Why We Lost the War for Marriage

The Most Expected Defeat of the Modern Age

If you're just starting your day or only now looking at the news, you've discovered the Supreme Court has legalized Gay Marriage. For me this is expected, and I think everyone in this "War" knew it would happen eventually. All we've done is grease the treads of their tanks with our blood. But I'm not here today to rail against our opposition; they will receive their reward. It does little good at this point to be angry or bitter. It's become an unfortunate calling card of conservatism and it's part of why we've lost. I'm here today to talk about why we lost. Because this is indeed a learning experience like no other. Most people my age lived through this struggle from its beginning to end, and so we have a front row seat. We just saw the movie, so we're in the perfect position to talk about it, so to speak. I'm going to list the reasons why we lost, explain them, and say what we could've done instead.

So without further ado, let's get on it.

First Error: Vatican II and the Dissolution of Christendom

 

Second Vatican Council

This is a complex issue so I will attempt to discuss it without getting into the theology of it all. Conciliarists and non, let's be honest: ever since 1958 the Faith has been in a nosedive of decline. It's been slowly declining since the Thirty Years' War but it was never really straight-up free-falling like it was after 1958. Even then this was usually due to outside factors or things no one had control over, it was hardly the result of a massive influx of internal missteps. From the destruction of churches to the sex abuse scandal the Church since 1958 has practically been a walking reason for the end of Catholicism in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Not only that but it split the Church into numerous factions who all now compete with one another regularly. Doctrinal error, questions over validity, and the downright disdain for Catholic history has been a reoccurring theme within the Church for half a century now. Bottom line it, the Catholic Church is a plague ship burning and rudderless and once the crew jumped ship the rats took over. This is the position from which the Church has tried to fight something like LGBT, a movement with mass appeal that does have itself together internally.

The Catholic Church is a hierarchical mess with no unity, no order, and no leadership. To top it off it's basically bankrupt. Financing any kind of organized resistance was impossible. To make matters worse an entire class of journalists exists who's living could be classified as damage control, except they don't so much actually repair the damage as do their damnedest to try and convince you all is well. The best part is most people actually buy it for the simple reason their minds can't wrap around the prospect of a fallen Rome, a dying religion, and the utter chaos that is ensuing without breaking. I say this with confidence as once upon a time I was one of them.

Pope S. Pius X.

Furthermore the liberalizing nature of Vatican II and its reforms opened the doors for acceptance of this sort of things; modernists in the clergy were perfectly deployed to do the work necessary to go so far as to create Catholic support for LGBT equality. Even the Church was divided on this issue, its lack of orthodoxy making it unable to fight back in any meaningful sense.

Rome fell because no one did the bloody work of trying to repair the Empire before it was too late. Much the same can be said for Catholicism in today's America and around the world; the Catholic Church is dying because no one is really trying to save it. Even among Traditionalists there exist a class of men who make money reporting on the tragedy without really doing a damn thing to stop it. Day after day they looked for a new piece to enflame their outrage-addicted reader base rather than using them to organize effective resistance. Many went so far as to attack the "moral outrage" of gamer culture.

Solution: Reform the Church

 

The Catholic Church has been in dire straits for a long time, but worse than that is we've ignored it. We've acted as though all is well and really it's not that important that we try and fix it. Many separated communities enjoy their isolated status away from the problems of the word, like little Catholic Hobbitons. Unfortunately this cannot stand, and it is time to do something about it. We can no longer sit by idly; the hour for action long since passed but if we act quickly it might not be entirely too late.

Don Carlos calling the Navarrese in 1833.

Firstly and foremost we need to get organized: the internet is a powerful tool for this. A myriad of software for communication exists and cellphones make our ability to coordinate almost instantaneous. If all else fails, good old fashioned postage will suffice. We need to call everyone together who could possibly be one of us and their leadership to form an organizational body. We have to make sure everyone theologically, philosophically, and intellectually is on the same page. We must, like the Apostles, be of one accord.

