All it takes is a small fissure to open the bottomless chasm of hell. With passage of the horrendous C-38 Bill - making Canada the fourth country to 'officially legalize' same-sex 'marriage' - that abyss is opening ever wider today. Some history regarding the specifics of militant homosexual Canadian Svend Robinson's agenda for Canada can be found at www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/1/glm7/m152.htm
Robinson fancied himself as the only law in Canada when it came to demanding that all accept sodomy, no questions asked or allowed. His sole aim was to promote vice as virtue with the filthiest of human acts being a cause for pride.
Moreover, The self-styled "Fuhrer Robinson," who specialized in the intimidation and demonization of any who dared to oppose his legislative insanity, demanded that Canada confirm his promotion of the entirety of a "culture of eternal death" running the gamut from abortion to euthanasia as praiseworthy, with it taught to Canada's children under force of law, regardless of the opposition of their parents, and the vast number of Canadians who adamantly opposed his lunacy.
This opposition meant nothing to Robinson as it was summarily subjected to a political blitzkrieg by hook or by crook for no reason other than to make him comfortable with his vices.
Canadian Society was not obliged to follow Robinson's lead, which is contrary to any concept of promoting societal common good - the primary goal of the state, and, more importantly, also contrary to both reason and the faith traditions of millennia. That it sadly did is a testament to the success of Robinson and his disciples, agents of the devil all.
Those who are speaking out against the insanity of Robinson's promotion of unnatural, self-destructive, proven changeable aberrant behavior as a civil right are to be congratulated and encouraged. Giving a blessing to violations of the Natural Law has both natural and especially supernatural consequences.
Robinson and his ilk might be able to get away with changing positive law, the sorry attempt being contrary to right reason, but he cannot touch the Natural Law of God, which is invariant and immutable, and the foundation of any man-made laws if they are worth anything. Because "if anything goes," which is Robinson's creed in worshipping the "god in his mirror," anarchy is the inevitable result. Who or what can Robinson appeal to when his universe of autonomous unencumbered rights conflicts with his neighbor's in the absence of universal moral absolutes for arbitration purposes? Will he find refuge in the nothingness of the nihilistic atheistic philosophers when his survival is at stake?
Hopefully there will be a national public outcry in Canada against the antics of sodomite Svend Robinson & Company regarding what they've been allowed to get away with for no reason other than to make them comfortable with their vices. Robinson's disgraceful, selfish in the extreme, intimidating behavior cried out for his impeachment by the Canadian Parliament. His irrational demands that aberrant self-destructive behavior should be the law of the land spoke to his insanity pertaining to reinventing Canada into his warped image of life where unnatural acts and baby killing are looked upon as praiseworthy.
That the Catholic Church allowed itself to be intimidated by Robinson when Canada was discussing C-33 a few years ago is a damning indictment of the transformation of the faith into something unrecognizable as Catholic since Vatican II. I read excerpts from the C-33 hearings prior to contacting Canadian MPs by mail in protest of the outrage being perpetrated on Canadian society, and can state unequivocally that the Catholic representatives at these hearings had no clue about how to effectively rebut the insanity being demanded from both faith and reason standpoints in complete ignorance of the Natural Law teaching of Holy Mother Church. They were, embarrassingly, de facto reduced to apologizing for the immutable infallible truths of the faith in the face of the intimidation of a militant sodomite!
Robinson's politics were clearly defined by a hell-bent "hedonism-at-all-costs" mentality whose only purpose was to push the envelope in regard to his "freedom as license" agenda as opposed to an authentic freedom in doing what you ought instead of what you want. The world according to Svend Robinson leads only to anarchy. What other result can there be by following his policies where any behavior, no matter how aberrant it is, is deemed OK? We're talking about the complete breakdown of civil law that ignores completely the higher law of God, which it needs to have any meaning, in particular the ignorance of the Natural Law. If all that we're left with is man-made laws that are not rooted in the absolute eternal law of God, then we're slaves to a moral relativism at the whim of whatever tyrant is in power. And clearly, the "tyrant" definition in Canada applied to Svend Robinson. Killing our children, as Robinson advocated, will inevitably lead to killing everyone who is deemed to have a "duty to die."
