Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren’t Working

I am a very committed, very public advocate of marriage as a gender-based institution. Many of my fellow proponents of man/woman marriage cite religious liberty as an argument against redefining marriage. While I have great respect for those who promote this view, I must respectfully disagree with their assessment.

The uproar over the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act demonstrates that religious liberty arguments don’t work anymore. I take no pleasure in saying this. But religious liberty arguments are not compelling enough to induce our fellow citizens to sacrifice something they value, namely, sexual liberty.

I can think of three reasons for this.

An increasing number of our fellow citizens do not believe in any god. A substantial number describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.

The American religious situation at the time of the American Founding was quite different. James Madison spoke for most when he regarded religion as “the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it.” When so many people do not regard themselves as having any “duty to the Creator,” the social foundation that made religious liberty appealing or even intelligible, no longer exists.

So, Reason #1 why religious liberty arguments are not working: People who don’t believe in God, couldn’t give a rip whether we religious believers are inconvenienced in our religious practice.

Secondly, the controversies over religious liberty are not about transubstantiation or the Trinity or predestination. We are arguing about sex: abortion, contraception, homosexuality and similar topics.

Our fellow citizens have absorbed and are committed to a particular view about the meaning of human sexuality and its place in our lives. Millions of people have ordered their lives around these beliefs. They are not going to give up those views, in the absence of an attractive alternative.

Reason #2 why religious liberty arguments are not working: we are asking our fellow citizens to give up something they value, without offering anything they value in its place.

Finally, when we talk about religious liberty, we are putting the emphasis on ourselves. We don’t like the HHS mandate because it will harm our religious institutions. We don’t like gay marriage because it goes against our beliefs.

Reason #3 why religious liberty arguments aren’t working: we sound like we are whining about ourselves. No one finds whining appealing.

I honestly think further appeals to religious liberty are not helping our cause. These arguments are not helping the immediate particular cause, such as defending man/woman marriage. Nor are religious liberty arguments helping the general cause of the church itself. Appeals to religious liberty once made sense, but no longer.

We need a different strategy: argue against the Sexual Revolution because it has hurt people.

And I do mean the whole Sexual Revolution. We are tacitly giving a pass to the earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution, by saying so little about them. The only serious exception to this generalization is abortion: the Catholic Church, and more recently, other Christians, have put up a noble fight against the Big Abortion Machine. But other aspects of the Sexual Revolution? Divorce? Contraception? Taxpayer-funded Sexual Miseducation in the schools? Not so much.

It is as if we are saying, “We like the Sexual Revolution just fine: we just don’t like the Gay Parts.” That simply will not do. It is not fair to individuals who are same sex attracted. And, it is intellectually incoherent, since the acceptance of genderless marriage actually depends upon our acceptance of those earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution.

True enough, there is no constituency right now for winning elections on some of these issues. Too bad. That just means we have not made the substantive case on these issues often enough and persuasively enough. The pro-life movement has shown that it is possible to build a constituency for the Culture of Life.

The truth is that the Sexual Revolution has harmed millions of people: Children of divorce, whose families were broken up and who never really felt like part of a real family again. Reluctantly divorced people, who wanted to stay married but whose spouse pulled the plug. Heartbroken middle-aged professional women, who “had it all,” except for the children they are now too old to bear. Refugees from the hook-up culture, jaded, cynical, and old before their time. I could mention many other groups of people. They need our help connecting the dots between the lies of the Sexual Revolution and the misery they are experiencing.

I mean no disrespect to anyone. Many advocates of religious liberty have also spoken out against these evils. My point is that bringing up religious liberty no longer strengthens our case: it weakens our case.

Christianity has a viable, humane, intellectually coherent alternative to the Sexual Revolution. Sex makes babies. Children need their own parents. Men and women are different. These are facts: trying to build an entire society around their opposites is inhuman and impossible.

Our society desperately needs to hear this message. Demanding our First Amendment Rights is a distraction. If we religious believers won’t proclaim these truths, who will?

(Photo credit: Alex Brandon / AP)

Jennifer Roback Morse


Jennifer Roback Morse is the founder and president of The Ruth Institute, a non-profit organization focused on keeping the family together, protecting the rights of children and helping the millions of people who have been harmed by family breakdown. She is the author, most recently, of The Sexual Revolution and Its Victims (2015). The Ruth Institute free resource, "4 Questions to Ask Before Divorce" is available here.

  • An Orthodox Christian

    Our society needs to see that message lived out and practiced, with not a whiff of sanctimony or hypocrisy.
    We collectively are to blame for what has happened. I strongly believe that there is no political solution to this problem. America doesn’t belong to us anymore, if it ever did. Conservatives want things to be the way they were, but the America of Ronald Reagan has passed into history, it is dead….and that unpleasant truth has in turn made people unpleasant.
    Only the Gospel will save us. Living the gospel, in our own lives and in our families. Some will apostasize of course, that is the unfortunate way of things. Entrust them to the mercy of God, and let them go. Christ will save us, Christ will vindicate us….what more do we need? Caesar will do what he likes….those who embrace Sin with no repentance will do what they do…We need to focus on our own houses, and live Christ locally, one person at a time.
    As St. Seraphim of Sarov said, acquire the Spirit of Peace and a thousand around you will be saved. If each of us did this, than a more Christian society would arise from below. It will not come from Government edicts or “rallies.”
    Marriage was in trouble long before the homosexuals clamored for it. Caesar will call it whatever he likes….what is that to us? This attitude cuts to the heart of the issue with America, in that we think we are different or special. That we are City on a Hill….we are not. We are a nation state, like any other. With good and bad mixed into a marble cake. The sooner we disabuse ourselves of this notion of our “specialness” than we can genuinely see the way forward, and that is not by turning into another political faction.

  • JayRobThom

    When the bishops began to settle on the religious liberty strategy a couple of years ago, it looked like it would boomerang on the Church – the argument doesn’t take account for the completely alien modern concept of freedom as freedom from any interference with personal choices and vices from an y institution at all.

    • Janet

      No, it was formally accepted at V2–but we skated along for all this while, sort of okay. It was the American heresy before that, poisoning the world.

  • GHU

    So, where are the Bishops and Priests? We are in the state we are in partly because
    Catholics have not heard anything on morals and sin from the pulpits from our shepherds for years and years. Some of them even support these evils.

    So, I will continue my duty as a Catholic and speak up on all these evils of contraception, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and same sex so called “marriage”. And yes, our Religious liberty IS at stake.

    • Don

      I agree. We are in this mess because too many bishops and priests got cozy with political figures and their social agendas.

      • winslow

        And, rather than serve Christ, they are serving their own agenda, which in too many cases, includes homosexual sex.

        • s_dep

          Pray for priests with the compassion and love God has for them. When we judge priests and verbally abuse them, we join with Satan in his hatred for them. Forgiveness is needed, prayers are needed. Contempt for priests and contempt for the Church, even for reasons that appear to be good, is evil disguised as righteousness. Don’t be misled. Love is the chief characteristic of a true Christian, not bitterness, slander, gossip, and a fascination with scandal.

          • WOOP, WOOP, WOOP.. Clericalism Alert, Clericalism Alert.

            Oh please, there are priests that ignore their vows, spread dissent and verbally abuse the laity. We have one individual on this board who claims to be a priest, but spends all of his time doing those things.

            We have not only a right, but a duty to confront shepherds that lead the flock astray.

            • St JD George

              I still pray for them, and thankful they answered the calling because we are in dire need of (qualified) MEN who accept their vocation. To your point for sure, many answered the call but have become confused over time, turning the handset upside down with the receiver to their ear and the chord around their neck, in need of refresher training on how to use the talents God gave them wisely.

              • Or in some cases.. at all.

          • Phil Steinacker

            You need to back off. You make false accusations through extreme exaggeration.

            I suggest you cross-reference Matthew 7:1 (which everyone leans on for an understanding of the prohibition on judgment) and John 7:24, which brings balance to the issue by modifying Matthew correctly.

            Also, read up on Archbishop Sheen’s remarks on the necessity for the laity to teach bishops, priests, and religious how to be bishops, priests, and religious. That begins with honest criticism.

            The stuff you write is true, as far as it goes, but that is not what is called for here, nor is it what has transpired.

          • winslow

            I’m not comfortable with lectures, especially from people I don’t know. If you’d care to respond to my allegations and those of the others, I’m willing to read your response. For your information, I pray for priests every day. All of them. The ball is in God’s court.

    • BillinJax

      Too many Christians feel living the faith today would be much more palatable if we just exclude the mangy appearance and haunting voice of John the Baptist and his annoying persistent call to repentance. The Truth is not subject to generational amendments or majority interpretation.

    • musicacre

      My husband asked that same question during more than 20 years being involved in organizing our pro-life movement here where we live. It was always tip toeing around clergy and luring them carefully to speak since they don’t want to “offend” anyone…least of all themselves. He has also mentioned, in the 30 years we have bee married, we haven’t heard a single priest preach that it is a sin to to deliberately miss Mass.

      • Paddy

        Some of our priests are smart., some are funny and tell witty jokes. None of them are priestly in defense of the Church. Like the nuns, many serve the needs of minority Baptists, extracting money from working Catholics, while their own flocks dissipate. Oops?

        • Seamrog

          This is an unpleasant post.

          We are to serve the poor.

          We are to tithe and support the Church.

          The flocks did not dissipate due to a lackluster priesthood.

          The flocks did, and do dissipate due to the need to ‘please thyself first.’

          Sure, there are plenty of lackluster priests and many unpleasant nuns – but we do not worship priests and nuns.

          We worship Jesus Christ, and he has not changed.

          We have.

          • Phil Steinacker

            Who said we DO worship priests and nuns? No one.

            Your comment makes no sense, and reveals a distorted understanding of the Church and the priesthood.

            Priests have an enormous impact on the fate of the Church. We see the fallout from this lackluster priesthood – as you call it – all around us.

            True, we bear responsibility for our own part, but the Church has long understood that strong priests make for strong faithful, and that weak priests lead to weak Catholics among the “faithful.”

    • Murray

      Yes and no. Our bishops have certainly been speaking up in the public square about these issues (if not at the pulpit); the trouble is that they have adopted the language and philosophical preconceptions of our enemies, particularly when it comes to post-Enlightenment novelties like “religious liberty”. Instead of denouncing the state’s infringements on the Social Reign of Christ the King, they issue feeble, anodyne press releases that amount to begging for scraps from the table of our pagan overlords.

      • Paddy

        Dolan was on TV a week or so ago and took a tough stand on Obama essentially saying, “Yes, but then again, no.” It was a sad moment in TV history. No one should pity a cardinal, but I did.

        • St JD George

          I listened to him a few weeks ago on an EWTN radio program and he seemed to be quite content to embrace the peacefully coexist bumper sticker without spreading the gospel. More like an unarmed sheriff trying to keep the peace in a saloon. The moral standard being that as long as we’re not killing each other then “it’s all good”. I’m being a little tongue in cheek of course, but I got nothing from the program and eventually turned it off.

    • sedediplomat

      Your “priests” and “bishops” are actually anti-priests and anti-bishops and clearly heretical. Would you dare to call non-catholics your leaders in faith? Than why would you call the bishops who oppose you at every turn your leaders? Even human reason could figure out the absurdity of it all by itself without the constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio saying the same thing.

  • Scott W.

    Demanding our First Amendment Rights is a distraction

    Case in point: Bishop Dolan’s attempt to carve out an exception in Obamacare so Catholic institutions wouldn’t have to provide contraceptives. Granted, it was good that a bishop spoke up, but by couching it in a religious liberty argument, he was basically saying, “We have this kooky, irrational, and strictly sectarian religious belief that contraception is wrong but there is something in the Constitution that forces the State to accommodate us.”

    What he should have said is, “Contraception is evil. It desecrates the marital bond, offends against chastity, and is a menace to public morals. The State has no business promoting it anywhere to say nothing of making people cooperate with it.”

    Granted, that won’t cut any ice with those who have capitulated to the sexual revolution, but like you said, you need to start with the truth.

    And while we are at it, let’s stop calling it the sexual revolution. They won and all of us now live in a pervertarian empire where faithful Catholics have become the insurgents.

    • Janet

      Oh you are so totally right about what Bishop Dolan should have said! And what Rome should be saying now! You do know it’s V2’s heresy, right?

      • s_dep

        After V2, Many liberal Catholics were expecting a reversal on teaching about contraception. When Humanae Vitae, which condemned contraception, was promulagated (following V2) many dissident theologians publicly condemned it. V2 has the same authority on the same grounds as every other council. To reject V2, is to reject the authority and tradition of the Church. Ironically, those who reject it call themselves Traditionalists. But there is no Tradition that supports rejecting the teachings of a church council. You may want to read the documents of V2- so many who reject V2 haven’t read the documents and make claims the documents say things that weren’t said. Whatever is wrong with the Church today stems from a lack of obedience to the Church, including a lack of humble obedience to the teachings of V2.

        • Howard Kainz

          Humanae Vitae wasn’t a “teaching of V2”, but a papal encyclical.

          • s_dep

            Yes- the Pope was Pope Paul VI- the same Pope responsible for the Church’s acceptance of the final V2 documents. All are part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church, an authority given by God In Jesus Christ, and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          Nothing went wrong with V2, all the dissent -all of it, stems from a rejection of Humanae Vitae.

        • Murray

          Vatican II is a valid council. It is also a unique council, in that it was purely “pastoral” and defined no new binding dogma. Instead, the Council restated previous dogma, though often in startlingly different terms compared to previous definitions. Hence the controversy over documents like Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, which has been subjected to sustained criticism over the years from theologians and others who find it difficult to reconcile with traditional Catholic teaching.

          In any case, the claim that the V2 documents are all pellucidly orthodox is simply untrue. Even many of the Council Fathers objected to the ambiguous wording of the final drafts of several Council documents, with Dignitatis Humanae the most controversial among them.

          Did these Council Fathers (St John Paul II among them) lack humble obedience to the teachings of V2? How can it be disobedient to question the pastoral formulations of the Council documents if even the men who helped draft them found them unsatisfactory? If a Council document is ambiguous, what exactly does it mean to submit in humble obedience to it?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Like any conciliar document, its authority derives from papal sanction and promulgation.

            One recalls that the Doctrinal commission on Lumen Gentium in its March 6 1964 declared, ” “Considering the Conciliar custom and the pastoral goal of this Council, this Holy Synod defines that only those things about matters of faith and morals are to be held by the Church which it will have declared clearly as such. As to other things which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the manner of speaking, according to the norms of theological interpretation.”

            • Murray

              Your point, Michael? No doubt it’s me, but for the umpteenth time I can’t tell whether you’re attempting to formulate an argument or merely adding useful information to the discussion.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                I posted my reply in the wrong place – See above

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              I was making two points

              (1) The documents as promulgated by Pope Paul VI are partof the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium

              (2) All teaching of the Magisterium falls to be interpreted by “the norms of theological interpretation.” Usually theologians succeed in doing so, but as Bl John Henry Newman noted, “instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope’s act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of years re-opened.” That is inevitable with any document.

              I find myself constantly reminded of the words of Socrates, “Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself..”

              The only alternatives are the submission of faith to a living authority or a reliance on private judgment. An appeal to the records of the past is always and inevitably an appeal to one’s own interpretation of them for, “σεμνῶς πάνυ σιγᾷ” – they preserve a solemn silence.

              • Aliquantillus

                And where is that living authority now, in these our days of the living contradiction that is Pope Francis, when this authority itself does no longer “judge”? In the current pontificate all dogmas and doctrines have become fluid. Francis seems to be the first Pope “beyond dogma” and is as interested in doctrine as he is in wearing red shoes. It doesn’t matter anymore.

                • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                  The living authority is where it always was – in the Holy See and the bishops in visible communion with it.

                  As for Pope Francis, I am unaware of any dogmatic pronouncements from him, or changes in the Canon Law, since the beginning of his pontificate.

              • Murray

                And back we go to the fortune-cookie. Do you ever tire of pasting the same quotes over and over again? Does it never occur to you that you might make more headway by stating your position in plain and concise terms, rather than this wearisome and self-indulgent game of “I find myself constantly reminded of [yet another copy-paste job]”?

                For my part, I find myself constantly reminded of how irritating it is to deal with people who are rendered blind by their infatuation with their own erudition.

                • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                  Surely you can see that to apeal to past pronouncements of the Magisterium as a rule by which to judge current ones is an exercise of the same principle of private judgment as the Protestant appeal to scripture as a standard by which to judge (and reject) Church teaching?

                  • Murray

                    Thank you. In future, please do me the immense courtesy of replying to my comments in a likewise clear manner. I am not interested in wading through vast blocks of pasted text in order to discern the shadowy outlines of an argument.

                    I should also point out that I am neither judging nor rejecting Church teaching. In the case of Vatican II, not only were many of the Council Fathers uncertain as to what the documents were saying, there continues to be widespread polarization over the correct interpretive hermeneutic to apply. Some bishops and theologians have called for a new Syllabus of Errors or a similar magisterial pronouncement to resolve the many ambiguities of Vatican II, but the Vatican appears to be in no hurry to do so. I expect that for many in the hierarchy, the lack of clarity is a feature, not a bug.

                    To your point: Yes, I surely can see the risk of falling into such an error. I can likewise see the risk of privileging “living authority” to such an extent that one falls into the very same protestant error of private judgment, as the Anglicans famously did at Lambeth in 1930 (among thousands of such examples among our separated brethren). We probably disagree about which error is more prevalent in the Catholic Church of today.

                    In any case, the Church writes things down so that her unchanging teachings will be clear both to present and future generations, and she has been doing so since perhaps the late AD 40s. In his Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul warns them that even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

                    Now, I understand that I am falling into the very error you warn of; that is, of appealing to past pronouncements of the Magisterium [in this case, Holy Scripture] as a rule by which to judge current ones, but St Paul does clearly allow that even the Apostles (and presumably their successors) may fall into error, and he instructs the Galatians to be on guard for such an event.

                    What might St Paul have had in mind? Perhaps something like the Arian Crisis? As you are doubtless aware, Bl. Newman points out that [t]he Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. But by your lights, the lay faithful (along with many priests and some bishops) were proto-protestants, appealing to past pronouncements of the Magisterium as a rule by which to judge current ones. The custodians of living authority, by contrast, were off endorsing heresy.

                    Likewise, in our current circumstance, the dead authority (by your lights) of Our Lord informs us that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery, while many of those who are custodians of the living authority seek to blunt or nullify this teaching. By the logic of your temporal relativism, I suppose we should submit, for fear of falling into private judgment.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      But there were no magisterial pronouncements during the Arian controversy, other than the creed and canons of Nicea. Liberius excommunicated St Athanasius for contumacy; he did not condemn his doctrine. Similarly, the creed of Sirmium, which Liberius signed under duress was susceptible of an orthodox interpretation (“like the Father in all things, according to the scriptures”).

                      Likewise, no one would treat the letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius as a pronouncement of the Magisterium, for it proposes no doctrine to be held by the whole Church. I would observe, in passing, that the condemnation of the Monothelite error by the Sixth Ecumenical Council is, indeed, an article of faith; that Honorius held it is not, for that is not a question of faith or morals. Nor is the authorship of the letter the Third Ecumenical Council thought to be by Pope Julius (in fact, it is an extract from the writing of Timotheus, the Apollinarian, if not of the heresiarch Apollinaris himself)

                      It is not every opinion of popes and councils that is authoritative, but only their solemn pronouncements, addressed to the whole Church on matters of faith and morals.

                    • Murray

                      It is not every opinion of popes and councils that is authoritative, but only their solemn pronouncements, addressed to the whole Church on matters of faith and morals.

                      Agreed, and thank you for clarifying.

                      But the reason we got into this once again is that you didn’t appear to be restricting your argument to solemn pronouncements, and such an argument is irrelevant to the prior discussion about the Second Vatican Council, which contains no such pronouncements. Furthermore, you’ve pasted near-identical comments into other discussions which have nothing to do with solemn pronouncements.

                      Which leaves me wondering what on earth you’re trying to achieve by weighing in. Do you just have an inordinate fondness for the Ctrl-V hotkey?

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      “Solemn pronouncement” encompasses more than extraordinary infallible pronouncements; the dogmatic constitutions like Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium are solemn statements of the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium.

                      They are an authentic expression of the Church’s teaching and certainly require the “religious submission of the intellect and will,” which Canon 752 requires, “even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act.” This is not the assent of faith, but is an extension of it.

                      Indeed, most papal encyclicals fall into the same category, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Code of Canon Law or, to take an earlier example, the “Chapters” that the Council of Trent prefixed to its canons.

                    • Murray, Elliot here. I haven’t seen you back at my blog since engaging with my “Rock and a dark place” post. I hope you’re doing well. As you may be aware, the discussion thread has continued to lengthen, and I left a very long reply to points/objections raised by you and others. Don’t be a stranger!