We need to start with finding good clergy. The NSIR needs pious, orthodox clergy to minister to its people. We need good theologians who are studious and equipped to cure the spread of heresy in Christendom. In short it will be best for Catholics to quit the field of battle for now and not even think about willingly returning to it until we are organized and unified. Many Catholics are even without parishes where they can receive the sacraments and be supported. The saints prophesied a time when no one in the churches would trust one another; that time is upon us now. We must fix that problem if we are to be an effective force.

When one says "Christendom" they instantly think of Europe, but the fact is Christendom is all of the Catholic world. Christendom once encompassed not only Europa but the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Pacific Islands, India, and modern-day Turkey. Everywhere Catholic peoples lived and dwelt was Christendom; their shared faith united them and together their history is ours as Catholics. Christendom began with priests converting the people; the aspects of it we love came later. We must accept that Christendom fell and must now rise up again like a phoenix, and the flames must be stoked by conversion. We have an advantage now in that we know it was done once and can be done again, and we have a plethora of resources our ancestors did not have.

The Church must be turned from its error; we must proselytize not just to the laity but to the clergy as well, but even this we cannot do until we are unified with purpose. It will take a veritable inquisition to purge our own heretical elements - racialism, fascism, national socialism, antisemitism, antiquarianism, puritanism, et al - but it will be a good testing ground for when we can reclaim what rightfully belongs to us.

As the clergy are reorganized the laity must also work together to reform the Old Guard. We must support them in their mission and take on the proper duties of the Faithful: charity, protection of the Church, whatever must be done to advance Christendom. Our duties will be manifold and ever changing, so we must be organized and ready to meet them.

Second Error: Piggybacking Secular Conservatism

Abp. John Hughes, N.Y.

 A huge contribution to our failure in America has been our attempt to "Americanize" ourselves rather than Catholicizing America. Nothing represents this more than how we shamelessly have ridden the Republican Elephant for the longest time. Prior to the Civil War one could almost classify American Catholics as apolitical due to their independence from any political party. This only fed the fires of the Know-Nothing sect of Republicans in America who accused Catholics of being direct threats to the United States due to their foreign loyalties concerning the Pontiff. While many Catholics could agree with abolition, they didn't want to vote for Know-Nothing Abolitionists. Similarly while Democrats could offer economic headway for immigrants they weren't keen on their social liberalism or the support for slavery. But with the coming of the Civil War this changed radically with Catholics overwhelmingly siding with the Republican Union. The result was the Irish Brigades who fought for the future of the union and the abolition of slavery, playing critical roles at Fredericksburg and in other places. After the war Catholics became much more politically active, having proved there loyalty to the Union. The majority of Catholics were indeed pro-union. It seemed as if the Church had finally made headway into American society. Irish patriots cleared the way through Confederate lines and into the hearts of America.

But it wouldn't take long for this situation to deteriorate. The American Church had always been somewhat divorced from Rome due to geographic limitations. This slowly became the case theologically; while not necessarily more liberal than the rest of Christendom it slowly became more accepting of unorthodox ideas. Without adequate oversight bishoprics began to engage in quite the bit of skullduggery. But all the while the faith at least remained strong and at times in places like New York the Catholic lobby was very powerful, embodied in the Saint Patrick's Day parade. Not so bad, right?

Unfortunately as Catholics became more and more happy with their new-found place in American society they became less and less aware of its dissonance with their own beliefs. The hierarchy began to directly speak on political matters in the country. Suddenly things like the Al Smith dinner became big deals in politics; the Catholic voter bloc was something that could be manipulated. Politicians took note, and the rest is history.

