Once Again, Satan Thanks the U.S. Supreme Court – Near Occasion of Sin!

demcourt

by Larry Douglas

First it was legalized abortion and now it’s legalized homosexual marriage. Both are extremely deadly to the soul and if statistics and common sense are to believed, not very good for the body, either!

The Supreme Court has spoken and homosexual marriage is now the law of the land. The temporal, legal aspects of the matter have been settled, but what about the moral and spiritual issues?

What are the chances that Jesus Christ, the Ultimate Judge of All, will change his mind and decide to back the court’s decision? Slim to none, since the matter of homosexuality has been “spiritually” settled for more than 4500 years and God doesn’t make those kinds of sweeping reversals.

According to God’s Word, homosexual activity is counter to his law and his will, and an abomination in his eyes. Homosexual activity and all that goes with it is described in the plain text of the Bible as one of only a handful of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. A well known pair of flaming cities served to forever emphasize that point and there’s nothing the Supreme Court – or anyone else – can ever do to change that.

Why would anyone choose to ignore a dire warning of that type? Why would anyone – especially the U.S. Supreme Court – choose to encourage others to do so? See the above photo.

The Catholic Church categorizes homosexual activity as (objectively) a grave sin, capable of landing a soul in Hell, for eternity.

(The term “objectively” means “typically and ordinarily – special cases and unusual situations excepted” – so a ray of hope and a bit of “wiggle room” remains. But hey – who am I to judge?)

As with all “mortal” sin, the person committing the act must know that God and the Church consider it to be gravely sinful and the act must be committed with full consent of the will. Otherwise, no harm, no foul – at least, when it comes to Divine Judgment.

Those who claim their conscience tells them that homosexual acts are not sinful will need to bring that issue up directly with Jesus, come Judgment Day. Christ remains the head of the Catholic Church. The Ten Commandments, the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels and Epistles, plus all the moral precepts of the Church are his, so how do you think he’s likely to rule?

In this life, there’s absolutely no getting around the issue. Let’s look at what type of divine punishment the Supreme Court is likely in for, and then we’ll look more closely at the fate of those who choose to actually enter into the spiritually deadly institution known as homosexual marriage – as well as those homosexuals who choose to do otherwise.

By its’ recent decision, the Supreme Court has chosen to define itself as totally lacking in morals and woefully ignorant of the legitimate purposes of institutions like holy matrimony. But that’s not the worst of it: the Supreme Court has – once again – constituted itself as a genuine, official, U.S. Government sponsored “near occasion of sin”.

A near occasion of sin is someone or something that leads others to commit sin, or serves to confirm or justify others in their sin. Such a thing is a grave sin in and of itself, but multiplied by the number of souls the court decision will likely affect, the actual level of spiritual depravity is incalculable.

Absent an effective reversal and/or a spiritually acceptable remedy, death, judgment and Hell are almost certain to follow. Under the present circumstances, I wouldn’t want to be a member of the United States Supreme Court. Much better to resign, repent, confess, do penance and receive absolution, at least for the 6 of 9 who are Catholics. (Oh, the scandal!) I’m not certain they would even qualify for absolution if they did not first, resign.

As for the rest of the Justices, whether they actually believe in God, or not – unless they engage in some prompt, serious, soul searching and repenting – they’re shortly going to suffer the wrath of an angry God, who also happens to be the chief judge of the entire universe – something from which their Supreme Court robes and lofty opinions will offer scant protection.

Such is the level of depravity of today’s Supreme Court. The whole lot of them ought to be impeached – for their own good – and for the good of the country!

Now let’s look at the homosexuals who have received legal approval by the nation’s highest court to engage in an act that will serve to permanently cut them off from the grace of God and – absent timely repentance and conversion – almost certainly lead to a very bad (and eternal) end.

On the one hand, we have the homosexual with absolutely no interest in marriage – or even living with a sexual partner – someone who simply wants to have a little “fun” via an occasional, same-sex “hookup”. On the other, we have a committed, long-term homosexual “couple” who decide to go the marriage route, looking to make their relationship legal and permanent. 

There’s a major difference between the two situations, but neither is really any good – or even acceptable – on a spiritual level – especially for Catholics.

A permanent, live-in, homosexual relationship, “married” or otherwise, serves only to establish a permanent state of mortal sin, which keeps the soul in a decrepit, graceless condition, effectively cutting off such persons from the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, unless and until the elicit living arrangement and the underlying sinful acts (for all intents and purposes) have effectively ceased.

