by Pauly Fongemie
May 22, 2015

We, too, wear a crown of thorns like our Savior, although, unlike His Crown, our prickly brambles do not show to the naked eye. Our agonizing crown is like His in that it is also the crown of contempt and mockery.

This unremitting indignity was once again imbedded spike by spike, as usual from a well-placed person in the media who surely ought to know better than fall for a canard from those with a vested interest in demeaning, demoralizing, and dismissing Christians as haters - those who insist that if one does not accept acts of sodomy as moral, then this automatically means, by definition, Christians who believe in the reality of Hell [for themselves, not only others] are hate mongers. In other words, it is now a sin to posit the evil of hellish sin itself.

This is not only unjust and vicious, it is irrational. If the mere insistence that sin is sin deems the one so doing a hater, then that awful person, considered evil himself - an irony and hypocrisy - would have to go around hating every single person in the world, including himself, because all men, even the just man, falls at least seven times a day, biblically speaking. To know that a human action is condemned by God is not equivalent to hating the sinner, precisely because the truth sets us free, recognizes the inner dignity of every person created by God and to hate anyone, even an enemy, is roundly condemned by God!

I always find it interesting, not just pathetic, that those who condemn hate so much seem to spout hate themselves. At least that is how they appear. I will always remember another well-known media star that used to rant on and on about those awful hate-filled pro-lifers in one sentence, and in the very next he would vehemently proclaim his hatred of them. That's right, folks, he would say, "I hate them." So much for being a role model for not hating, not to mention being disqualified for committing the actual sin he imagined in those he disagreed with! Par for the course, of course.

The entire premise is disingenuous because it is unevenly applied, in fact, almost always applied only against Christians who uphold Tradition, not the cafeteria variety, so prevalent today, even in Rome. A few examples ought to suffice:

1. While the homosexual collective promotes the concentrating on persons with this attraction, rather than the unnatural, degrading acts themselves, which serves to deflect from the nature of the actual societal sea change at hand - the lack of shame, something which is far less sinful, if at all, is rendered a new iniquity - smoking, even in private. Smoking is still legal in our locale, yet a number of retail establishments have stopped carrying these items in their inventory, The smoker now has a limited source for purchasing a cigar, for instance. Almost like the porn shop in a red light district he has to go to a smoke shop or get someone in the only grocery chain in the area to unlock a cabinet to procure a pack of cigarettes. Some employers now will not hire anyone who smokes, even if only at home - it is considered so unhealthy it is a liability. This is a bit draconian for my taste, but then I am no longer an employer. I am not a smoker and find the habit unpleasant to be around. I am only using this case as a comparative lesson. There was a time when we had our senses about us and knew the danger not only to souls, but to society, of wide scale approval for unnatural acts. Today it is, Sodomy, good, smoking, bad. How far we have come, to quote the phrase!

I note that when the smoker is told he can no longer purchase his product at such and such a public establishment, he does not scream, my rights are being violated. He politely proceeds to buy smokes elsewhere. Of course, smokers are not an accredited protected class. Everyone focuses on the habit of smoking itself - how disgusting etc. The smoker himself is never considered. Hmmm ...  But with sexual perversion, we must never never focus on this aspect, a perversion that affects more than just the acts thmselves, for homosexuality is a grave disorder, but only on the rights of the persons involved. This is having it both ways, or the old double standard. Until the medical experts - so-called, that is, became politically correct, society knew that the practice of homosexuality was neither normative or healthy. Even in ancient societies, pre-Christianity, where homosexuality occurred in those rare circumstances, it was never judged normal, and where tolerated, it was expected to be a passing phase before marriage.
And it was strictly relegated to certain boundaries within social strata. [Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 6-8] Mrs. Engel further cited Fr. Enrique Rueda's The Homosexual Network, p. 252, wherein he writes: "However, in recent years, the homosexual movement has attempted to focus attention on the homosexual person as a member of a 'repressed' or 'discriminated' class rather than on his acts that are so perverse they are innately repulsive to the normal individual." Today that has changed - all discourse, civil and not so civil centers on the rights of a protected class over that of others who have no such legal safeguards over their persons, property or beliefs. Merely holding a belief constitutes a hateful act, with no consideration given to motives, sincerity, and so forth, while the favored class, the subversive in nature is heaped with all kinds of acclamations of goodness, beauty, talent, and the like. They are not only protected, they are glorified over the normative.