                    • Oh, and while I’m here, I might as well butt in by saying to Mr. Paterson-Seymour that, no, ALL teachings of the popes are authoritative, though not all are infallible. With councils it’s even harder to say make that distinction, since the whole point of councils is to promulgate true teaching that is binding on the whole Church (unless a canon explicitly indicates that it is addressing a particular, transient issue that no longer applies in our day, à la the Quinisext Council), and there’s not much more solemn than that.

            • Phil Steinacker

              Bull – papal bull.

          • winslow

            I would wager a bunch of money that not ten percent of Catholics have any idea what went on at Vatican II. Do you supporters of the Council know Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo?

        • Phil Steinacker

          Most folks challenging V2 have read the documents, friend. Besides, four popes have declared VR as a pastoral and not a dogmatic council, not least because there was no new dogma introduced.

          When dogma was mentioned, it was merely a reference and not a defense or a correction of an error regarding dogma. The non-dogmatic content of the V2 documents is NOT infallible, and a great case can be made that much of it has damaged the Church. I pray a later council will abrogate much of these errors, including the religions liberty nonsense which is hurting us today.

          I know over a hundred Catholics who’ve read and studied the V2 docs, so I find your contentions that V2 critics haven’t read them pretty wild. Where do you think they got their evidence to substantiate the criticisms?

        • winslow

          Vatican II was a Council called for no reason but to call a council. It was a council from hell. If you think it was so great, consider the results and get back to me.

      • St JD George

        When I listen to the recordings of Bishop Sheen, and then listen to Bishop Dolan, I go back to listening to Bishop Sheen and weep.

        • Paddy

          Dolan is the personification of weakness. The masculinity of Christ escapes the chubby fella completely. Maybe he needs a vitamin shot?

          • St JD George

            I’m sure it’s be just jolly to have a beer in the pub around the corner from St Patrick’s talking about the parade.

            • Paddy

              The Village People Parade? He’s destroyed the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the spineless lout. Dolan’s the most disappointing Catholic of this century.

    • GG

      Instead of revolution it was a rebellion.

    • Paddy

      We’re the most dormant “insurgents” in world history. Snails have more gusto than your average Roman Catholic.

    • Craig Roberts

      DANG BROTHER! How come none of the priests in my diocese can spit the Holy Ghost like that!?? You better watch it. With a gift like that you’re liable to get the St. Stephen treatment.

      “At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.” (Acts 7:57-58)

    • The problem was that he accepted the word of a politician with a public record and then claimed the Church (not everybody) had a right to be free from bureaucratic dictates.

      Faithful Catholics knew and warned the Episcopacy not to cooperate with the expansion of the state, but they insist on believing the state is a demigod capable of creating prosperity for all.

      They nodded approvingly when the pyromaniacs promised a warm hearth for all, and now the house and the city are ablaze.

      • Jacqueleen

        but they insist on believing the state is a demigod capable of creating prosperity for all.

        Don’t you mean the Democratic Party instead of the State????? The buck did not stop in NY…..It is at the Federal level as well….Immigration????
        Bishops do not have the power that they once had…case in point, the denial of Religious Freedom….Obamacare! Abba, help us!

        • Guest

          This is exactly right – it is the democrat party that is the problem here. But, you have to be more accurate – the democrat party is now the socialist-communist and therefore Christian-persecuting political entity in the U.S.

          Christians, and especially bishops, need to face the music that the democrat party is now the communist party. Communist-democrats want to rid the world of Christianity, and they are using this gay “marriage”, Obamacare, and amnesty as their mechanisms. It is quite foolish to ignore the fact that there is another undercover enemy at work here, and it is the socialist-communist-democrat U.S.A. party.

          The relationship between between the democrats and religion-hating communists in the U.S. needs to be brought to light very quickly.

          • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

            In my opinion, the elites of both parties support the Sexual Revolution. we need to wake up to that. There is a concerted effort by the big money people in the Republican Party to remove life and marriage from the party platform.

            • You have your choice between a party that will invariably do the wrong thing, and one that probably won’t do the right thing-usually after solemnly swearing to do it.

            • Guest

              Yes, this is very true. It seems as though many Republicans are now simply advancing democrat ideologies and there really is not much of a difference between the two parties. Both parties are ignoring the reality that the sexual revolution/sexual license causes chaos and suffering, a “general lowering of morality” as Humanae Vitae predicted.

          • hgs

            With all respect, but calling the democratic party in the US “communist” is plain nonsense — based on experience with real communists in the former East Germany. There are good reasons to disagree with the Democratic Party (just as there are good reasons to disagree with the GOP), but them supposedly being communists is simply incorrect.
            On a more practical level, to align the church with one political party only is dangerous on various levels.

          • Jacqueleen

            The Democratic Party/Communist Party is only another puppet for the Jewish elitist force supporting this uprising and chaos. This is the force that wants to rule the world…the very rich elitist Jews! Sad to say! Lord, we pray for their conversion as Mother Mary has asked us to pray and for the conversion of Atheists and the end of Communism. Amen. These are not the Orthodox Jews in Israel but rather the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe who came to the USA. They are atheists pretending to be of the Jewish faith and filthy rich with no compassion for life. Money is their God….and Satan is their father.

            • Jon Fermin

              Nobody wants you here, you crackpot antisemitic conspiricy theorist. All you alex jones types give conservatism and defenders of traditional marriage a bad name.

              • Jacqueleen

                Who made you boss? Oh…you must be one of those Ashkenazi’s.

                • Jon Fermin

                  Oh, yes, you got me… Brilliant detective work. you must have scoured my entire comment history to figure it out. Now that my secret is out I must depart so that I can retreat into the shadows and work on my upcomming plan for world domination. I’m in a sporting mood so I’ll let you in on a secret. It involves devaluing the american dollar with well timed glitter bombs and an army of ninjutsu trained poodles! Anyway… wish I could stick around but I have so many people to oppress and so little time. Later!

                  • Jacqueleen

                    From Satan’s mouth to your post!

                  • TERRY

                    Clever ripostes usually look a little better after you’ve run spellcheck

            • Guest

              You are obviously just another communist/democrat, trying to spread hatred for Jews. Go back to Russia.

              • Jacqueleen

                Check me out on the Internet…..only fools working for Satan do as their father does….makes false accusations.

            • Maggie Sullivan

              God bless the Jews forever….our older brothers and sisters in faith.

              Jesus loves the Jews and we should also.

              • Jacqueleen

                Nobody disputes this concept. The so-called Jews that I am referring to are not Jews as we know them…They are the Jews who migrated to Khazar (which became Georgia/Soviet Union) and intermarried with pagans and became atheists and then they migrated to Europe and then to the USA. They are the extremely rich bankers in the world today who formed a ring to rule the world…They are the plotters who tell the Bilderberg group what to propose, who then pass down to the other secret societies, like the Council on Foreign Relations, how to implement the agenda. And, you thought the country was ruled by the President and his administration along with the other two branches of government????? Stop drinking the Kool aid. Recognize puppets when you see them. These are not Jews by Israel’s standards, but atheists in disguise. Liberals lie. Do your homework.

                • Maggie Sullivan

                  Ok, I understand your point but couldn’t it also be said that Catholics are destroying our country. Most Catholics in congress are pro-abortion and the majority voted for Obama.

                  • Jacqueleen

                    Are they really Catholics? They call themselves Catholics just like the Ashkenazi Jews call themselves Jews, but ARE THEY?
                    People with a hidden agenda walking in darkness will disguise themselves as their father, Satan does…He comes as a prince in the night and not as that red suited devil with horns, a tail and a pitch fork. Likewise, those with an agenda that is opposed by the majority will also hide their purpose until the timing is right. That is why they lie! Their selfish agenda will not be accepted by most and most will rebel…I hope you get the picture because I am not the best artist. In Jesus’ Name, the name above all names, I bind and cast away the Dumb and Mute Spirit from this land and ask for the Holy Spirit to occupy the void.Seal the USA in the Blood of the Lamb from North to the South, from East to West. Lord, send your army of Angels to protect us and to remove all evil doers from high places and foil all wicked plans plotted behind closed doors to harm your people and to destroy your church. All followers of Christ are His Israel.

      • Guest

        Another important point is that the secular idea of “religion” is the same thing as their idea of liberalism; for secularists, religion is simply one’s “preferences, opinions, and beliefs.” For example, they believe in sex almighty, creator of abortion and contraception, and homosexuality the sexual revolution’s one-of-many begotten sons… In other words, for society, the homosexualist and sexual revolution fits their definition of “religion”. “Atheism” is also a “religion” for secularists. So “religious freedom” arguments will never work, because secularists simply see religious freedom arguments as “your opinions against mine.”

        In Britain, the phrase “freedom of religion” has been replaced with “freedom of belief”, which is essentially the liberal-communist-democrat method of wordsmithing to muddy the waters and eventually rid society of Christianity altogether.

    • Casey Boudreaux

      I have to say, the sexual revolution should still be called a ‘revolution’ just as the protestant, French, communist, and new age revolutions are called revolutions.
      I may not know what I’m talking about(I just turned 16 this march, after all!) but I’m getting this from Professor Plinio (whose book I haven’t actually read).

      the establishment of a revolution does not change it’s being a revolution. Satan started a revolution a long time ago, and boy it sure looks like he’s winning, but he is still a revolutionary.

      What we need is a Catholic counter-revolution.

      And by the way, I like the comment about snails having more gusto than your average roman catholic. My “grandfather” (divorce and remarry situation) claims to be catholic, but if he had to chose between the French revolution’s “liberty, equality, fraternity” or pr. Plinio’s “tradition, family, property”, he would probably choose Car and Drivers’ “intelligence, independence, irreverence”. Which does not sound at all counter-revolutionary.

      Viva Cristo Rey!

    • kilbirt42

      I think Mr. Obama wanted this fight to rally his base for the 2012 election. It was right out of the Alinsky playbook. Do something you know your enemy will have to oppose. Have that enemy be someone that your base thinks is both potent and evil and reactionary. But have it be an enemy that has no real power or very little.

      He played Dolan like an accordion.

      Obama gave out many, many waivers to companies and unions. He wanted Dolan and the Church as an enemy. That is the long and the short of it.

      I don’t think making the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby was decent, indeed it was despicable, but boy did it work politically.

      I think the next step may be the institution of a two minute hate. Joe Biden will oppose it de Fide but do it anyway.

    • The Truth

      Just saying something is wrong or evil without explaining the why of it, is useless. Even then some people just can’t grasp it. And most of them are Catholics.

      • Scott W.

        The point is that Bishop Dolan started incorrectly and of course was lost afterwards. He could have offered an explanation after he started with the right premise, but you gotta start somewhere.

    • Dr. J

      “…all of us now live in a pervertarian empire where faithful Catholics have become the insurgents.”

      That’s pretty powerful and sobering.

      At the same time we should not ascribe more power to these cultural forces than they really have. Similar to opposing the spiritual forces of darkness, we Christians know that the final battle has already been won. As Christians we are not guaranteed comfort in this life, but are promised all in the next.

      Our battle is not fundamentally against our fallen brothers and sisters. Its against the darkness that deludes them. In fact, we should be willing to risk all to save them – if they would be saved.

    • scragsma

      There’s nothing “kooky, irrational, and strictly sectarian” about opposition to contraception. It’s based in biology, human nature, and the good of society. But in reality, the appeal to religious liberty is the only LEGAL basis we have. While we certainly must make the other arguments, we would be derelict if we didn’t make the legal argument as well — pointing to the document that is the supreme law of the nation, to which all other laws must conform.

      • Scott W.

        Fair enough, but a legal argument is one that can’t be sustained in the long run due to the lies inherent in liberalism. It’s fine as a subtle and temporary strategy, but as far as I can tell, Bishop Dolan is a true believer in the “American Way” (i.e. liberalism) and would be allergic to proclaiming the 180-proof truth about contraception’s evil in public. If you use their words, you start thinking their thoughts.

  • Watosh

    Now we are waking up. Now we are beginning to recognize the wolf in grandma’s clothing.

  • Lecarne

    Thank you. Yes, I sense something important here. Every time I run the religious liberty argument in my mind I am hamstrung by questions about whether error has any rights? i.e the arguments dissolve into Church vs State. If we focus on the harm people are doing to themselves, we may bypass that particular dead end?

    • gsk

      Amen, Lecarne. I agree. My concern about the bishops’ strategy is that it will lead to the recognition of polygamy under the umbrella of Muslims’ (or traditional Mormons’) “religious rights.” When anyone can purchase a minister’s license (I’ve seen the ads) and create a religion out of whole cloth, the natural law arguments go out the window.

  • publiusnj

    If freedom of religion means freedom from any moral code, as it does under the currently dominant reading of the First Amendment, then anything goes. And it does. The problem is a lot bigger than Gay Marriage, as the author notes. In fact, the problem started even before the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

    The First Amendment itself was a compromise that the founders had to arrive at due to the fissiparous nature of British Protestantism. Unlike Continental Protestantism where the ruler just took over (i.e., stole) the property of the Catholic Church, the British Isles started with three different Protestantisms, which each had their day due to the political needs of the then current rulers. Anglicanism under Henry VIII (and Elizabeth); a Reformed but centrally managed Protestantism under the regents who ruled in the name of Edward VI and a more decentralized Reformed Protestantism in Scotland under the “lairds of the Congregation” and the regents who ruled in the name of James VI. Edward VI’s regents needed to go further than Henry so that they too could strip a new set of altars, and the “lairds” wanted decentralization because they were only local rather than nationwide plunderers of the Church. So this messy brew of three conflicting Protestantisms came together under James I of England and the Civil War ensued shortly.

    In the meanwhile Englishmen were settling the Eastern Seaboard of the US and bringing their conflicting versions of Protestantism to different colonies (Congregationalism in New England, Dissenter Sects (e.g., Quakers) in the MidAtlantic and Anglicanism in the South. then with Great Awakenings, a part of Anglicanism morphed into Methodism. So when the colonies got together in a more perfect Union, the dominant politicians/churches in various former colonies wanted to make sure the Congress could not make a national establishment of religion that would trump statewide arrangements. That is what the First Amendment was really all about (“Congress shall make no law….”).

    And things would have stayed that way but for the arrival of the Senior Church (the one that pre-existed all the Protestant ones) on America’s shores in the person of the poor banished children of Ireland. Protestants did not want to treat the Catholic Church like the various Protestant churches, and that led to the Public School Movement, the Nativist Know Nothing Party, the Blaine Amendments and ultimately to the First Amendment jurisprudence that started out to stop aid to Catholic schools and has morphed into the sanctification of amorality as the highest public good. Along the way, all kinds of other things have been blessed such as Unlimited Divorce that have sapped our culture of any meaning except “Anything Goes.” So there are really big issues and we need courageous evangelists of a morality based vision of life and love.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      As Continental Conservatives never fail to remind us, Liberalism is, in its origins and in its principles, a secularised form of Protestantism.

      “Individualism was already present in the notion of individual salvation and of an intimate and privileged relation between an individual and God that surpasses any relation on earth. Egalitarianism is rooted in the idea that redemption is equally available to all mankind, since all are endowed with an individual soul whose absolute value is shared by all humanity. Progressivism is born of the idea that history has an absolute beginning and a necessary end, and that it unfolds globally according to a divine plan. Finally, Universalism is the natural expression of a religion that claims to manifest a revealed truth which, valid for all men, summons them to conversion. Modern political life itself is founded on secularized theological concepts.” [Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier]

      They are, in fact, the principles of justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers and private judgment, transposed into the political sphere.

      • Mark

        Good morning Brethren,

        As I read your two thoughtful posts, publiusnj and Michael Paterson-Seymour, the pristine notion of just what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution provided for us, some 230 years ago, makes itself existentially manifest. So called “freedom of religion” can only be, in truth, freedom from religion, as there is, as you know, One True Faith. Freedom, as ordained by Almighty God, in the Divine Persons of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, relies on the subjugation of one’s own free will assent into the Free Will of Almighty God, as perfectly demonstrated in the submission of the Holy and Perfect Will of the Beloved Son, into the Holy and Perfect Will of the Almighty Father, from all eternity, as the Father has always made His benevolent behest of the Son, for the perfect Redemption of mankind. The only sacrifice worthy of Almighty God, as God Himself. The Beloved Son gives Himself first to His Father and then to humanity as the quint-ultimate Gift to His children; that which at once orders the Perfect Sacrifice while intuiting the miserable intellect of us fallen human persons, into the Love that God Is.

        We were destined and truly doomed to fail as a nation, a republic, from our nascent genesis, which has as its wellspring, revolution, which orders one’s understanding into the essence of just what violence is, as first made manifest within the intellect and free will assent of the diabolical, Lucifer himself, in his cry of unutterable cacophony, “non servium”. Ours’ is a time of so called “frenetic intemperance”, whereby the human person’s soul is ever searching in vain, trapped within the delusion of the profane, at once completely blinded to just what the Sacred, Almighty God, commands of us: “Be STILL and know that I am God”.

        The Grace and Peace of God the Father of our Blessed Dominus and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’.

    • The sexual revolution started with the Protestant Lambeth conference of 1930. All else is predictable from there.

      • It started when Henry Tudor and Martin Luther decided that marriage was an affair of the state and dissoluable. Without Henry, there’s no group to even sponsor the Lambeth conference, which was a disaster, but a mere step on the journey started four centuries earlier.

        • Paddy

          There’s little left of the Anglicans; Lutherans can gloat about their participation with Hitler. Such is the fate of heresy while it hollows out souls in its own image. The exception is the Islamic heresy, a brutish criminal enterprise, that doesn’t pretend to be Christ-like.

          • Jason Wills

            What about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? The most famous Lutheran who most certainly did not participate with Hitler.

            Islam is not a heresy; it was never Christian to begin with.

            • Paddy

              There are wonderful Lutherans, yet, you can’t deny their instituional participation in the Nazi Party can you?

              And yes, Islam is a Christian heresy that spun off the Testaments of the Bible and even refers to Christians ( before they rape and decapitate us!) as Children of the Book. .

              • Jason Wills

                Balderdash! The Lutheran Church did not have any more “institutional participation” in the Nazi Party than the Catholic Church did.

                Islam is not a Christian heresy. It is not a religion based on the life, teachings and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but on the Qur’an (the Recitation) of the Prophet Mohammed, who never even read the New Testament and did not believe that Jesus was even crucified to begin with.

                • Paddy

                  Can we agree that you’re wrong?

                  • Jason Wills

                    Certainly not. You are the one who is wrong.

                    • Paddy

                      Remind me of which Lutheran pastor excommunicated any Lutheran who joined the Nazi Party in 1932, as the RCC did?

                      Be specific.

                    • Jason Wills


                    • Paddy


                    • Jason Wills


                    • Paddy

                      Luther deserves a better defender than you, Jason.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Your comments on this matter are howlingly preposterous. So now you’re saying that Martin Luther was a Nazi?

                    • More that Martin Luther was an anti-semite:

                    • Jason Wills

                      Luther was not anti-Semitic in the modern racialist sense so much as he was merely anti-Jewish. Luther called for violence against the Jews if they would not convert to Christ. In contrast, Hitler would have killed all the Jews in Europe regardless of any conversion to Christianity. Just look at what happened to Edith Stein, AKA Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

                    • Paddy

                      Many of the communist agitators in Germany in the first quarter of the 20th century were Jewish. Whether Hitler saw a Jew or a communist, he certainly saw red. I’d guess he was foremost anti-Jewish ( Mein Kampf) but rabidly anti-communist, too. When he lost, half of Europe went communist…now, its’ mostly Marxist.

                    • Jason Wills

                      How is it Marxist?

                    • Uwe Siemen-Netto topples the Luther as anti-semite myth. He clearly called for the exile of the Jews and the destruction of their synagogues for the simple reason that he felt the Jews would embrace the Gospel now he “rediscovered” it for the masses — once it was obvious they weren’t converting, that was his solution. To be fair, Anabaptists and Turks were no less odious to Luther. His was religiously motivated to protect the Germans from false religion, right or wrong. His earlier writings showed much patience and tenderness toward the Jews.


                    • Does a heretic no longer teach falsehood if you call them a post-protestant post-Christian cult?

                    • I am a Catholic now, I don’t defend the indefensible. Just want historical accuracy.

                    • It’s a denial of Luther’s anti-Semitism, but hardly a demolition and it’s hardly objective. When you hit the button “find a church”, you only get Lutheran churches.

                      The problem with Luther is the same as with Mohammed. His tune changed when he found out people just weren’t gong to accept everything he said.

                    • I don’t advocate Luther’s solution, for sure. I just think historical context ought to inform the matter and not the ever-useful 20th century sloganeering some use to cover anything spoken against about the Jews. The NT is often considered “antisemetic” too.

                      I think you and Jason Wills are right.

