Before this is over, we shall “fight on the beaches”.

Promoters of unnatural sex are going to attack the Church relentlessly through the courts.  Just like a pack of hyena’s trying to take down a larger animal, they will nip and dart here and there with test cases and litigation.  They will target priests and parishes and Catholic institutions with harassing suits all designed to establish legal precedents.  Sympathetic lawyers and activist judges will help them.

Here is something I picked up from the always useful CMR:

Lesbians Demand Catholic Hospital Recognizes Their “Marriage”

Remember when we were told that the government would never force the Catholic Church to perform or recognize gay marriage?

We all knew that was a lie, right?

Well, a lesbian just filed suit against a Catholic hospital in New York for refusing to cover her “spouse” in their insurance coverage. What are the chances of a New York judge siding with the Church on this one?

The New York Post reports:

A lesbian couple from Westchester yesterday filed the first suit against a Catholic institution for refusing to recognize New York’s gay-marriage law.

The Manhattan federal court filing says the women — identified only as “Jane Roe” and “Jane Doe” — were wed Oct. 15, and that “Roe,” who’s worked at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers since 2007, later applied to add “Doe” to her medical-benefits coverage.

But the request was denied by both St. Joseph’s and its insurance administrator, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, because hospital policy excludes same-sex spouses.

The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant.

The women are seeking an injunction ordering Blue Cross Blue Shield not to acquiesce to a company that wants to deny same-sex benefits because of religious beliefs, said Jeffrey Norton, their lawyer.

[CMR’s Mat Archbold continues…]

Look folks, if it’s a “right” there’s going to be no stopping it. If you are OK with legalizing gay marriage because you say you can’t impose your religious beliefs on others, think for a second.

When women were granted the right to abort their children, it had to eventually happen that the government was going to force Catholic institutions to pay for it as is happening now under the HHS mandate. When gay “marriage” becomes legal, it’s only a matter of time before the Church is forced to recognize it.

“Rights” aren’t part time things that people or institutions can or can not recognize. They’re rights – undeniable.

We must get ready for this war, this invasion of our Church from without and vicious sabotage from within.

Before this is over, we will need a Catholic Churchill:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. irishgirl says:

    And so the battle begins….
    The absolute ‘nerve’ (or should I say, ‘gall’) of these ‘she-males’ (as FDR called the lesbian friends of his wife Eleanor)!
    Yes, we really need ‘a Catholic Churchill’. But where can we find him? Will he stand up and give us Catholics who are trying to stay faithful the stirring words and [most especially] the LEADERSHIP which we need? That he won’t ‘fold’ like a cheap carpet or a secret panel in a wall when the heat of a hostile media and a hostile culture is turned on him?
    Where are you, O ‘Catholic Churchill’?

  2. Supertradmum says:

    Gay rights and Obamacare are the possible death knells for religious based hospitals. It would have been nice if Catholics had actually studied the health care bill before it was passed. Some of us were very active politically at the time to stop it. The Supreme Court may decide if Obama care continues, as all these hospitals will not be able to say no to such travesties then.

    All of these things are connected, civil marriage, abortion and contraception legislation, to bring down the influence of the Church in society. I shall not do a Gramsci post here now, but on my blog, one can see that the kulturkampf people may win. We must fight, or be persecuted. Nothing is “inevitable” and I am tired of pacifist Catholics just giving in…we must all do our bit.

  3. Facta Non Verba says:

    More from Sir Winston, one of my favorites:

    “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”

    “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”

  4. “Before this is over, we will need a Catholic Churchill.”

    Until such a one arises, we have G.K. Chesterton.

    Dim drums throbbing, in the hills half heard,
    Where only on a nameless throne a crownless prince has stirred,
    Where, risen from a doubtful seat and half attainted stall,
    The last knight of Europe takes weapons from the wall,
    The last and lingering troubadour to whom the bird has sung,
    That once went singing southward when all the world was young.
    In that enormous silence, tiny and unafraid,
    Comes up along a winding road the noise of the Crusade.
    Strong gongs groaning as the guns boom far,
    Don John of Austria is going to the war,
    Stiff flags straining in the night-blasts cold
    In the gloom black-purple, in the glint old-gold,
    Torchlight crimson on the copper kettle-drums,
    Then the tuckets, then the trumpets, then the cannon, and he comes.
    Don John laughing in the brave beard curled,
    Spurning of his stirrups like the thrones of all the world,
    Holding his head up for a flag of all the free.
    Love-light of Spain–hurrah!
    Death-light of Africa!
    Don John of Austria
    Is riding to the sea.
    –Lepanto (experpt)