Only then might the Sacraments once again be received, sanctifying grace restored and a “nominal” relationship with Christ and his Church be resumed.

It’s not easy and it’s also very rare for someone to break up a household and call a halt to a long-term, personal (and sexual) relationship in the hope of getting their spiritual affairs in order. It happens, but long experience proves that it’s much more common for people to simply die in their sins and suffer the eternal consequences.

The unmarried, non-cohabiting homosexual is in a much better position, from a spiritual standpoint, than his/her married homosexual counterpart. 

The absence of a permanent, live-in homosexual relationship leaves the practicing, “single” homosexual (potentially) only one good decision away from overcoming his/her disordered sexual inclinations.

Much as any other sinner, a “single” homosexual may confess his/her sins as often as necessary, receiving absolution for those sins and any others, so long as a spirit of repentance and a firm purpose of amendment (the actual intent, as well as the distinct possibility to overcome and do better, in the future) truly exists.

Such a thing may constitute a life-long struggle, and it may prove extremely difficult, but so long as the person does nothing to make the homosexual situation permanent and unalterable (like getting married or cohabiting) hope, grace, the Mass and the Sacraments remain available and effective.

When the Supreme Court of the United States decided to make homosexual marriage legal (and apparently, more acceptable and desirable) all they really did was induce more people to enter into permanent, sinful relationships that will quite likely, lead them straight to hell. They did the same thing with abortion, around forty years ago!

Satan once again thanks the U.S. Supreme Court – Near Occasion of Sin!

Lest anyone attempt to categorize me, the Catholic Church, or God as a hater, please know that the main purpose of this post is to warn people about the inherent dangers of their personal choices, based on the best theological information available, so that those persons might avoid making spiritually “fatal” mistakes that could one day, land them in Hell.

Charity, not hate, is at work here!

Related Link

CORTMAN: Abortion pill mandate, Hobby Lobby and why the Supreme Court should honor faith

supremecourt

Why can’t family business owners — Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby in these cases — have the same freedom from government coercion as other exempt parties? Because the government says they can’t.

Not only is the government arbitrarily selective in how it doles out exemptions, it’s also arbitrary in its argument that business owners can’t exercise religious freedom.

Read more

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wa: A woman’s right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act trumps anyone else’s religious freedom.

BSMeter2

The Obama administration is being handed a lesson in Christianity 101 as religious leaders rise up to condemn an Obamacare requirement that forces religious organizations to pay for abortifacients or face crippling financial penalties.

“Christian doctrine states it is a sin for a Christian to enable or aid another in doing what the Christian believes to be sin,” states a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by a coalition of dozens of prominent Protestant theologians, African-American pastors and participants in the Manhattan Declaration.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed over the requirement in the Affordable Health Care Act that employers pay for abortifacents. Two cases, involving Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, are pending for review before the Supreme Court.

Even members of Congress have weighed in against the provision, which effectively forces Christians to violate their faith by participating in the killing of unborn children.

Read more

Editor’s note: Sen. Murray’s totally wrong-headed point of view is very popular in the Seattle area, where liberal “Catholicism” has been the norm, for many years.

Fr. Pavone: When a person has a reasonable chance of saving a life, it is not only morally permissible to break the law regarding the bubble-zone, but it is virtuous to do so.

The case of McCullen v. Coakley, which is being argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court, illustrates how abortion perverts justice.

So called “bubble zone” laws are the fruit of abortion’s poisonous tree. They violate pro-lifers’ First Amendment free speech rights in order to protect the profits of abortionists who violate the right to life of unborn babies.  They are a wrong committed to perpetuate another wrong.

Link

Injunction: Obama can’t bully Little Sisters of the Poor into paying for contraception

The group Little Sisters of the Poor received a temporary injunction from the Supreme Court protecting them from the controversial HHS contraceptive mandate.  The injunction means that the Little Sisters will not be forced to sign and deliver forms tonight authorizing and directing others to provide contraceptives, sterilizations and drugs and devices that cause abortions.

Link

Inept, unaccountable, liberal elitists

question

Question: The title of this post refers to:

A) The Obama Regime

B) The Supreme Court

C) The Conciliar and Post-Vatican II Catholic Church hierarchy

D) The U.S. Senate

E) The U.S. House of Representatives

F) All of the above (with a few notable exceptions)

Three reasons Roe v. Wade will fall

The U.S. Supreme Court-imposed abortion-on-demand regime of Roe v. Wade will one day fall. Why?