Social conservatism and economic "liberalism" divided Catholics for the longest time. But with Vatican II and the chaos the Conciliarists caused since, somehow people thought they could do both. Then everyone abandoned any pretense of doing either. With America going as far away from Catholicism as possible and the bishops not willing to lose the privileges they had earned, the cathedrals were silent and Catholics did as they pleased based on the poor catechism they had. Catholics voted for abortion and more with no meaningful resistance from the bishops. Furthermore they'd become so detached from their dioceses and attached to politicking and administration - on top of the cover-up of things like the sex abuse scandal and financial mismanagement - why should anyone listen to them? Even then what clergy that did take action simply clung to one political party or the other, never striking out for Catholicism's true social teaching.

The problem is that many of these parties don't represent Catholicism, nor do they wish to. They could care little for our future; we're just another religious conservative group. Many are outright disdainful of us, but if we're stupid enough to aid them in spite of this, hey, why shouldn't they exploit us? It's quite pathetic, really; one most only offer the most meager morsel of Catholic social morality and they all come to lap it up like starving dogs. All the while they sign into action laws and enact policies that go totally against our religion. It's not just conservatives, either; Democrats have long exploited Catholicism's charity to use pity-party tactics to earn our support for their own policies. To them we're just numbers; pawns in their quest for dominance, and beneath their titanic struggle our nation crumbles. A nation we call home whether we like it or not.

The result? We get dragged along and manipulated, and we don't even see victory for our trouble. Most specifically I must refer to American Conservatives and the Republicans and how it relates to the War for Marriage. How did this contribute to its failure? Simply put because the Republicans embraced a failed strategy of using the Religious Right as their vanguard in the assault on LGBT Democrats. What they failed to realize was this was the equivalent of the French attempting to use cavalry to break the Spanish Tercio, but we'll discuss the failed strategy later. The point is that these parties really had no understanding of our religion, and they practically took advantage (unknowingly most likely) of the fact that neither do most Catholics.

Solution: the NSIR

 

A Procession of the French Catholic League

Catholicism is a religion with its own philosophies: political, economic, social, and more. The Church left an indelible mark - almost like baptism - upon the Western World in terms of thought and ideas. Some things are so taken for granted we never stop to question their origin. Why should the powerhouse that not only did this but helped create the third largest empire in human history bend the knee to any sort of non-Catholic secular authority because they did something nice for us? Clovis didn't just sort of like Catholic ideas about things; he converted to the religion. Constantine didn't just think Catholicism was helpful to his empire; he legalized it and made the chi-rho the symbol of the Roman Empire.

Loyalty to a nation is one thing, but loyalty to a party? That's something else. The Catholic Church is the party for Catholics, or should be. Part and parcel for reforming the Church will be the rediscovery of our belief system and using it to guide us as we traverse these dangerous waters. Catholics have been misled and exploited long enough; it's time for action. No more will others misappropriate our faith and our culture for their policies when they do not represent us.

Third Error: A Poor Strategy

 

French Cavalry Break Themselves Upon the Tercios at Rocroi.

For the last several decades, Republicans and Conservative leadership's on-the-ground strategy has been to use the Religious Right has shock troopers in their fight against Democrats and Liberals. The problem is two-fold: for one, the "Religious Right" is not as fearsome as one might think. They are almost 100% bark and no bite. For all their "muh second amendment" posturing they pose no more threat to the current administration than a fire ant bed on the White House lawn. The Bundy Ranch debacle gave them every opportunity to start their war, but they did not take it. It seems even the most dangerous elements of the Far Right in America are only a threat to a room full of unarmed civilians; brigands to be sure, but representative of a larger threat of armed insurrection against the United States government? Don't make me laugh.

To pull away from the more militant side of things, let's look at it simply from a standpoint of a war of ideas. To debate with someone over something you must both be competent in the field you are discussing and you must be discussing the same subject. You can't debate that the sky is blue and the grass is green. You could debate that the grass is green or light green, or that the sky is actually azure and not blue, but you can't compare apples and oranges. So what secular conservatives have been trying to do is convince secular liberals of the benefits of secular conservatism through religious conservatism. Is it starting to sound stupid yet?

