• Subscribe to Crisis

  • The Long War Against the Family (Part III)

    by Ryan N. S. Topping

    more family

    If you’ve been with us for the first two parts here and here, you’ll recall the three waves of attack against the family—(1) the assertion that marriage enslaves, (2) that children are a burden, and (3) that sexual difference is a fiction. How to respond? I’d like to conclude our short history by reflecting not so much on a course of action but upon how we might renew our thinking.

    First, what does the contemporary attack on the family presuppose? Frequently, at the root of these attacks on family lies a corruption of what John Paul II has called “the idea and the experience of freedom.” In the late pope’s analysis, underlying these ideas and the social and economic institutions supporting them is a notion of freedom conceived not as a capacity for realizing truth, “but as an autonomous power of self-affirmation” (Familiaris Consortio 6). In place of such a notion, and enacted through the disciplines and habits suitable for family, man and woman united in matrimony are called to embody the self-giving love of Christ. There can hardly be a more attractive witness of self-giving love than a family at prayer.

    Next, Christians will have to re-evaluate the concept of equality, beginning with its unit of measurement.  Obviously, neither a reduction in men’s height nor an increase in women’s weight is in view.  Equality is measured usually by a vote, by a wage, by a raise—in other words, according to some political or economic criterion.  Even accepting for the moment a strictly materialist conception of equality, it is a long time since we have passed from equality of opportunity over to the practical necessity of conformity.  Moving beyond Marx, for Catholics, happiness is not measured chiefly by dollars and cents.  Virtue is a far more stable currency.  Is it really the case that most women are happier at the office rather than in the home?  Given the toxic results of social engineering now evident, there is some prima facie evidence that the pursuit of abstract equality so defined works against the happiness of both sexes, and our children.  It is notable that women consistently say that they do not derive their greatest satisfaction from work outside the home.  This preference is all the more marked for women with children.  In one recent Pew study, when mothers with children under 18 were asked about their most important source of fulfillment, 51 percent cited their relationship with their children, 29 percent cited their relationship with their husband or common law husband, while a mere 1 percent cited their job or career.  Why has it become the expectation that women cannot be fulfilled in the home?  Marriage and teen catechesis in this area should move to the offensive.

    RebuildingCultureThrough the 20th century there has been a renewal of thinking about the vocation of the family, including thinking about the role of women.  John Paul II noted that, while the widening of access to public work is in some senses a genuine gain, it is not without loss.  Throughout John Paul II’s writings, as in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem and his Letter to Families, he points out that men and women arrive at their true stature only through self-donating love.  In women this gift of self is realized distinctively through the nurturing of a child.  Thus, motherhood in women (which can also be expressed in the nurture of spiritual children) needs to be honored even above the valuable contributions that are made in the political and economic spheres (Mulieris Dignitatem 18).  Sadly, today the maternal role has been so derided that many find it neither desirable nor possible to nurture the family at home.  A society where government makes it easy to divorce and hard for moms to stay home is not progressive, but dying. To this end John Paul II argued that, “society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home” (Familiaris Consortio 23).

    This is not an unrealistic hope. Laws could stop penalizing women who stay at home.  As a start: greater federal and local tax relief could be redirected toward families with dependent children; zoning laws could allow for the greater use of the home as a place of work; homeschooling families might be relieved from some portion of property taxes; and so forth.  Most importantly, women and their husbands will have to rediscover the beauty of motherhood.  Recently, a couple we know sought advice from their Anglican priest as to whether or not they should try to conceive a third child.  The pastor encouraged them to do so; as he explained, while he had counseled many parents who regretted not having more children, he had never met a couple that thought they had raised too many.  Fewer couples are willing to pursue this path, however, when both parents pursue a full-time career into their 30s.  Children are a blessing; welcoming them does require that we adjust our spending habits.  If we really do think that raising children is a nobler task than accumulating wealth, then it may be that young married couples will have to lower their economic expectations.  In short, Catholics will need to relearn to make the case not only for traditional marriage but also for openness to many children.  For, not only does human flourishing require a sound economy and stable polity; it also requires love.  And there is no better way to learn how to love than in a family open to life.

