In the race for global dominance, the world is being
drawn closer every day to the brink of war. The rivalry casts Russia and China
on the one side, and the United States, Japan and the NATO members on the
other. War could start in Europe or in Asia either by design or by mistake.
But wherever it starts, should it ever start, it could
be an unlimited war. With nuclear weapons sufficient to kill the entire human
race 20 times over, perhaps not even the denizens on the deepest ocean floor
would survive.
It could be a war to end all wars. Civilization, and
the world itself as we know it, would end. Such therefore is the need for all
men and all nations to work together to prevent it.
Yet without exploding a single nuclear
device on any nation, the United States, through its Supreme Court, has sought
to render meaningless the most important element that had held human society
together from the very beginning of time–the natural family founded on the
permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman for the purpose of
propagating the human race. This is matrimony or marriage.
In legalizing “homosexual marriage” all over the
United States, regardless of any American state law prohibiting it, Justice
Anthony Kennedy and four others of the nine SC justices air-brushed the truth
first revealed in Genesis, that God created man and woman–male and female He
created them–so that from the marital bond of one man and one woman may spring
forth children.
The justices based their ruling on the so-called
“right to marry,” but they failed to examine the issue at depth. Without
question, this is a sacred and inviolable right. But the right to marry exists
only in relation to marriage, properly understood. Marriage is a natural human
institution, created at the beginning of time, for the preservation and
propagation of human life. “Same-sex union” totally excludes new life .
To the various faiths, matrimony is a sacred rite; to
the Catholic Church, it is one of the seven sacraments. No Congress or court of
law has the right or authority to fiddle with it. Although nothing and no one
can prevent a male from being sexually attracted to another male, or a female
from being sexually attracted to another female, or prevent any two males or
any two females from living together as same-sex “partners,” neither the State
nor the Church can call that partnership a marriage, just because a male who
has the “right to marry” wants to “marry” another male, and a female wants to
“marry” another female.
Were we to accept the ruling as morally and legally
valid, what would prevent the next fellow from insisting that he be allowed to
marry his own brother or sister or widowed mother or aunt, or even his own
pussy cat, dog, python or parrot? “Same-sex marriage” means a formal approval
of disordered sex, which sodomy is. For a very long time, sodomy was criminally
punishable in many places. Now the crime has been abolished, and the only
punishable crime now is to talk irreverently about sodomy and sodomists. This
is the sexual revolution, and as in all revolutions, what begins as a crime
soon dictates the rules as soon as it believes it has prevailed. Apparently,the
dictatorship of relativism believes it has.
HOW WILL “same-sex marriage” affect the whole fabric
of American society? How will it affect those who follow the lead of the US?
How will it affect what the Church teaches? In Chapter 18 of Leviticus, the
third book of the Pentateuch, which contains ritual laws for the priests of the
tribe of Levi, built around the central command, “You shall be holy because I,
the Lord, am holy,” the Lord says the following to Moses, in continuation of
their conversation on Mount Sinai:
“6 None of you shall approach a close relative to have
sexual intercourse with her… 7 You shall not disgrace your father by having
sexual intercourse with your mother… 8 You shall not have sexual intercourse
with your father’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father. 9 You
shall not have sexual intercourse with your sister, your father’s daughter or
your mother’s daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family… 10 You
shall not have intercourse with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s
daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your family. …12 You shall not have
intercourse with your father’s sister, since she is your father’s relative. 13
You shall not have intercourse with your mother’s sister, since she is your
mother’s relative. 14 You shall not disgrace your father’s brother by being
intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt. 15 You should not have
intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, and therefore
you shall not disgrace her. 16 You shall not have intercourse with your
brother’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother. 17 You shall not
have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry
and have intercourse with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; this
would be shameful because they are related to her. 18 While your wife is still
living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace
your first wife… 20 You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor’s
wife, defiling yourself with her…22 YOU SHALL NOT LIE WITH A MALE AS WITH A
WOMAN, SUCH A THING IS AN ABOMINATION. 23 You shall not have carnal relations
with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in
front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.
How much of this, after the same-sex ruling, could
still withstand the justices’ appreciation of an individual’s “human and
constitutional right” to satisfy his disordered sexual appetite?