I wonder if Robinson would be so ready to fulfill that "duty" when the knock on his door tells him that it's time to meet the "great nothing" in an atheistic sense. Somehow, I don't believe that his kind will. They are good at making laws for the rest of us that only apply to them when it suits their convenience.
Svend Robinson was the "dictator" of Canada in leading that country into a moral abyss from which it may never recover. What is incredible about this situation is that Robinson's arguments are so easily refutable from both reason and faith standpoints. And yet he was allowed carte blanche to spew his filthy lying agenda into public policy, no questions asked. What has happened to Canada to allow a "political thug" like Robinson to get away with moral murder to the detriment of the country's survival?
Does Canada no longer care about its future, its children, to allow the likes of a Svend Robinson to skew the laws of the land in order that he can sleep better as a sodomite? If the answer is yes, then Canada proves that it could care less about the "common good", which should be the only goal of the state, to the detriment of its citizens to especially include Robinson whose actions proved that he's incapable of rational thought in reference to that goal.
Svend Robinson's politics of selfishness instead of selflessness show a hatred for his constituents and Canada. Accordingly, he and his disciples need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that Canadian society is not obliged to cower to their lunatic demands in traveling their one way road to self destruction under force of law.
There are many "Svend Robinsons" in America today. You see them constantly in both the print and electronic media, trumpeting loudly that affirming sodomy is a cause for pride, and that there is something "gay" about being inclined to some of the most filthy acts known to man. And if they are allowed to have carte blanche in promoting the insane lie that aberrant unnatural behavior is a civil right in an affirmative action sense, the violation of which is punishable by law, the Canadian experience will soon be repeated in our neighborhood. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not witnessing to the truth, which from a faith perspective, is spelled with a capital "T".
Svend Robinson and his counterparts at the Human Rights Campaign in America need to be summarily told that society is not obliged to confirm them in their vices by legitimizing the aforementioned lie. If they choose to ignore good advice to the contrary in living homosexual lifestyles, then they have the free will to do so. But when they come into the public square, and demand that the rest of us, especially our children, be forced to buy into their tripe, that's another matter, indeed. We don't have to do that.
Moreover, as rational people, we are called to expose their lies for the sake of the common good of society, which is the primary goal of the state. Laws, whether they are enforceable or not, serve as teachers, which is what the laws against sodomy are. To overturn such laws sends the message that aberrant behavior is on the fast track with no end in sight except anarchy. Who's to put a bound on what's aberrant when the unnatural become the natural? This is the ultimate in Pandora's Boxes.
Believers, in true charity, realize that genuine compassion is to alleviate an individual's distress, not contribute to it. Non-believers still capable of rational thought also see that truth. Believers, however, see the marriage between faith and reason, as they go beyond rational concerns to those of the supernatural, the most important concern of all because of the eternal consequences involved. St. Thomas Aquinas referred to such Divine truths knowable from reason as "preambles to the faith" in that they reinforced a faith that enables reason. The God who gave us Divine Revelation also gave us reason. Because He is God, He cannot contradict Himself, so faith and reason can never contradict each other. The "Angelic Doctor" did us a service by showing that, if certain of Divine Revelation is knowable through reason alone, why should there be doubts about the rest?
The point of all this is that pro-sodomite intimidators like Svend Robinson and the HRC are not just dismissing faith out-of-hand, but also reason. They have no logical arguments, PERIOD! That's why they must resort to the demonization of their opponents carried now to the ultimate extreme of the threat of imprisonment, which has been their goal all along. Those who can't see that need to be asked the question, "What planet have you been living on?" Remember, this all started, with "Just leave us alone," which has evolved to "You better approve of our lifestyles, or else."
The question that I have is, "How much longer are good men going to remain silent while this destruction of civilization as we know it goes on around them?" And is their silence really evidence of their being "good men?" Won't have long to find out. The Canadian experience is a lot closer than we think. Check what's going on at your local schools and day care centers if you don't believe me.
Causes and Effects of the Corruption of the Natural Law
What does the world expect when it ignores the Catholic teaching against contraception? When procreation is no longer important in marriage, what's to keep Joe from marrying Sam?