    Large families can foster holiness for a variety of reasons.  For the parents, here are three: less sleep, higher costs, and more work. Three great reasons, some might say, for willfully avoiding children altogether.  And many do.  But not if your aim is heaven.  Indeed, the fruits of conjugal love produce the conditions by nature that monks and nuns have to impose upon themselves by grace (i.e. by accepting the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience).  Along these lines there is a famous story from St. Thérèse of Lisieux’s life at Carmel.  Then as now within a monastery a bell is the common call to prayer.  So prompt was Thérèse’s obedience that at its first ring she would throw down her pen, leaving behind a half formed word on the page.  Well, in the domestic church, the cry of a child is like St. Thérèse’s bell; it often tolls.

    No doubt, it does not always work for a young mother to stay at home.  Nor are all couples open to life blessed with children.  These absences are a cause of sorrow to such parents.  Sadly, more and more couples see gain in what past times have recognized as a loss.  In virtually every human culture large families have been a sign of blessing.  According to the Catechism they still are: “Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity” (CCC 2373).  Children bless grandparents and cousins because they carry infectious joy; children bless brothers and sisters because they offer immediate friendship; children bless mom and dad, above all, because they turn parents into adults.  Unlike any other gift, a new baby offers parents the opportunity to grow in love.  The exchange of such gifts is only possible when a man and woman open themselves up to new life. The Church continues to esteem those who do so without reserve.

    Since the birth of Marxism in the mid-nineteenth century until about 1980, it was almost universally assumed that social-scientific research was the friend of left-leaning social engineers. Early on the social sciences adopted Marx’s assumption that social relations not characterized by strict material equality are unjust. Statistical and empirical research were welcomed as means of uprooting the prejudice and irrationality upon which traditional institutions were founded. Above all—the argument went—the family, and with it the roles of men and women, would be exposed as having no hold in nature. All this has changed. Many sociologists remain wedded to radical politics. But their grip on the discipline has loosened. For many years now, social-scientific studies relating to the family have helped to illuminate, as one recent study has it, “the strengths, indeed the irreplaceability of the family.” In response to Engels, de Beauvoir, MTV, and company, catechesis will have to harness more confidently the abundant research available on the benefits of family. As reason and revelation attest, a communion of persons is founded not upon abstract equality but upon a willingness to serve Christ in one another. In the renewal of Catholic culture, the battle begins at home, on bended knee.

    Editor’s note: This article is adapted from Dr. Topping’s new book Rebuilding Catholic Culture: How the Catechism Can Shape our Common Life (Sophia Institute Press). This is the third and final installment of an excerpt that first appeared in Crisis magazine on Monday, January 28, 2013. The 1593 painting above of the Thomas More family by Rowland Lockey is based on a sketch by Hans Holbein the Younger.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • poetcomic1

      The placing of women in combat is the most devastating assault on natural law and family in my lifetime. As an assault on the very meaning of ‘woman’ it is a Gender Bender Hiroshima. To use my nephew’s phrase “I still can’t wrap my head around it.”.

      • musicacre

        Israel started that. We all copied. When my son was in Israel as a high school student on a guided tour group, he notice young girls at the local fast food places toting make-up and purses but also a gun (rifle ) on their backs. This was a normal sight there.

        • Wilson

          I agree withn you that it is another instance of the zionization/Israelization of what is left of the United States. So alien and unCatholic to me.

          • poetcomic1

            Israeli women do NOT fight on front lines as Americans will. They did in the desperate fight for survival and they are trained to do so again if they must but NOT now. They do NOT fight ‘along side’ men. Yeah, it is so obvious that you and Obama are chums in your barely disguised hatred of Jews.

        • crakpot

          Russia started it. Stailn had 800,000 women in his army – pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members…. No coincidence for a family-hating Marxist. As noted below, Israeli women do not fight in combat roles. Americans will, but they’ll have to go through me to take our daughter if they ever reinstate the draft.

          • musicacre

            Sooo, you don’t see any connection between “Soviet Union” and Israel?

