Tele isn't JG saying it's the following through with what the Constitution is? I'm sure the Founding Fathers were not for perversions being legal but isn't this the following through of their ideas of being outside of The Church?

Tele isn't JG saying it's the following through with what the Constitution is? I'm sure the Founding Fathers were not for perversions being legal but isn't this the following through of their ideas of being outside of The Church?

No, I'm definitely not saying that.  The Founding Fathers, many of whom themselves were publicly inimical to any concept of religion, to say nothing of the Holy Religion, may not have been personally for the perversion which we encounter today.  However, in failing to recognize the necessity of a public morality descending from an infallible and unimpeachable source, they made the gross presumption that private morality can be generationally maintained at large.  History has show us conclusively that that is not the case.

This is one thing a lot of Catholics miss when as far as dealing with Protestants. I'd rather live in a culture influence by more by conservative Protestants than atheists.

Of course it is true (and 20th century history has born out) that no Catholic wants to live by choice in a godless and atheistic society like the Soviet Union.  But I also think that the sort of relativism that has crept in to Catholicism in the West of saying, "well at least the Protestants have some morals", has also been our undoing.  By trying to have our cake and eat it too, that is by enjoying the material prosperity of America, but not fighting for a true Catholic confessional state, we have basically shot ourselves in the foot.

This latest SCOTUS decision is simply the latest example.  The various conservative Protestant groups could never have (even if they wanted to) offered effective opposition.  In the last century, they never have and never could.  Unity is not in the Protestant makeup.  Their sects were born in rebellion and disunity and that has ever been their fruit.

The ONLY power in this world that could oppose the relentless march of godless materialism and liberalism is (was) the Holy Catholic Church.  That is why the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic enemies of Holy Church had to destroy the unity of Catholicism with Vat II and its aftermath.  It was the only effective opposition they have to imposing on us their 'utopia' on earth.

That is why the ONLY hope we have as Catholics is the restoration of Holy Church in unity with Tradition and the true Mass, and also the conversion of  our countries and societies into Catholic confessional states.  Any compromise in the Social Reign of Christ as King, will inevitably result in failure.

There is but two cities on this earth, The City of God, and The City of this world/'Egypt'/ the devil.  One must rule, there is no 'inbetween' !!

Luke

Take the example of the SSPX compromising its principles.

Yes - it's very grave, very serious.  But if it were just a mistake, just confusion about the mission of the SSPX, it would be an easily rectifiable problem.

The SSPX has befriended individuals who are in league with the enemies of the Church.  The destroyers of the Church.  That is not confusion, that is betrayal.  The imposition of false obedience is being used remorselessly to aid and abet that betrayal.

However, it is false to say that the Constitution supports gαy marriage. This is found nowhere in the Constitution.

The Constitution on its face is a docuмent establishing a mode of governance, legislation, jurisprudence, and the formulation of civil rights.  The issue is not whether the Constitution supports it, but whether is effectively condemns it.  It does not; in fact it goes so far as to deny it has the authority to do so.  One the one hand, since such matters are not enumerated in its powers, such things are ostensibly left to the legislation of the states.  More to the point, however, the entire American system of government irrevocably separates that governance from an infallible source of morality, namely God via the holy Catholic faith.  This is important because morality addresses both the relationship between God and man, and also between men.  A system of governance, since it establishes those rights which a man may legally exercise, and consequently upon which men are legally enjoined from infringing, then can only be seen as the formal codification of civil morality.  Indeed, this very notion of disestablishment, and the consequent enthronement of subjective secular opinion as the basis for civil morality, was condemned by HH Pope St Pius X when writing on the foundation of the Portuguese First Republic:

At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit.

Pope St Pius X, Iamdudum, 24 May 1911

It is really madness to say that it's better for people to be morally insane because it "galvanizes" opposition.