With the US judicial “legislation” on same-sex
“marriage,” are we now seeing the same corrupted sexual morality which, in a
distant age, had foreshadowed the decline and fall of the Roman empire? Are we?
While remaining the lone political and military superpower in the world, have
America’s morals not sunk to the level of its troubled economy?
In its declaration of independence on July 4, 1776,
America proclaimed its loyalty and allegiance to a Creator who has endowed its
people with certain inalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness. So impressed was the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, the
author of “Democracy in America,” with the depth and fervor of its religious
vocation that he described religion as America’s “first political institution.”
Until the US banned public prayer and every sign of religious practice and
expression outside the churches, America was proud to proclaim as its national
motto, “In God We Trust.”
What happened to all that? Does same-sex “marriage” make
America “a more perfect union,” as Barack Obama claims it does, or does it make
it simply a more dangerous place? Some of my best friends are Americans. I have
young grandchildren who are Americans. And Filipinos, according to a Pew
Research study, are more pro-American than any other nationality. I am not
ready to give up on the US as a lost paradise. But, as in my own country, I
grieve over the kind of moral, political and judicial leadership that is in
charge.
During the Cold War, we identified moral and political
goodness with America and the West and moral and political evil with the Soviet
Union and the communist bloc. The first Cold War is over, and the second may
have already begun. Has the paradigm shifted? In 1821, Connecticut became the
first state to pass an anti-abortion law to supersede the inherited English
Common Law, which had forbidden abortion, as my dear friends Dr. John and
Barbara Willke of happy memory record in their excellent book, “Abortion and
the Pro-Life Movement.” On the other hand, Russia under Lenin became the first
country to legalize abortion in November 1920, three years after the Russian
revolution. This was temporarily forbidden during World War II, then legalized
again in 1955.
But today the once officially atheist Russia has
turned pro-life, pro-family and pro-God while the once strongly Christian and
Protestant USA has officially turned anti-life, anti-family and apostate. In
1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court struck down America’s
first state law against contraceptives, by invoking an unwritten “right to
marital privacy.” A US Family Research Council paper quotes Justice William O.
Douglas, who wrote the decision, as saying he had discovered the right to
privacy in “penumbras formed by emanations” of a panoply of Bill of Rights
guarantees under the Constitution.
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the court invoked the same
right to privacy to legalize the destruction of the unborn fetus inside the
mother’s womb. Since then America has killed more innocent and unborn babies in
their mothers’ wombs than all the men and women it had lost in all its wars.
And now, this same-sex ruling promises to remove children completely and
forever from the vocabulary of “same-sex” couples.
Thus even Vladimir Putin has found the courage to
wonder why the Obama government has forsaken God and the family while the rest
of humanity is trying to embrace them. Such a reversal of roles.
Russia knows whereof it speaks. For it has paid the
price for its folly as far as its population policies are concerned. Its
birthrates have been the lowest in the nation’s history, and as Steven Mosher
says in his book, “Population Control,” its population has been decreasing by
three-quarters of a million people each year; Ukraine’s by a quarter million.
The country’s population is projected to decrease from 143 million in 2005 to
112 million in 2050.
So while stupid Filipino policymakers and lawmakers
break their bones trying to implement the discredited directives of the foreign
population controllers, the whole of Russian society, beginning with Putin, is
trying to reenergize family life everywhere. Since 2011, I have been invited to
Moscow, first to participate in the world demographic summit that sought to
address the global demographic winter that has spread ageing and dying without
new life in all of Europe as well as in some parts of Asia, like Singapore and
Japan.
The year after, I helped to launch the Russia Parents
Association, a coalition of parents’ organizations across the Russian Federation,
to encourage families to beget more children. In September last year, I was a
plenary speaker at a huge family conference at the Kremlin, which looked to
“large families” as a key to the future. My participation at the Humanum
colloquium in Rome in November prevented me from attending the Stavropol Family
Forum of the Russian People’s Assembly that same month, but one topic that
caught my eye in that proposed forum was “Training Boys to Become Men.” This
telegraphed Russia’s position on the same-sex question.
No comments:
Post a Comment