    • asydwy

      Dr. Topping,
      Thank you for sharing with readers of Crisis Magazine your enlightening research and
      thoughts on the assault on family in modern times. In Dr Scott Hahn,s book, A Father
      Who Keeps His Promises, we learn biblically, how Satan has been attacking marriage
      and the family since the Garden of Eden, Hahn outlines through the Old Testamnent
      and New Testament how the evil of Satan has always been directed against both.
      It is an integral part of salvation history. I just finished the book yesterday and found
      your book today. How blessed I feel! A condensation of this Hahn book can be found
      on CD from Catholic Lighthouse Media,titled The History of Salvation, God’s Plan for
      His People with Monsignor Daniel Deutcsh. God is not the only one with a plan for
      us but we all know how ultimately his-story will end!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      Brilliant, Professor! I tell my students that envy demands equality, but that love doesn’t bother with the word — because for the lover, the beloved is always more excellent.

      • Turning the Law into an Ass

        I agree Tony.

        Homosexuals have “grown emboldened” by the misguided acceptance of an increasing number of the public. They make claims which, on the surface, may seem harmless or even fair-minded. But, when examined thoroughly, the devil is definitely in the detail. This is why Christians, Catholics in particular absolutely MUST NOT FAIL to acquaint ourselves with their false claims and must be prepared to point the dangers.

        A number of arguments that are typically offered by those who support the idea of same sex marriage:
        1. Claim that marriage is a ‘fundamental human right’ and it is unjust to deny “gays” the “same rights”.

        Our Response should be: No, marriage is NOT a ‘right’ – it is a sacred privilege, but granted with specific limitations – and for good logical reasons.

        Many groups are already excluded from the opportunity to marry based on what the government believes is detrimental to the children and to society at large.

        Same sex couples simply fall into this category of unsuitable groups – excluded for good reason. eg., It is against the law for me to marry someone who is already married to another.

        But the “gays” claim would immediately fling the door wide open to “marriage” between three or more people; or between father and daughter; or between siblings, etc.
        Are taxpayers willing to be slugged with even more tax to support “benefits” for such self-serving, adulterous arrangements? And what about the off-spring – what about their rights?

        2. Claim that marriage would provide them with the same legal rights and entitlements, eg inheritance, legal matters, medical decisions, child custody following divorce, etc.

        Our Response should be: On the contrary. No legal rights are being denied.
        These rights already exist within the context of same sex “civil unions” and partnerships, even without the legalization of same sex ‘marriages’

        3. And THIS has been exposed (ironically by the “gays“ themselves), as the REAL issue :
        Many same-sex advocates insist that their claim to “Marriage” is all about ‘fundamental human rights’, BUT it actually appears to be more about public “acceptance” and “endorsement“.
        The fight is actually over the WORD ‘marriage’ in an effort to convince this culture that “same-sex marriage” is no different to traditional marriage.

        In actual fact Homosexual activists admit they are NOT at all concerned with “rights“; they are concerned with “complete societal endorsement” of their behaviour. Homosexuals want the society to stop telling them that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ – so they can feel better about what they are doing. And at least some homosexuals are honest about this specific goal:
        >> In demanding “to see government and society affirm our lives” (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.)
        >> To destroy Christianity because “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” (Advocate, 1985.)
        >> To “desensitize” public perception -and this is easily done in a society which has drifted so far from ethics and moral philosophy – so that “The first order of business is “desensitization of the American public” (concerning gays) …To “desensitize” the public is to help it view homosexuality with INDIFFERENCE instead of with keen emotion.

        Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least in the BEGINNING, we are seeking public desensitization … if only you can get them to THINK that it is just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (The Overhauling of Straight America, Guide Magazine, November 1987)
        Even more telling is the comment by Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund):
        “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process TRANSFORMING the very FABRIC of society.”

        It is now increasingly clear that the (real) intention of many homosexuals demanding of government to establish laws for “same sex marriages“, is to “overhaul the culture” to their own liking.

        Our response should be:
        If marriage was (really) a universal legal ‘right’ available to anyone and everyone, the institution of marriage would have to be RE-DESIGNED as a contract available to ANY group of parties, regardless of arrangements and extending to ANY and ALL combinations of consenting adults, without restriction.

