The Personalist Project

If the Supreme Court were to declare that there is no difference between a blessing and a curse or between idolatry and worship, would it make it so? Suppose it were to announce that to differentiate between testimony and perjury is to deny liars equal protection under the law? Suppose it were to equate, as a matter of law, a slap and a caress?

Can the court make it so that an act that deals death can form a family just as well and worthily as one that generates life? Can francium be rendered as stable as iron by judicial fiat?

When a human court says that slaves count as two fifths of a person, do they? 

If it decreed a universal right for adults to devour children, would we have it? No.

What we would have is an evil government. A government at odds with natural law and with God—a kind of anti-government. 

The Supreme Court doesn't create reality, but it can unleash chaos by pretending to, by defying the given in preference for the willed—by putting itself in the place of God. We are witnessing the reductio ad absurdum of the American experiment. Self government has become collaboration in our demise.

Comments (9)

Rhett Segall

#1, Jun 26, 2015 7:27pm

Katie, I agree with you that gay marriage violates the natural law. The Government is not advocating gay marriage, however; it is saying it cannot be legally prevented. I see the situation similar to the Government allowing what many consider pornography to be published. However, if local and state governments insist that school text books provide benign status to homosexual choices then we are in a danger zone that will demand parental action.

But frankly, many Christians, and Catholic Christians for that matter, are very open to homosexual marriage. For those who consider such a view heretical what's to be done? "Reprove, rebuke, exhort, never losing patience." (2 Tim. 4)

I find it helpful to realize that the Western world is rooted in secularism and individualism. We do what we can and leave the rest up to the Lord.


Jules van Schaijik

#2, Jun 26, 2015 7:58pm

Rhett, are you sure that the government has said no more than that "it cannot be legally prevented"? I thought SCOTUS just declared gay marriage a constitutional right. Are the headlines wrong?


#3, Jun 26, 2015 8:30pm

Jules, so it has seemed to me, as well; a positive right granted, rather than a prohibition overlooked.

Rhett Segall

#4, Jun 26, 2015 8:59pm

Yes, I did see that the court said gay marriage is a right and that's why it can't be legally prevented, I presume.-like a woman has a (so it's been said) right to an abortion. Sad, isn't it?

Katie van Schaijik

#5, Jun 27, 2015 9:22am

Rhett, I fear it's far, far worse than allowing the publication of pornography. The Supreme Court has just used its power to vitiate the foundational unit of the civil society. It has equated, in law, a union that gives life and protects and serves the common good with a liaison that does the opposite.

I agree with you that there is a principle of secularizing and individualism at the root of our founding, though not only that. There was a lot of good and true there too.

It's a fearful loss. It will entail terrible suffering, especially for children. Christians will be persecuted. Democracy will not long survive. 

But, of course, our hope is not in princes. God sits in His throne in heaven, and His arm is not too short to save.

Maybe this bitter shock will help spur a religious revival. We need it badly.


#6, Jun 27, 2015 9:55am

Perhaps this is a catalyst for the "Languishing Church" to emerge from our lethargy...If not, I hope there's a ramp into the catacombs...All you Catholic signers of the Declaration, pray for us!

Rhett Segall

#7, Jun 27, 2015 1:08pm

Well, I have to admit that I’m not sure I grasp the full implications of the situation. But I think:  “Catholic Mexico and Catholic Ireland have legalized same sex marriage, and Italy, the Pope’s domain, has legalized abortion. And yet Christianity continues.”

We are seeing, I believe, more and more of what Karl Rahner calls the “Christian in the diaspora.”  What he means by that is the necessity of Christians to provide for their Christian development through small groups within an ever widening non-Christian milieu.

Max Torres

#8, Jun 28, 2015 3:33pm

Well argued, Katie.  I would only differ about the government putting itself in God's place.  I would rather characterize this as the Court putting Baal or Moloch or Gaia, or whoever feminists and sundry haters of Christianity worship in God's place.  It has further established a new religion with new sacraments and new high priests and priestesses.

Sam Roeble

#9, Jun 30, 2015 2:20pm

Laudato Si references Pope St. John XXIII's Pacem in Terris often. Here's a quote from John XXIII: Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men "(34).Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, "In regard to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously derives from eternal law. A law which is at variance with reason is to that extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of violence. (Pacem in Terris #48)

Sign in to add a comment, or register first.

Forgot your password?