This is a strong signal that society is in free fall from the bond of the natural law. This descent into degradation is spiraling in concentric circles - the meltdown of respect for the community police officer - the case in Baltimore but the most prominent current example. The police, or the normative officer of law and order, peace, is now public enemy #1 and the hoodlum or thug is free to ravage and kill when and where and however he decides. The sine qua non of signals was the patently political speech of the DA there who said she heard the message of the mob and their time had arrived. This incredible announcement was preceded by the mayor telling the crowd she was giving the mob time and space to destroy property in lieu of a peaceful demonstration. Now the show political trial of the century begins this summer. It promises to be a long hot one, for certain, in more ways than one. Meanwhile the police cannot do their duty as they have been so restricted in their authority they are useless and open to attack themselves. What next, disarming them all together? Subversion is subversion and when one form is permitted the sanction of a brutal bully pulpit with which to browbeat and intimidate those who are unlike them, the "permission slip" expands to include any defiant faction with an assumed grievance, whether valid or not, disregarding the normal manner of redress. This is mob rule through fear of riotous acts and is not justice. How will those 6 police officers receive a fair trial at all, given the extensive publicity that has inflamed sentiments? Now, I don't know if one or more are guilty of any misconduct, but in the mob's mind, guilty already!

In other words, the natural law, which is the boundary for human actions alone and with one another, which law is inherent in man's very nature, by definition and hence the name of natural applied to the law, is a cohesive unity that is part of man's very dignity, his nature as a created person, subject to his Creator, not to tyrannize, but to free in the nobility of virtue, just as children are subject to their mother and father, not out of a need to dominate, but to rear young men and women of character and ability, or, to turn out sons and daughters who are civilized and not young savages.

There used to be two sexes, per the natural law of creation. Chromosomes determined sex. In those rare situations where there was some abnormality, the case was not allowed to alter reality for everyone else. Now there are said to exist at least 20 genders! And these people are not kidding!

The natural law is normative and because it is simultaneously a sphere of connected prescribed and proscribed human actions, when one or more aspects of that law are disregarded by legal mandate, the whole law unravels thread by thread until society itself is in tatters. This is what is happening before our very eyes now. Homofascism and its distortion of authentic rights is part and parcel of this willful declivity, a treacherous act of total subversion, changing the very meaning of things as they were meant to be, for a faux sense of justice and the meaninglessness of life that ultimately pervades primarily through divide and conquer, ennui resulting from constant battles to wage and then giving up. Homofascism has nothing to lose and everything to gain because the battlefield is uneven, for the two primary sides have a different arsenal to draw from, one that is honest and ethical and has limitations because of the natural law itself, and the other, no holds barred because the law is now corrupted by courts with agendas that do not arise from normative justice at all. LAWLESSNESS IS NOW THE DOMINANT FORCE IN LAW.

The irrational, the unjust, the untamed, the immoral, barbarity of all types have been unleashed like a runaway train and thus far there are no stop signs in sight. This is why a criminal can commit depraved acts in a Washington, DC home, killing an innocent child in a crime so unspeakable, the normal person can scarcely come to grips with it. This is the beginning of the continual horror picture show in our Bijou living rooms, that penultimate perturbation taking on dimensions even the most uncaring person in the world will come to rue, then it will be, alas, too late. There is no coming back from the deliberate will to sacrifice the natural law, it is a bridge too far. Only human beings who think they have the right to have contempt for those things commanded by God are so blind they cannot foresee the hideous forces they are setting free to destroy freedom itself. The end of all liberalism, by very design is tyranny, then anarchy, then annihilation. Nihilism, de facto and de jure.

To point this out is an act of love, not hate, just as an older sister warns her younger brother that there are natural consequences to breaking the rules. It is easily remedied if that transgression is but a hand in the forbidden cookie jar, but not so those transgressions that mock the meaning of natural order, law and justice and the right of sincerely formed consciences.

When the New York Times writes that Christians must be compelled to approve of sodomy and there is no uproar in the rest of the media, it's all over but the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Especially when Hilary Clinton, that icon of honesty, adored by the media, echoes the threat.

2. Toleration. What a travesty and misnomer. First it ain't mutual, but deliberately one-sided to benefit those in charge, the elite.

Does anyone seriously believe that if a bakery were owned by a sodomite and his partner, that they would cater a wedding of two devout traditional Catholics, known to oppose "gay marriage" if asked?

To ask is to answer.

It is all backwards, upside down now, the perverse trumping the normal, with contempt and contumely for the sincere Christian the electrical fuse ....

And this is why, alas and alas again, the Roman Pontiff can go on and on about sins against the environment with but an euphemistic yawn about buggery in high and low places, with "Catholic" Ireland looming into lechery heretofore unknown ....

Man thinks he can dispense with the Word of God without consequences, and now the Pope's pet theologian is telling the world we no longer have to take Christ's Words into consideration, if we don't want to. Imagine!!!!!!! This is contempt, folks, hardened, inured, damnable contempt!

The horror picture show at the Bijou and then some .... beyond words to describe ....

Three cheers for Sen. Ted Cruz who turned the tables on the media obsessed with those they think are obsessed with sin! I, too, am turning the tables on this impertinent mediapert:

"Why do you think it is a sin - hate - to uphold the reality of sin?