Perception is reality to the individual in the following sense: I am in a room. There is another person in the room with me. I do not know that the other person is there with me. Therefore, to my reality, he is not there. That does not change the fact he is real and in the room with me. Let's say a friend calls me and tells me, "Dude, there's someone in your room." I don't believe him, because as far as I know there's no one else in there with me and it's impossible there could be. Until can get me to turn around and see the other person, he will not be real to me. But in absolute reality, that person is still real.

Cover of the New Laws of 1542.

That's what it's like trying to argue for religious conservatism to a secular liberal: trying to convince someone something is somewhere without giving them adequate proof. Why on earth should a non-religious individual accept a religious person's way of thinking? It's like an American policeman going to the UK in uniform with his squad car and arresting British people for driving on the wrong side of the road. He has no jurisdiction, no authority, no power. Over an American he would on American soil, but not over a British man in the English countryside. But according to Republicans, the Yankee can arrest that Englishman all day long according to Yankee laws.

Arguing against secular law with religious law in the courts of the United States is exactly like trying to argue the superiority of apples over oranges. They are two entirely separate things and cannot be argued. Catholics did not try and counter Roman Law with their own religious canon, because it would be ridiculous in practice. They lived their lives according to their religious precepts and applied them within their own communities and were allowed to do so. Consider even further back to the Jews under Roman rule: they followed their own religious dictates and did not try to force them onto the non-Hebrew residents of Jerusalem, and according to the Imperial law they had every right to do so.

Why would someone believe the moral dictates of a religion that is not their own? Moreover, why would they follow them or support their passage into law? The same conservatives who think that civil marriage is somehow holy and the same thing as sacramental marriage (hint: it's not) would be aghast at the idea of Mormons demanding their idea of religious marriage be applied even in the state of Utah. They are horrified at the mere notion of Sharia law being applied even in areas that are 100% Muslim. How can they not see that many liberal democrats feel precisely the same about the idea of a religion they do not adhere to and see as alien being forced upon them? Furthermore, if one was to be a "conservative" in the American sense they would adhere only to the classically liberal enlightenment ideas of the Founding Fathers, who did not establish a state church, nor was the church meant to have any control over the federal government. Whatever the religious opinions of the Founding Fathers there was no piece of law in the US Constitution which stated that their laws were grounded in Christianity. If you want an example of that you can read the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, but that didn't stop them from passing gay marriage into law, because the very nature of a democratic-republican system is that the vote has all the power. If a referendum was held tomorrow to burn the Constitution in a brazier before the White House, and it passed with a majority vote, our laws say it would have to be done.

I think I've labored enough on the point: to argue with a secularist on the merits of religious law is pointless, because they likely do not even possess an unbiased and working knowledge of it. When you both live in a secular country, it is definitely pointless. On another level, if the goal was to pretend civil marriage was "sacred" in a Christian sense, why was their no protest against civil divorce (which you will recall no one in the Catholic Church cared about because they presumed their own flocks would rely on religious marriage anyway, which sadly they have not)? The Bible forbids divorce, full stop. Oh wait, but most Protestant denominations in America allow for it, and American conservatives are largely Protestant.

Solution: Conversion Through Missionary Efforts

 

Spanish Missionary Evangelizing Native Americans.

I hear even now some formulating arguments to me that America is or was a "Christian nation." Well friend, it sure was never a Catholic nation. This country was not intentionally founded upon Catholic principles and the majority of its founders were not Catholic. As such our laws, culture, and society are largely anti-Catholic or at least non-Catholic.

The historically astute person will take note that the Roman Empire did not become Catholic from the top-down. Catholics did not work to become senators or gain political power so as to achieve leverage, while they were loyal to the Empire. No, Rome became Catholic from the bottom up. The astute historian will also note largely that Western Europe left Catholicism much the same way, but we won't get into that here as it's only important in passing to illustrate the point I want to make.

Saint Paul delivering the Areopagus sermon in Athens, by Raphael, 1515.