Catholic Professor Janet Smith has observed that when we see the heartbreak and social dysfunction associated with out-of-wedlock births, don’t our immediate and natural moral perceptions and judgments say, "Something is wrong here?" When we learn that a woman has had an abortion, regardless of what our view is of the morality of abortion, don’t we say, "Something has gone wrong here?" When we hear of a divorce and all the surrounding heartbreak and dysfuntionality, don’t we think, "Something has gone wrong here?" When we see young people dying of AIDS, don’t we think, "Something has gone wrong here?" These observations lead to a Natural Law principle that will seem perfectly obvious to some and completely ridiculous to others. The latter reaction is predictable given the moral corruption of our times per Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. We have become so corrupt that we cannot discern what is obvious. We have lost our moral "sense" as a result of being subjected to too much corruption; we have lost our ability to ascertain what is right and wrong. Is it any wonder when the gospel proclaimed to our children in the public and sadly, some private and parochial schools, is that "there isn’t anything such as right or wrong anymore!"
Dr. Smith asks us to consider how human sexual behavior does and should differ from animal sexual behavior. Pleasure is a common factor but for humans we’re not talking about an uncomplicated pleasure. There are ramifications that must be addressed. The power of the act dictates to us that we’re dealing with something fraught with emotional risks and serious responsibilities. We have an intellectual part of the soul that distinguishes us from the animals. These responsibilities come with the babies that naturally result from sexual intercourse and with the bonding between the partners that naturally comes with sexual intercourse. The key for Natural Law ethics becomes self-evident. Since sexual intercourse has this two-fold natural purpose that must be respected – the primary purpose of bringing forth new lives and the purpose of uniting men and women together, whoever participates in sexual activity must do so in a way that protects these natural goods of sexual intercourse. In this manner Natural Law principles govern human sexuality.
As rational beings we do things in a distinctive human way. The Natural Law is our guide to human flourishing, i.e., the determination of how and what activities contribute to our good or bad. The telos or end of human sexuality is three-fold, pleasure, intimacy or bonding (union), and babies (procreation). We also must consider the nuptial meaning of the body in regard to human sexuality, an absolute requirement else we’re left with moral anarchy and a civilization in ruins. Animal sex is a willy-nilly occurrence with raw physical action the principle characteristic. A human being is much more than just a body in an animalistic sense; a human being is a body and a soul with an intellect – the soul being the form of the body, the life giving essence to the body without which the body is reduced to matter at death. Before and after death bodies still exist. So humans have to be much more than just bodies.
At death something has left. That something is the soul. Thus the physical pleasure of animal sex is differentiated from human sex with the soul coming into play on the part of human sexual activity, which facilitates a caring bonding, resulting in a human life coming from human life, not animal instincts. Moreover, unlike animals instinctively reproducing for survival of the species, human beings with souls procreate to populate Heaven in accord with God's plan for His Creation!
Humans, then, are multidimensional (body and soul) rational creatures ordering things to the good. They are made in the image and likeness of God and act out of thinking and choice, not just instinct. This choice is in accord with what is good. We can think of an analogy with the Triune God, having a relationship with three Divine Persons in One God. We’re also relational since humans are not nourished by being sufficient only unto themselves, totally divorced from the world about them. We are not disembodied minds ala Descartes unable to know the universe via sensory perception. Our bodies show us that we are directed toward someone of the opposite sex, our natural tendencies verified by our physical plumbing albeit there are those who confuse rectal waste function with reproduction.
According to the Natural Law, which is God’s plan, two become one – another trinity, male, female, and baby. This trinity becomes a community of love, which is what human sexuality is directed or ordered to.
It is impossible to be a human being and engage in sex without some kind of bonding going on. Sex brings a special closeness as we’re not just talking about two bodies uniting but also two spirits. The soul that makes humans human is directly involved. Bodies may be able to walk away from a sexual experience but spirits don’t, which makes sexual intercourse – the total giving of yourself to another person not easy to take back. You are affected radically for all time.
We arrive at a fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Since sex brings with it babies, the rational responsible good human being will not have sex unless that human being is prepared for babies and bonding. The conclusion drawn from this is that you’re not prepared for sexual intercourse unless you are married. To do so outside of marriage is to hold back, not totally giving yourselves to each other. Babies require a lifetime of care. If you are not prepared for this then you should not be having sexual intercourse.