                    • Paddy

                      Back to my point: The Lutheran heresy is dead in most of Europe and is dying in the USA. the Lutheran Synod Michelle Bachmann belonged to had one basic belief, that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

                    • I see a lot of Protestants celebrating “Reformation Day” and even more operating from the sola fide and sola scriptura manuals. Wait until October 31, 2017 to see how much it survives.

                    • Paddy

                      Jews believe Luther was an anti-semite. of course, they were at the receiving end of Lutheran wrath, weren’t they?

                • The Qur’an of the Prophet Mohammed is very much based on the New Testament, albeit in a very corrupted form.

                  • Jason Wills

                    Not really. Mohammed never even read the New Testament; he only heard stories about it.

                    • Stories were enough. The entire basis for Islam was to unite the various tribes of Asia Minor into an imitation of the Byzantine Empire- which was most certainly based on the teachings of the New Testament.

                    • Jason Wills

                      There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam, the teachings (and divinity) of Jesus and the teachings (and non-divinity) of Muhammed, the Byzantine Empire and the medieval Islamic caliphates.

                    • I apologize- I had it wrong. It wasn’t the Byzantine- It was the Ebionites that Mohammed knew. They had a New Testament, but a severely cut down one- basically only the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James.

                      It is likely Mohammed read both, for he had an in-law, the uncle of his first wife, who was an Ebionite Bishop.

                      They were Christian, but a gnostic set of Judaizers; they accepted Christ as Messiah but not as the Son of God. So Mohammed came by his lack of the Divinity of Christ rather honestly, given this sect as an instructor in Christianity.

                    • Jason Wills

                      If Islam is a Christian heresy, does that make Christianity a Jewish heresy?

                    • Yep. That is, after all, why Christ was crucified.

                    • Jason Wills

                      None of the Inquisitions of the Church (medieval, Spanish, Roman) ever recognized the Jews or Muhammedans as heretics, and had no interest in compelling any recantation of their theological errors.

                    • Your standard is the politically motivated Inquisitions?

                    • Jason Wills

                      On that basis, calling Islam a “Christian heresy” is quite a stretch. It would be more accurate to regard Islam as a schismatic religion, as Dante did.

                    • Schismatics are heretics by definition, so I don’t see much of a difference.

                    • Jason Wills

                      So then why didn’t the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 call all Jews and Muhammedans to answer for their heresies?

                    • Because it was a political inquisition and not a religious inquisition.

                      It was established by the monarchy, and was not under Papal control. It was ONLY chartered to investigate the orthodoxy of those who had already converted, and it had a narrow scope of authority and jurisdiction.

                    • Jason Wills

                      In 1478, the Papacy gave authority to Ferdinand and Isabella to establish and conduct an inquisition in Spain. Indeed, ecclesiatic inquiries into heresy always concern the maintainence of Christian orthodoxy and are not a carte blanche mandate to convert non-Christians.

                      One must first be baptized a Christian in order to be a heretic. To suggest that all unbaptized non-Christians (such as Jews and Muslims) are heretics is just silly.

                    • Jason Wills

                      The Jehovah’s Witnesses might be called modern-day Arian heretics on account of their rejection of the Nicean orthodoxy of trinitarianism.

                      Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals generally regard Jehovah’s Witnesses (as well as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and Oneness Pentecostals) as a post-Protestant pseudo-Christian cult outside of the reformed church traditions established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

                    • Truth be told, the ancient Arians looked Catholic in every other respect except for the homoiousios controversy. JWs have lots of quirks that make them stick out even by Protestant standards.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Indeed. That’s why I qualified my description of them as MODERN-DAY Arian heretics.

                    • Does a heretic stop teaching falsehoods if you call them by another name?

                    • Jason Wills

                      Is that a rhetorical question? There are heresies and there are schisms and there are cults and false religions. You don’t seem to know the difference.

                    • Paddy

                      Are you primarily defending Lutherans, again? if so, they really belong to the history books, not future religious dialogue.

                      As tens of thousands of Moslems move to Spain, Italy, France etc., they are filling the vacuum left by a dying Christianity in a Marxist-run EU. A blood-thirsty heresy returns in force for the first time since the Church turned it back on 911..1683. No Lutherans joined the battle that day.

                    • Jason Wills

                      I’m afraid your question doesn’t make much sense. Apparently, you wish to indict all Lutherans as Nazis (and cowards or traitors for not fighting in the Battle of Párkány). I’m no fan of Martin Luther, but your comments are beginning to take on a rather intemperate, hysterical tone.

                      By the way, Islam is not a heresy (Muslims are not baptized Christians who have strayed from the flock); it is a different religion altogether.

                    • Paddy

                      More filibustering nonsense. The author’s question was about the place of Christianity in a libertine and heathen land, this America.

                      Can you address anything even tangentially related to what Morse has said? I doubt it.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Apparently, you don’t know the proper meaning of the word “filibustering”, and my comments about heresy were quite factual and valid — hardly “nonsense.”

                      I have simply been responding to yours and other people’s comments on this board. Alas, many of your intemperate rants are completely irrelevant to Morse’s article, so I really don’t understand why you are whining at me. Physician, heal thyself.

                    • That is because from an obedience to orthodoxy standpoint, there is no practical difference. All are a part of the heresy of Americanism.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Hmm. The heresy of Americanism? Really?

                    • Not surprised you are not familiar with it. 90 years before Americans censored Pope Paul VI, they were censoring Pope Leo XIII. And now I have given you enough to find the encyclicals yourself, which is far more convincing than anything I could possibly write.

                    • Jason Wills

                      I think Alexis de Tocqueville identified the American heresy some time before Leo XIII.

                      It might be more accurate to understand these newfangled American pseudo-Christian cults that started cropping up in the middle of the 19th century as further schisms in the heresy of Protestantism (or post-Protestantism, as the case may be) — or as an immediate precursor to the heresy of modernism articulated by St. Pius X.

                      In 1893, invoking the “American heresy” in such stentorian terms would be tantamount to giving live ammunition to Know-Nothing nativists and their fellow travellers.

                      Since 1968, “Humanae Vitae” wasn’t “censored” so much as widely mocked and ignored, even by a large number of Catholics. Many clerics, especially in North America and Europe, simply fail to enunciate it with any conviction, if at all.

                    • Alexis de Toqueville was not a competent authority on theology, and did not have Apostolic Succession.

                      Mocked, ignored, kept away from the very people who could have profited from the prophecy. I call that censorship. Was it taught to you as truth? Was Humane Vitae preached at all? No, it was not. Thus, censorship. Same thing happened with Pope Leo’s warnings about the abuse of freedom and the abuse of the free market.

                    • Jason Wills

                      I was just being facetious about de Tocqueville. Lighten up.

                    • I am in despair over the abuse of liberty in America, and look forward to the end of this failed experiment in chaotic morality.

                    • Murray

                      I upvoted this at first, but then I was like, Hey, if the Catholic Church is the New Israel, and the Old Covenant was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then Christianity can’t be a Jewish heresy.

                      Oh, heck, I’ll upvote it again.

                      But seriously, while it seems to me you could argue that Talmudic Judaism is a Jewish heresy (since it bears little relation to the Temple Judaism practiced up till AD 70), the Church can’t be, at least by her own self-definition.

                    • Do you know of any religion that claims to be a heresy by their own definitions? Even the gnostics believed they had the one true way.

                    • Murray

                      Well, no. Good point.

                      But my central point was that you can only view Christianity as a Jewish heresy if it (obstinately and pertinaciously!) denies a revealed truth of that religion. Christianity, of course, does nothing of the sort.

                      In fact, Catholic Christianity is older than modern Talmudic Judaism, which is the result of a retooling after the destruction of the Temple put an end to the central rites and customs of the older religion. Talmudic Judaism is also, reportedly, in some ways a reaction to early Christianity. In that sense, it is closer to being a Jewish heresy than Christianity is.

                    • Yes, that’s true- Christianity and Talmudic Judaism are brothers, born from the destruction of the temple. But I’d say both are heretical from the point of view of say, the Saducees or the Essenes (though in a way, both are very closely related to the teachings of the Pharisees- to me that proves the human side of Jesus, we always hurt worst the ones we love or are closest to).

                    • Murray

                      I wouldn’t say brothers, exactly: it’s my understanding that Talmudic Judaism descends directly from the Pharisaical leaders who came up with it in order to keep Judaism going after the Romans leveled Jerusalem.

                      Christianity, of course, is not “born from the destruction of the Temple,” since it predates that event by almost 40 years. All of Paul’s Epistles and at least some of the Gospels were written while the Temple was standing. Though the Talmud apparently acknowledges that the scarlet thread tied around the head of the scapegoat mysteriously stopped turning white on Yom Kippur, sometime around the early AD 30s!

                      Anyway, this is all a diversion from the main topic, though a fascinating one!

                    • Paddy

                      Jews have historically been closer to islam and its adherents than Catholicism ever has been. Recent years have seen a terrible change in the Islamo-Judaic relationship since the creation of Israel.

                    • Paddy

                      The Alewites are interesting. Muslims who celebrate Christmas?

                      Under Obama’s policy they will go the way of Christians in the Ummah, victims of genocide.

                    • Jason Wills

                      The Romans did not crucify Christ because he was a Jewish heretic, but because Pilate found Him guilty of sedition for indirectly claiming to be the King of the Jews.

                    • Pilate found him innocent of that charge. It was the clan of Zadock that insisted he be killed anyway.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Only Pilate had the authority to execute Jesus and did so on grounds of sedition. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved for enemies of the state.

                    • Alexandra

                      According to St. Thomas Aquinas heresy is an infidelity to Christ and his teachings, a corruption of the dogmas of Christianity. In this sense we cannot say that Islam is a Christian heresy. Mohammed was never a Christian. Islam can be rightly called a religion or a cult founded by Mohamed. What color his thoughts? his own imagination and dealings with Jewish and Christian merchants.

                      Christianity is not a Jewsih heresy. Although Christ had been an observant Jew, He founded a new Religion based on a personal God, He also said that He was the face of the Father.When Peter , impelled by the Holy Spirit said that he was the Son of God, Jesus said that it was the Spirit who enlightened Peter. None of these elements belong to Judaism. Ultimately, acording to Matthew 26; 62 -67, Jesus Our Lord was condemned to death for blasphemy, not heresy. The wages of blasphemy was death. Please see this passage from Matthew : 62 Then the high priest stood up, and asked him, Hast thou no answer to make to the accusations these men bring against thee? 63 Jesus was silent; and the high priest said to him openly, I adjure thee by the living God to tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God? 64 Jesus answered, Thy own lips have said it. And moreover I tell you this; you will see the Son of Man again, when he is seated at the right hand of God’s power, and comes on the clouds of heaven. 65 At this, the high priest tore his garments, and said, He has blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Mark well, you have heard his blasphemy for yourselves. 66 What is your finding? And they answered, The penalty is death. 67

                    • Alexandra

                      Just sharing information without any wish to become disagreable. Best to all.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Thank you for that much needed clarification. That was the answer I was waiting for. Theodore Seeber’s definition of heresy is much too broad and simplistic and has no basis in Canon Law.

                    • Paddy

                      Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial. but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing [The Great Heresies, 1938]…Belloc.

                    • Jason Wills

                      If you and Hillaire Belloc say so. Funny, that the Church never called for a Palestinian, Arabian, or Persian Inquisition to combat the Islamic heresy, eh?

                    • Paddy

                      The oral history of religion was strong before printing became cheap with Guttenberg. This development helped Luther spread his heresy.

                    • Jason Wills

                      No kidding? And the sky is blue, grass is green, and water is wet.

                  • St JD George

                    Interesting statement, I’ve never heard anyone ever make that one. Other than the acknowledgment of Jesus as a prophet and a good man which is a historical point, and reverence for Mary dedicated in a chapter, where is there any divine basis. Certainly agree on the last point.

                    • Jason Wills

                      It makes sense that the Qur’an would contain a sura devoted to Mary, given that both she and the Prophet Muhammed had supernatural encounters with the Archangel Gabriel.

                    • As it turns out, I’m wrong. It was the Ebionites, not the Byzantine, that Mohammed knew. They had a New Testament, but a severely cut down one- basically one gospel and the letter of James.

                • orientstar

                  The idea of Islam as a Christian heresy is a respectable opinion to hold. St. John of Damascus believed it as have many since, such as Hilaire Belloc. Substantial portions of the Koran clearly derive from contact with versions of the New Testament in Syriac: see the works of Christoph Luxenberg. So, not balderdash. No comment on German Lutherans!

                  • Paddy

                    You’re right, of course! There’s something else going on with JW’s comments that have little to do with what the article addresses.

                    • Jason Wills

                      I didn’t raise the topics under discussion here; I am merely responding to them. You seem to have some kind of problem with that.

                  • Jason Wills

                    But Muslims were never baptized Christians and don’t come from a Judeo-Christian tradition (unlike Protestants), so classifying them as “heretics” is a stretch.

                    • orientstar

                      If you look at the historical and cultural milieu from which Islam emerged then it really isn’t much of a “stretch”. The influence of Christianity on the origins of Islam and on the teachings on the Prophet are increasingly well documented. Islam did indeed come out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Prophet was familiar with Christian scriptures and teachings, included them in his own teachings, and distorted them – therein lies the heresy.

                    • Jason Wills

                      And yet, no ecumenical council of the Church has ever formally condemned Islam as a heresy (unlike the Council of Trent which dealt directly with Protestantism), and no inquistion ever sought any Muslim’s recantation. Practically speaking, only baptized Christians may qualify as heretics that the Church has any concern for; Muhammedans are simply heathen.

                      Indeed, the Prophet Muhammed and his followers were never baptized Christians, and 7th century Arabia was not a predominantly Christian culture (more Zoroastrian in character). Muhammed had likely never even read the Old and New Testaments (he was an illiterate Arabic-speaking shepherd who probably only got his information about the Scriptures secondhand). By his own account, the Prophet received the Word from the Archangel Gabriel over a period of 22 years while living in Mecca and Medina.

                    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

                      I find it amusing that the collected ayat or ‘Sayings of the Prophetl’ are full of rip offs from early Christian desert fathers and others. Take the most poignant of the Ayat that I’ve read “If I look at one morsel of meat in the common bowl with greed, I make the whole world into a pig-sty” The best thing Mo ever said it seems he never said!

            • Not all Lutherans- but those who had read that German classic “Jews and their Lies” by Martin Luther, most certainly had a hand shaping the Nazi response to the Great Depression.

              • Jason Wills

                Luther’s argument against the Jews was religiously based, which Hitler exploited for his own cynical purposes. The Nazis’ genocidal anti-Semitism was based upon modern Darwinian racialist ideology, not anti-Jewish Christian polemics of the sixteenth century.

                • “Luther’s argument against the Jews was religiously based, which Hitler exploited for his own cynical purposes. ”

                  His “argument” was seething hatred, so it was easy to exploit.

                  He was a bitter, self-righteous moral cretin, who reserved no venom for people that didn’t lap up his vomit like cats at a saucer of cream.

                  • Jason Wills

                    Maybe so. But that hardly makes Luther a Nazi.

                    • Yes. You and DE-173 are right!

                    • Nobody asserted that he was a Nazi. He was a anti-Semite whose influence in Germany helped Hitler sell his noxious hate.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Debatable on all counts.

                    • You have debatable confused with refutable and it’s not. Much of Germany was affected by Luther and one aspect of his thought was his hatred for Jews. Ideas have consequences, even if they take 4 centuries to come about.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Oh, so now you are implying a direct causal relationship between Lutheranism and Nazism? Glib overstatement much?

                    • Yes, I do. Luther committed his hatred to the written form and it was enculturated. If you can’t see the Hitler was receptive to people who were the products of centuries of enculturation, I can’t help you-but visceral indignation isn’t a counterargument.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Between the two of us, the only one who is arguing from visceral indignation is you. Your theory is glibly simplistic and wildly overstated to say the least.

                      If what you say is true, then all Lutheran churches should be outlawed in Germany (and elsewhere) as crypto-Nazi hate cults. Lutheran theologians such as Soren Kierkegaard and Dietrich Bonhoeffer should likewise be vilified as crypto-Nazis-by-religious-affiliation.

                      I suppose you also believe that Richard Wagner was a Nazi-avant-la-lettre because he was an anti-Semite and Hitler admired his operas. On that basis, the German government should outlaw the Bayreuth festival and issue stiff fines and jail sentences to anyone who listens to his music.

                    • “Between the two of us”

                      When you write this on a public forum, it shows your logic chip is misfiring.

                      “Glibly simplistic” is a visceral reaction, not a counter argument, so thanks for making my point.

                      Om the other hand, I traffic in facts.

                      In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[13] They are full of the “devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine.”[14] The synagogue was a “defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut …”[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated.

                      Luther was the father of Krystallnact.
                      As to Hitler’s religion, he apostatized long before 1933. Of course, I never indicated the source of Hitler’s hatred, I said it was made receptive because generations of Germans were influenced by the Lutheran cult.
                      This isn’t Lutherquest, here we hold the man to account.

                    • Jason Wills

                      When I said “between the two of us”, I simply meant that the matter was concerning you and I in particular, not that I was imparting an intimate secret on a public forum. Apparently, you need to work on your contextual reading comprehension skills and apply a bit of common sense.

                      “Glibly simplistic” hardly constitutes “visceral indignation” (that’s your job); it is merely an apt assessment of your unconvincing argument. By the way, gratuitous ad hominem slurs and feeble attempts at sophomoric sarcasm don’t add any weight to your case; quite the contrary. Alas, it is not the facts that are at issue here, but rather your strained and tendentious interpretation of them.

                      “Luther was the father of Krystallnact [sic] and the final solution. Hitler did everything Luther wanted and more.”

                      That is just a wild overstatement, which is hardly an uncontroversial point of consensus among historians. Hitler’s motives were not Luther’s motives, nor were Hitler’s goals Luther’s goals. Luther advocated violence against the Jews simply because they would not convert and accept Jesus as the Son of God. Hitler, on the other hand, was an anti-Christian and a racialist anti-Semite. Even if every Jew in Europe converted to Christianity, Hitler would have killed them anyway.

                      Indeed, Martin Luther was a far more complex figure than Hitler, and his legacy in Germany (and around the world) was also much more complex than enculturated anti-Semitism culminating in the Final Solution. When Luther refers to the Jews as “a base, whoring people”, he seems to be using the language of the minor prophet Hosea, who also indicted the children of Israel as prostitutes for turning away from the true God of Abraham and making “filth” of their sacred covenant.

                      Paul Halsall argues that “although Luther’s comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of a tradition of Medieval Christian anti-semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-semitism, modern anti-semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed even those ethnic Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed their conversions.”

                      In February 1546, nearly three years after writing “On the Jews and Their Lies”, Luther preached a sermon about the Jews at Eisleben, in which he stated the following:

                      “We want to deal with them in a Christian manner now. Offer them the Christian faith that they would accept the Messiah, who is even their cousin and has been born of their flesh and blood; and is rightly Abraham’s Seed, of which they boast. Even so, I am concerned [that] Jewish blood may no longer become watery and wild. First of all, you should propose to them that they be converted to the Messiah and allow themselves to be baptized, that one may see that this is a serious matter to them. If not, then we would not permit them [to live among us], for Christ commands us to be baptized and believe in Him, even though we cannot now believe so strongly as we should, God is still patient with us. However, if they are converted, abandon their usury, and receive Christ, then we will willingly regard them our brothers.”

                      As National Socialism was an intrinsically anti-Christian movement, expresed through idolatrous neo-pagan tribalism and leader worship and based on social Darwinist racialist ideology and eugenics, it is all but certain that Hitler and the Nazis neither knew nor cared about Luther’s serious theological concerns with scriptural authority, the justification of salvation, and the Christian conversion of the Jews. They simply exploited the man’s more intemperate writings for their own cynical and opportunistic ends.

                      Julius Streicher, Roman Catholic editor of the Nazi newspaper “Der Stürmer”, first encountered “On the Jews and Their Lies” in 1937 and later published copies of it for distribution at the Nuremberg rallies — needless to say, it wasn’t for theological enlightenment of the masses. Shortly after Kristallnacht, Martin Sasse, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Thuringia, also published a compendium of Luther’s more incendiary anti-Jewish writings, promoting them as blatant Nazi propaganda.

                      As many historians have indicated, neither Streicher nor Sasse nor any of the Nazis actually had a proper historical and theological appreciation of Luther’s tract. In his book, “The Fabricated Luther: The Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth”, the historian Uwe Siemon-Netto persuasively argues that it was because the Nazis were already anti-Semites that they revived Luther’s work and not the other way around.

                      In addition, Methodist Luther scholar Gordon Rupp writes that

                      “Luther’s antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of ‘Race’. It was based on medieval Catholic anti-semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy. Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people.

                      “…Needless to say, there is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther. The fact that he and other Nazis claimed Luther on their side proves no more than the fact that they also numbered Almighty God among their supporters. Hitler mentions Luther once in Mein Kampf in a harmless context.”