        There are many passages from scripture which tell us that veneration for (real) Marriage is strictly reserved for “traditional Marriage” of a husband and wife.
        1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
        Genesis 19:1-14 (On Sodom and Gomorrah and God‘s Judgment)
        Romans 1:26-27,
        Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
        1 Timothy 1:9-10

        We can therefore see the reasons why God would oppose any concept of same-marriage:
        > Same-Sex Marriages are unworthy of praise and honor because
        > Same-Sex Marriages fail to provide the nurturing and stable environment in which children have the LEGITIMATE basic human right to be naturally conceived and raised responsibly..
        > Same-Sex Marriages indulge in self-centred abomination in the eyes of God and openly DEFY the “appropriate” heterosexual design for human union and relationship that has been approved by God for the common good of all humanity.
        > Same-Sex Marriages REJECT God’s laws related to sexuality by promoting a lifestyle that God describes as “unprincipled” and where people can openly DESPISE and challenge God’s authority by living in a “self-indulgent” manner inconsistent with values to which familes and children are legitimately entitled.
        > Statistics also show that even in such a “gay arrangement” the “union” is almost invariably an immoral “open marriage” arrangement, with the parties engaging in multiple “encounters” with other “outside parties“ anyway.

        4. “Gays” argue that “there are people who are already having children and living as though they are married, and for this reason we should legalize the institution of same sex marriage“. They insist that “we should legalize something because it is already occurring” and it would be better for everyone who is doing it to have the endorsement of the culture rather than its disapproval.

        Our response should be: Such a claim is not even logical or rational.
        Should we then legalize murder or robbery just because of the sheer number of them?
        Surely we should instead evaluate any behaviour on the basis of whether or not it is for the “common good” of all society.
        Surely we should consider that when we wrongly interpret a ‘privilege’ as being a ‘right’ , we actually destroy or compromise true ‘rights’ for everybody.

        For example, without pausing to think logically, governments have already begun to capitulate to the “gay lobby” and intervene to cause people to believe that same sex marriage is NO different than traditional marriage.
        When courts like the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided in favour of same sex marriage, it precipitated even greater injustice:
        >> Schools, businesses, churches, and charities are now being threatened with lawsuits unless they step away from their religious conviction and embrace the ‘diversity’ of homosexuality.
        >> A wedding photographer in New Mexico was threatened with a hearing before the New Mexico Human Right Commission simply because she refused to accept the business of a lesbian couple because she didn’t want to photograph their commitment ceremony.
        >> In addition, the archdiocese of Boston recently closed its adoption program because the state of Massachusetts required that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt.
        >> A Methodist group in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.
        >> A Mennonite school in Quebec is relocating to another province because it is being forced to use public curriculum that teaches and approves the homosexual lifestyle.

        In the pursuit of instituting laws which are in fact immoral and unjust, destructive and which violate so many clear logical principles delineated in the scripture, the LAW itself is now being used as a weapon against its own citizens.

        Not only have we ALREADY begun to lose freedom of choice in our employment, but we have also ALREADY begun to lose our freedom of thought and speech … and these were the precious rights fought for so fiercely by our fore-fathers.

        • publiusnj

          TTLIAA writes:

          “Our Response should be: No, marriage is NOT a ‘right’ – it is a sacred privilege, but granted with specific limitations – and for good logical reasons….”

          To call the marriage relationship either a “right” or a “privilege” is a forensic error because it ignores the fact that marriage involves substantial obligations, not just benefits. It is the vows we take (or used to take) that define the marriage: “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health until death us do part….” Hardly the language of “privilege.” Much more the language of duty.

          Duties undertaken for life (or under the present regime until divorce them do part) because a new community is formed when a man begins to engage in congress with his wife, Certainly of the two of them but more importantly, if they are fertile and of marriageable age, of their progeny. When children can be born of their congress a whole new level of concern is present that is not present when two people of the same gender “come together” in a sexual way: what will become of the issue of their congress if they drift apart afterward?

          Simply put, the state does not have the same reason to reinforce the vows of love undertaken by two people of the same gender before they congress as it does when a man and woman join together. Same sex unions are inherently infertile and result in natural issue only if one or the other go outside the marital res to “outsource the missing opposite sex genetic mateial” from an outside provider of the opposite sex. Of course, under the law in most jurisdictions, the two “partners” could go out an adopt children but so can single people so that hardly makes their union a fertile one.

