Sorry for the poor quality picture.
This photo from c. 1880 hangs in the refectory at the Church of the Assumption in Nashville. The photographer was looking south at Capitol Hill, with the church in the foreground. If you’ve ever traveled through Europe or Latin America, you know that in most cities the church was placed in the center and often at the highest point in the city.
Isn’t it interesting that in the United States it is either a government building or a government-backed bank that took the church’s place in town? … Read the rest
There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado’s law. According to the individual respondents, Colorado can compel Phillips’ speech to prevent him from ‘denigrating the dignity’ of same-sex couples, ‘asserting their inferiority,’ and subjecting them to ‘humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.’ These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. A contrary rule would allow the government to stamp out virtually any speech at will.
“In ‘Obergefell,’ I warned that the Court’s decision would inevitably come into conflict with religious liberty, as individuals are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing ‘Obergefell’ from being used to stamp out every vestige of dissent and vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.”
Thomas doesn’t go far enough, of course. What the law should protect
A significant number of modern Catholics are consumed with revolutionary ideas about social ‘justice’, and while a smaller but equally dangerous group are obsessed with economic ‘justice’, both have adopted what is essentially humanistic materialism.
Here is an authentic Catholic approach to life:
… Read the rest
“I met a Catholic once who was the most different person I ever saw. That’s really what keeps me searching among his co-religionists. Met him on a bus going out to Chicago and he gave me his address but I lost it. Worst mistake I ever made.
This Catholic was married and about thirty. We got talking about economic security and birth control. His theory was that God is not bound by a rotten economic system and that if you did what was right and just you’d turn up with enough meals a day to keep going, and anything else that was really necessary. He kept quoting “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these things will be added unto you.” He claimed it really meant something and that he’d tested it out.
For instance, he had five kids and his economic position had all along been what you might call precarious. This was just after the depression, and he and his family had been through it without missing a meal and with a few extras at Christmas time.
His jobs hadn’t been ideal, but not bad either. He had quit twice in protest against injustices to other people; so you couldn’t say he had