                      Also severely undercutting your “Luther was directly responsible for modern German anti-Semitism culminating in Nazism” thesis is the fact, pointed out by theologian Johannes Wallmann, that while “On the Jews and Their Lies” was widely influential in shaping German attitudes and public policies against the Jews during the 16th and 17th centuries, it had virtually no impact in during the 18th and 19th centuries, and was largely forgotten until the Nazis quite suddenly revived it in the 1930s. In a similar vein, Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther’s role in the development of German anti-Semitism is to underestimate the “larger peculiarities of German history.”

                      Furthermore, in his Lutheran Quarterly article, Wallmann contended that Johann Andreas Eisenmenger and his “Judaism Unmasked”, published posthumously in 1711, was “a major source of evidence for the anti-Semites of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries” and “cast Luther’s anti-Jewish writings into obscurity”. In this 2000-page tome, Eisenmenger makes no mention of Luther at all.

                      It is worth noting that practically all of the leading figures of the Third Reich (Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Göring, Streicher) were from Austrian and Bavarian Catholic backgrounds. One notable exception was Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, who did come from a Lutheran family. By the same token, two of the most famous opponents (and martyrs) of Hitler’s regime were devout Lutherans: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Sophie Schöll. Given these facts, your “enculturation” argument is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Indeed, when taken into a wider and more thorough consideration of the facts, it is glibly simplistic and ahistorical.

                    • Giacomo

                      I don’t understand why you deny the influence Luther had when you prove how influential he still is. You’ve already expended great effort defending him, yes? First, Luther was wrong about a great many things. If he’d understood, for example… “do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you. Indeed you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, [perhaps] he will not spare you either.” (Rom11 18:21)… he would have not held such harsh attitude against Jews, who are still under Covenant. He was ‘not trustworthy with what belongs to another’ and he and his defenders are left to ‘justify themselves in the sight of others’. (cf Luke 16:12, 15)

                    • Jason Wills

                      What I am disputing is the dubious suggestion that Luther had a direct influence on the Nazi ideology and policy, when most of the National Socialist leaders (including Hitler) came from Catholic backgrounds and were anti-Christian social Darwinists and neo-pagan idolators. Not to mention the crucial fact that Luther’s anti-Jewish writings fell into obscurity by the beginning of the 18th century and were not revived until the 1930s when they were crudely and superficially exploited as Nazi propaganda.

                    • When I said “between the two of us”, I simply meant that the matter was concerning you and I in particular, not that I was imparting an intimate secret on a public forum. Apparently, you need to work on your contextual reading comprehension skills and apply a bit of common sense.
                      It’s not my fault you wrote what you wrote, misusig a colloquialism as an introduction.
                      It’s laughable that you would expend this much effort attempting to mount a defense of Luther that claims Luther’s writings were obscure and inconsequential from a publication such as “Lutheran Quarterly” as if that is that is some objective inquiry.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Is that really the best response you could come up with?

                      It is indeed your fault for having such poor reading comprehension skills as well as such an obvious dearth of common sense. You also need to work on your typing skills.

                      I actually offered several quotes from a number of different sources in defense of my argument (including one by a Methodist). Whether you like it or not, the Lutheran Quarterly is a perfectly valid source of historical scholarship on the matter under discussion. You have been exhaustively refuted and your smug ignorance and sectarian bigotry has been exposed. Now you’re just desperately clutching at straws and behaving like the petulant sore loser you are.

                    • But who are YOU to judge?

                    • Jason Wills

                      You need to learn to follow your own unsolicited advice. Physician, heal thyself.

                    • Paddy

                      Then, there was Lutheran Sweden allied with the Nazis in WWII providing industrial supply to Hitler’s juggernaut. Are you going to deny that, too?

                    • Jason Wills

                      I don’t see your point. Are you saying that Sweden allied with Nazi Germany because it was a Lutheran country? If that was the case, then why didn’t Finland (another Lutheran country) also ally with Germany? .

                    • Paddy

                      Finland had it’s own problems with the Soviet communists, if you read about their WWII experiences. Swedish steel was perfect for Nazi armaments and the Swedes made lots of money feeding the nazi war machine.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Oh, I see. So, the reason that the Swedes got into bed with the Nazis was because they were Lutherans. Was that the thesis of your doctoral dissertation in modern European history?

                    • Paddy

                      Maybe it’s your thesis as you continue talking about ANYTHING other than the author’s concern about morality in an immoral state.
                      Do you have any thoughts on the subject? (Of course not.)

                    • Jason Wills

                      You’re the one who brought it up, not me. And it’s a pretty stupid argument. I don’t understand the reason for your belligerent, antagonistic tone. What’s your problem anyway?

                • Paddy

                  Communists and Nazis were at war on the streets of Germany for control of that nation. Few Jews were Nazis…though there were some.

                  • Jason Wills

                    Yes, and your point is what?

              • The Nazis weren’t responding to the Great Depression. They came to power in 1933, but they were agitating (not responding to) about things like the Treaty of Versaille and the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic, in large part caused by the incessant demands by the French for reparations that were unrealistic. Of course decades of living in a the first bureacratic state conditioned ordinary Germans to look unquestioningly at government edicts.

                Hitler didn’t erect the levers of power, he merely grasped the existing ones and expanded their scope, scale and reach.

                • Jason Wills

                  Indeed. Upon his election as Chancellor in 1933, Hitler exploited Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution by declaring a national state of emergency in order to justify giving himself plenary powers.

                  • Which was accepted because people had decades of being conditioned to accept government edict without question. People never learn that exigency is merely a pretext to a power grab.

                • Paddy

                  Lenin believed communism would take root in Germany, not Russia. After communism’s victory in Russia, he ( and his successors) aimed the communist dagger at Germany, still reeling from the Great War. His henchman took to the streets, rioting. German war veterans reacted and one of them was Adolf Hitler. The rest is history.

          • And when the gonadal and state idolaters succeed in minimizing Christianity, then Islam with be happy to impose itself.

          • Except for we pre-Henrecian Anglicans. 😉

  • Cool mick

    To borrow the lexicon of the Left . . I think you are ‘victim-blaming on #2 and #3. We are the losers in this culture war and all we are asking for is the right not to participate in their hedonism (for lack of a better word). But unlike generals who allow the vanquished to retain some dignity in surrender, the Left will not.

    The Left has won the culture war, and now they are shooting all the survivors on the battlefield. Even those not actively seeking to take away our religious liberty, have been inculcated to the Left’s ‘morality’ in our schools, through pop culture and television. To them, Religion is just something you do for an hour on Sunday.

    • Siwash

      Defeatist talk. Never give up. Let them flinch and fall away.

  • Gail Finke

    You are absolutely right that a lot of Americans don’t care at all about religious liberty. This is frightening and is, of course, the reason we have religious liberty in the Bill of Rights — you don’t need it there when people respect religious convictions, you need it when they DON’T. However, I agree that it’s a losing argument for the definition of marriage. People who don’t care about religious beliefs don’t care about religious definitions as a general rule for the country. Religious liberty arguments might (and I say MIGHT on purpose) help particular people in particular lawsuits, but there is no point in relying on them for general discussions about marriage.

    However… I don’t know what arguments will help. People simply do not care about biology or the universal definition of marriage throughout all time and in all cultures. They do not note if the widespread misery and societal breakdown already caused by the wreck of the family brought about by easy divorce and the rise in illegitimacy, , or care about them. They do not care about the huge number of children suffering right now from unprecedented poverty levels.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      “Religious Freedom” is an expression susceptible of very various interpretations.

      When France banned the wearing of the Hijab and other “conspicuous religious symbols” in public schools, needless to say, an objection was raised with the Constitutional Council (the supreme tribunal adjudicating on such questions) on the grounds that it infringed the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

      That august body dismissed the application in a single, laconic sentence. After reciting the relevant provisions, it continued: “but considering [attendu] that the law of 15 March 2004 concerns itself with actions, not opinions, for this reason [motive] rejects…”

    • musicacre

      Yes, you’re describing out times; what that is, is unprecedented selfishness and an inability to see the big picture, and an inability to even want to. I think those characteristics usually (historically) sound the death toll for a culture.

  • Mario Magana

    You are so wrong in your ‘reasoning’. The arguments are not working because we have placed ourselves and ‘our’ feelings ahead of what Jesus taught us. It is not our place to judge, that is set for Jesus alone to do. We have decided that if we don’t like something, we’ll legislate against it. Our place it to welcome all at the table, no matter if we agree with them or not. But here in our world, our country, our states, cities and even on our block, we have come to create God in our own image. THAT is why ‘we’ are so unhappy. This is not about political agenda’s or God, this is about us, as humans fighting against what the Lord has put at the table. ‘We’ don’t want to sit with the tax collectors and the disenfranchised as Jesus did. We want ‘our’ table to be ‘clean’ and without any hint of what our Brother Jesus asked us to do. Our purpose here is to ‘love one another as I have loved you’. To look to the log in our eye before we look to the splinter in our brothers. Do any of you pay attention to His words? So what if two men or two women want to get married, so what if they want to bring a loving child into a loving household. How many of those children have YOU adopted? Let us stop fighting what God has set in front of us and embrace this life instead of always looking to pick a fight with what Heaven has sent us.

    • Dale L. Kwarciany

      What would Jesus do? He would cast the moneychangers out of the temple. He would admonish the prostitute to sin no more. While fasting, he would tell the devil who tempted Him to go Hell. The problem today is that we don’t reject sin and evil; we try to rationalize it.

    • GHU

      “Love one another” To love someone truly is to want what is best for them, and that means getting them to heaven to be with Jesus. It is not love to accept someone’s sin and say nothing or go along with it. That’s called moral relativism.

      “So what if two men or two women want to get married ……and bring a loving child into a household”…….first of all it’s not a “marriage” and secondly the child needs a mother and a father. Please look up homosexuality and marriage in the Catholic Catechism

    • Janet

      You are quite wrong in your conception of the Church Christ founded. It was and is an anti-egalitarian church based on a behavior code.

    • St JD George

      Mario, please go and come back when your Catholic conscious is fully formed. Love for Christ is not just a feel good platitude, it is a commitment to follow him. In our love for others we should help them in developing an understanding of Christ’s love for them, and in turn the desire to reciprocate. It is enabling to help others to understand the destructive nature of sin and to help them overcome it with mercy, and though there are those who may confused about their feelings of SSA, rest assured that it is a sin to commit acts of unnatural sexual perversion. That of course transcends well beyond the LGBT community and is pervasive in society at large. Yes, he without sin should throw the first stone for which there are none, but the sinner was also mercifully reminded to go and sin no more.

  • FrankW

    The author is so right about this, and it is a message that the entire Christian community needs to hear.

    The laws of nature lay out our destiny as men and women; distinct, unique and complimentary. Sex was never designed to be a recreational activity that anyone past puberty could participate in (supposedly without harmful consequences), and yet, that is
    exactly what it has become, in large part thanks to a government that our nation has collectively elected.

    What was once deemed a sacred act of love between a husband and wife has now become a national recreational pastime; anyone who frowns upon sex outside of marriage is dismissed as a fringe lunatic. Parents of teenagers who want their children
    to remain chaste until marriage are undermined by their own government, and called unreasonable for expecting their children to think first instead of acting on impulse. We have a government that sees our teenage children and young adults as having no more sexual self-control than a neighborhood dog in heat: When we tell government officials how dehumanizing this approach is, we are once again dismissed as being ignorant and uniformed.

    Contraception has taken away that age old belief that children are gifts from God. How many self-professed Christians who make the claim that they believe their children are gifts from God would have trouble answering the question: “What if God wants to give you five children, and you only want two?”

    We have seen the native races in Western Europe dwindle as they continue down the path of contracepting themselves out of existence, and we are seeing it in the United States now. Until this lynch pin is pulled, and a majority of Christians start welcoming children into their marriages as gifts and blessings from God, we will never be able win the religious liberty argument because we aren’t walking the walk, and witnessing to our faith.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      I sometimes fancy that Natural Law thinking has done real harm to Christian witness.

      The Neo-Thomists developed a theory of Natural Law, based on Suarez’s interpretation, or rather, travesty of St Thomas. They had talked of a “natural order,” governed by Natural Law, consisting of truths accessible to unaided human reason, as something that can be kept separate from the supernatural truths revealed in the Gospel. The saw the political and social order as having its own autonomy and argued that right reason can legitimately arrive at valid conclusions without recourse to supernatural revelation as their necessary source or sanction.

      This “two-tier” account of nature and grace was based on this view that the addition of “grace” was something super-added to a human nature that was already complete and sufficient in itself and apart from any intrinsic human need.

      On the contrary, Maurice Blondel, insisted that we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order”

      Jacques Maritain, too, declared that “the knowledge of human actions and of the good conduct of the human State in particular can exist as an integral science, as a complete body of doctrine, only if related to the ultimate end of the human being . . . the rule of conduct governing individual and social life cannot therefore leave the supernatural order out of account”

      • ColdStanding

        You just don’t understand the natural law argument Suarez was making nor its purpose in Catholic theology. I’ve rebutted these exact claims you’ve posted previously. Still you persist. It is too late now for Blondel, de Lubac, Maritain, and many others. It needs to be said: your clock is ticking. You will suffer grievously save you repent of your errors and do penance for the damage you’ve done by lending credibility to the hydra-headed school of errors that is La Nouvelle Theologie.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          You should study the memorable exchange in 1910, in Blondel’s publication, L’Annales de philosophie chrétienne, between Charles Maurras’s Jesuit defender, Descoqs and the Oratorian Lucien Laberthonnière, Descoqs had allowed the political sphere a wide degree of political autonomy and he was prepared to detach “political society” from “religious society.” Laberthonnière had retaliated by accusing Descoqs of being influenced by “a false theological notion of some state of pure nature and therefore imagined the state could be self-sufficient in the sense that it could be properly independent of any specifically Christian sense of justice.”

          So far as I know, this exchange has never appeared in English, which is astonishing, as it was what united such disparate thinkers as Blondel, the Dominicans, Chenu and Congar and the Jesuits, Maréchal, Lubac and Daniélou. It was a fundamental moment for the Ressourcement Théologie, much as Keble’s Assize Sermon had been for the Oxford Movement.

          What Cardinal Henri de Lubac denied in his controversy with Neo-Scholasticism was the claim that the natural and the supernatural have utterly separate ends in and of themselves. He spelled this out in two of the most important theological works of the last century, his 1946 work, « Surnaturel » , but then, more decisively, in his 1965 book, « Le Mystère du Surnaturel »

          No wonder then that, in his Brief Catechesis of Nature and Grace, he wrote, “Latin theology’s return to a more authentic tradition has taken place–not without some jolts, of course–in the course of the last century. We must admit that the main impulse for this return came from a philosopher, Maurice Blondel. His thinking was not primarily exercised in the areas proper to the professional theologians, nor did it base itself on a renewed history of tradition. Still, he is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought.”

          • ColdStanding

            Ah, so that is it. Unsatisfied with merely attempting to destroy Christian thought, they conked it over the head, dug the grave and buried it. Talk about the cure being a success, if only the patient hadn’t died. I find no comfort in your favorites, in pointing out one error, having steered the Catholic Church into far worse.

            Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was right to warn Blondel that Blondel’s time in Purgatory was going to be lengthy if Blondel did not repent of his errors. Instead, Blondel allowed himself to be soothed by the bland, pleasing assurances of no hazard from de Lubac.

            By their fruits ye shall know them. Ain’t we got quite the peach!

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              Ah, yes! Père Garrigou-Lagrange, the admirer of Franco and the supporter of Vichy.

              His was a perfect example of the theology, or rather ideology, to which Blondel referred: “First, the scholastic ideology, which still exclusively dominates, includes the study neither of religious psychology nor of the subjective facts that convey to the conscience the action of the objective realities whose presence in us Revelation indicates; this ideology only considers as legitimate the examination of what objectively informs us about these realities as designated and defined. Moreover, and especially, everything is instinctively resisted that would limit the authoritarianism born of an exclusive extrinsicism. And, without formulating it, the conception is entertained according to which everything in religious life comes from on high and from without. Only the priesthood is active before a purely passive and receptive flock.” Hence, anything “that would hinder this spirit of domination, everything that would recall the role of this interior hearing (auditus interior) of which St. Thomas did not fear to speak, would be pitilessly blasted (foudroyé).”

  • JP

    I’m not sure how one can concoct another strategy. If we are truly in an age of apostasy, then an appeal to authority, health, or “common sense” surely won’t work. The hollowing out of Christian belief is finally reaping its rewards. We pay lip service to the Faith; but, our hearts aren’t in it. Give it another generation and the US will resemble Europe and its empty churches

    • Janet

      We have to evangelize with all our hearts, but not on the religious liberty platform, on the opposite, join the Faith, practice the Faith, put the principles of the Faith into law. Will be way less oppressive than the Left’s law!!!

  • St JD George

    An old boss of mine used to joke when we had challenging issues to solve … “it’s not a problem, it’s an opportunity”. Though it was work related, it strikes me now that the message is universal, and spiritual. There is a battle field that lay before us with many wounded souls so what are we to do … run away squeamishly with our faith in a little black bag from those that need our help and treatment, whether they know it yet or not?

  • Timothy Black

    Exactly right. Exactly.

  • BillinJax

    The beauty and wonder of the Conception of a child in the
    womb of its mother was chosen as a target at the very beginning of socialism
    and its liberal agenda to accomplish the “fundamental transformation of America”
    way before the current regime and their announced messiah appeared on the
    national scene. The cry from the desert of dome was that the world God had made
    for us was in grave danger of Over Population. We had to save the earth from
    being over run with new life?? The pictures accompanying every deceitful
    article echoing that cry were not of cute toddlers in their mother’s arms or on
    happy playgrounds or in pleasant classrooms learning of the beauty of God’s
    good earth. No, we were shown starving skin and bone figures in poor countries
    of Africa and Asia where Christian missionaries were trying to bring the truth of the gospels to the people. Ironically this deceitful campaign gained support at a time when tens of millions of innocent humans all over the world had just been ritually slaughtered
    by godless dictators and imperial rulers before, during and after World War II.
    Contraception in all its forms, as part of the selfish passion for freedom from individual responsibility, was hailed as a redeeming blessing for not only married couples who wished not to have the obligation of raising a family but also to any and all who desired to be romantically involved prior to or in lieu of marriage. The personal benefits and blessing of conjugal love which God had reserved for married couples to have families and procreate were transformed and disguised as simply human rights suddenly ordained and made available by the secular progressives to everyone without having to pledge eternal companionship or bare the obligations of parenthood. Giving those with a taste for such freedom, the media offered public cover by naming their cause a Sexual
    Revolution. Driven by the desire to avoid personal responsibility at any price¸ rejecting any mention of choosing chastity, this was the harbinger of societal perversion as well as the precursor and foundation for what eventually became our own national plague, Abortion.

    One might easily define the demise of American family life by its two most
    revealing concepts, contraception and abortion. One opposed the creative nature
    God granted to the union of a man and a woman joined in Holy Matrimony and the
    other sought to challenge the very involvement of God in the equation. Both
    have at the center of its premise the denial that man is the product of the
    goodness and abundance of God’s love and that man was not made in His image and
    likeness. Therefore, there is no such thing as procreation and God had no
    purposeful design for the ability of mankind to reproduce.

    • Janet

      You have narrated this well. Did you know that it’s an old story, back in the day the push was called Sex Socialism. I learned that from Joseph Pearce.

  • James

    So how did we get here?

    Let’s go back to 1998. The Indigo Girls were scheduled to play a free concert at Irmo High School. But as MTV news reported:

    “The May 7 date of the Indigo Girls’ spring tour of college and high school campuses was canceled yesterday after parents leveled complaints about the nature of the free show.

    According to a spokesman for the Irmo High School, the Indigo Girls concert was canceled because of their sexuality, because the show was to be held during school hours, and because of complaints from parents that any show, much less one by a pair of lesbians, would be an inappropriate use of the school assembly.”
    This is why religious liberty arguments aren’t working: The people who are making calls for tolerance today were the ones pushing for discrimination in the not-too-distant past. The Class of 1998, now 35 years old, has not forgotten either. It is this generation that is leading the Culture War, not the relatively small gay community.

    We’ve reached the stage in the Culture War where the Russians are raping and pillaging their way through Berlin. But let’s not forget why the Russians were there in the first place. This is payback.

    • “show was to be held during school hours”

      Right, stopping kids from attending a concert during school hours is horrible.

      • James

        The performers’ sexuality was singled out as a major reason why it was cancelled. So yes, yes it was.

        • And school kids need to hear a concert by people that make their sex an issue why or are you just obsessed with it?

          • Seamrog

            One would ask why the Indigo Girls wanted to play at Irmo High Schools.

            Were they fans of the Okra Strut?*

            Or were they targeting youth with a particular agenda?

            *local knowledge

    • Murray

      This is why religious liberty arguments aren’t working: The people who are making calls for tolerance today were the ones pushing for discrimination in the not-too-distant past.