          So, to confuse the issue by referring to the marriage relationship as a right or a privilege without reference to the duties obscures the real question: why equate same sex unions with marital relationships when they are utterly inconsequential to the future of the race?

          • turning the law into an ass

            1. You said: “privilege.” Much more the language of duty.

            Of course it is a privilege!

            But for every privilege there is a corresponding duty. If (true) Marriage is to work, the two must go hand in hand.

            2. You said: “when two people of the same gender “come together” in a sexual way: what will become of the issue of their congress if they drift apart afterward?”

            Exactly! The track-record of “gays” and their (alleged) “commitment” has been demonstrated by them, and admitted by them, in so many cases, to be of a very temporary nature; they themselves confess that, even within their unions /“marriages”, they still maintain multiple partners and shifting loyalties – which makes for a very unstable, nerve-wracking atmosphere for any adopted pitiful “offspring”.

            3. You said: “why equate same sex unions with marital relationships when they are utterly inconsequential to the future of the race?”

            NOTE: If you re-read my blog carefully, you will see that I agree with you.
            I have stated that a (true) Marriage can ONLY be between a husband and wife, married (specifically in the presence of God) and that it is indeed a “privilege” to be granted only to responsible adults (a father and mother) who will in turn bring up their natural offspring in a loving, stable truly committed relationship, where the offspring also then have the undeniable “basic human right” of a mother and father.

            NOTE: It is therefore definitely NOT a “right” to be claimed by anybody and everybody.

            NOTE: that I am particularly concerned that “gays” do not seem to understand that (true) Marriage MUST specifically be in God’s presence, asking for God’s blessing upon (real) Marriage – otherwise it is NOT “Marriage”. It becomes a mere PARODY … an abomination!

            NOTE: “Gays” generally deny the existence of God – and by demanding that they too (somehow) are entitled to have the same privilege of “marriage“ (as if it were a “basic right”) – are in fact attempting to have society accept and endorse their iniquitous behaviour.

            NOTE: To do this, their (admitted) strategy is to deliberately attempt to “trivialise” and belittle (true) Marriage to the extent where it becomes meaningless.

            NOTE: Their eventual aim is to actually destroy (true) Marriage and the sacredness of the family unit, and to effectively destroy Christianity.

      • turning the law into an ass

        re-submission with corrections:

        I agree, Tony.

        Homosexuals have “grown emboldened” by the misguided acceptance of their agenda and lifestyle of an increasing number of the public. They make claims which, on the surface, may seem (to shallow thinkers) as harmless or even fair-minded. But, when examined thoroughly, the devil is definitely in the detail. This is why Christians, Catholics in particular absolutely MUST NOT FAIL to acquaint ourselves with their false claims and must be prepared to point out the dangers.
        A number of arguments that are typically offered by those who support the idea of same sex marriage:

        1. The “gay” Claim that marriage is a ‘fundamental human right’ and it is unjust to deny “gays” the “same rights”.
        Our Response should be: No, marriage is NOT a ‘right’ – it is a sacred privilege, but granted with specific limitations – and for good, logical and moral reasons.
        But for every privilege there is a solemn corresponding duty. If (true) Marriage is to work well, the two must go hand in hand.
        Marriage is not a frivolous pursuit as “gays“ would have us believe by their statements and demeanour.

        But far more important than that – is the fact that (real) Marriage is actually a uniting (specifically in the presence of God and before the community) of a man and woman, who wish to dedicate their (entire) lives to each other and to any offspring, whom they promise to raise as wise Christian human beings and as mature responsible citizens. For this reason, it is a solemn ceremony specifically carried out before God and asking for His blessing, and before the community as a public declaration of their (SACRED) union.

        Therefore … many groups are already excluded from the opportunity to marry based on what the government and society believe is detrimental to the children and to society at large.
        Same sex couples simply fall into this category of “unsuitable” groups – excluded for good reason. eg., It is against the law for me to marry someone who is already married to another.
        On top of that, the track-record of “gays” and their (alleged) “commitment” has been demonstrated by “gays” them, and admitted by them, in so many cases, to be of a very temporary nature. They themselves confess that, even within their unions /“marriages”, they still maintain multiple partners and shifting loyalties – which makes for a very unstable, nerve-wracking atmosphere for any adopted pitiful “offspring”. “Gays”, in pursuing their own agenda, appear to only think of themselves and their immediate pleasure. They have forgotten about the legitimate rights of any “offspring” to live a normal family life.