Saint Benedict has been called the Father of Christian Europe; if that is the case, then the Apostle Paul is the Father of Christian Rome. Saint Paul made numerous sermons publicly, making the case for Catholicism to the people of the world. He wasn't the only one; all across the world the Apostles made the case for Christianity to anyone who would listen and they made converts. In this way many of the abuses of Old Rome were even discarded, such as the gladiatorial games. By the changing of hearts and minds, the Pagan world was changed to a Christian one. The sweetest thing about it all is that through it all, Pagan history was not necessarily recklessly discarded but preserved in literature as culture. Many of the pagan idols were willingly torn down by those the Apostles converted, not forcibly removed by state power.

St. Aemilianus destroyed many pagan idols and temples. Here he is shown using ropes to pull down a pagan idol, while his followers are breaking them up with picks and axes.

This has historically been the Catholic way, for what truly matters is what relies in a man's heart. The fate of his immortal soul takes precedent over all else. I once heard it argued that Christendom was not necessarily an intended creation by the Apostles, which might make it all the more glorious: these men did not set out to create a civilization, but they did anyway.

It has been remarked by clergy and laity alike that we find ourselves in a post-Christian world that is not very unlike the pre-Christian one. If such is the case would it not then make sense to repeat the method by which we created Christendom the first time? We have resources we did not have back then; 2,000 years of proof of the benevolence, majesty, and power of our faith! Against something as mighty and storied as the Roman Empire I think the Apostles might have welcomed such a thing, but they did not need it: the grace of God was sufficient.

St Patrick Preaching to the Kings.

Attacking Gay Marriage politically with religious assaults was never going to work, because most homosexuals do not believe in our religion at all. Why would they and their allies be phased at all with bible-thumping moral condemnations when they do not fear God in the first place? What has essentially been done all these years is that we have put the cart before the horse. This has been the fault of wrong theology which has lead to poor catechism which created rotten political philosophy. No, what we should have done is what we should have done this whole time: missionary outreach while protecting our own in a Benedictine fashion.

We should have done this because it's the most important thing: the salvation of souls. Furthermore, the reason the LGBT movement is a success is because of the massive appeal it has in the hearts and minds of the public. In a Catholic society such a thing would never occur simply because the mind of the people were not disposed to it. Furthermore State Marriage was unheard of, but that's another error and solution entirely.

If it follows that we want Christian policy in a democratic-republican society then it logically follows we should work to achieve it the same way our opposition has done so, by changing hearts and minds. But above political goals we must save souls. This is a difficult thing to convey and an even harder thing to understand seeing as how we've so politicized these issues, but the fact of the matter is that they are religious issues. They are issues of ideas and beliefs. The great failure of not just secular conservatives but Catholics from the Jacobites to the Carlists to the Bourbons - great and glorious they all may be - is that they failed to recognize the fact that while they may have been in the right, no one else could see that right. More important than enforcing their rights was making people believe they had them in the first place. Look no further than the LGBT for proof of this: sixty years ago the very idea of what we see now was unheard of. But the LGBT convinced people, so it's happened. They got out in the streets and refused to leave until they were heard.

'Christianization of Poland on 14 April 966' by Jan Matejko.

Now it is time for missionaries to do the same. They must go out and preach the Gospel and refuse to not be heard. It is however unnecessary to attack the institutionalization of gay marriage in this secular country. But it is an utmost necessity to convert people to Catholicism. Not only because we want our civilization to endure and be even greater than it was before, but because we must save souls. Christ did not command the foundation of Christendom, but he did command that the Gospel be preached to all nations - which lead to its formation. It is important to get the cart and horse in proper order if we expect to go anywhere. Furthermore we must stress: the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is higher than civil marriage in a sacerdotal sense. The two are not equal. Furthermore, the US is not a country based in any meaningful sense on Catholicism. Even if it was marriage would be the province of the Church, individuals, and communities and not controlled by the government. The War for Marriage would never have occurred at all.