      Actually, you’re right, though not in the way you think. Many in the Church’s hierarchy share your dreary imprisonment in modern categories of thought, in which both “religious liberty” and “discrimination” are treated as if they actually have moral value in and of themselves, absent other countervailing principles. So yes, when churchmen either advocate or protest against “discrimination”, they unwittingly (but predictably) fight on the enemy’s turf, and disarm themselves against counterattacks using other post-Enlightenment principles.

      Otherwise, your Indigo Girls example is … well, do you even hear yourself? Look, I’m sorry you missed a free concert, but only the Tumblr generation could mistake this dreadful outrage as the spark that ignited a glorious revolution. Remember the Irmo!

      • GG

        Perfect. You point out the effete and self centered look at me crowd are now in charge. Quite sickening.

      • James

        The concert is hardly the spark that ignited a revolution (if anything, that was the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1999), but it is one example of many of The Way Things Were.

        • GG

          The drug killing?

        • Murray

          Hahaha, of course. We live in a New Era now, comrade. Everything is Different! No-one has ever said that before.

          Alternatively, you might consider that you, my historically ignorant young friend, are the anomaly here. Contrary to your fancies, there are no inexorable forces driving humanity towards a glorious Gay-Friendly Utopia. You represent a small, decadent, and demographically sterile fraction of a tiny segment of all humanity, living or dead.

          If anything, history will mark your glorious 17-year narrative of progress as a brief sputter in the slow collapse of a once-great civilization into tyranny and war.

          • “Everything is Different! No-one has ever said that before.”

            Neomania is rather old….

        • Murray

          Come to think of it, the official version of the Matthew Shepard murder is the quintessential metaphor for your worldview, since both are based on a lie.

    • GG

      What is this gibberish? Decent people did not want deviants taking up school time with their decadent influence. So? It was good some still had half a brain.

  • gsk

    I’m not sure about the “whining” argument, because myriad groups gain a lot of mileage from whining about hurt feelings and being perpetually offended. It’s just people with a strong sense of human dignity who recognise that strategy to be somewhat degrading.

    That said, the argument about contraception is key. The bulk of the population has accepted sterile non-committed sexual unions as normative, so the fundamental arguments–that marriage is to be exclusive, permanent, and life-giving–were ceded a long time ago. This is the natural consequence of embracing that lie (cf. Humanae vitae).

    • Janet

      The big lie was that book, The Population Bomb. And you know, now that Europe is practically voicing the death rattle, there are still people who tout that completely discredited idea, but with this new twist: they don’t try to argue there’s a population explosion, but instead pack their humanity-suicide plan into the global warming argument, simply saying that every baby born is a mistake because of its effects on the precious environment.

  • Dan

    The religious liberty issue is not a “strategy” — it is a real problem, arising out of necessity. I certainly agree that we should challenge the entire sexual revolution but in the meantime committed Catholics need space within our society to live and speak freely. That space is being eliminated in very real ways.

    • Janet

      But more liberty isn’t the solution–we have ended up cancelling each other out (that a person has the ‘right’ to say whom they ‘marry’ is seen as a religious position, or a position on a religious issue–it cancels out my counter-belief). We have to choose a religion, one that honors natural law, our dear Christian religion, and go with it.

      • It is an error of ignorance or a calculated lie to confuse liberty with libertinism.

  • Janet

    Yes, quite. Religious liberty’s time is over. Actually, it is heresy, and actually it’s time never was, never anywhere, not on Earth. It denies the supremacy of Christ’s sacrifice and it is odious. Did you know it is a modern feature? No, not in politics, our US constitution gave birth to the wild child. But in the Church. The official practice of the Church was tolerance of other faiths as indicated. That reasonable approach was slain at V2. That is where is died. It was the struggle around religious liberty that brought Archbishop Lefebvre to his most steadfast resistance (his book They Have Uncrowned Him is fundamental to the history of V2’s betrayal of the Faith).

    Well, it’s played. Rome is ignoring it, casting its gaze on the ME, not on Indiana, so Rome isn’t getting the message, but this young woman has grasped its idiotic essence. It’s done. What will take its place? Using the same logic as Dr. Morse, our options now are only upward and outward. Stop the madness. Begin to build a coalition just like Hungary’s and end official religious liberty in the US. Instead, put the Christian God in the constitution as the officially recognized morality of the US. If a two-fer is desired, as it was in Hungary, amend the constitution at the same time to offer marriage only to one man and one woman. They passed that with a 2/3 vote in Hungary and if it were not for the activist judges we could get that here–every time homosexual marriage has come to the vote, we’ve rejected it. We don’t want it. Nobody is asking us. Somebody should.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      “every time homosexual marriage has come to the vote, we’ve rejected it”

      It was approved by referendum in both Maine (Question 1 2012) and Maryland (Question 6 2012)

      • Janet

        Oh, sorry, forgot those. Early votes. Not repeated, once the implications were understood.

      • publiusnj

        MPS is correct; Gay Marriage was rejected by referenda in “only” 32 of the 34 states to which it was put to a vote, including California (15% of the US population). Indeed, Gay Marriage was rejected in 32 STRAIGHT state referenda in the wake of the 2003 MA ruling, but in 2012 after Joe Biden’s play for Gay political contributions, the referenda in the two rather liberal states of Maine and Maryland went against Traditional Marriage. Biden/Obama were full well aware of the then UNANIMOUS rejection of Gay Marriage when they made their play, but liberals never worry about the will of the people when they are putting together a coaliton to maintain themselves in power.

        By 2012, despite the then unanimous rejection of Gay Marriage, the politicians had resolved to push it through any way they could. Judges, of course, were free to do that by FIAT, but legislators were on the whole too afraid of pushing GM through. California’s legislators were the first to try to do it in 2008 in the wake of the first CA referendum rejecting GM, but the people of the State of California rose up in a second righteously indignant referendum and swatted the politicians down. There things would have stood in CA but for the complete contumacious disregard of CA’s politicians for the will of the people. Outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a nominal Republican, agreed with the Democratic Legislature and refused to defend the people’s Will. Because he wouldn’t defend the Referendum in court, the USSC was able to side step the Will of the People on a matter clearly of state law (Marriage) by claiming no one could defend the Referendum’s results since California’s politicians weren’t doing it.

        Gay Marriage is being foisted upon the People of the United States despite their overwhelming opposition to it. Politicians obfuscate that truth by claiming that the People of the US are evolving. In truth, though, opposition is being killed off by hook or by crook by mendacious politicians.

        • When Arnold was elected Governor, I was reminded of a movie where the town was invaded by vampires and the guy who made a living playing the character of a vampire-slayer was contacted to slay the vampires. As I recall, after a flush of false bravado, he admitted he wasn’t his character.

          Those idiots really believed they were voting for one of the characters he played-although some may have been voting against his opponent. The real Arnold is a rapacious blowhard, a narcissist and a feckless buffoon, who couldn’t reach for anabolic steroids to improve his political body, the way he did with his physical one.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          I forgot the Washington R-74 referendum, approving a legislative initiative in 2012

          • publiusnj

            Okay the first 32 of 35 rejected. Like the other two GM victories, it was a 2012 election result in the wake of the Biden gambit. By then, the impotence of the will of the People had been amply demonstrated by the contempt shown it by the CA Governor plus legislators in CA, NY (Summer 2011) and, I guess, Washington too. New York’s legislative action was key because NY does NOT have a referendum process and that made the legislature’s action incontestable given the predilections of the Judiciary and the Democrat Governor of the day (can’t remember whether it was Spitzer, Patterson or Cuomo, three peas in a pod).

            I don’t know about things in Scotland, but in the US, when politicians learn they can get away with something despite an opposed will of the People, they do what they want.

    • Martha

      Agreed, Janet. My hope for mankind is always lifted when I hear another voice out of the Catholic wilderness who knows about the ‘American Heresy.’ It’s so true and so logical, and yet has been so suppressed that Catholics do not even realize the strong condemnation it received by the Magisterium back in the day. The concept of religious liberty was doomed to failure at its inception.

      • Janet

        Hello, Martha, We’re the only two people in the whole world who grasp this, apparently. No, I’ve run into a couple more. They go to SSPX chapels, because this discussion was the spine of Archbishop Lefebvre’s resistance to the Council, and SSPX still honors the argument, altho they don’t organize one darn thing in response (granted, they’re kind of busy). SSPX also teaches about the American heresy, of course, but not every sermon–half my chapel are ardent Reaganites.They can’t grasp that their country, their beloved country, might have been wrong about such a fundamental thing, and all their teachers, and parents.

        I am preparing a sci fi novel for publication right now in which a group of Catholics hash this out and reject religious liberty (but not tolerance!) on their brand new asteroid. A couple of months from now, if you are interested, google Run by Janet Baker. If I survive the publishing process!

        Thanks for your comment. Hang in there, let’s keep pushing, use twitter too. A couple of voices can make a big difference.

        • Martha

          I know a handful of people as well. Us against the world, I guess. 😉

          It was so shocking to me when someone first suggested that liberty, equality and freedom were nasty words (think French Revolution!), and that the Founding Fathers perhaps shouldn’t stand on the pedestals I’d put them upon. After research, I had to agree that they were correct. My family are diehard John Birchers, and while I agree with their general suspicion with all things government, they also think that the COTUS and the founding of America were divinely inspired. Ha!

          I look forward to your book. Good luck! 🙂

      • Murray

        Yes, this. I would upvote both Janet and Martha x1000 I’d I could.

        We need to extirpate all traces of modernist assumptions from our thinking and vocabulary, in order to liberate ourselves from the degrading slavery of being a child of [our] age, as Chesterton put it.We must strive to think and talk like children of Holy Mother Church in the fullness of her tradition, rather than in the deracinated terms of modern political philosophy.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    The men of my dad’s generation didn’t fight and die for gay wedding cakes.

    • publiusnj

      Excellent point. My own formulation of that is: “The boys didn’t fight and die on Omaha Beach for the right to make love to the boy in the next foxhole or for their wives’, girlfriends’ or casual hook-ups’ right to kill the baby they’d fathered.”

    • Funbud

      My late father fought at the Battle of the Bulge and guarded Nazi prisoners during the battle for the Bridge at Remagen. And he loved me, his gay son, and my husband.

      “All generalizations are false, including this one.” – French proverb

      • St JD George

        “I am the way, the truth, and the life” – the Lord your God and Savior, Jesus

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        Gush, mush, gooey and sly. Go sell it somewhere else. Note that you are oozing all over yourself with sentiment – it is really kind of gross and ….. unmanly.

      • publiusnj

        Significantly, though, you do not claim that he fought for the right to gay marriage back in the Winter of 1944-45. Not even the supporters of DADT (Hill and Bill most famously) were fighting for the right to Gay Marriage in 1993-5 (half a century later). Otherwise, Bill would not have opposed Gay Marriage and supported DOMA, which passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses in 1996. Gay Marriage, first approved by the MA Supreme Court in 2003 and thereafter rejected in 32 consecutive state referenda is a radical break from our history, culture and constitutional development. It has nothing to do with freedom or liberty or the American Way. It is judges shoving their preferences down the throat of the American Public.

      • It’s not all about you.

      • GG

        He loved the people he fought too. That does not mean he should accept bad actions.

      • You don’t have a husband, and you are not his wife. Sorry.

    • St JD George

      Not to worry, there will be no future generations to fight and die for cakes or for anything. When the fighting gets tough, without conviction we will have a hollowed out force who will more likely run from than engage. After all, evil doesn’t exist, they only lack jobs.

  • winslow

    There is much in this essay we cam learn from, but the point needs to be made; the religious liberty is generally a response to an overt attack. ‘Bake a cake for my wedding or I’ll destroy your life.’ To what else is the victim to appeal?

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      And a response doomed to failure. As Rousseau says, “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

  • Daniel P

    The religious liberty argument is based, so far as I can tell, on an ad hominem attack on the gay rights movement. The attack goes like this:

    1. If gay people hadn’t had freedom of conscience, they would not have gained prominence and acceptance.
    2. Gay people ought to, therefore, be committed to freedom of conscience.
    3. You cannot be committed to freedom of conscience and demand that another person violate their conscience.

    The step from #1 to #2 is an ad hominem argument — and, I think, a very effective one. But ad hominem arguments, as a rule, accomplish only this: they make your opponent look bad. They do not make you look good. (Clever, yes. Good, no.)

    So I welcome Professor Roback Morse’s corrective comments here!

    • That is just disordered.

      • Daniel P

        I hope you don’t misunderstand my comment. Personally, I believe that (1) Christians ought to be free to follow their consciences, and (2) error has no rights. But as a rhetorical technique, I agree with Professor Roback Morse that the religious liberty argument is ineffective.

  • St JD George

    You might enjoy reading this timely article today then, from Canadian-born Dawn Stefanowicz.

    Thanks for sharing today Jennifer, stay strong.

  • Vinny

    “Christianity has a viable, humane, intellectually coherent alternative to the Sexual Revolution. Sex makes babies. Children need their own parents. Men and women are different. These are facts: trying to build an entire society around their opposites is inhuman and impossible.” Yes, however see “reason #1” as no one believes in God. These facts are out there but they constrict people’s feelings so they’re a non-starter.

    • St JD George

      Our Pope seemed to have some refreshing thoughts on that yesterday.

      • Vinny

        Thanks. Here is the relevant part: “The second thing that needs urgent attention, the pope said, is to see “if the collective crisis of faith in God, which is very harmful to us — afflicting us with resignation, skepticism and cynicism — may not be linked to this crisis of the covenant between men and women.”

        In fact, it is said that “communion with God is reflected in the communion of the human couple and that the loss of faith in the heavenly Father generates division and conflict between men and women.”

        Pope Francis said the church and all Catholics carry a great responsibility in “rediscovering the beauty of the Creator’s plan.”

        Men and women “must treat each other with respect and friendly cooperation,” and once this proper basis is created with God’s grace, solid marriages and families can be built, he said.

        “I would like to urge intellectuals to not abandon this subject, as if it had become secondary to the task of promoting a freer and more just society,” he said.”

  • Vinny

    Society’s answer to this – “The truth is that the Sexual Revolution has harmed millions of people: Children of divorce, whose families were broken up and who never really felt like part of a real family again. Reluctantly divorced people, who wanted to stay married but whose spouse pulled the plug. Heartbroken middle-aged professional women, who “had it all,” except for the children they are now too old to bear. Refugees from the hook-up culture, jaded, cynical, and old before their time.” – is assisted suicide. That is our society’s progressive ethos.

    • Vinny

      Actually, just suicide. After all, you certainly have the right to be very unhappy and to despair. Whatever the individual wants to do is what’s justified.

    • publiusnj

      You are exactly right…and wry. The value of the human person is being reduced to the right to vote, to have any kind of sex and to kill oneself if that is one’s druthers. Not even to say what one wants, at least not when it is politically incorrect. IOW, people aren’t valued for themselves but only for their suffrage. Where else is “value” found? In the family? What is a family nowadays?

      The 40% plus of white kids born into single parent families today aren’t welcomed and valued by a community but only by a stressed mother who often can face the brave new world only because she is getting some assistance from the State. Assistance that will go away if she insists on the father marrying her.

      Of course: why should the father marry her? The cow and the given away milk may sound too cruel, but that is only because many people still purport to have a residual moral code when it comes to issues of man versus woman. However, since the prevailing Ethos is increasingly hostile to any moral code, there isn’t much real pushback toward men shirking what used to be considered their “duty” other than to call them cads and let it go at that. Once again, “Anything goes.”

  • “I am a very committed, very public advocate of marriage as a gender-based institution
    in this conversation”.

    Don’t you mean SEX-based?, not gender? Sex is biology, gender is a construct of language and the linguistic engineering of the wholesale rejection of the immutable reality of sex.

    • She’s using the older more familiar use of the word gender- physical gender determined by genitalia- not the modern form of “you can be whatever gender or sex you want regardless of what your physical body looks like”.

      It is important to promote the older form, if we are going to be so radically counter-cultural to criticize the sexual revolution with all of its errors.

      • Tamsin

        the following article includes a short history of the words “sex” and “gender”…

        Touchstone Archives: The Gay Invention http://shar.es/1gNkyI

        • I disagree with the author, because I don’t find the gender of nouns to be arbitrary. I can find definite heteronormative meanings in a pen being feminine (especially a Spanish “la plume” feather pen” and a pencil being masculine (and oddly enough, both related to genitalia). I can find definite heteronormative meanings in the hand being feminine (women’s work done in the home) and the foot being masculine (as pre-vehiclular transport, the man left home on his feet to work).

          • Heteronormativity is another concoction of sexual hedonists that insist that genitals exist to give pleasure, instead of life.

            As for the term gender:


            He, she, her, him are gender. Male and Female are sex.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Here is a curious thing. Nouns that are feminine in Latin are almost always feminine in French. The great exception is the names of trees: Fraxinus – le frêne, Ulmus – un orme, Pinus – le pin. But the briar (which is not really a tree) follows the usual rule: Rumbus – la ronce.

  • Siwash

    I agree with the column. Ask yourself: why is the ACLU not supporting freedom of conscience? The whole “sweep it under the rug” approach used by liberals in dealing with the harsh consequences of the “sex is everything and the only thing” policies. . . well, this approach should be criticized for the crushing damage it does. . . and the damage is ALL around us.

    Do you know many people who are divorced? Run into single mothers? Have to deal with boys who don’t know their fathers (and responsible manhood)? How about drug use? How about teens harming themselves through sex?

  • Siwash

    . . . and it guffs me, and hurts the cause, that more women aren’t publicly speaking out in favor of real marriage.

    This makes opposition to gay “marriage” seem like it’s a male thing only. . . and hence treated by the media as dismissible.

  • Craig Roberts

    Great article. Unfortunately, people without the spirit of Truth are immune to facts. In the absence of God, they will idolize sex. The Church is failing because it is trying to reason with the culture instead of introducing the spirit of truth promised by Jesus Christ. The Church has lost it’s faith in God and is trying to rely on it’s own strength of reason to convert the culture. Only God can win the battle and until we return to Him on His terms, we will lose. It use to happen to the Israelites all the time.

  • Stuart Koehl

    If you are so committed, Jennifer, do not concede the semiotic high ground. Marriage is not based on gender, it’s based on sex. Plants have gender, nouns have gender, people have sex, and human beings come in just two varieties, and you don’t get to choose which one you have. Marriage is a union of people of different SEXES, not genders. Gender, as the progressive will tell you, is a social construct, and gender identity is (strangely) somehow both genetically predetermined and infinitely malleable (but never count on liberals to be consistent, except in pursuit of their objectives). Once you say marriage is between people of different genders, you’ve lost, because you have moved out of the realm of biology and into the realm of sociology.

    • Sounds like you are conceding the high ground already. Hint: there is a reason why progenitor, genitalia, and gender all have the same root word. Because up until the last 15 years or so, gender was *always* determined not by how one felt, but precisely by what equipment one carried between the legs.

      By replacing the original meaning of the word “gender” with “sex”, you’ve already granted the feminists a huge victory.

  • Craig Roberts

    It sounds like trying to get alcholics to stop by pointing out all the pain suffering they have caused. It rarely works, because although they can see the reason to stop, they still lack the willpower. So the problem is spiritual, not intellectual.

  • St JD George

    I half joke with my wife from time to time saying to her “what would we do if Christ walked across our property and up to us to say ‘St George (not real name), get off your tractor and come follow me to make farmers of men’ “. Would I say, are you crazy and call 911? Every time (daily) I read the gospels I’m amazed at the absolute humanity of the Apostles up until the Pentecost when they went into the world finally fully filled with the Holy Spirit, fighting doubts up until the last day when he was with them no more. There truly is hardly anyone among us who can say we are like the Apostle’s after Ascension, but we all know his Passion for us and the path he laid for us to follow.

  • Dan Riecker

    I agree with many of your points, thanks you, but you seem to contradict yourself as far as the effectiveness of religious liberty is concerned. In the last two paragraphs you say that society desperately needs to here that Christianity is a viable alternative to the Sexual Revolution. Does not this “hearing” presuppose and require religious liberty, unless we are willing to become martyrs? Without religious liberty, martyrdom is next. Perhaps, and this is the sense I get, you mean that we need to go much deeper than religious liberty, which is a means to an end and should not be the basis for the argument? Mere religious liberty is not the fundamental principle, but the value of true religion. It seems your point is that this value is what is being lost in the argument and must be more vigorously argued; to demand the religious liberty for this public argument and practice, and not merely ask for religious liberty to be respected as if it is a mere concession to our outmoded beliefs. This could very well mean being persecuted for our faith. MMMM, sound familiar?

    • St JD George

      Ask Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf about the lost parishioner’s of Mosul. Or the students at Garissa University in Kenya. Unfortunately it’s too late to. Do we pray for the innocents in Rotherham and throughout the UK being raped, or in Nigeria? How about the professors at our Catholic Universities who only wish to teach according to the Catechism and are ostracized. Martyrdom is not an distant and obscure historical narrative, it is very real and alive in the world today.