Roe will buckle under the weight of reason. “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible,” notes Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun (author of Roe) and supporter of legalized abortion. The U.S. Constitution cannot plausibly or rationally be said to include a right to abortion that precludes states dealing with this issue. Even the Court itself, when narrowly upholding Roe in 1992 (in Planned Parenthood v. Casey), could appeal only to stare decisis (i.e., past decisions should be reaffirmed because they are past decisions) and to virtual nonsense about “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Roe will buckle under the weight of democracy. The Court in Roe, without constitutional warrant, usurped the authority of the American people to determine abortion policy. This “exercise of raw judicial power,” as Justice Byron White put it, struck down the democratically-decided abortion laws of all 50 states and imposed a nationwide policy of abortion on demand whether the people like it or not. The radical extent of the Roe regime was not and has never been even remotely consistent with public opinion (polling on this question is often inaccurate, and ignorance of the extent of Roe is widespread). Roe has disenfranchised millions of Americans, fostering divisive cultural and political battles.

Finally, and most importantly, Roe will buckle under the weight of human rights. It decided that an entire class of innocent human beings must be excluded from legal protection and allowed to be killed for any reason. Roe, like Dred Scott v. Sandford before it, is profoundly unjust and contrary to the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of all members of the human family. And the consequences of the Court’s folly—55 million unborn human beings killed, many women (and men) hurt emotionally, psychologically, physically—have been nothing less than catastrophic.

Full text

Discussing marriage now without Justice Kennedy is like playing Hamlet without the first grave-digger.

In Section 3 of DOMA, the Congress stipulated that “marriage” would refer only to “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” But to Justice Kennedy this affirmation of the meaning of marriage bristled with hatred and condemnation. In affirming marriage as the relation of a man and woman, Congress showed a disposition to “disparage” and “demean” gays and lesbians, to deny their “equal dignity” and affect them with a “stigma.”

As Justice Scalia pointed out, Kennedy was essentially charging with bigotry the people who had drafted this bill, but also the 85 Senators and 347 congressmen who voted for it, along with the president (Clinton) who had signed it. Hate-mongers all.

Read more

Latest SCOTUS ruling: Casual contempt for the citizenry.

Supreme_Court_US_2010

What connects the above to today’s decisions in Washington is the slapdash contempt of Anthony Kennedy’s opinion. Whatever the merits of gay marriage, it ought to revolt anyone with a decent respect for self-government that this incompetent jurist could find no other way to frame the issue than to besmirch the motives of those who oppose him. As Justice Scalia wrote:

To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement… It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race. 

What I always objected to in Canada about Section 13 was its casual contempt for the citizenry, the same contempt on display today in Washington and London. Like Theresa May, Justice Kennedy would rather impute motive than engage argument. The need to delegitimize those who disagree does indeed “demean this institution”, and is profoundly disturbing.

More

Why does the court ban the pictures but allow the decrepit underlying conduct?

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday to not review the case of Scott v. Saint John’s Church in the Wilderness, a case that involved a lower court banning display of explicit abortion images from being shown where children are likely to view them.

The New York Times recalled that the case originated from a 2005 pro-life outdoor protest on Palm Sunday at an Episcopal church in Denver. The protestors were apparently unhappy with the church’s pro-abortion stance, and protested by showing large pictures of aborted fetuses, upsetting some of the 200 children who were present.

After the church sued Kenneth T. Scott, one of the people behind the protest, the Colorado Court of Appeals placed a ban on “displaying large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12.”

Read more

How the Supreme Court Gave Us Gosnell

Because the Justices foolishly believed that abortion had few risks, and that abortion providers should have complete discretion to decide how to perform abortions in the first trimester, the Justices said that state and local officials could not regulate them in the first trimester. The Justices prohibited state health and safety regulations for abortion clinics in the first trimester of pregnancy when 90 percent of abortions are performed.

In the years following Roe, the Court reinforced its prior ruling and rejected appeals from public health officials who wanted to enforce health and safety regulations for clinics in Illinois, Indiana, and Florida.

The Supreme Court then empowered the federal courts and abortion industry lawyers to thwart every effort by state legislators and public health officials to monitor health and safety conditions at facilities performing abortions. Back-alley abortionists could challenge any regulation as an “unconstitutional burden” to a “woman’s right to choose” abortion.

Link

Much like Joseph Stalin, Sonia Sotomayor says she is hostile to the Church because of her early experiences as a Catholic.