Fourth Error: Joining the Fight At All

 

Banner of the Pilgrimage of Grace

This one might seem counter-productive entirely; what do I mean don't join the fight? Well, it's quite simple: it never was our fight to begin with. The LGBT War was always between Socially Liberal Democrats and Socially Conservative Republicans, most of whom were either Protestant or had no religious affiliation. If they were Catholic they were Conciliar, and if you ask me at the right time of day I might deny that Conciliarists are Catholic at all. I've already established neither side represents us, and the social conservatives who might have had a failed strategy to start with.

Within Roman Catholicism there are seven sacraments, one of which is indeed marriage. While the nomenclature has not always been the same the belief has always been present. For the longest time in human history marriage wasn't something the state oversaw or controlled; it was a the providence of communities, individuals, and religious authorities. It has been much this way throughout human history, and in Western Europe even after the fall of the Catholic Church in many countries Protestant denominations simply took their place in regards to domestic affairs.

Then the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution happened. More specifically, Napoleon happened.

At the height of his power as an Enlightenment Despot, Napoleon and the French were hated by pretty much the entire world. Bedazzled in imperial glory they marched across the world relentlessly on a path of conquest, smashing down the Old Order everywhere they went until at last he was pushed back and eventually exiled to an island several leagues off the coast of Africa where he died. No more passionately was this hatred felt than among Catholics, particularly French Catholics. His Concordat with the Church which offered minor legal protection to the Catholic Church in his domains earned him brownie points with the commoners - mind you this was also happening at a time when the other monarchs were trying to normalize him into the Balance of Power via marriage, so everyone was hoping things would become stable - but in Rome and among the exile Catholic French nobility and even in Austria, Russia, Spain, and the UK's highest halls of power he was still despised and looked at with a mixture of fear and loathing.

It was in the time that Napoleon published his infamous Code which bears his name and still influences the law in many places around the world. One of the major facets of this civil code was civil marriage officiated and controlled by the State. The motive was to wrest power away from the Church in the domestic sphere. During the French Revolution there was this thing called "Civism" which was being touted as the new source of all morality. Basically it means what is good for the state is a moral good, and that loyalty to the nation is the first and only loyalty of the citizen. Civism was hugely anti-Catholic, and Pro-Republic clergy were like some of the worst nightmares you've had about modernist priests. Essentially this was a slightly more tolerant and intelligent version of that, but it still hurt the Church immensely.

 

French Bonapartist Infantry Attempt to Storm a Church during the Second Siege of Zaragoza

One must consider everything that was done to the Church by Napoleon: he crafted a special tiara as a gift for the Pope just to humiliate him. He waged wars of aggression against the not just the remaining bastions of temporal Christendom but lead to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire de jure and invaded the Papal States, imprisoning the then reigning Pope. His forces had killed more than their fair share of religious and lay Catholics for their trouble as they burned their way across Europe. Particularly in Spain the resistance to Napoleon was highly religious, and Bonapartist fury against all of Spain's great venerable Catholic history was unleashed, but the Spanish gave Napoleon some of his first and greatest defeats and the Napoleonic legions were repulsed - but at great cost.

The surrender of Zaragoza by Maurice Orange.

In spite of all this, Pope Pius VII was remarkably forgiving but stern towards Napoleon. He referred to him as, "A stubborn son, but a son nonetheless." History may not be kind to Pius VII's attitude toward the Little Colonel, but he carried Catholicism through the Bonapartist Scourging and brought it out the other side strong. Nevertheless he did excommunicate Napoleon finally, and what support Napoleon had from the Catholic Church vanished. What caused this? The Napoleonic implementation of Civil Marriage. Yes, dear reader, even the crying out of the martyrs could not move Rome to action, but stealing the right of marriage away from the Catholic Church and giving it over to the state caused Napoleon's inevitable falling out in the eyes of the Catholic world. Ponder this for a moment. Civil Marriage has never been considered on par with Catholic Marriage. In fact the civilly married who convert to Catholicism must - or at least used to have to - convalidate their marriage in the Catholic Church. If this is not a clear-cut illustration of the difference between today's Conciliar Church and the one of the past I don't know what is. If there wasn't in your mind a real good solid example of how divorced the modern Catholic Church is from its own history and theology, here's one that's relevant right now and can clearly be shown to have had a negative impact on the Catholic Church. To add to the loss of Catholic faith, the vandalism of Catholic churches, the demolition of Catholic culture, the revision of Catholic history, the humiliation of the Catholic Church before its enemies, the unchecked growth of Islamic terror, financial mismanagement, and the sex abuse crisis we can add successfully dragging the Catholic Church into a political fight that was not ours but now we must suffer the consequences of defeat from. Good job, guys.