      I’ll bite, I know about 3M in Minnesota, but what is 4M?

      • musicacre

        In milder ways religious persecution is or can be in every Catholic’s lives. When people shun sticking out even when their sense of the sacred is being violated (ie: a priest that won’t let you kneel,or whatever happens in “Catholic” schools…I didn’t wait to find out, I homeschooled my 6)) they have rejected already, making a sacrifice for their faith. They will probably fail a larger test later, as they slowly back away from what they know to be true, out of fear/ lack of conviction.

        • St JD George

          Have faith, God works in mysterious ways, and I have no doubt you did the best you could giving them a foundation grounded on the rock. They have a perilous path through a difficult age where initially peer pressure can be the most important virtue they respond to. Someday when their brains, hearts and souls are synchronized to see the world for what it is, they may remember that foundation you gave them to stand on and find comfort from the storm. Not all do of course, but it’s important to keep praying for them and never giving up hope – not that you haven’t.

          • musicacre

            Yep. That is why I homeschooled; out of faith. I wasn’t letting my precious children be used for guinea pigs, even if homeschooling was definitely uncharted territory in the 90’s. I don’t worry about them; 5 have already gone through/ or almost finished the post-secondary stage, one has a great Catholic marriage, with 2 on her heels and 4 are professionals in their chosen fields already. All of them take their Catholic faith seriously. No, I don’t worry, but I do pray. And I like to think none of them are looking for comfort in the storm, but part of the solution as we chose to be. Many people are blowing it for parenting and sending weak personalities into the world that only contributes to the vast problems and their own downfall eventually.

    • Janet

      The solution to persecution is to struggle for a constitutional amendment specifically expressing gratitude to the Christian God. To do that we have to evangelize, show how the Faith is the best. Pius XI said if we had 51% of the population, we were justified in the demand for a Catholic state. (Please don’t ask if 51% Muslim populations have a corresponding justification in their demand for an Islamic state. Because I don’t know.) That would clear up the whole jumbled mess.

  • cestusdei

    I don’t think we should give up on religious liberty. It is explicitly in the COTUS. They will attack it whether we defend it or not. In fact they will attack us regardless of what grounds we use to defend ourselves. If we are going to be persecuted let’s at least make sure it is for the right reasons.

    • Martha

      I desperately wish that all American Catholics could come to understand that our ‘beloved’ constitution is not what it seems. Americanism was condemned in Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. Here’s one of the errors for you:

      “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by
      the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “It has
      been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons
      coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own
      peculiar worship.” (No. 78)

      Listed as an ERROR, not lauded.

      • St JD George

        It looks like that correction is slowly being made because we now no longer live in the age with any regard for it and, instead are running ahead with an open arm embrace to an age of executive monarchy where what you are allowed to believe will be dictated to you.

      • The Constitution is not “Americanism”. Now if a new Pope could get around to condemning Europeanism and other forms of policital imbecility.

      • sedediplomat

        Absolutely correct.

        Do you really believe that the crusaders extirpated the albigensians in the name of “religious liberty”? Or do you think that people in more Christian times were simply misguided before Vat II?

      • retona4

        I desperately wish for the FBI to break down your door and haul you away to be tried for treason.

        • Martha

          They may yet. We’ll see. Is anyone tried for treason these days?

          I won’t apologize for yearning for a Catholic state. I am a Catholic. However, I am an American, and will abide by its rules, and do enjoy its (however brief) halcyon. I simply find putting the COTUS ahead of my faith to be an upside down proposition.

    • Janet

      COTUS is a protestant document.

      • I guarantee you the drafters, even if they were mostly Protestant, understood original sin, Libido Dominandi and subsidarity better than you.

        • Janet

          What’s understanding original sin got to do with it? Religious liberty is the topic, religious liberty is protestant, not Catholic, because of their absence of magisterium, their forced yolk with true craziness.

          • I can’t help you. You simply don’t get it. Good luck finding that magical Catholic Kingdom, where the King is good and kind and wise and oh soooo wonderful.

            Then hope his wandering eye and desire for an heir and a spare doesn’t give us a repeat of Henry Tudor.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              It really did exist in France during Le Grand Siècle under Louis XIV, who restored the religious unity of the nation by revoking the Edict of Nantes.

              For thirteen hundred years and 40 reigns, from Clovis to Charles X, every king of France – Le roi très-Chrétien – was a son of the Church

              • And then what?

                • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                  The July Days and the flight of Charles X signed the death warrant of French Catholicism, as night follows day.

                  This calamity had been foreseen by the saintly Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix and his colleagues, who sought to forestall it. In 1789, in the early days of the National Assembly, he had proposed to Necker, the Finance Minister that the bishops should free the king of his dependence on the Assembly by paying off the huge National Debt, leaving the advance outstanding as a loan to the Crown at 4%, for the government was bankrupt and bishops were the only body in the country that had the ready cash to pay it.

                  Alas! Necker was a Protestant and his wife, the daughter of a Swiss pastor pointed out to him that this compact would establish Catholicism for ever as the State Church in France (as indeed it would have done), and he broke off the conference. It is by such apparantly trivial agents that the fate of nations is determined

              • And then what happened?

      • GG

        Catholics signed it.

      • cestusdei

        The point is that it does guarantee freedom of religion and speech. We should use that fact.

  • GHM_52

    Totally agree! Our present situation is a result of our complete agreement with divorce, contraception, cohabitation, Freudian views of sexuality, secular feminism, et al. Amidst all this, the preferred message from bishops, priests, and often from our Pope Francis has been the pantheistic “sixties” message of: love is all, love is you. We have been living in denial from the 60s to the present and we need a strong wake up call. I admit that I fear that call as it will entail suffering at a great scale. But, if it serves to bring us back to the real Christ, then so be it.

    • publiusnj

      While I agree with the fear that this pope may be too much into the “Love is All” message, it is a vast overstatement to say that the Catholic Church has lived in “denial from the 60s to the present” on the Sixties Message. Catholic opposition to Divorce and Abortion and Out-of-Wedlock reproduction has been repeatedly–albeit pehaps too bashfully–stated. If the Catholic bishops have been at fault, it is in being too bashful and double minded (trying to pay footsie with Democrat politicians on Economic issues despite the abominable position of the Democrats on Abortion, Euthanasia and all the other appurtenances of the Lord of Death). Now, with the Kasper Initiative, my Church is in danger of going off its axis by adopting a sickeningly non-Christian position on Remarriage after Divorce in the name of a Mercy that rewards the evil. Should that proposal be adopted, I will have a deep hole in my heart and will wonde to whom can I turn?

      • GHM_52

        It depends on what you mean by the “Catholic Church”. If you are speaking as a theologian to theologians, then it is an overstatement. But, most people refer to their pastors, parish priests and bishops as “the Catholic Church” and they are right in the sense that these are the “face of the Church” for most of us. And it is definitely not an overstatement to say that the Church, in the sense most lay people mean by that term, has been in sync with the secular message of “I’m ok, you’re ok” regarding cohabitation, fornication without cohabitation, divorce, remarriage without a first marriage annulment, and abortion in some cases. The real message of God’s mercy is diluted in homilies. Priests don’t want to scare people away. Poverty is understood as being strictly material; therefore, social justice is misrepresented as secular social work. The things many priests say to people in the confessional cry out to heaven. Cardinals Kasper and Marx are not exceptions that have sprung out of nowhere. They are examples of the logical outcome of a large crop of church representatives that have long abandoned Christ’s teachings in favor of secular beliefs under the guise of giving “pastoral care to the wounded”. There is a generalized heresy, if not apostasy, going on that many faithful fret over. It is the old hubris of thinking that man can be more enlightened and pastoral than God Himself. But, heresy and apostasy in the Church are nothing new. The difference now is that due to technological “progress” we all get to find out about it immediately and globally. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit is at the helm…We just need to make sure we are obedient to God’s Will in order to cross this “howling stretch of desert” successfully!

        • publiusnj

          When I say “the Catholic Church,” I mean the Catholic Church. No need to complicate that readily understood thing.

          • GHM_52

            Sorry, but that is NOT a readilly understood term.. When entering into any discussion, you’d be surprised how “many “unreadily understood” terms are! Even the simplest terms must be defined. Just remember Bill Clinton’s parsing regarding the meaning of the verb “is”!

            • publiusnj

              Ignatius of Antioch knew what it meant and so did Irenaeus. Undoubtedly, lots of people have been trying to misinterpret it for millennia but I am not going to waste my time on persiflage.

              • GHM_52

                There you go! Most of us, Toms, Dicks & Harrys of the world, are not in frequent touch with theologians of the caliber of Ignatius and Irenaeus! We depend on our parents, our teachers in Catholic schools and on the blessed Sunday homilies for continuing education. That is why Bishops and priests need to step up and constantly teach the unvarnished truth….as for most of us, they are the Church!

                • publiusnj

                  Irenaeus back in 180 AD may not have had the “advantage” of the Internet as we all do, but he had seen how far off people proclaiming to be Catholic could be. He realized that if one took one’s idea of the Truth of the Catholic Religion from varied sources, one could always be led astray. That is why he said one needed to stay in communion with the Holy See of Rome (Adversus Haereses 3:3:2). That has always been my rule up until Oct.13, 2014 when I learned of the Interim Report of the Preliminary Synod on the Family, which seemed to be pushing Kasper’s abominable proposal. I am now waiting to see what happens this Fall in the Synod. I pray the Pope realizes he needs to stay within the Tradition passed on from Christ by his predecessors.

              • Publiusnj, having gone through some of your posts, I am both pleased, encouraged and intrigued by your erudition. I’m fine where logic and Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics is concerned, possessing no small amount of reading material in that direction but having said that, there are gaps. Your post above (and any number of others besides) ably illustrates this. I would appreciate any good reads you might recommend if you feel inclined to share. God bless. Feel free to recommend anything you like. Forgive any perceived impertinence. God bless and keep you.

                • publiusnj

                  I had the benefit of being educated by the “good Jesuit fathers” mainly before they went off the deep end (i.e., from 1960-68 plus two of them in a Jesuit Law school through 1971), but I can’t think of any easily cited few documents. What I have come to realize is that the only institution I have been able to trust throughout my life has been the Catholic Church. Although I have serious concerns about our current Pope, I know that when this country went wacky back in the 1960s and much of the time since, the one institution that has stood up for Christ’s Truth has been Holy Mother Church. So my default attitude is that those who attack the Church are usually wrong, and even when they have a point, they usually exaggerate it.

                  I think reading books on the Reformation (and in particular the first 170 years of the English Reformation) is the key because that was when Western Civilization really went off track in so many ways. The areas that I particularly like to study are: Edward VI’s reign (Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars), Mary Tudor’s Reign and the Restoration/Glorious Revolution (King James II was in fact the one favoring religious liberty, not his Protestant daughter and son-in-law who led the Glorious Revolutionaries who betrayed him). There has been so much Whig Propaganda against the Church in that time and so much of it is just plain false.

  • littleeif

    To say religious liberty “arguments” don’t work anymore is akin to saying religious liberty doesn’t work anymore. Unfortunately, absent religious liberty, the rest of the Bill of Rights is useless. Of what use is freedom of speech if I am free only to curse but not to pray? Or what good is freedom of association if my association with religious people is not protected?

    Religious liberty is not an argument or a strategy. It is either condescending to say our citizenry cannot comprehend the importance of religious liberty, or it is correct…in which case freedom is lost.

    So I’m not sure what you are saying, Dr. Morse. I do not think there is an abandon religious liberty “argument” option. We either defend our rights or surrender them.

    • Religious liberty was an experiment that never did work properly. I suspect strongly that pluralistic multicultural societies were a very bad error.

      • Religious liberty is a negative affirmation, not a positive one. It simply says we cannot trust the government to be the arbiter of religious truth. If you think that the state is the guardian of faith, you have to be willing to live in places like Tudor England or Post Reformational Sweden, where everyone, Lutheran or not, needed a Lutheran minister’s permission to marry.

        I’m not trusting anything that tells me stuff like this:


        • Martha


          Wasn’t FDR a peach? A rotten one, anyway.

      • Martha

        Agreed, Theodore.

      • littleeif

        Huh? I’m not sure I know what you are talking about here and I’m not sure you know.

        The religious liberty provision dictates that the government cannot compel me to do things that offend my conscience properly formed in accordance with the constant teaching of my religion unless it has an overarching reason. It establishes a test: the government’s interest vs. the constancy of religious teaching. It provides a defense for my refusal to comply but not a shield from prosecution.

        • That’s the law. I’m talking the philosophy.

          The basic reason for religious liberty was to enable multiple denominations of Christianity to work together, originally. Eventually that was expanded to any religion.

          The problem is some religions are simply incompatible with others. Some cultures are incompatible with others. Thus you get incoherent “overarching reasons” that are really just clashes between cultures with no actual deep reasoning to choose one over another.

          We were better off with small monarchies where all the citizens were the same religion, and sometimes the same family, as the monarch. At least then we had a reasonable definition of right and wrong.

          • littleeif

            I am looking at your comment as a reduction to absurdity. Liberty without religious liberty is meaningless. That is the basic reason for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. It is foundational. You have absurdly rewritten two hundred years of the country’s history and made yourself a Tory two hundred years hence. No, I don’t think many would agree with you.

            • That is an honest reading of my comment, for I find post sexual revolution America to be extremely absurd.

              Liberty itself seems to be an issue, not just religious liberty. For liberty by necessity includes not just the right to act within one’s conscience, but to act outside of one’s conscience; it also by necessity precludes orthodoxy.

              • littleeif

                God himself has given us liberty because love is not possible under duress. Compliance can be coerced, but goodness presumes freedom. As a country, America has tried to create the opportunity for goodness where possible and compliance where necessary.

                In the instant debate, it is not necessary that I approve homosexuality to live side by side with those who practice it. It is only necessary the I not be forced to give the appearance of approval or to engage in acts that constitute approval. This is the issue where conscience protections play out.

                • And I’m saying that those who fail to oppose evil, are doing evil in and of themselves. All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing. It is not love to promote evil.

                  • littleeif

                    These are truisms speaking to two things: opposition and promotion. And they beg the respective question: what is opposition? what is promotion?

                    • Which calls into question charity itself. Is it charity to allow an evil to continue? Can goodness that creates evil still be called goodness?

                      It appears to me that this charity you speak of is closer to enabling the sin than opposing it- in that it does not require any change in behavior between enabling and opposing the sin, the service is still done either way. It means that there is no difference between promoting and opposing the sin; no functional difference anyway, nothing we can point to and say we opposed the sin.

                      If we tolerate the intolerable, are we any better than the person doing the intolerable?

                      But then again, I’m the one who says that Charitable Interpretation + Academic Freedom = Heresy.

    • Janet

      We have to finally define them. Christianity is the religion of our nation, it belongs in the constitution.

  • Karen Hall

    Religious liberty arguments are not working because no one is saying, “This is not about cake. This is about the fact that we feel we are risking the eternal destiny of our souls by agreeing with you.” But even if someone were to say that, our opponents don’t believe in hell, so they wouldn’t care. Logic does NOT work on these people. I really don’t think we have an argument that would work. I have been saying to my liberal friends, “The ball is in your court. Do you want me (a) unable to feed my child (b) incarcerated or (c) dead.” All I can do is make them face what they want.

    • littleeif

      Yes. The homosexual appeal is completely emotional, and what I think the author misses is no rational argument will be convincing. The fact that it does not convince, however, is no excuse for abandoning reason. Our commitment is to the truth, which is always rational.

  • Mark_Trail

    If any form of marriage is now marriage, which it must be if the old definition of it was bigoted and elitist, then gay so-called marriage advocates are being bigoted and elitist, and their argument collapses. If they’re inclusive of any form of marriage, then the definition of marriage vanishes.

    • Precisely. If something is asserted to mean ANYTHING, it really means NOTHING.

    • Cool mick

      The purpose was not to redefine marriage.

      The purpose was/is to UN-DEFINE marriage

  • clintoncps

    Throughout history, people have been willing to sacrifice for something they believe is good. Advocates of economic justice for the poor call for westerners to curb their consumption and share what they have with those in other parts of the world; environmentalists ask that people reduce, reuse, and recycle or even make major lifestyle changes to help create a sustainable environment. In times of armed conflict against an aggressor, people are willing to fight and die for the nation or for principles — just look at the American Revolution itself. So what’s so special about the sex-culture? 1. The power of the unleashed sexual appetite. 2. The cult of sex that grows into an LGBTQ view of human nature. 3. The incessant psychic and spiritual pummelling the populace receives due to sex-agenda movers and shakers in the corporate, political, and media elites.

    Articulating scientific and psychological reasons for rejecting various aspects of the Sexual Revolution is helpful and necessary, but it can never be the root of our argumentation. Why? Because when things like medical risks are overcome (e.g. a cure for AIDS is found), then our objections for promiscuous sex in general and homosexualism in particular evaporate. We are then left hanging on an intellectual limb that we ourselves have sawn off.

    There were times when unpopular and even detested views were promoted by a small group of committed people. Working through the scorn and danger, they kept steadily at it in spite of all appearances of failure, because they were committed to a cause, a principle. In our own fight against the culture of sex and death, we will soon lose our energy and zeal for the cause of life and love unless we become more — not less — focused on our faith in Jesus Christ, promoting that through our tears and blood, and accepting the martyrdom that goes along with it. If we seek to expunge our faith from the war of words surrounding our efforts, we will soon enough forget why we’re fighting in the first place and what the fuss was all about as we join the LGBTQ parade ourselves. Sex-activists have a premise: if it feels good, do it. As Christians, we must never forget that our premise is Christ Crucified. “Return to your first love.” – Jesus

    • Paddy

      There’s no need for martyrdom. We just have to take to the streets by the millions, and peacefully. Our “elites” hate the thought of the people demanding our Liberty. This applies to the New World Order Bushs as much as to the Clintons and other Marxists. We KN OW our prelates disdain and fear “the people” too. Shame on them. they’ve become the wolves guarding the sheep. Nonetheless, we can win if we just start marching in all the public squares in every state. What are they going to do about it?

      • Janet

        We need somebody to organize, is all, and it would not be smart to go to the streets with a platform, without a party. We could do that! FIDESZ did it in Hungary!

        • Paddy

          The 10 Commandments aren’t a bad platform.

          We know the church hierarchy swings with the left, so it’ll have to be someone like Rev. Graham or a gutsy priest. they move so slowly, it could be a decade before the priest was forced into a cloister.

          • Paddy

            …by then, he’d be a saint. Cardinal Burke would be wonderful if he could escape his “Maltese Prison”.

  • Paddy

    It’s all about the “natural law” upon which the dying Western Civilization was built. Arguably, Islam adheres more to the “natural law” now than the decrepit West. That’s bad. As the late Judge Robert Bork observed, we’re heading into an abysmal darkness by abandoning basic Truth. We’ll recover within 300 years, though.

    • St JD George

      I read somewhere that history repeats itself.

    • Janet

      No country whose fertility rate has fallen below 1.5 has ever recovered.

      • Paddy

        Russia may because it’s returned to Christianity. let’s continue to pray for Russia. Worked like a charm the last time.

        • “Russia may because it’s returned to Christianity.”
          Putin has more suckers than a candy store.

  • Mark_Trail

    Informing the ignorant of the modernist reinvention of morality has to include Kinsey’s “Table 34” in his “Atomic Bomb” called “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” His clinical experiment on inducing “orgasm” on an infant boy over a 24 hour period would be all the proof NAMBLA would need to “prove” that “you’re born gay.” If you’re born gay, and not innocent and needing guidance in life to orient you towards your natural sexual identity, then there’s no reason why men or women could not marry infants. If we’re going to experiment whole-hog on this Brave New World Order, then we should be made aware of what’s on the horizon of this voyage.

  • Thomas Sharpe

    Excellent article! Thank you, God Bless.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      You are welcome!

  • jimbo_jones

    The author is right.

    Forget religion-based arguments. They’ll get you absolutely nowhere. People don’t take such arguments seriously. To even approach the issue from a religious standpoint, you have to (1) convince your opponent of the existence of God, (2) convince the opponent of the divinity of Jesus, and (3) convince your opponent that the Bible and/or the Church are fully legitimate. Only after having assailed those three fortresses can you even broach issues such as abortion or SSM from a Christian stand-point.

    Of course, large proportions of the current ruling classes in the West are vociferously atheistic and heroically ignorant of basic philosophy and history. They are, moreover, financially, emotionally, and culturally motivated to cling to atheism for dear life. Most of them stop listening whenever they hear God / Bible / Jesus, etc.

    The proper approach here is through purely secular arguments. I see two strong types of arguments – logical/philosophical ones (which strive to prove that, for example, life begins at conception, and that accepting SSM leads to absurdities), and arguments from public health. To offer an argument from public health, simply quote the relevant official statistics regarding, say, the health of LGBT people. The statistics speak for themselves, and are largely unknown to the public.