        Here the “gays” (correctly) point out that many families have not survived as a unit – but this, again, was because of the “parents’ ” own lack of self-discipline, lack of commitment, un-preparedness for self-sacrifice, lack of moral fibre, lack of courage. In other words, here again, the poor quality of individuals who became parents.

        Therefore it cannot be emphasised enough that (Real) Marriage must ONLY be bestowed upon a man and woman of the highest integrity, self-discipline, education and intellectual and spiritual capacity (which their offspring will rely upon heavily), and capacity for self-sacrifice for each other and for the family – because (genuine) love ALWAYS entails self-sacrifice.
        For this reason, it is of utmost importance that Christians educate themselves on how to be people of even greater integrity and capacity to be the best parents possible.

        2. The “gay” Claim that marriage “should provide them as well with the same legal rights and entitlements“, eg inheritance, legal matters, medical decisions, child custody following divorce, etc.

        Our Response should be: NO. On the contrary. NO legal rights are being denied.
        These rights already exist within the present context of legal or business partnerships (already available to anyone), or even to same sex “civil unions” AND even without the legalization of same sex ‘marriage.’

        3. The “gay” claim to APPROPRIATE the title of “marriage” for themselves would immediately fling the door wide open to “marriage” between three or more people; or between father and daughter; or between siblings, etc.
        Taxpayers have failed to consider whether they are willing to be slugged with even more tax to support “benefits” for such immoral self-serving, adulterous arrangements? And what about the “off-spring” – what about their (legitimate) rights?

        4. And THIS has been exposed (ironically by the “gays“ themselves), as the REAL issue :
        Many same-sex advocates insist that their claim to the TITLE of “Marriage” is all about ‘fundamental human rights’, BUT it actually appears to be more about public “acceptance” and “endorsement“ and the APPROPRIATION of the TITLE of “Marriage” for themselves.
        The fight is actually over the TITLE of ‘marriage’ in an effort to convince this culture that “same-sex marriage” is no different to traditional marriage.
        In actual fact Homosexual activists admit they are NOT at all concerned with “rights“; they are concerned with “complete societal endorsement” of their behaviour. Homosexuals want the society to stop telling them that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ – so they can feel better about what they are doing. At least some homosexuals are honest about this specific goal:
        >> In demanding “to see government and society affirm our lives” (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.)
        >> To destroy Christianity because “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” (Advocate, 1985.)
        >> To “de-sensitize” public perception -and this is easily done in a society which has drifted so far from ethics and moral philosophy – so that “The first order of business is “de-sensitization of the American public” (concerning gays) …To “de-sensitize” the public is to help it view homosexuality with INDIFFERENCE instead of with keen emotion”.
        “Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least in the BEGINNING, we are seeking public de-sensitization … if only you can get them to THINK that it is just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (The Overhauling of Straight America, Guide Magazine, November 1987)
        Even more telling is the comment by Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund):
        “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process TRANSFORMING the very FABRIC of society.”
        It is now increasingly clear that the (real) intention of many homosexuals demanding of government to establish laws for “same sex marriages“, is to “overhaul the culture” to their own liking.

        Our response should be:
        If marriage was (really) a universal legal ‘right’ available to anyone and everyone, the institution of marriage would have to be RE-DESIGNED as a contract available to ANY group of parties, regardless of arrangements and extending to ANY and ALL combinations of consenting adults, without restriction.
        There are many passages from scripture which tell us that veneration for (real) Marriage is strictly reserved for “traditional Marriage” of a husband and wife.
        1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
        Genesis 19:1-14 (On Sodom and Gomorrah and God‘s Judgment)
        Romans 1:26-27,
        Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
        1 Timothy 1:9-10
        We can therefore see the reasons why God would oppose any concept of same-marriage:
        > Same-Sex Marriages are un-worthy of praise and honour because
        > Same-Sex Marriages fail to provide the nurturing and stable environment in which children have the LEGITIMATE basic human right to be naturally conceived and raised responsibly.
        > Same-Sex Marriages indulge in self-centred abomination in the eyes of God and openly DEFY the “appropriate” heterosexual design for human union and relationship that has been approved by God for the genuine common good of all humanity.
        > Same-Sex Marriages REJECT God’s laws related to sexuality by promoting a lifestyle that God describes as “unprincipled” and where people can openly DESPISE and challenge God’s authority by living in a “self-indulgent” manner inconsistent with values to which families and children are legitimately morally and legally entitled.
        > Statistics also show that even in such a “gay arrangement” the “union” is almost invariably an immoral “open marriage” arrangement, with the parties engaging in multiple “encounters” with other “outside parties“ anyway.

