father of Lies, and nearly everything he says is a half-truth. Since everything he says is upside down (eg. when he refers to “the Enemy” he means God), I recommend you stand on your head while reading this.
My deliciously dear, damnably darling demi-devils! I announce to you Good News (that is, Bad News, of course: “fair is foul and foul is fair”). We stand at a turning point in the Great War, The Only War There Is, the (please excuse the obscenity) Mother of All Wars. We may be about to inflict on our ancient Enemy’s Body on earth a wound so grievous that it will issue in the Great Tribulation and the so-called “Last Days,” the final phase of our triumph. To see this, we need to review our Grand Strategy: its past, its present, and its future.
I do not go in for absolutes or ultimates, so I will not talk about our “ultimate” origin or destiny. Our enemies keep circulating that ridiculous rumor that we were created by the Enemy. How utterly unendurable that would be! Nor will I talk about our ultimate end. Our enemies have popularized the myth of some unthinkable final “defeat” of ours. Ha! What nonsense! No. I will talk of the present. Well, actually, the real present is to be avoided too, like the ultimate past and the ultimate future, but the Specious Present, the Abstract Present, the Vague Present, the Pseudo-Historical Present, the Present Climate of Opinion, the Modern Mind, the Current Fashion Among the Media Elite, the Consensus of Contemporary Experts, etc. that is to us like waves to surfers. But a few remarks about the historical past are in order, to assess our present circumstances and our future prospects.

Ever since I began our great war by asserting my rights, my freedom, and my self-actualization against the narrow-minded, bigoted, tyrannical, fascistic, chauvinistic, racist, sexist, homophobic dogmatism of the Enemy, ever since I proclaimed the Profound Philosophical Principle of Absolute Relativism and persuaded you to follow this Super-Enlightened Program of Revolutionary Political Correctness, we have won victory after victory. Conclusively and repeatedly we demons have demonstrated that Straight Is Stupid and Crooked Is Clever. Of course, there was that minor, temporary setback when we were forcibly ejected from Heaven. But that is more than compensated for by our assurance that our triumph is guaranteed (I promise you total customer satisfaction or double your money back) because the very essence of Heaven’s philosophy is weakness and the very essence of Hell’s philosophy is strength and power. Heaven relies on love (pardon the obscenity), Hell on fear. And as our delightful assistant Mack (the Knife) Yavelli pointed out so irrefutably in The Prince, it is better to be feared than to be loved because men will love you as they choose, but fear you as you choose.
By this weakness of the Enemy, because of his obsession with love (choke! spit! cough!) he has handed us our victory. Though we cannot storm his Fortress Heaven, we can corrupt his Colony Earth. We cannot harm him, but we can harm (heh! heh! we can eternally harm) those silly talking animals he loves so stupidly and obsessively. Love has made him hostage to their happiness.

The weakness of love is so obvious that it is incredible that he has not admitted it by now and abandoned his failed philosophy. For love multiplies your sorrows and your defeats by the number of others you love and by the depth of your love for each one. Of course his saints keep claiming that love also multiplies your joys by the same two multipliers but this is meaningless. What is “joy” anyway? What does it mean? None of us have ever found any respectable content to this empty myth, this mantra the Enemy’s troops keep mumbling.
Thus, because of the Enemy’s love-addiction, we have conquered him billions of times in conquering his creatures, whom he dares to call his “children.” (Imagine the indignity! The one who claims to be the creator of angels stoops to be the “father” of talking animals only slightly superior to slime and slugs!) How wise I was to foresee the inevitable failure of love, and to attack at the very beginning, when there were only two of these creatures to corrupt. Because of the Enemy’s obscene invention of breeding and heredity, I made it my business to see to it that all their descendants would be born with their newly corrupted nature, doomed to death. (Yes, to death! Here’s to death! Let’s drink to death, my demi-devils!) They cannot now imagine the enormity of the gap between what they are now and what they were before our glorious victory in Eden, because their very minds are darkened and addicted to appearances, which did not change much, instead of intuiting invisible essences, including their own, which changed radically.