    Telling people homosexuality is OK is like telling people heroin is OK. And telling homosexual people it’s all good is like giving smack to junkies.

    • Paddy

      Talk is cheap; we need to take to the streets to save dying Western Civilization.

      We won’t; game, set, match.

      • And that’s why the constabulary is becoming increasly militarized. While taking great pains to ensure people are dependent, distracted and drugged-they’ve hedged their bets, by giving surplus military equipment, like MRAV’s to municipal police forces.

      • EB

        But we first need to take to our knees. Prayer, sacrifice, and action.

  • monk_87

    Good points and worthy of reflection. However, our fundamental problem is not one of strategy. We’re not dealing with a co-equal partner just waiting for the right argument to convince them of the right path. The Lord said that if they won’t hear Moses and the Prophets no argument will suffice. We’re dealing with antichrist. We’re in a spiritual battle not a dialog. One side will prevail in battle. If our side finally falls in this society, and it may already have, it will mean that we have to live with the persecution of various forms. As she writes, we have been unfaithful in many ways and it has brought us to thIs time. If it is the Lord’s will for us to suffer loss, it is for our own good. We must bear it in faith. I don’t believe there’s any hope of persuading an avowed enemy bent on our destruction. Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered…

  • Great article. One of the best, from one of the best. The fight against sexual anarchy cannot be about freedom unless it is first about truth. The truth of sexual behaviour is that marriage is right – and that marriage’s rightness allows us to recognise sexual immorality. Without true marriage being recognised as such, there can be no sexually immoral act. Truth first, then freedom.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Thanks gentlemind! You sound like my kind of person!

  • Brian Brady

    Good for you Dr J. Rather than hack at the branches, strike the root.

  • Guest

    I agree wholeheartedly with this article except for one point. I think there has been a cultural shift in our direction regarding divorce. Divorce is increasingly considered something to grieve, at least among the college-educated. That wasn’t the case thirty years ago.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Guest, this is an important observation. I have noticed for some time that young adults will listen to our POV on the subject of divorce: they know they have been lied to. “The kids will be fine as long as their parents are happy.” They know that was a lie. I use this fact regularly in debates. I point out that we already redefined marriage when we decided to remove the presumption of permanence. We were assured it would all be fine and we even had a few studies to say so. How did that work out? I find that I have the students’ attention at that point!

  • If you want a place to start acting on this article’s advice, check out dalrock.wordpress.com

    It will offer a combination of secular argument from a secure base, and Christian worldview based on scripture.

  • Ohso

    The Gaystapo Scam is not about selling food or flowers – it is about Forcing Mandatory Speech, in favor of sick hatreds and pathological perverted Behaviors most people find repulsive, and thus need to be hidden behind intentionally misleading euphemisms, pretending those opposed to such are ‘Anti-Happy’.

    The Fundamental 1st Amendment Right that is not being discussed or defended is the Right Not to Speak.

    When persons of conscience are Forced to Speak / Write against their will, under penalty of State Sanctions by the Abomination – then the Constitution takes a hit from which it may never recover.

    Religious Freedom Matters – to Many if not all. But the Right Not to Speak is universal, regardless of Viewpoint.

    • St JD George

      Amen. Most people lose sight that they (we) are fighting a single battle and not a long war. This is but one distraction. He who promotes the culture of death and immorality has more than one cartridge loaded in his magazine. Once he’s confused society into accepting SSM as normal, does anyone here really believe that’s it? Read and educate yourself. In his lair are the poison vials to release on society of euthanasia, bestiality, pedophilia, polyamory, etc., etc. I laugh when people act shocked when making some of these associations, but one only need read history to realize that many of these were closely associated organizationally in the not so distant past. As GKC once said, the mind that does not accept their creator does not believe in nothing, they are open to believe anything. There are many who believe evil doesn’t exist in the world, or that the only evil is economic disparity.

  • I think it is a both and situation. I agree that opposition to same sex marriage must be a argued at the anthropological level but I don’t agree that we should not fight for our rights in those places where marriage has been redefined.

    • BeaProfessional

      what do you think when posters, like the one directly below yourself, use words like “Gaystapo”? So much for Christianity.

      • GG

        Why do you hate the truth?

      • I am not in favor of such rhetoric.

      • I’ll expand I am no tin favor of such rhetroic – I do find it unChristian and I find it unbecoming to rational debate from whichever side it comes from. I have never used taht term, but perhaps some find my rhetoric occasioanlly to strong (calloign aboriton murder for example).

      • Some of my posts seem top have been lost. I am not in favor of such rhetoric whether used by Christians to attack LGBTQ or vice versa. It hinders dialogue. I have never used that term,. though I can get testy with rhetoric at times.

  • barthomew

    Recall that Richard Neuhaus identified the Naked Public Square. Because the culture had been dominated by Protestant values, Protestants had been content to think they favored separation of Church and State; and they wanted to keep Catholic influence out of the culture. John Kennedy mistakenly said his religion would have no effect upon his political decisions. Msgr. George Higgins identified this error of JFK and its correction by Romney. Once Catholic got a President, they leaned towards not making waving and even towards favoring liberal and secular approaches. Neuhaus stated that Catholics could especially fill in the Naked Square because they based their moral positions on not just the Bible and religion but on the Natural Law. Indeed, Neuhaus became a Catholic. Ironically,Catholic Senator Joe Biden badgered Clarence Thomas at his hearings; Biden insisted that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing–the document that is the basis of the Constitution and that underlines the Natural Law as the basis for our nation and of public morality.
    One can use the Natural Law as one’s primary basis for opposing divorce, adultery, fornication, abortion, and having homosexuals enter into marriage.
    One need not abandon religious arguments in the Public Square. John Locke wanted one established religion; the Founding Fathers wanted religious freedom and tolerance; and now we are drifting towards secularism as the one established religion; so that abandoning arguments based on religious liberty could amount to establishing a Secular Public Square.

  • Carlos

    So, in essence it is all our problem. Normal people have a problem. This article is deceiving and promotes the notion of a godless humanist approach to solving the problem. The writer offers no hope to return to order. The “prodigal son” is doomed and we take it from there. The author is not truly Catholic. There is no Catholic Hope in her words. I am sorry that I have to read now in this website what the enemies of Christ and His Church are saying everywhere openly. Both The Church and Married Catholics have to return to order the meaning of Marriage. God’s own Divine Plan is tied to it….It is not about the Sexual Revolution. That has been going one from the beginning of time!!!! It is all about the Sacrament of Marriage and living in a Godless world that fights against it. Our focus should be God centered, not man’s centered. And the Church has failed miserably since the 50’s to teach the Truth of God’s Marriage…..

  • RyanGreen4

    I think it’s a bit deeper than that. There are, philosophically speaking, better reasons to think worse of Christians than homosexuals.

    Think about it this way. On the one hand, you have people who are simply having romantic and sexual attachments to people of the same gender. Beyond that, you can’t identify any consistent trait.

    But with Christians, a lot of sketchy things are part of their makeup. Christians believe it is possible for someone to walk on water, for decomposed bodies to rematerialize into flesh, for water to turn into wine, etc. These are not marks of thinking minds. The problem is political correctness. If political correctness were not part of it, I think we could conduct studies that would show a very strong link between low IQ and Christianity. None of the scientists that I know were Christians. It’s also why I don’t date Christians. Can you imagine dating someone who actually believes in the Devil? In demons? In all sorts of silly things like that? I want to date someone intelligent, not someone gullible and impressionable.

    • GG

      Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI to name just three who are your intellectual superiors.

      Your facile reasoning reveals the shallowness of the gay mind.

      • BeaProfessional

        Hmm, how do you know he or she is gay and not straight? That was an incredibly homophobic response. Consider that a lot of straight people myself included are strong supporters of gay marriage.

        • GG

          The gay mind is an ideology. Whether he practices the acts or not the mind-set is gay.

          Homophobia is a nonsense word used by those with a gay mind.

    • Murray

      …philosophically speaking…[does not invoke philosophical principles after this point]

      Perhaps you meant “polemically speaking”? It’s probably a common error among the unlearned. But being a Christian, I wouldn’t know.

    • Objectivetruth

      And you have made yourself your own god.

      Good luck with that……

    • John Flaherty

      Oddly, your appraisal is not entirely incorrect. While the Catholic faith has offered many erudite men and women, an outside observer would not know that from today’s typical Christian. People we would now recognize as Catholics invented many of the fields of science we recognize today; most who speak disparagingly of the Church on these matters do not know the whole truth about how today’s perceptions came about.
      When speaking with the average Christian today, one may collide with someone who doesn’t seem to understand the world very well. Too many non-Catholics, even too many Catholics, have failed to understand how science and faith complement each other.

    • But yet you feel compelled to address this lowly lot.

  • Tom

    There are some interesting points here, but I would respectfully suggest that, despite the prevailing belief in Providence among the Founders, there never really was any firm belief in religious liberty. If fact, James Madison was a very vocal advocate for denying religious liberty to Catholics, along with Sam Adams and John Adams. I believe this is partly why it is so difficult to make the argument on the grounds of religious liberty. It has never been something America has been firmly and unequivocally committed to.

    I also don’t believe Christians have anything to offer that homosexual activists and other liberals will value. The truth we have is most definitely valuable, because it is the basis of reality, but when one is dealing with people who deny even the most basically rational understanding of reality, they will find nothing of value to themselves. And, I mean they literally will find NOTHING to be of value, meaning the only thing of value to them is nothing.

    • St JD George

      I would replace “nothing” with “themselves”. That is what their universe is centered on after all; what they can see, touch, and feel, unable or unwilling to understand their inner spiritual capacity.

  • BXVI

    Ah, sorry; one little hitch here….
    There is an actual Constitutional basis for the religious liberty argument. In fact, it is our sole legal remedy. You are correct, we must argue for a reversal of the Sexual Revolution because of all the pain and suffering it has brought. But, we must also assert our 1st Amendment rights. It is not an either / or proposition. And if we abandon our only legal defense. w’ll get steamrolled.

    • Tantem Ergo

      I’m inclined to agree with you B16. Just because someone doesn’t value your freedom doesn’t mean it isn’t yours to assert.

    • EB


  • hombre111

    I think you got it right. Shouting “religious freedom” was a pretty complicated argument that did not make sense to anybody who did not hate Obama.

    • GG

      It makes no sense to the hard hearted.

    • But who are you to judge?
      Still can’t find the exit door, huh?

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    So, if Religious Liberty arguments are not working (due to the growing shucking off of religious doctrine (of all sorts) by the American citizenry, what will? The author wants to be aggressively proclaiming the fundamentals for a Christian civilization – as we should.
    Still (to misquote Lenin) how do we then live doing that? The article was short on how.

    Why should the world ever listen? They are near to hosing us off from the public square. If they don’t give a whit about Religious Liberty we can assume they don’t give a care about any liberties. The rampaging, full-running bulls of the sexual revolution do not require liberty to colonize lands, cultures, hearts and souls; all that it needs is the assurances of the totalitarian state that it will give no hindrance – for the great gift of the sexual revolution to the totalitarian state is how the revolution exhausts and dulls bodies and minds. A dulled-up citizenry is the best preserver of the servile state.

    So, how does one become a righteous prophets, artist, preacher, or mom & dad, in a society which holds no liberty dear? Yes, the religious liberty argument may not be working, but it is a siren call, an alarming clanging tocsin bell. Will liberty to so bludgeoned, so taken from us that it will be nigh impossible to deliver the “positive” message the author is asking for? Will the totalitarian state permit us, since a “dulled-up” people so much more serves its purpose? Frankly, it seems a hopeless assignment – getting the world to listen. (According to recent polling, we’re having a difficult time getting our millennial children to listen!)

    The world most likely is amused watching us expend our energy sorting out the fault of Protestantism in all this. And the world is certainly glad-happy as they give media space to religious, priests, bishops & and not a few cardinals begging the world to be patient for soon – very soon – the Church will be very much like them.

    Maybe we should be praying for the brutal, enslaving swooping down of the Assyrians & Babylonians, carting us all off to sit out our days mourning on he banks of the Euphrates.

    But then that’s what they said about the Republic of the City-State of Florence – a most Catholic city if there was one. In those days the place was run by a powerful homosexual clique. No boy was safe from being grabbed and grasped. That is, except for the brief respite when one Dominican Friar’s preaching called the city to repentance. But then we know what happened to him – and by whom.

    But, the Lord had his Day. In the guise of a French King God sent the Assyrian/Babylonians to besiege it s walls.

    (Note: Protestantism had nothing to do with the city great wickedness or its great fall!)

    [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton, the Mother Lode]

  • Brathor

    Good luck taking us back 50+ years.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Not wishing to go back anywhere Brathor. I wish to go forward, to become what we should have been from the beginning.

  • TomD

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

    While the establishment clause of the First Amendment has been expanded and distorted from its original meaning – now invoked by many to prohibit numerous aspects of traditional religious expression as now somehow constituting an “establishment” of religion, such as prayer at a high school graduation ceremony – the free exercise clause has been virtually ignored. Many Americans, particularly young people, are probably unaware that the free exercise clause even exists.

    One need look no further than this modern tendency to distort the First Amendment relationship between (1) an establishment of religion and (2) the free exercise of religion in order to understand why, today, religious liberty has been relegated to, at best, a secondary status, and at worst, regarded as directly contrary to modern values and sensibilities when invoked against the preferences of our modern, predominantly secular culture.

  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

    An excellent and analytical article, Dr. Morse. As Catholics, we need to beckon rather than attempt to coerce. We need to live our lives in ways that will inspire others rather than condemning and judging. We can’t control other peoples’ behavior, but we can try to set an example through our own. I think this is what Pope Francis is encouraging with his exhortations to live ethically, lovingly, and generously without being negative and judgmental.

    • Paddy

      By Confirmation, we are all soldiers of Christ. As such, we have an obligation to move in the public square to detemine the direction of our political life. A church of pious wall flowers will not long stand. There’s a place for the cloistered, Quaker-like, life, but it ain’t America, 2015. Catholics make up 1/4 of this country and have been surrendering for too many decades to Evil, itself. What’s wrong with the good fight?

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        I don’t believe the Christian approach is to “fight.” If we must “fight” in the sense of “confront,” we can do it with love and by example. One can lead without alienating others or making oneself distasteful to them by being hateful. We need to take care not to define ourselves as neurotic cranks, which simply leads to us to being dismissed. We must speak so that we can be heard. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

        • Paddy

          I only suggest taking to the streets, like the pegida folks of Europe who have had their nations taken from them. Was it wrong to fight the Islamic horde at Tours or Vienna? Should Christians defend their wives from rape in Iraq? Aquinas speaks eloquently about the right of self defense. when one can change a nation’s course by simply joining a million on the street, peacefully. This is virtue.

        • GG

          Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

          • EB

            True. But a lot of people don’t hate truth on purpose. Many don’t know any better, especially young people who basically have been brainwashed. Not disagreeing with you, but just adding that we need love and courage to open hearts.

  • Tantem Ergo

    I think the author makes some good points about shining a stark light on the very real evils of the sexual revolution, but that should be along with the religious liberty assertion. Just because someone or groups of someone don’t value your freedom doesn’t negate its worth.

    • Paddy

      Until they frog march the Little Sisters of the Poor out of the United States.

      Sebelius targeted the nuns, on behalf of Obama, and the hammering has not stopped. They will bend to his will or be forced to emigrate.

      • Tantem Ergo

        Very true, sad to say Paddy.

  • Tully

    I’ve been listening to “Dr. J” give the same speech about the Sexual Revolution over and over and over for the past year. It’s the same bloody speech, word for word. Try to mix it up, Dr. J. Anyway, this Sexual Revolution theme is her attempt to rebrand the Ruth Institute now that NOM has kicked it and her to the curb. But it is not going to work to tie up a bunch of different issues and label them all “Sexual Revolution.” As if people don’t have functioning brains and can’t distinguish between divorce and abortion.

    • Divorce aborts a family.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Tully, so glad to hear that you are listening! I was beginning to think that I had lost all my personal minders. I will certainly take your advice and try to mix it up a bit! BTW, who is paying your salary to listen to me?

  • john654

    I really wonder what the Catholics that go to the March For Life, in Washington, would have to say about Contraception?

  • John Massam

    Contraception is not forbidden anywhere in the New Testament. Even the Natural Law argum ents are man-made. Stop wasting people’s time arguing against contraception, which was known to the Ancient Egyptians and other cultures. If the N.T. writers didn’t think it was worth condemning, why are Roman Catholics and others still fighting against it.
    For goodness sake, can the world support another SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE ? It has grown from 1 billion to 7 billion in about two or three lifetimes. When the last of the underground fresh water has been polluted by modern fuel-seeking methods, and when the final few fish are puled out of the rivers and oceans, how will you feed them? There hasn’t been a Loaves and Fishes miracle for 2000 years.

  • russell snow

    Sometimes I feel that many commentators are not really addressing the main points of this article which is not about the Church per se or about how we got to this state. It is about a culture which understands reality, human nature, and human in a fundamentally different way than that of the Church. This article nails it, Sooner or later a culture and society based upon false assumption about God and human nature will collapse of its own weight. Natural law is law, regardless of how we feel about it. The fact is that without knowing it, many people in our society, through personal experience, are experiencing a kind of purgative way, which is opening them up to the Gospel. Our task, whatever our state in life, is to make sure they heal it in the ways that the Holy Father is teaching us. One way is to help people understand how our culture and society got this way, if the occasion arises, and to do the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, depending upon the needs of those who we want to help.

    • EB

      Good points. And this society is already collapsing, is it not? Even liberals I know have a sense that something has gone terribly wrong. They just aren’t open yet to the real reasons.
      The thing that made the pagans turn to Christianity in the Roman Empire was the incredible witness of the lives of the Christians. They loved, they lived purely, they refused to sin whatever the cost, and had tremendous peace and courage and forgiveness in the face of persecution. By God’s grace, this is who we Christians need to be for the world today.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Bingo! thanks Russell. this is what we are trying to do. We have a little site called kids divorce stories. the point of the site is to allow people who have been wounded by their parents’ divorce to have a chance to speak about it. These stories are gut-wrenching! The fact is that the Sexual Revolution has succeeded because it has systematically silenced its victims. Kids of divorce don’t get to tell their stories of how wounded they were by their parents’ divorce. they don’t get a turn in the public square, they don’t get a turn even inside their own families. this is what we aim to correct with our programs and websites and writings and stuff. see kidsdivorcestories.org

  • Jason Roebuck

    It helps to have discussion about religious liberty inside the church, but outside the church it helps to remember to “Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good”. (Romans 12:9) The comments about using the church to pick a fight we cannot win, is a good argument for why the conversation has to change to one where we go on the attack against the evil that is still pouring forth from the sexual de-evolution that gave us the promiscuity that leads to all the things you mentioned. Thanks for sharing and may the Lord have mercy on us all!

  • CHBrighton

    I seem to have wandered into a parallel universe where modern liberal democracy hasn’t happened. What do you people want? To make everyone do as you want? Your pro bel is that people are educated now and demand a better explanation of how the universe works than the bible is able to provide. People have freed themselves from biblical teachings and cannot be made to submit to them again.

    • GG

      Ah no, you have it backwards. We have people who can no longer reason. They think they are enlightened and educated but are mere sheep who follow in a herd like imbeciles.

  • CupertinoKid

    ” there is no constituency right now for winning elections on some of these issues.”

    There will be, but only when society is in such a decayed and decrepit state as to make the Christian/ traditional alternative attractive. Constitutional rights to prostitution, and for Transgender identities will sink us pretty low, but I think Male contraception will be the coupe de grace. Unfortunately, the Sexual Revolution has a fair way to go.

  • mollysdad

    “We need a different strategy: argue against the Sexual Revolution because it has hurt people.”

    Well said. But we need to attack the Sexual Revolution head on as though we were Muslims. We Christians possess the truth and sodomites don’t. And we will ram the truth down the throats of these perverts, and they are commanded to like it.

  • Ruth Rocker

    The arguments for religious liberty based on religion are like the arguments for faith itself. To those who believe no proof is needed and for those who do not, no proof is possible. We stand on opposite sides of a very wide and deep chasm which is tearing apart the fabric of society in this country.

    There used to be a principle in public discourse to agree to disagree and remain civil to one another. No more! Now, if you voice any disagreement to the current “thing” (regardless of what is currently trending) you are shouted down as a bigot or a racist or a homophobe (stupid nonexistant word) or some other epithet designed solely to shut you up and move you to the sidelines. There is no desire for debate on the part of the other side – only a desire to make everyone else get on their twisted bandwagon of beliefs or be run over by said bandwagon.

    Unless we can make the case for man/woman marriage as “normal” outside of religious reference we will gain no ground. Unless we can make the case that homosexual behavior (as separate from same sex attraction) is not only disordered but harmful to those who participate in it without appealing to religious grounds we will make no headway.