    So might rise from their graves the great heresiarchs to confound their comrades of to-day. There is nothing that the critics now affirm that we cannot call on these great witnesses to deny. The modern critic will say lightly enough that Christianity was but a reaction into asceticism and anti-natural spirituality, a dance of fakirs furious against life and love. But Manes the great mystic will answer them from his secret throne and cry, ‘These Christians have no right to be called spiritual; these Christians have no title to be called ascetics, they who compromised with the curse of life and all the filth of the family. Through them the earth is still foul with fruit and harvest and polluted with population. Theirs was no movement against nature, or my children would have carried it to triumph; but these fools renewed the world when I would have ended it with a gesture.’ And another critic will write that the Church was but the shadow of the Empire, the fad of a chance Emperor, and that it remains in Europe only as the ghost of the power of Rome. And Arius the deacon will answer out of the darkness of oblivion, `No, indeed, or the world would have followed my more reasonable religion. For mine went down before demagogues and men defying Caesar; and around my champion was the purple cloak and mine was the glory of the eagles. It was not for lack of these things that I failed.’ And yet a third modern will maintain that the creed spread only as a sort of panic of hell-fire; men everywhere attempting impossible things in fleeing from incredible vengeance; a nightmare of imaginary remorse; and such an explanation will satisfy many who see something dreadful in the doctrine of orthodoxy. And then there will go up against it the terrible voice of Tertullian, saying, ‘And why then was I cast out; and why did soft hearts and heads decide against me when I proclaimed the perdition of all sinners; and what was this power that thwarted me when I threatened all backsliders with hell? For none ever went up that hard road so far as I; and mine was the Credo Quia Impossible.’ Then there is the fourth suggestion that there was something of the Semitic secret society in the whole matter; that it was a new invasion of the nomad spirit shaking a kindlier and more comfortable paganism, its cities and its household gods; whereby the jealous monotheistic races could after all establish their jealous God. And Mahomet shall answer out of the whirlwind, the red whirlwind of the desert, ‘Who ever served the jealousy of God as I did or left him more lonely in the sky? Who ever paid more honour to Moses and Abraham or won more victories over idols and the images of paganism? And what was this thing that thrust me back with the energy of a thing alive; whose fanaticism could drive me from Sicily and tear up my deep roots out of the rock of Spain? What faith was theirs who thronged in thousands of every class a country crying out that my ruin was the will of God; and what hurled great Godfrey as from a catapult over the wall of Jerusalem, and what brought great Sobieski like a thunderbolt to the gates of Vienna? I think there was more than you fancy in the religion that has so matched itself with mine.’

    Those who would suggest that the faith was a fanaticism are doomed to an eternal perplexity. In their account it is bound to appear as fanatical for nothing, and fanatical against everything. It is ascetical and at war with ascetics, Roman and in revolt against Rome, monotheistic and fighting furiously against monotheism; harsh in its condemnation of harshness; a riddle not to be explained even as unreason. And what sort of unreason is it that seems reasonable to millions of educated Europeans through all the revolutions of some sixteen hundred years? People are not amused with a puzzle or a paradox or a mere muddle in the mind for all that time. I know of no explanation except that such a thing is not unreason but reason; that if it is fanatical it is fanatical for reason and fanatical against all the unreasonable things. That is the only explanation I can find of a thing from the first so detached and so confident, condemning things that looked so like itself, refusing help from powers that seemed so essential to its existence, sharing on its human side all the passions of the age, yet always at the supreme moment suddenly rising superior to them, never saying exactly what it was expected to say and never needing to unsay what it had said; I can find no explanation except that, like Pallas from the brain of Jove, it had indeed come forth out of the mind of God, mature and mighty and armed for judgement and for war.
    –The Everlasting Man (excerpt, part II, chapter IV, “The Witness of the Heretics”)

  5. Bob B. says:

    I can only imagine what Churchill would think of his “island” today, let alone the Western World. (He used the word “God” in his speech – a PM of Britain couldn’t (or more properly, wouldn’t) use that particular word in a speech today), especially the current PM.)

  6. Jack Hughes says:

    never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy – Winston Churchill, October 29th, Harrow School

    Do these people honestly think they can win? The Legions of Rome, Attila’s hoardes, the massed horseman of Berbers and the Khans, the Jackbooted ranks of Bismark and Napoleans armies, the legions of Lennin’s commissars and Hitler’s stormtroopers have all failed in their attempt to kill the Church; and this sorry excuse of a President thinks that he is in with a fighting chance?

    To quote Winnie the Pooh once again “Do your worst and we will do our Best

  7. TC says:

    I’m trying to think of the last US president who expressed such sentiments and it was probably Kennedy (yeah, I know):

    “We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

    “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

    “This much we pledge and more”

    Could any public figure nowadays refer being proud of our ancient heritage w/o being laughed offstage? Or paying prices & bearing burdens?

  8. Marie S. says:

    Never give up; never give in; never surrender.

    The courts will probably uphold the lawsuit, meaning not only will the hospital be compelled to pay this woman in compensation for ‘damages’, but they will be forced to the choice between material cooperation with evil or harm to their other blameless employees (e.g. dropping spousal coverage for everyone).

    Everyone needs to be prepared to make the choice. Will you serve God or Mammon?

Comments are closed.