This obligation to your child for its lifetime demands the best possible environment for its upbringing. Just as certain foods are good for you while others are not, certain sexual activity is good for you while others are not. This begs the question "What kind of sex is good for you in that it promotes intimacy and bonding?" The only common sense answer, which is what the Natural Law is all about, is sex within marriage since premarital intercourse only wants pleasure, nothing else. The inevitable result of ignoring this Natural Law principle is babies born out of wedlock with the concomitant chaotic consequences for all involved including not just the immediate parties but also their children and the culture as a whole.
The power of sex makes you overlook other values that you should be taking into account. The Natural Law teaching on sexuality is that you must respect the goods of sexuality, pleasure, intimacy, and bonding. You should not be engaging in sexual intercourse unless you can assume the full responsibilities of the consequences that naturally result from it. The wisdom of the Catholic Church has always taught that the proper place, moreover the only place, to protect the goods of sexuality in a Natural Law sense is marriage - in the Sacrament of Matrimony between a man and a woman committed to obey God's will conveyed so clearly in Matthew 19: 4-6.
"Have ye not read, that He Who made man in the beginning, made them male and female? ...For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Let us go back to the topic of contraception and ask "What has been the effect of contraception in contributing to the creation and furtherance of a culture-of-death that pervades the world today?" Young people need to be chaste before marriage not only because of the love they hope to share with their future spouses, but also because of the responsibilities they have to their future children.
In the past the chief reason for refraining from sexual activity before marriage was the fear of pregnancy. Pregnancy was feared both because young people were not prepared to take care of children and also because there was considerable societal disapproval of sexual intercourse before marriage.
The societal disapproval is gone and contraceptives have largely removed the fear, though not the reality, of unwanted pregnancies. As such, contraceptives have become one of the chief reasons for much of the sexual misconduct of our times. There were fewer teenage pregnancies, many fewer abortions, a lesser incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., before contraception became widely available. An enterprising psychologist might ask, "Why are we seeing these results such as documented by the well known October 1994 issue of Atlantic Monthly which totally debunked the Planned Parenthood version of sex education, which is prominent in most of our schools, i.e., the "safe sex" myth via contraceptives?" The answer is simple. All one has to do is look at the ignorance of the goods of the Natural Law in regard to human sexuality. Contraception makes people feel secure that they can have sexual union apart from the obligations of marriage and child rearing. However, contraception does not remove the responsibilities that come with the child-making possibilities of sexual intercourse.
Young people, being notoriously irresponsible about almost everything, are roughly as responsible about using contraceptives as they are about doing their homework, hanging up their clothes, and doing their chores. Those using contraceptives are not out of the woods because contraceptives are not really safe; they do not always work, in particular in an age when the size of a deadly virus is measured in microns causing no difficulty whatsoever in its going through porous contraceptive materials. It must be emphasized to our young people that they are not ready for sexual intercourse until they are ready to be parents, for sexual intercourse always brings with it the possibility of being a parent.
In any sane society, if George and Harry apply for a license to "marry" each other, the response would be some variant of "Get lost." But if it is entirely up to man to decide whether sex will have any relation to procreation, why should marriage be limited to male-female combinations? The contraceptive society cannot deny legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle without denying its own basic premise. Its only objections to homosexual activity and homosexual "marriage" will be pragmatic or aesthetic. "Homosexual activity, like contraception, also frustrates the interpersonal communion that is intrinsic to the conjugal act. And where that act should be open to life, homosexual activity is a dead end. It rejects life and focuses instead on excrement, which is dead." [See 50 Questions On The Natural Law, Charles Rice.]
This is why you invariably see Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, NGTF, PFLAG, and national homosexual rights organizations all on the same side, the unholy alliance between the two most prominent components of the culture-of-death, Big Abortion, and Big Homosexuality.
It is ironic that those, whose constitutions destroy forever the concept of marriage as a holy sacrament, are married eternally in the culture-of-death. Barring repentance, their 'wedding' reception will occur in a "very hot place."