    Lord, give your people the grace to form cogent arguments to sway those who are lost in the current sinful “groupthink” sponsored by the one you have already defeated.

  • eddie too

    marriage can not be re-defined. it can be outlawed. after it is outlawed a new civil institution can be created. but, the marital relationship that is properly ordered to the procreation of children and the unity of the spouses cannot be eliminated and that is what marriage is. it can be outlawed civilly, but it cannot be destroyed.

  • quirkycatholic

    The link between breast cancer and both abortion and contraception; the prevalence, if not epidemic, of sexually transmitted diseases, the struggles of children from broken homes, and the like — we could use research and statistics from secular sources and objective studies, along with real personal stories, to make our case that the way of chasity and traditional marriage is the best course for human happiness and fulfillment.
    But how to get the word out? We need our major think tanks and policy centers to put together scientifically airtight and reader friendly reports on these matters to spread facts and information to the media — perhaps aided by national religious bodies such as the conference of Catholic bishops, to at least get the knowledge directly to the pews.
    The more publicity gained by this information, and the more support groups offered to the victims of the sexual revolution, the more that people living in the shadows of sadness will understand the lies that our society tells about sexual license; and, as their minds are enlightened and their heartbreaks are healed, the more they will stand up for the ways of pure love.
    There are many prodigal children among us who long for the embrace of a firm but forgiving Father, our merciful God. To reach them, we may have to speak, at least in part, within the modern emphasis on science and self-interest. For example, in a society increasingly drawn to natural foods, we can try to say how incongruent it is to ingest artificial hormones as birth control. (It would also help if natural family planning *NFP* methods were presented in the simplest way possible, without watering down the important Catholic teaching about using NFP only in serious situations, because having sex indefinitely without being open to children is also unnatural.)
    These are just some thoughts for discussion, not necessarily proposals, based on my impressions, hunches, and limited knowledge as a Catholic and a citizen. Our society is desperately in need of Catholic teachings, which are the teachings of Jesus; but we have to remember that the ways of Jesus are common sense and common decency and common courtesy, and so totally in accord with reason, and very much accessible to anyone who is open to goodness and beauty and truth.
    Ultimately, it is only with the guidance and strength of Jesus, his light and warmth, that we will win over our family and friends and neighbors to the ways of love and life; but we may have to speak in a dialect more understandable to a society that is increasingly secular, and yet filled with people of good will who might be responsive to a richer understanding of ourselves that is both nobler and humbler, as well as evidently reasonable and eminently natural. May Jesus help us to be bold but prudent in our proclamations and whispered words, as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves, both courageous and compassionate.
    Thank you, Dr. Roback Morse, for helping to get this discussion underway.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      You are welcome quirky! come check out our new website. You will see that we are trying to do exactly what you describe. we want to give people a forum for telling their stories and talking about these issues. There are so many Walking Wounded! We’ve got to enlist some of them!

  • allthebest

    By Rev. Larry L. Beane II

    I don’t believe in religious

    Freedom should have nothing to do
    with one’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. The reason we intuitively
    have a concept like freedom is because we are individuals. We have
    different worldviews. We disagree about what we prefer and what we don’t like.
    We have different opinions.

    One person likes Coke. Another
    person likes Pepsi. In a free society, you buy what you want. In an
    authoritarian society, you get what someone else wants you to have. In a
    free society, you can discriminate (choose) between the two. In an
    authoritarian society, the discrimination (choice) is decided by someone else.
    In fact, in a free society, you can buy both, or neither. It’s
    really nobody’s business, so long as there is no aggression.

    And in a free society, if you have a
    business, you can choose to sell only Coke, only Pepsi, both, or none. In
    an authortiarian society, it is illegal to sell Coke, or Pepsi, or neither, or
    both. In a free society, a person may want to buy a Coke, but may walk
    into a store that sells only Pepsi – and he simply won’t do business there.
    There will be no lawsuit, no arrest, no thug demanding protection money,
    no extortion, no threats, no violence, and no moral outrage that Coke-drinkers
    are being discriminated against. He will simply find someone that sells
    Pepsi. The Coke-only seller misses out on a sale, and the market sends a
    signal that selling Pepsi is a good way to make money – which someone does.
    This is a system of voluntary and peaceful interaction. It is far
    superior to any alternative, which is inevitably violent or enforced with the
    threat of violence.

    That is how freedom works.

    I do believe in freedom, as opposed
    to freedom that is qualified by religion. For a lot of things go into
    what makes us different: worldview, tastes, priorities, religion (or lack
    thereof), intelligence, ability, physical stature, culture, etc. Religion
    is just one of those things that contribute to the diversity of the human race.

    Part of the current discussion about
    freedom has focused on religion, largely over the issue of whether or not
    people with traditional religious views have the right not to violate their
    consciences as they ply their trades, or are they rather compelled to act
    contrary to their worldviews in contracting business?

    What has sparked this controversy
    involves the question as to whether or not a Christian photographer has the
    right to refuse to accept a job photographing a ritual that is contrary to his
    faith, one that would be uncomfortable for him based on his ethical worldview.

    Here are some analogous questions:

    Should a lesbian photographer be
    compelled to accept a job taking pictures at a celebration of Fred Phelps at
    the Westboro Baptist Church? Or does this photographer have the right to
    either accept or decline this job based on her comfort level and freedom of
    choice? Does she have a choice, or is she under compulsion to go and be
    uncomfortable, to do a job against her will? Which option, choice or
    compulsion, would be considered “freedom” as opposed to “tyranny”?

    How about:

    a black photographer at a white supremacist ritual,

    a Jewish photographer at a neo-nazi political rally,

    a vegan at a slaughterhouse,

    a Mennonite at a pornography convention,

    a Muslim at a pig farm,

    a Jehovah’s Witness as a flag-raising ceremony,

    a Tibetan at a function honoring Chairman Mao?

    Should a photographer who does not
    believe in the death penalty be compelled to photograph executions?

    Do any of these photographers
    reserve the right to say “No, thank you,” or must every photographer be
    compelled to do business with every other person on demand, regardless of
    religion, worldview, or comfort level?What if a photographer suffers from an
    irrational fear of left-handed people? Could he only contract weddings
    for the right-handed? What if a photographer is afraid of heights?
    Could he refuse to shoot a wedding on the observation deck of the Empire
    State Building?

    What if an Atheist thinks religion
    is stupid, or even offensive, could be refuse to take pictures at a Christian
    ordination? What if a photographer suffered the effects of promiscuous
    parents and a broken family, could he turn down a job at a swinger’s party?
    How about a person whose father was beaten to death in an incident of
    police brutality, can he refuse jobs involving the police?

    Of course, this issue of freedom of
    association doesn’t only affect photographers.

    How about these:

    May a Christian ob/gyn refuse to perform abortions?

    May an all-women’s college refuse admission to men?

    May a merchant refuse to sell alcohol or pornography or
    marijuana (in states in which it is legal) if he finds these legal
    substances to be morally troubling?

    May a Muslim-owned convenience store sell eggs but not

    Must a sporting goods store sell weapons and
    ammunition, even if the owner is a pacifist?

    Must an animal rights activist who runs a pawn shop
    purchase a stuffed deer head for resale?

    May a Lutheran pastor refuse to conduct a wedding for
    two Methodists, two Unitarians, or two men?

    In a free society, we have the right
    to make choices. Others may agree with us or disagree with us. We
    can even be wrong. If I were to walk into a store, and the manager said,
    “In order to do business here, you must hop up and down on one foot while
    reciting a poem by Catullus, and agree with me that 2+2=5,” I could either
    comply, or choose to leave. And I would imagine the success of his
    business would reflect whether or not such practices are within the mainstream
    or not. I don’t think I would call the police on him, threaten him, or
    compel him to say “2+2=4″ and sell me a carburetor just because I feel
    entitled, or because I don’t like Latin poetry, or because his math is wrong,
    or because I think I would look like an idiot in complying with his rules.
    He has a choice of whether to sell; I have a choice of whether to buy.
    And we may choose to do business with each other, or either one of us may
    opt out and the transaction will not happen. Both parties are completely
    empowered. And neither party pulls a gun and compels a transaction.
    It’s all voluntary.

    That is how freedom works.

    Sad to say, both left and right have
    lost touch with what freedom is. The left talks the talk on tolerance,
    but is utterly illiberal when it comes to extending tolerance to those who
    disagree with them. The right talks the talk on freedom, but prefers to
    focus on religious freedom instead of seeing the bigger picture that freedom is
    freedom whether or not it has anything to do with religion. Both left and
    right are willing to throw liberty under the bus if the state has “a compelling
    interest” in taking away this or that freedom. And, of course, it is the
    state itself that decides whether the state has a “compelling interest” or not.
    How far we have fallen since 1776, when Jefferson opined about
    “inalienable rights” and the role of government being “to secure these rights.”
    Nowhere in the Declaration is King George allowed to violate the
    liberties of Americans based on his own “compelling interest.”

    Even the word “compelling” suggests
    “compulsion” – which is the antithesis of liberty. This kind of language
    is indicative of the controlling and tyrannical tendency of government by its
    very nature: a nature our forefathers sought to curtail through conscious limitation,
    institutional distrust, and eternal vigilance. Sad to say, the fact that
    we’re even having this discussion in the United States is indicative of our own
    failure to uphold the very principles of liberty and independence our ancestors
    attempted to secure for us, their posterity.

    And yet, even in its weakness (which
    seems to approach mortality in many cases), the ideal of freedom refuses to be
    snuffed out entirely. It lives in the hearts and minds of men who are not
    afraid to challenge the assertions of the ruling mob, whether personified by an
    elephant or by a donkey, by a red star or by a twisted cross.

    I don’t believe in religious
    freedom. I believe in freedom. Including freedom for people to
    associate with others or not, to conduct business or not, in accordance with
    their religion, or lack of religion.

    Maybe instead of Religious Freedom
    Restoration Acts, we should have Freedom Restoration Acts.

  • pupsncats

    Our founders were heretics or simply non-believers in the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. They didn’t believe in nor promote the one, true religion which is Catholicism. They erroneously believed men have the liberty to deny Christ and reject the one, true Church He instituted, which is the Catholic Church, when in fact, the only freedom man has is to embrace or reject the one, true God who is revealed through Jesus Christ.

  • David Behsman

    To put it succinctly, the American people value their crotches over their Creator.

  • Jennifer,
    All true but alas! what you say lacks a public square. The only public forum in our country left (and in how many other countries I do not know) — is the priest at the ambo before his congregation for Mass. And there it has been a great failure. I have an apostolate which deals with this, http://www.familyandchild.net and have daily “Father Tom” videos at http://www.Speroforum.com and am willing to preach the Word on contraception and other unmentionables in parishes in the metro New York area who would have me.

  • EB

    I think you make some good points about discussing the harm that has been done, although I cannot agree that it is a “distraction” to demand our First Amendment rights, and I think polls reflect that average Americans are still sympathetic to those rights. I think we need to do both, as well as continue to speak the truth about human nature, human life and human love as God designed it.
    But above all, I think we need to realize the incredible blinding and corrupting power of sexual sin. It blinds the intellect (as St. Thomas would remind us), and therefore when people are heavily invested in sexual sin in their own lives, especially when they are public advocates of it, they often will not be responsive to reasoned arguments of any kind. You can show them statistics, you can show them photos of the human being in the womb – you get a blank stare in return or denial of the obvious or angry refusal to speak further at all. To break down these barriers, we need the power of intense prayer and sacrifice, to win for them the grace of have their eyes and hearts opened.
    That being said, I think have heard at least one powerful story of young people, in a group conference setting, beginning to weep when a speaker led them to consider the hurt they feel after “hooking up,” and connecting them to their own buried desire for true love and respect. So I’m not disagreeing that we need to speak to the hurt out there, which is immense…

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      EB: I totally agree. Sin makes you stupid.
      Also, at the Ruth Institute, we are investing quite a bit in helping people recover from these negative experiences. Many people are wounded from the Sexual Revolution. Lots of people made decisions, based on lies they were told. We are trying to help people, b/c it is a matter of justice to tell them the truth and help them recover. But at the same time, that is a good way to help transform them from being committed to the sexual revolution due to a guilty conscience, to becoming an opponent of the sexual revolution and advocate for positive change. Mary Magdalene can speak a truth the Virgin Mary knows nothing of.
      check our our new website: http://www.ruthinstitute.org

  • Divorce “aborts” a family. Gay marriage/gay parenting, single parenthood by choice, and anonymous gamete donation “contracept” a family: they prevent the intact family triad from forming.

  • Tim

    When Catholics talk about religious freedom, it is freedom from sin. Let’s contrast this with the real opposition. College campuses encourage all types of experimentation. Their idea of religious freedom is secular. College campuses directly oppose Catholic politicians. For every step Catholic policies take, they are forced back two steps. Catholic religious freedom can be won. But we need to see the real struggle. We live in a petulant childish culture. Kids are bored because they don’t love anything. If Western culture is one thing, it is uncommitted. There is a lack of love for anything. Women have fifty pairs of shoes but love not one pair. They are just uncommitted and unnatural. That is the real war. Western people are unnatural. All these choices has lead to a loveless culture. We need to do to college campuses the same thing required of army bases. They need to be family-friendly. We need them to be more natural, more committed, and more in love. Give our culture real religious freedom, Catholic style. Take it on the offensive.

  • MichaelP71

    So does this apply to the public square only or in the Courtroom as well?…I am guessing you mean “out there”.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Yes, it means “out there.” The lawyers have to take the religious liberty cases, and fight them to the best of their ability. My point is primarily directed toward those who have responsibility for shaping public opinion. We pundits and teachers need to talk more about the substance of the issues. Not only do I believe that will work better. I also believe it will lay a better foundation for the lawyers to do their work when they have religious liberty cases to argue.

  • Getreal

    “No one finds whining appealing” Well it seemed to work just fine for the whining, sniveling, whimpering LGBTQI activists because that is all they have done for the last 30 years is whine about being a “victim”. I find the article as whole as ill reasoned as the bit above. Reason, facts, and good arguments will never make a dent on those who have long since escaped from reason and adopted a post-rationale mindset. Its like reasoning with the criminally insane. Good luck. When that last vestiges of our religious liberties have been completely don’t tell me you are sorry. It will be too late then.

  • mominvermont

    Same sex marriage is sexist.

    Keep marriage pro-gender.

  • Backflip

    In all humility we mustn’t forget that any society which not only views fertility, procreation and its own offspring a disease but also rationalizes and euphemizes the killing
    of its offspring as “abortion”, “a civil right, ” or “healthcare” (true homophobia), certainly deserves to have homosexuals and judges fallaciously rationalize that they can
    unconstitutionally dictate and force the state and people to condone, incentivize or subsidize anti-dimorphic orientation, behavior and marriage rationalization. So, putting religiosity aside for the moment:
    Regarding the 14th amendment, taxpayers and society have less than zero rational basis, moral imperative or civil obligation to condone, service, celebrate, subsidize or license anti-dimorphic marriage rationalization. Homosexual behavior has even less to offer society and than junkies sharing needles, prostitutes turning tricks or animals sniffing each other’s butts. Anti-dimorphic marriage rationalization is stripping all Americans of their 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech and association; our 5th amendment rights to property; and our 13th amendment rights to freedom from slavery. I stand in solidarity with former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, former Salt Lake City police officer Eric Moutsos, 70yr old grandmother Barronelle Stutzman owner of Arlene’s Flowers, Jack Phillips owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Aaron and Melissa Klein former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, former HGTV Hosts the Benham Brothers, Robert and Cynthia Gifford of Liberty Ridge Farm, the five subpoenaed Houston Pastors Steve Riggle, David Welch, Hernan Castaño, Khanh Huynh and Magda Hermida, former wedding photographer Elane Hugenin, Phil Roberts, the Duggar Family, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, Yvette Cormier barred from Planet Fitness, former Navy Lt. Commander Chaplain Wes Modder, Courtney Schmackers owner of Next Door Stories Videography, etc., etc., etc. Homosexual activists are intolerant anti-free market, anti-American domestic terrorists. A whole species: Humanity; (H)omo; Man cannot be redefined to accommodate the whims of an infinitesimally small subset of, very confused and extremely delusional, members of society or their woefully regrettable anti-dimorphic, discriminatory and sexist life style choices. Humanity is a dimorphic species comprising the male sex, the female sex and their understood complementarity as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. There are no third “other,” “LGBT” or “multi-morphic” options. This never ending discriminatory, sexist, irrational and aberrant LGBT unquenchable thirst for the dehumanization and anthropologic fractalization of Humanity and Mankind cannot and will never be accepted or condoned by sentient society.

  • billlang

    I agree! This is now a pagan nation. Many people that attend Mass regularly don’t believe in the Church’s moral teackings. I know some who don’t believe in the Eucharist even though they recieve. Most don’t believe in confession to a preist. Several Catholics I know don’t believe Hell is real, so there is no consiquence.
    I remember a woman dropping off her son at my CCD class telling her son who didn’t want to go that day, “If I had to put up with that Sh** when I was in school, then so do you”. When I started to say something to her she said “whatever”.
    I hear so many priests give Homilies on God’s love, which they should, but never on the consequinces. This is a war we’re in but the Church doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s sensibilities by mentioning that.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    The Amish still have a lot of religious liberty.

  • Steve w

    The problem is that when Catholics say that there is a right to Religious Liberty it means that human beings have a positive right to freely practice the Catholic Faith and not necessarily others since error has no rights (as the church has always taught). The rest of the country thinks that religious liberty means that human beings have a negative right not to be interfered with no matter what is believed. This ambiguity is a direct result of the second Vatican council and the wicked and/or ignorant clerics who let it churn out confusion.

  • Jacob Morgan

    We need to stick to a simple message, and the message here ought to be that marriage is a religious ceremony, and was for long before this, or any other country now present, existed and people should not be forced to participate in religious ceremonies.

    A marriage where one or both parties are not willing, where they are closely related, where one of them is already married, or where they are not capable of, and planning on, ordering a physical relationship towards natural procreation, is a sacrilege, whether done in a church by a priest or done in a drive through by an Elvis impersonator. To a catholic, and probably to an orthodox, it is a sacrament improperly
    done, therefore it is a sacrilege. For any other serious christian it
    would be offensive at the very least.

    So now the left is saying “don’t force your religion on me, but let me force my religion–where it comes to weddings-on you, and if you do not submit you will be sued or worse.”

    If people want to play hardball then fine, the government never should have gotten into the marriage business at all, no more than it should be in the business of regulating the other six sacraments.

  • Julia Jacobson

    We have to focus on the law – we are never all going to agree on anything.

  • RaymondNicholas

    The sheep in the pews do not have a public voice; bishops, priests, and nuns do, as well as lay theologians and philosophers. But as a whole, they do not teach the Faith and do not apply the Faith. The reason is that they risk their livelihoods going against the grain. Better to be fat in the mind and fat in the body than to kneel, fast, and seek the guidance of Holy Spirit. The lone wolves face tremendous pushback, and ways and means are found to isolate them. The essay writer is fighting a lonely battle. I have found that folks will not come to their senses until it is way too late to save themselves or others and they say “Why o why didn’t I see?” Or they are resigned to their fate and mimic the words, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

  • Maggie Sullivan

    The best way to fight this battle:

    1. Tell the world the evils of sodomy.

    2. Tell the world how and why Christ saves.

    End of story.

  • Ex Nihilo

    Dr. Morse that was awsome!

  • Lane Andrew

    It’s going to be a hard sell to convince people that the fruits of the Sexual Revolution are bad.

  • scragsma

    You have a point, Jennifer, but you seem to ignore one overarching point: Religious freedom is written into the supreme law of the land. We can make all the other arguments, and definitely should, but if we want LEGAL protection we MUST insist on making the legal argument as well.

  • SnowSong

    The arguments aren’t working because people want religion to rule, they want what they think is right to be the rule. Jesus Christ is a man and our God who lowered Himself to become one of His own creatures….does anyone really understand what he did, what He gave up to do this for us? What did God leave to come here and be a one of us for 33 years? WHAT DID OUR CREATOR ALLOW US TO DO TO HIMSELF WHEN US- HIS OWN CREATION MURDERED HIM? He KNEW what we would do to Him when He came here to us as a man, Jesus. This is why it’s not working, we do not CARE that our God lowered Himself to us, to our murderous us… Satan knows what God did to show man His love, problem is man doesn’t know and doesn’t appreciate what God did. So there you have it…in a nutshell, sadly.
    So, WHAT are we going to do about this now – now that we know?

  • henry


    Hello dodogods You were my last hope and after all the spell casters I tried before, you were my last chance that I had getting my wife back, and you kept your promise! My wife wrote me such a touching letter last week. She wants to live with me and the kids again. I really feel I’m living a new life Thank
    you can also contact him in his email / dodogodssolution@yahoo,com
    thanks posted by henry