Today is Tuesday in Passion Week. As God’s Holy Providence would have it this year, there are no commemorations of the feast days of any saints on the unreformed General Calendar of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church this Passion Week, although the Feast of Saint Justin Martyr is commemorated on Monday of Holy Week next week.

God knew from all eternity that we would be alive during this particular Passion Week at a time when all the forces of Hell, perhaps knowing that their time is growing short, have been let loose against the remnant Catholic Faith as Holy Mother Church endures her time of mystical burial as a result of the twin, interrelated forces of Modernity in the world and Modernism in her counterfeit ape, the conciliar church, which is not the Catholic Church. We must be single-minded in our acceptance and our love of suffering as the Via Dolorosa is the path to Calvary, which which we can never know an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.

The “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio has removed any and all remaining obstacles, not that there were all that many left by the time Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI flew off in a helicopter on Thursday evening, February 28, 2013, as his resignation from an office he never held became effective, for the complete, unfettered persecution of anyone and everyone who dares to stand in the way of the Thought Police who are the agents of monster civil state of Modernity, itself the inevitable result of Father Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was institutionalized by the triumph of the forces of naturalism that can be referred to as Judeo-Masonry.

Aping what has been the case, at least on a de facto basis, throughout most of the countries of formerly Catholic Europe and in Canada to our north, the caesars and caesarettes of Modernity are tightening the noose around the necks of anyone, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, who stand in the way of homo-fascist agenda.

It was only yesterday that the Supreme Court of the United States of America refused to hear an appeal from a Protestant photographer in New Mexico who had refused to photograph what was called a “commitment ceremony” of two women who were committed to the sins of unnatural nice. The effect of this refusal means that the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico that held against the photographer stands:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear closely watched cases on gay rights, campaign finance and lethal injections. As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for turning down the appeals.

The gay rights case, Elane Photography v. Willock, No. 13-585, was an appeal from a wedding photographer in New Mexico who asserted a constitutional right to refuse to provide her services to gay and lesbian couples.

The issue was broadly similar to one argued before the court last month, over whether companies may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception on religious grounds. But the New Mexico case was based not on a claim of religious liberty but on one of free speech.

The photographer, Elaine Huguenin, objected to a New Mexico law prohibiting businesses open to the public from discriminating against gay men and lesbians. She said that requiring her to photograph same-sex weddings violated her First Amendment rights because she was forced to say something she did not believe.

She rejected a request from Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled for the couple, saying Ms. Huguenin’s “services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work.” Laws banning discrimination, the court said, apply to “creative or expressive professions.”

Justice Richard C. Bosson issued an ambivalent concurrence expressing sympathy for Ms. Huguenin and her husband.

“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” he added.

“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.” (Justices Decline Cases on Gay Rights and Campaign Finance.)

This means that not even four justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the minimum number of justices needed to docket a case presented to it on appeal from a Circuit Court of the United States of America or from a state supreme court, could be found to take this case. Not even four justices, which means that, apart from the pro-abortion Catholic Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the decisive vote in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2013 (see Irreversible By Means Merely Human), one or more of the other four remaining “conservative” justices, each of whom is a Catholic (Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), also decided not to docket the case. Those four “conservative” justices would have been all it took for the high court to schedule a hearing. One or more of those decided to take a pass on the matter.

More and more, you see, the agenda of homo-fascism is prevailing before our very eyes, something that is the inevitable result of a world that rejects and despises any mention of Christ the King, whose social reign over men and their nations is rejected and despised even by the lords of conciliarism, including, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (See No Getting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube.)

The power of the homo-fascist lobby is such that there is now a  relentless effort on the part of its sodomite leaders to hunt down, identify and then to make unemployable and socially unacceptable anyone and everyone who has contributed to campaigns in favor of even flawed referenda, such a Proposition Eight in California in 2008 (see Do You Hear The People Sing?), or who states publicly that the sin of Sodom is opposed to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.  Many are the readers of this site who have written to me over the years expressing disbelief over the fact that one can become unemployable in his chosen field of work if he holds beliefs that have been proscribed by the Thought Police.

Perhaps some of these readers will have a better, more concrete understanding of the reality of what I have been facing for many years now, principally because of having been a pro-life activist in the 1980s and 1990s and now, of course, having made the “hate group” list of the Southern Poverty Law Center (see Chopped Liver No More, To Advocate Christ The King, Nothing Else and Chopped Liver No More Update) upon considering the case of Brendan Eich, who was dismissed from his position as the Chief Executive Officer of Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is an alternative to the diabolical pathway of internet viruses that populates the pro-abort Bill Gates’s Internet Explorer, after homo-fascists in a group billing itself as “OkCupid” him “outed” him as a contributor in support of Proposition Eight in 2008:

On Wednesday, I wrote about the Mozilla CEO in trouble for a five-year-old donation to Proposition Eight, the successful California ballot measure that banned gay marriage – if only until America’s robed rulers declared the will of the people to be “unconstitutional”. Brandon Eich is a tech genius: Aside from co-founding Mozilla and creating Firefox, he also invented JavaScript. Apparently, the disgusting homophobic hatey-hatey-hateful belief that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman is not incompatible with knowing your way around a computer.