        5. Christians and people of good will have to carefully consider the following:

        a) that Marriage is therefore definitely NOT a “right” to be claimed by anybody and everybody.
        b) that we have to be particularly concerned that “gays” do not seem to understand that (true) Marriage MUST specifically be in God’s presence, asking for God’s blessing upon the Marriage – otherwise it becomes a mere PARODY … an abomination!
        c) that “Gays” generally deny the existence of God – and by demanding that they too (somehow) are entitled to have the same privilege of “marriage“ (as if it were a “basic right”) – are in fact attempting to have society accept and endorse their iniquitous behaviour and labelling it “marriage.”
        d) that we must take careful NOTE that their (self-confessed) strategy is to deliberately attempt to “trivialise” and belittle (true) Marriage to the extent where it becomes a meaningless parody.
        e) that their (self-confessed) eventual aim is to actually destroy (true) Marriage and the sacredness of the family unit, by trivialising it, and to effectively attempt to destroy Christianity, which they already portray as the enemy.

        6. “Gays” will argue that “there are people who are already having children and living as though they are married, and for this reason we should legalize the institution of same sex marriage“. They insist that “we should legalize something because it is already occurring” and it would be better for everyone who is doing it to have the endorsement of the culture rather than its disapproval.

        Our response should be: Such a claim is not even logical or rational.
        We should ask: Should we then legalize murder or robbery just because of the sheer numbers of them?
        Surely we should instead evaluate any behaviour on the basis of whether or not it is for the “common good” of all society.
        Surely we should consider that when we wrongly interpret a ‘privilege’ as being a ‘right’ , we actually destroy or compromise true ‘rights’ for everybody.
        For example, without pausing to think logically, governments have already begun to capitulate to the “gay lobby” and intervene to cause people to believe that same sex marriage is NO different than to traditional marriage.

        When courts like the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided in favour of same sex “marriage“, it precipitated even greater injustice:
        >> Schools, businesses, churches, and charities are now being threatened with lawsuits unless they step away from their religious conviction and embrace the ‘diversity’ of homosexuality.
        >> A wedding photographer in New Mexico was threatened with a hearing before the New Mexico Human Right Commission simply because she refused to accept the business of a lesbian couple because she didn’t want to photograph their commitment ceremony.
        >> In addition, the archdiocese of Boston recently closed its adoption program because the state of Massachusetts required that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt.
        >> A Methodist group in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.
        >> A Mennonite school in Quebec is relocating to another province because it is being forced to use a public curriculum that teaches and approves the homosexual lifestyle.

        In the pursuit of instituting laws which are in fact immoral and unjust; which violate so many clear logical principles delineated in the scripture; which are clearly destructive to the stability of society, the LAW itself is now being used as a weapon against its own citizens.

        Not only have we ALREADY begun to lose freedom of choice in our employment, etc., but we have also ALREADY begun to lose our freedom of thought and speech … and these were the precious rights fought for so fiercely by our fore-fathers.

    • Ford Oxaal

      Love it. Thank you for your clarity.

    • musicacre

      It’s so exciting to see the new generation doing such an incredible job embracing and teaching the entire faith! In 1984 (The year we were married) we had JPII warning us the family was under attack. That timely warning helped us make some very prudent decisions that ensured our 6 children wouldn’t be subject to the vulgar attacks in the schools at vulnerable ages; we homeschooled. That’s it in a nutshell; it hasn’t hurt their chances for higher education. Four are almost finished with university and training, just two to go! All the while retaining their Catholic character and belief.