Solution: Tend to Our Own

 

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Saint Peter's High Altar.

If you haven't gotten the general idea by now, the Catholic Church is a wreck right now. The last thing we need is more problems from without when those from within would have caused it to crumble already if it hadn't been for Divine Providence. We are on borrowed time, on God's mercy - thank Heavens it be infinite. The only thing we ever should've done was, on our own, taught our faithful that homosexuality is indeed a sin but that there is no need to get involved on the marriage debate. This is not a Catholic country and we have no reasonable clout with which to at, even if we wanted to. We have no authority over civil, secular marriage. Homosexuality is a sin for Catholics and to engage in sodomy does, indeed, amount to sin. But a prerequisite for any man to be bound by the Faith is for him to be a baptized member of it; never in our history have we bound non-Catholics to our religious observances and Christendom was not a collection of moralizing, confessional police-states.

If we truly want America to be a Catholic country then we must make it one by Conversion. If we want a Catholic nation of our own, we must make one.

Conclusion

This has been a rough decade for more reasons than just gay marriage. But I hope, perhaps, this will provide some clarity on at least this hot button issue. What should you do right now? Well, I'd humbly ask you share this. I don't think it's a voice many people will here. I don't think it's a perspective most will have considered without it being shown to them. Furthermore I'd just council love and forbearance. If you know someone who is gay, pray for their conversion. If you have friends who are Conciliarist, pray for them. Pray for everyone and offer your Masses up. We need help from the Divine more than anything else.

Triumph of Faith - Christian Martyrs in the Time of Nero 65 A.D.

I know there are many now who agonize about the prospect of coming persecutions; they fear that now a great wave of persecutions will come upon them and they will suffer greatly for refusal to believe homosexuality is not a sin. Well, there is not much reason to believe that. Countries all over Europe have had legalized Gay Civil Marriage for a long time, and no persecution has come to the Catholics that live there. They still conduct their marriages how they wish without interference. They still teach their children the faith. There has been no push to force the Catholic Church to change its teaching on holy matrimony or to make them conduct gay marriages, at least not by the government. If such has not happened in countries with a stronger authoritarian tradition than America, I see no reason to believe why such things would come to pass here. I cannot foresee such a thing happening for any reason unless for some reason religious groups collectively did something horrible in the name of anti-Gay Marriage to mar the Union. Something like a bloody insurrection.

Or Secession *cough cough*

The best thing to do specifically in regards to the ruling is... ignore it. Move on with life. Continue to live as if nothing that odd has happened. Maintain your religious beliefs and live as you always have. If someone asks your opinion, tell them you believe homosexuality is a sin but that has no bearing on the law of the United States because Catholicism is not a legal voice of authority, but you do believe religious communities have a right to their beliefs and opinions, and at the same time people should not be bound to the dictates of a religion they do not follow. Anything along those lines would simplify it I think without giving offense. My only regret would be that Catholics did not adopt this position sooner; instead we embarrassed ourselves for a decade and wasted time, precious time we needed for other things.

A monumental task is before us: the reconstruction of Christendom and the conversion of the world. But if we are faithful, pious, and use history as our map for the journey we shall like the phoenix rise from the ashes more glorious than ever. But it needs men willing and ready to stoke the fires - however hot they may get - until she rises once more.