Nevertheless, unlike Hollywood director Brett Ratner, Mr Eich declined to eat gay crow. And so yesterday he was fired. Mozilla’s chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued the usual tortured justification:

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” Baker said. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

I heard a lot of this stuff during my free-speech battles in Canada. The country’s chief censor, the late Jennifer Lynch, QC, was willing to concede that free speech was certainly a right, but it was merely one in a whole range of competing rights – such as “equality” and “diversity” – that needed to be “balanced”. What the “balancing” boils down to is that you get fired if you are an apostate from the new progressive groupthink. Underneath the agonized prose, Mitchell Baker is a bare-knuckled thug.

~It’s the thuggishness and bullying that ought to disgust people, even those who support gay marriage. My final appearances at National Review Online were a spat with my editor, Jason Lee Steorts, over “two jokes one can no longer tell on American television” that I quoted in a column on Phil Robertson’s suspension for “homophobia”. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

Second, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin on stage in Vegas throughout the Sixties and Seventies:

Frank: “How do you make a fruit cordial?”

Dino: “Be nice to him.”

Mr Steorts thought my resurrection of these ancient “slurs” was “derogatory” and “puerile”:

People who used them in different times need not be regarded as monstrous, nor must the canon be censored; we could instead feel good about having awoken to a greater civility and make generous allowances for human fallibility.

Yeah, just like Brandon Eich “awoke to a greater civility” yesterday morning. What Mr Steorts especially disliked about my column was “the slur in its borrowed concluding joke”. Which was:

How do you make a fruit cordial?

Be nice to him.

Or else.

 

But isn’t that what’s just happened to the Mozilla guy? Nobody’s asking him to have a genuine conversion. The gay enforcers don’t care if, somewhere deep down in his heart he still believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman; all that matters is that he’s not allowed to say so in public. Billions of people around the world believe as Mr Eich does, and they shouldn’t be allowed to say so in public, either – not if they want to keep their jobs.  (Celebrate Conformity!)

What Mark Steyn, the columnist who wrote this very interesting column (only an excerpt was provided above), does not realize is that the phenomenon of “political correctness,” which is being used with such savage force by the homo-fascists at this time, is nothing new. It is what must prevail when men reject the infallible teaching authority and sanctifying helps of the Catholic Church as they strive to create the “true” secular church, replete with its own “orthodoxy,” from which no one may dissent and stay employed or, at least in some cases, to be sent to jail for a “hate crime.”

Enforcing cultural orthodoxy against any claim of truth on the natural level is what got Socrates in trouble with the Sophists and it is something that the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solhenitsyn noted at Harvard University on June 6, 1978, made censorship of thought the United States of America just a variation on that found in the Union of Soviet of Socialist Republics from which he had been exiled four years before.

The late philosopher Simone Weil, who converted to Catholicism before she died on August 24, 1943, at the age of thirty-four, compared the political discourse and commercial advertising with the era of Sophists, a band of relativists who constituted a majority of thought in Athens in the Fifth Century before the Nativity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Miss Weil’s description of those early relativists, quoted by the late Dr. Russell Kirk in The Roots of American Order, is a perfection description of what passes for “thought” and “commentary” in our own era of relativism and positivism:

“It is as though we had returned to the age of Protagoras and the Sophists, the age when the art of persuasion–whose modern equivalent is advertising slogans, publicity, propaganda meetings, the press, the cinema, and radio–took the place of thought and controlled the fate of cities and accomplished coups d’etat. So the ninth book of Plato’s Republic looks like a description of contemporary events.” (Simone Weil, quoted in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.)

Relativists believe that there are no moral absolutes, that the morality of  individual acts is determined by a variety of variable factors, including, although from limited to, the motivation of those involved and the particular set of circumstances that exist at a given time. In believing that there are few, if any, moral absolutes, however, relativists demonstrate themselves to be quintessential absolutists as they believe absolutely that almost nothing, if anything, can be absolutely immoral in and of its nature. Most matters of morality simply “depend” upon circumstances and the “consciences” of the individuals involved.