Behold the measure of our success: behold the great gap, the Grand Canyon between eating unforbidden fruit, playing with tame animals, and making love in Eden, and eating the fruit of our lies, playing with untamed animal passions, and making war east of Eden!
How easy it is to kill, how hard to heal! How easily Cain killed Abel! How hard was Cain’s rock, how soft was Abel’s head! How weak and defenseless is the unborn baby against the abortionist’s vacuum tubes and bone crushers! And how weak is the conscience of its parents against our propaganda. So legal, so respectable, so proper it seems to a human, the silly goose! Well, we’ve found the perfect mate for a proper goose: a propaganda.

There is one question our Central Intelligence Agency has never been able to answer: How could the Enemy ignore such a truism? How can one who once seemed to us to be so super-intelligent, even omniscient, possibly be so super-stupid as to ignore the truism that a few lions are sufficient to eat a plethora of Christians, that one bull can ruin a whole china shop, one affair a whole marriage, one mass murderer a whole classroom of school children?

And once evil begins, it cannot end. It is immortal, as immortal as we are, as immortal as our very being, now that we have identified our very being with evil. The very laws of logic decree that one can make only two responses to evil: yes or no. If they say yes to evil, they condone it. If they say no, they condemn it, and then we very easily turn them into condemners, haters, nay-sayers, witch-hunters, and inquisitors.
Oh yes, they say they have a solution to our dilemma of “yes or no” with this meaningless thing they call “forgiveness,” but they think this means the forgiveness of sins instead of the forgiveness of Anna or Steve.
That is condoning. The alternative is condemning. They simply can’t practice what they preach: separating sins from sinners. So they either hate both (and this was the primary temptation we plied them with in the past) or love both (and this is our primary temptation in the present). They cannot burn heresies without burning heretics, nor can they accept heretics without accepting heresies. One of their current writers suggests using modern technology to solve the problem by cryogenics: freezing heretics instead of burning them, and thawing them out at the end of the world. You see what ludicrous lengths we’ve driven them to even in their feeble attempts at humor.

Even when our success was evident, the Enemy would not admit his mistake. Like the general who ordered the Charge of the Light Brigade, he kept sending prophet after prophet into the battle and we kept mopping up the profits. Many a human CEO wonders what eats up his profits, but the CEO of the universe knows very well who eats up his prophets: we do! (Yum!)
And then he made his supreme mistake, the perfect culmination of love’s folly. He reasoned, “They did not spare my prophets, but surely they will spare my son. Surely they are not so wicked as that. Surely Satan has not succeeded that spectacularly in putting out the fires of my love in their hearts. Surely evil is not stronger than divine love incarnate!”

What a colossal miscalculation! The Incarnation seemed to be his great triumph, his D-Day especially since he did pull off the impossible trick of preparing a wholly immaculate womb for the flesh of his Son, even in a wholly non-immaculate world (our analysts still haven’t figured out that trick). But I outwitted him in the wilderness, when I tempted his Son with the whole world if he would only fall down and worship me. You see, I presented him with a dilemma that was logically impossible for him to escape.

I hold billions of his beloved children hostage in Hell eternally. I offered to release them all to him, empty Hell itself, give him the whole world of human souls, if only he would worship me instead of his Father. Of course, if he did that, I would split the eternal Trinity. The Son’s will would deviate from the Father’s. If not, I would keep billions of his beloved children forever. He refused to split the Trinity’s will, but I got to split the Trinity anyway, on the cross. If I could not introduce division into eternal Oneness by splitting the Trinity’s will, then I would split the Trinity’s happiness, the Enemy’s very presence to Himself. That’s what I achieved at Golgatha, the Place of the Triumph of Death, the Place of the Skull. I spilled His blood and His happiness, and introduced death into divinity, death into the heart of life! (Ahh, how the memory still makes me quiver!) “Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani!” he cried out. I can still taste it, the ecstasy of evil, the triumph over the so-called “Lord” himself. The taste of that triumph will never leave the mouth of my memory. I will gnaw on that bone forever.