The high court, as it has been for many years, is narrowly split along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the powerful swing vote, lately found mostly in the conservative camp. Six of the court’s members are Catholics: Chief Justice John Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor — who was appointed by Obama in 2009 as the first-ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice — and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

But none of her fellow Catholic justices have ever made public the kind of bitterness toward the institutional Church found in Sotomayor’s just-published New York Times No. 1 bestseller “My Beloved World.” According to The New York Times, Sotomayor says she modeled the book “after President Obama’s ‘Dreams From My Father,’” another bestseller.

The main source of the hostility is that as a child, her local Irish priest, a Father Dolan, failed to pay a visit to her grief-stricken Puerto Rican mother after the death of Sotomayor’s alcoholic father. “His refusal,” Sotomayor writes, “enraged me, all the more so because of the reason: my mother didn’t go to church on Sunday.”

Link

Editor’s  note: If Sotomayor wrote this about a Jewish rabbi she would instantly be labeled an anti-Semite. Sounds like a simple case of anti-Irish, Puerto Rican racism to me. Based on the admissions contained in her book, Sotomayor should recuse herself from all HHS Mandate deliberations. But she won’t.

Oh, Canada! Government Minister of Education claims that a Catholic school must be ‘open’ to teach for a few hours during class that Jesus could very well be just another mythical figure.

Loyola High School will appeal a decision by Quebec’s Court of Appeal that forces the Jesuit-run school for boys to cease teaching its Catholic course on religion and morality and switch to the “secular” and “neutral” Ethics and Religious Culture course (ERC) provided by the province’s government.

Read more

Sebelius’ home State of Kansas steeped in abortion corruption.

Topeka, Kansas – Phill Kline stood before a seven-member panel at the Kansas Supreme Court yesterday and together with his attorney Tom Condit, made a final defense against a politically motivated ethics case against him that has spanned six years.

The Supreme Court consisted of only two sitting members of the Court, Justices Dan Biles and Nancy Moritz. The other five members recused themselves and were replaced by two Appellate Court Judges, Karen Arnold-Burger and Henry W. Green Jr., and three District Court Judges, Edward E. Bouker, Bruce T. Gatterman, and Michael J. Malone.

Disciplinary Administrator Stan Hazlett began the 90 minute proceeding by attempting to mitigate allegations that he was biased against Kline. He then went on to make arguments that contradicted that claim.

Link

The Mojave Desert Cross is back up

More than 100 people Sunday, Nov. 11, watched as the seven-foot-tall iron cross was hoisted onto and then bolted into Sunrise Rock, which is 12 miles off Interstate 15 about halfway between Barstow and Las Vegas. Then, the commander of the California Veterans of Foreign Wars, Earl Fulk, formally rededicated it.

Text and video

Bad news for the President: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare.

by Doug Lawrence

The Supreme Court today defined the number one issue for the 2012 election: ObamaCare.

If you like ObamaCare … vote for Barack Obama and his fellow socialist democrats, who have pledged to foist the program on Americans, no matter the cost.

If you don’t like ObamaCare … vote for Mitt Romney and his fellow conservative republicans, who have pledged to repeal it.

It doesn’t get much simpler than that!

As for the court … those guys are lucky they’re appointed for life, and not subject to getting reelected.

Supreme Court: Abortion is legal – just another way of managing a pregnancy. Supreme Being: Thou Shall Not Kill. What’s a person of conscience to do?

The correct answer is the biggest “no-brainer” in the history of Earth … if you happen to believe in God!

In Illinois’ Democratic Supreme Court race, only Aurelia Pucinski is pro-life

Abortion is front and center in the Illinois Supreme Court race thanks to a federal court ruling Tuesday that gave the bipartisan, pro-choice Personal PAC a giant victory. And opened the way for unlimited fund-raising for pro-choice candidates.

Read more

Mother of 12 regrets her early support for abortion “rights”

Thirty-nine years ago nine black-robed men handed feminists a triumph that would try our souls, and — I have come to believe — find them wanting.

On Jan. 22, 1973, when the Sisterhood is Powerful crowd rejoiced at their Roe v. Wade victory, I was with them, a Washington, D.C., radical feminist scholar/abortion rights advocate, much in demand as a spokeswoman by virtue of my motherhood. After all, who better to illustrate the righteous need for abortion than a young woman with a future, already encumbered by a 3-year-old in daycare?

Five years later in San Francisco, on the morning of my own abortion, I felt proud of our feminist legacy — and even a little righteous, as though exercising my “right to choose” was a sacrament.

Read more

Supreme Court rules unanimously for church rights. Obama administration is big loser.

In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

Read more