Yet it is, of course, that relativists are quite dogmatic in their propagandizing in behalf of their relativism, condemning, sometimes with caustic smarminess, anyone who dares to oppose their “received” beliefs. It is then that relativists become openly absolutist as they dismiss opponents with bitter invectives, condemning them by making advertence to one shopworn slogan (“judgmental,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “racist,” “homophobic,” “patriarchal,” “haters,” “narrow-minded”) after another in order to shame them into submission to the currently prevailing beliefs of the secular magisterium that is composed of self-appointed “popes” and “popessas” such as those in OkCupid who are leading the persecution of men such as Brendan Eich.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put the matter this way at Harvard University nearly thirty-six years ago now:

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons – maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Censorship, however, has prevailed at the cultural, academic and corporate levels for a long time now. It is now being enforced by various states and localities without a word of protest from the Supreme Court of the United States of America (see Slender Threads for why this is so, although I was wrong about identifying Anthony Kennedy as the likely determinative vote on ObamaCare; that distinction was to earned by John G. Roberts).

Mr. Brendan Eich’s experience, which might prove to be career-ending in his field, is really a milder version of the persecution and harassment that others who opposed Proposition Eight, which was approved by the voters on November 4, 2008, before being overturned by the Supreme Court of the State of California, a decision ratified by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, June 26, 2013, have experienced. A listing of such cases, compiled originally by the Heritage Foundation, has been provided on a Calvinist website that is being cited merely for purposes of this information:

The following examples are direct quotes taken from a much larger list compiled by the Heritage Foundation, which provides a considerable amount of additional documentation and links. They are categorized under four headings: vandalism, harassment/hostility, violence/threats of violence, and employment jeopardization. If you don’t read the entire list, let me especially call your attention to the violence and threats of violence section of this report. Everyone really needs to make themselves aware of the true colors of the rainbow-masked thugs.

VANDALISM:

An elderly couple who put a Yes on 8 sign in their yard had a block thrown through their window.

A senior citizen who placed a pro-Prop-8 bumper sticker on her car had her car’s rear window smashed in.

One woman with a “One Man, One Woman” bumper sticker had her car keyed and tires deflated while she was in a grocery store.

One man who placed signs in his yard and stickers on his cars and motorbike reported that someone egged and floured his home three times and egged, floured, and honeyed his car twice. Someone also pushed over the man’s motorbike and scraped the bumper stickers off the back glass windows of his cars.

Vandals spray-painted vehicles, garages, fences, and Yes on 8 signs in Yucaipa, California.

An Alta Loma resident who placed a Yes on 8 sign in her yard found the words “love for all” and “no on 8” spray-painted on her fifth-wheel trailer.

In San Jose, vandals spray painted the garage doors of two homeowners who displayed signs supporting Prop 8.

Vandals also spray-painted anti-Prop 8 messages on commercial and residential buildings in Fullerton.

One woman who placed a pro-Prop 8 sign on her balcony reported finding that her staircase leading downstairs had been covered in urine. She also found a puddle of urine at the bottom of the stairs.

Orange spray paint was used to vandalize a statue of the Virgin Mary outside one church.

Swastikas and other graffiti were scrawled on the walls of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco.

Permit me to interject at this point as most f those at Most Holy Redeemer, a den of sodomites, opposed Proposition Eight, something that was attested to at the time by the church’s notorious pastor, Father Steven Meriweather:

San Francisco, Calif., Jan 6, 2009 / 05:49 am (CNA).- Opponents of Proposition 8 are suspected to have vandalized Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco over the weekend, spray-painting on the church black swastikas and the words “Ratzinger” and “Niederauer,” the respective last names of the Pope and the Archbishop of San Francisco.

Most Holy Redeemer parish, located in the predominantly homosexual Castro District of San Francisco, has been billed as a “gay-friendly” church. It has previously participated in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade and reportedly leased parish space to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of homosexuals who mockingly dress as nuns.

Responding to the vandalism, Most Holy Redeemer pastor Fr. Steve Meriweather told KCBS that his parishioners also oppose Proposition 8, a successful California ballot measure that overturned a 2008 state Supreme Court decision which imposed same-sex “marriage” on the state.

“I think it’s unfortunate that they selected our community to attack,” said Father Meriweather, “because it’s the wrong one.” (Suspected anti-Prop. 8 vandals strike.)

Back to the list found on the Calvinist website:

In San Luis Obispo, the Assembly of God Church was egged and toilet-papered, and a Mormon church had an adhesive poured onto a doormat and keypad.

Signs supporting Prop 8 were twisted into a swastika at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Riverside.

Someone used a heavy object wrapped with a Yes on 8 sign to smash the window of a pastor’s office at Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey.

According to one source, the Yes on 8 campaign estimated that approximately one-third of an estimated 25,000 signs distributed in California were stolen or vandalized before the campaign ended.

In some cases, perpetrators crossed fences and walls to steal signs or removed signs that had been securely fastened in place. One individual reported coming home late and hearing male voices outside her home.

HARASSMENT AND HOSTILITY

Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot”and using vulgar language. Sometimes harassers called at work. A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved.

Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language and offensive labels like “gay hater.” Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.”

Two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of their SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.

In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic church.

At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.”

One woman who stood near a street with a Yes on 8 sign reported that a man stopped his car and shouted at her, “You despicable filthy bag of [expletive deleted].” Other drivers circled the block and yelled things like “You [expletive deleted]” each time they drove by her. Once a car with several men stopped, and a man in the back seat opened the door and threw something at her. Another driver stopped her car and yelled, “Get the [expletive deleted] out of here. Who do you think you are, bringing that hate into my neighborhood?”

“According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet,” states one news source, “racial epithets have been used against African Americans at protests in California — with some even directed against blacks who are fighting to repeal Prop. 8.” One man, for example, reported he was called a particular racial slur twice and said the anti-Prop 8 protest he attended “was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks.” Another man reported that “he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.” (See Mozilla CEO Latest Victim of GayStapo.)

Alas, this homo-fascism is to be found throughout the nooks and crannies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s sloganeering in behalf of “mercy” towards those who live on the “existential peripheries” has extended itself in his own native Argentina to the baptism of a baby who is unfortunate enough to be in the custody of two lesbians, who boldly kissed each other after the ceremony, which was approved the conciliar “Archbishop” of Cordoba, Argentina, Jose Nanez, a friend of Jorge’s.

Here is a report found on the antisedevacantist Tradition in Action website (whose writers might want to read and take seriously Novus Ordo Watch’s important discovery and publication in English of Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, and Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888: Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position):

CHARLOTTE — The Dominican sister who gave a presentation on sexuality to students at Charlotte Catholic High School that sparked controversy among students and parents last month is taking a sabbatical from teaching and cancelling her other speaking engagements.

The presentation March 21 by Dominican Sister Jane Dominic Laurel of Nashville, Tenn., entitled “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift,” drew the ire of hundreds of students and parents over the past two weeks, and their emotions boiled over during a parents meeting with school and diocesan leaders Wednesday night.

Sister Jane has a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, and her presentation at Charlotte Catholic was based on a series of instructional videos she created for Aquinas College in Nashville where she is an associate professor. She gave similar talks to youths and parents at St. Mark Church in Huntersville on March 23 and gave a related talk at Charlotte Catholic High School last fall.

In an April 4 statement, the president of Aquinas College defended the school’s curriculum and Sister Jane’s credentials as a theologian, but acknowledged that the portion of Sister Jane’s presentation of social science data about the alleged causes of same-sex attraction – which prompted many of the concerns from parents and students – was outside the scope of her academic background.

Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith’s statement reads, in full:

 

“The events around the recent talk by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, O.P. in Charlotte, NC have produced a great deal of speculation from many sides. Among the commentators, there are few who were actually present to hear the talk, which was not recorded.

 

“It is the firm belief of Aquinas College that all men and women are created in God’s image and likeness and are made with a capacity to love and be loved. The College supports the Catholic Church’s teachings which are open to the diverse needs and desires of all, which must be considered in light of eternal truths.

 

“We support and affirm that every man and woman, regardless of his or her state in life, deserve respect, and that the health of any culture is gauged according to the capacity of its members to uphold their own beliefs while respecting the beliefs of others. The College’s patron, St. Thomas Aquinas, was known for his ability to thoughtfully consider all things and retain what is true, regardless of the source of that truth.

 

“We believe it is our privilege to bring the best aspects of our faith tradition to bear on the moral and cultural questions of the present age. In her presentation, Sister Jane Dominic spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals. Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise. Sister is a trained theologian from a Pontifical University and has the credentials to contribute to scholarly bodies of work. This she has done in the past with distinction. The unfortunate events at Charlotte Catholic High School are not representative of the quality of Sister’s academic contributions or the positive influence that she has had on her students. The students at Charlotte Catholic were unprepared, as were their parents, for the topic that Sister was asked to deliver. The consequence was a complete misrepresentation of the school’s intention to bring a message that would enlighten and bring freedom and peace.

 

“There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments. The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome and wishes to reiterate that this is not something the College condones or desires to create. There is division where there should be unity. The events and discussions that have transpired over the last two weeks reflect that there is something in this that surpasses an ordinary high school assembly.

 

“Sister Jane Dominic has cancelled her speaking engagements and, at her request, is preparing to begin a sabbatical from teaching at Aquinas College. It is our sincere hope that the community of Charlotte Catholic High School will soon begin a process of healing and renewal, and that all who have been affected by this event will be drawn into profound reconciliation as we approach this great season that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

 

Among the speaking dates she has cancelled, Sister Jane has withdrawn from speaking at the 2014 Diocesan Youth Conference at the Ridgecrest Conference Center near Asheville in May. (Angry Parents condemn Charlotte Catholic Student Assembly on Sexuality.)