Whether or not your statement is always true in principle—I suspect it is, however—it has certainly been true in practice here in the States since the Constitution formally replaced the saner Articles of Confederation on June 21, 1788. Americans have completely internalized the fantasy that their franchise (i.e., having a vote) makes each and every level of government answerable to them. Jokes about this fantasy get the biggest yuks of all at the annual ADL conventions, where politicians are given their marching orders and shown excerpts from their NSA-Mossad blackmail dossiers as an incentive to follow them.

How many hundreds of times have the deluded many or their suborned "leaders" exclaimed, "God bless America! Now let's right this wrong! Let's vote the villains out and vote the good guys in." It usually takes less than half a term in Congress or any other governmental body for a "good guy" to discover to his (feigned) surprise that the political swamp is actually a very comfortable hot tub (to use Pat Buchanan's apt formulation of several decades ago). Then what do you know, it's suddenly football season or HBO's free weekend (with the latest time-traveling and explosion- and boob-filled megahit as the featured attraction), and the deluded ones and their stooge leaders suddenly discover, as His Eminence Cheesehead Dolan clearly has, that they can live quite nicely under the new rules.

In the 1830s, when Tocqueville (a devout French Catholic) toured this country and recorded his brilliantly perceptive observations of Americans' self-delusions, this was still largely an ethnically unified country, one where the biggest quarrels that concerned the great mass of men were often about who was best: those of East Anglian or Lowland stock? Still, Tocqueville correctly predicted that no one would take freedom away from Americans; rather, they would hand it over without even a whimper and congratulate themselves as they did so.

Since 1965 (the year of the greatest Jєωιѕн success since Cromwell's day), when the immigration legislation organized Jєωry had been pushing aggressively since the first decade of the twentieth century took effect, this country has been transformed into an imperial satrapy, where deliberately introduced racial, ethnic, and religious chaos engenders distrust and dissension that endanger the life and well-being of once ordinary Americans, all to make the position of our Tribal overlords ever more secure. It is in this environment of ignorance and fear—an environment where our masters demand that we repeat ad infinitum the wilfully false formula "diversity is our greatest strength," nowadays under pain of criminal punishment—that a Constitution utterly emptied of signification and rewritten daily by everyone in government, including the black-robed thugs on the Court, gets "interpreted" in ways that—surprise!—always work out to match the latest itches of the hostile elite's zeitgeist.

Despite the manifold idiocies and subtexts of the Constitution—a docuмent I neither support nor defend, let me stress—no honest constitutional scholar would suggest that the legal positivist doctrines of the Supreme Court's Jєωιѕн bloc and its allies, past and present, have any docuмentary support in the very well recorded arguments of the Framers, whether before, during, or after the Convention of 1787. They clearly took certain things for granted, not the least of them being a large measure of ethnic (northern European, mostly British and German) and religious (Christian, however ridiculously latitudinarian in construction) unity. They also, very importantly, took fraternal affection and more than a modicuм of social and familial virtue for granted, too. (The statement "there will be virtue in government only so long as there is virtue in the people" has long been attributed to Jefferson, but I have never been able to locate a source for the quote. Still, it is a fair summary of many things Jefferson, John Adams, and many other movers and shakers of the day said, wrote, and believed. It's also blindingly true about the situation in this sordid Age of Obama and His Tribal Handlers.) Thus, for anyone on this blog or elsewhere to buy into the widespread assertion that that docuмent is genuine law (whether just or otherwise) rather than what it is—the basis for subsequent law—is to forfeit the game before the players leave the locker room. In other words, the fix is in, and we'd do well to open our eyes to that fact.
_______________________________

Augustine recorded his horror at the destruction and barbarity attendant upon the fall of the Roman world, which he, in common with many others, expected to stumble on more or less indefinitely. I'm sure that many people alive during the declining years of the Habsburg empire felt much the same horror. Those who, unlike me, will still be alive in thirty years' time better get used to the idea of horror, as the Semitic American imperium chokes on its own degeneracy and befouls everything it can reach.