    • sibyl

      Thank you for mentioning the need for more realistic, and aggressive, teen and pre-Cana catechesis regarding women working. I strongly agree. Furthermore, youth catechesis in general needs to be far more aggressive and specific — even kids who have a good theological training can be devastatingly unprepared for the onslought of the secular culture in college, both in terms of morals and in terms of ideologies.

      Kids should be given the information and exhorted to heroism today. Teenage girls should be given as much encouragement to prepare to be wives and mothers as they get to join the Navy, go to college, or choose a medical career. And teenage boys should be solidly trained on how to be men of their word, how to follow through on commitments, how to suffer for the sake of others’ good. Families have to do the bulk of this training, but the Church should be stepping up her help in this area, and Catholic high schools should completely revamp their religion courses for junior and senior year to make this happen.

      • rightactions

        Teenage females should be solidly trained on how to keep their word, how to follow through on commitments, how to
        suffer for the sake of others’ good.

        After all, if the rate at which females initiate divorces fell to the level men do, the divorce rate would plunge by 80%.

      • turning the law into an ass

        Hear! Hear! Well said sibyl

    • Pingback: English Propers: Ash Wednesday | Big Pulpit

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/CL5BCZLGVXQXWVXVWDXKLGR2SM Robert

      While it is true that the old Marxism is evil there seems to be little consideration for the threat posed by the new social darwinism coming from the “right”.

      • lets return to God now

        Robert, you are correct in saying: “While it is true that the old Marxism is evil there seems to be little consideration for the threat posed by the new social Darwinism coming from the “right”.

        Karl Marx and his other contemporaries certainly noted the similarities between Darwin’s Origin of Species and the British capitalist economy… where …
        Thomas H. Huxley, despite his own caveat [on his former writings], did apply Darwinism to his social and political thought – where in many articles, he was clearly promoting economic competition and social and economic inequality on the basis of Darwinian theory and his views militated toward “laissez-faire” policies.
        “Since Darwin and Huxley both legitimated the application of Darwinism to social and political issues, they were undoubtedly Social Darwinists in the broad sense of the term”.
        “The collective competition might manifest itself in war, but the individualist struggle was generally more peaceful economic competition. Nevertheless, the individualist form of struggle could be quite unpleasant (or perhaps even brutal) “.
        (Source: “Laissez-Faire” Social Darwinism and Individualist Competition in Darwin and Huxley by Richard Weikart
        http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/Laissez-Faire-Social-Darwinism.pdf)

        >>>… and so, in the growing absence of religious faith, Darwin’s theory of social development also was conveniently legitimised and translated into an (extremist) capitalist economy:

        >>> “Laissez-faire” became a prominent economic position in early-nineteenth-century Britain (with eg., the doctrines of Adam Smith arguing that there is no need at all for any moralising, as there was no God and as economic endeavour would inevitably regulate itself).

        >>> However, the (real) inevitable result of this type of erroneous thinking was that “laissez-faire” was far too often used ideologically by immoral people to justify oppressing their fellow human beings – to the point of instituting slavery.

        >>> Ironically, it was left to Christians like William Wilberforce to bring to the notice of the public the horrifying result of mankind’s greed and abandonment of morality and the resulting (extremist) capitalist economics.

        >>> Now, once again … it is up to Christians, to sound the alarm bells – at today’s moral and ethical INDIFFERENCE – the same moral indifference that pervaded Germany just prior to the rise of Hitler‘s Nazism (where Hitler and the majority of the Nazi hierarchy were “devoted disciples of Atheist Friedrich Nietzche); which pervaded Russia just prior to the rise of Lenin and Stalin (both openly Atheist) and Communism, etc. etc.

        >>> then let us recall the words of Our Lady at Fatima, that if mankind do not change direction in the lives and turn back to God, another more fearful war would very soon eventuate. The War was World War II. Can mankind ignore any longer Mary’s motherly call to turn back to God?

        >>> We should also then recall the words of Dostoyevsky, that “if there is no God, then everything is permissible” and possible … but unfortunately, also eventually inevitable … and that
        “Evil rises up to take up the void, if good men do nothing”.

    • Pingback: La lunga guerra contro la famiglia

    • Pingback: Marriage on the Rocks | Designs on the Truth

    • Pingback: Xuân Bích Việt Nam