How could we ever have respected him when we lived in Heaven? He would not call down the twelve legions of angels to do battle for him even then, the putrid, puling pacifist! He even stopped Peter’s war against the High Priest’s servant’s right ear: the justest war in human history. Right into my trap he stepped, right into the hands of my people: Judas, Caiphas, Herod, Caesar, Pilate – ooh, love that Pilate! What a politician! Shall we crucify him? “Well, I’m personally opposed, but . . . .” How we lead them around by their buts! Every hour around the world for thousands of years his name is mouthed millions of times as Christians say their Creed in their Masses and their rosaries: “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” and how many Pilates have we cloned today in how many congresses? And in how many philosophy departments enamored of Pilate’s other wonderfully slimy saying “What is truth, anyway?”

PetertheRock, May 14, 2007 #1

Expo collection to Pope’s charity for refugees in Jordan ‎

WTLM Autodesk

Pope Francis has decided that the collection from the Holy See’s pavilion at the international Expo in Milan, Italy will go to meet the needs of refugee children and families living in Jordan, saying it is the weakest sector that is hit by the conflict in the Middle East.  The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture, that is organizing the pavilion is overseeing the papal initiative together with the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, that oversees the Church’s charities worldwide. 

Available figures show that Jordan is home to some 700,000 refugees.   Registered refugees from neighbouring Iraq number some 50,000, of whom 34 percent are children.  The Milan Expo collection will be channeled to the refugees through local churches where they are been housed, and will be used mostly in funding projects in education and in meeting the basic needs of families.   Visitors to the Holy See’s pavilion can make a contribution directly…

View original post 16 more words

Finally,why there is no such thing as same sex ‘marriage.’

Call it what you like, it’s NOT marriage.

Justice Kennedy let the cat out of the bag himself:He said,in defense of the ruling that, “in forming a marital union two people become something greater than they once were.”

WRONG; in forming a marital union two people do not become “something greater than they once were” . A marital union(as in UNION)means they become ONE.

Kennedy mentioned how he thought same sex ‘marriages’ would affect children,

“Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, “their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.”

Problem 1: they’re not married. Problem 2: the role of a mother and father in child rearing is critical to socialization of children on a number of levels including sexual formation. I know that there are many single parent households. It’s a huge problem that has caused much damage to our society. My own son grew up without a father. Fortunately he had a lot of love and support from his grandparents. Would it have been better if he’d have had a father? DEFINITELY. i wish that had been possible.Is calling 2 men and 2 women with a piece of paper a marriage, going to solve the problem? Nope and it’s  going to create new ones.Behavior has consequences and there will be UNINTENDED consequences with the SCOTUS ruling.

Problem 3; They don’t get a mother and father. They get a mother and mother or a father and father or whatever the partners decide to call themselves in the moment. They’re not husband  and wife anymore than they’re mother and father.

It’s called OBJECTIVE REALITY and pointing it out is not hate.

Problem 4. I mentioned in the first entry. how Kennedy justified the ruling by saying, “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”
To which I replied, “They respect it so deeply that they decided it ought to be redefined as to have no meaning at all.”
I feel for anyone who has had to struggle with same sex attraction.The truth is that is is disordered,it is harmful and, once and for all, it is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Someone needs to point it  out to me if they think it is there.

I don’t think we do a person, with a disordered attraction any favors either, by telling them it’s not disordered and that this attraction defines who they are.

Problem 5: the very real threat to FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE and RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.Once that goes it will follow very quickly by a threat to freedom of speech,press and assembly. Freedom of religion is always the first to go,under a tyranny.

Move Forward

Indyfromaz's Blog: The Thoughts of An Independent Arizonan

Well, now that the Gay Mafia has the Federal Government’s stamp of approval to destroy anyone who gets in their way I think we should turn it up a notch on them.


Where Multiple Men (or Women) can have multiple wives.

If the definition of marriage that has existed for 10,000 years is on the trash heap of Political Correctness and no longer valid, then is the 1 person and 1 person definition not the next logical step in this ridiculous arms race of hedonism and narcissism?

If marriage is solely the purview of “love” and “commitment” then why is 1 on 1 a limitation? The line we won’t cross.

If 6 guys and 15 women want to be “married” to each other why not allow it?

If a 14 year old wants to marry a 30 year old out of “love and “commitment” is it discrimination to deny…

View original post 523 more words