So, the Irish have chosen madness and the abyss. Another one for the ‘astonishing but unsurprising’ file.
The Irish State has dissolved itself, and this for two reasons. First of all because it has renounced the Catholic faith that until now was enshrined in the preamble to its constitution. St Thomas Aquinas writes:-
It must never be permitted that infidels should newly gain dominion over the faithful, for this would cause scandal and be a danger to the faith. For easily those who are subject to the government of others can be changed by those under whom they live, so that they may follow their rule, unless those who are subject be of great virtue. . . . And so the Church in no way allows infidels to acquire dominion over the faithful.
This would by itself be sufficient to make the official institutions of Ireland henceforth illegitimate. But there is a second reason. The state has officially declared war on marriage and the family, abolishing marriage insofar as lies within its power. But the State is a society of families united under a common rule. By nullifying the family, as far as lies within its power, it nullifies itself; it denies its own reason for existence and so it denies or dissolves itself.
When the Moors swept over Spain, no Spanish Catholic, surely, would have supposed that those Moors who got permanent control over their particular village or town were their legitimate rulers. They were not in the same position as the pagan Roman rulers who held power from God, according to Romans 13. If the Spanish obeyed the local Moorish ruler, it was from prudence, because until a counter-attack could be organised, it was the lesser of two evils. In the same way, from now on the Irish need not obey the ‘laws’ of the ‘State’ out of justice, but only out of prudence. Heretics, apostates and lunatics do not hold power from God over the faithful.
Ideally, the remaining Catholics should officially secede from the evil pseudo-State, and find some promising young army general to help them set up a new State somewhere in Eire. I am serious. Apparently of the 43 constituencies, only Longford and Roscommon-South Leitrim voted to retain marriage. Since these are contiguous, that would seem to be the best place to found it. Maybe Poland or Hungary would help them.
Laodicea 
May 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Your sensibilities are in the right place. What few seem to comprehend about the legalization of gay marriage is the enforcement by law of the recognition of the romantic union of same sex couples as being equal to hetrosexual marriage removes the most solid and steadying universally visible societal anchor established not by human hands. It’s effects go far beyond the argument it’s proponents most commonly propound — that a same sex couple living together as a married family does not affect another’s marriage. In fact it throws all of humanity to the winds of human ideation with no existential grounding.
Truly the excrement has hit the fan.
May 24, 2015 at 4:44 pm
surfnetter77 is right. In Higgins’ manual of ethics (Man as Man), at the end of the section discussing contraception, he says that if this isn’t evil, then nothing is. Similarly the denial of the evil of homosexual acts is no less than a denial of the whole of Natural Law, from top to bottom, because it denies its principles and most manifest truths.
This is where we are: enshrining into “law” the outright denial of the true moral order.
May 24, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Yes Peter — but gay marriage is not simply a moral issue like that of “homosexual acts”. It is much more profound than that. Using the societal foundation of Constitutional Law making a same sex “family” equal on all levels to heterosexual marriage changes everything. What legalized contraception, abortion, easy divorce, etc. had eroded, legalized gay marriage has annihilated. It is impossible to fully state the importance of holding heterosexual marriage up alone as both the foundation and the pinnacle of human life on earth — just as it is impossible to the fully presage what will become of us now. As posted here in the recent past — it is the predicted “abomination of desolation in the Holy Place.”
May 25, 2015 at 1:32 pm
Well when Paul wrote Romans 13 Nero was on the throne who was clearly a lunatic. I’d like to see some more rationale on why Christians can be subject to pagan rule but not rule by other groups. It’s an interesting thesis but the distinction seems arbitrary.
May 25, 2015 at 2:59 pm
I would argue that a pagan civil power or an apostate civil power that had endured long enough to be merely pagan does indeed command obedience from the faithful wherever those command do not conflict with natural or divine law. However, in this case we face a state which directly asserts a usurped jurisdiction over the family as of right and which therefore is not a civil power at all but a totalitarian one. The same is true of communist polities which deny the existence of private property. The Roman Empire did not expressly make either of these claims. Was it a sin to act for the overthrow of the People’s Republic of Poland or the USSR? I suspect not.
May 25, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Can you give a commentary on the below written by a Cistercian monk? http://thejosias.com/2015/05/24/on-the-subject-of-civil-authority-and-on-resistance-of-tyranny/
May 26, 2015 at 5:28 pm
It’s very clear and useful. It doesn’t seem to explain how the people determine the immediate subject of civil authority, which seems like an important omission.
May 25, 2015 at 2:49 pm
With regard to the first argument: where pagan rulers are in situ, as in 1st century Rome, they are not to be deposed simply because Christians come, by conversion or immigration, to be living in their societies. St Thomas thinks that while it would be not unjust per se to depose them, the Church does not do so lest it create the impression that the Church is principally interested in temporal power. He distinguishes this from a case where infidel rulers come to power over a Catholic society.
The second argument is that the attempted abolition of marriage is an act by which a State denies its own nature, and so forfeits the right to be considered a State, just as a university would forfeit the right to be considered a university if it officially resolved that there was no difference between truth and falsity. Although Nero was mad, and was personally a practioner of pseudo-marriage, the Senate did not adopt it as a law.
May 26, 2015 at 2:51 pm
What’s the source citation for the Aquinas quote? Many thanks.
May 26, 2015 at 5:05 pm
Summa Theologiae, 2a 2ae q. 10 a. 10
May 26, 2015 at 5:30 pm
When Christians rely on legal/theological sources in regards to the legitimacy of those who support legalized gay marriage we are fighting the battle on the ground of their choosing. The argument for enforced societal recognition of same sex unions as having equal status of that of heterosexual couples is that it is existentially obvious to anyone who has good, human empathetic sensibilities. Same sex couples can be loving parents and productive members of society just as heterosexual couples can. Culture has changed –they say — and just as with slavery we must move beyond ancient abstract norms.
But far from an abstraction it is most existentially obvious that hetrosexual marriage based families is the one true basic existential norm that we have. It is “natural religion”. We all come from such unions and no matter what form and/or dysfunction our own families of origin took on, the social fabric upon which whatever peace our lives rested was a tapestry of heterosexually based kinship support groups.
By the universal definition sex is only accomplished heterosexually and is always accompanied by the possibility of procreation. It is the obvious intention behind the nature of Nature itself. All acts contrary are against Nature.
Nearly everything humans incorporate to do is “against Nature” — so what’s wrong here?
Everything.
June 26, 2015 at 9:11 pm
[…] from Washington D.C. Let the whole land-mass be shared between two entities, a real State and the pseudo-state. One cannot live with such people. They are brain-washed. They are more like zombies than human […]