The Merging Swarm: Identifying & Preparing For The Homosexualist Agenda
By Father Timothy Sauppé, S.T.L.

The forces are merging, swarming, pressing upon the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. A specter, ever ancient and ever new and ever adamant in its persecution of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, now materialized as a post-modern weltanschauung. What force is this? The homosexualist agenda. What is a homosexualist? Any person who approves of homosexual sodomy, whether they are homosexual, or heterosexual supporters of homosexuality. Think of a Venn Diagram in which you have two overlapping circles. One side represents the homosexuals, the other heterosexuals. The overlap represents homosexualists so that not all homosexuals or heterosexuals are homosexualists, but enough have migrated to that overlapping middle that they have forced their will upon our nation. Or as Andrew Sullivan trumpeted in his 2003 New Republic cover story, “We are all Sodomites now.” It is the ultimate end game of the 1960s’ sexual revolution whose “citizen of the world” anthem is found in the lyrics of the John Lennon song, “Imagine”: no heaven above, no hell below, and no religion too, only living for the day in a classless, careless, sinless society. It is Huxley’s Brave New World. As the US Supreme Court’s decision, Obergefell v. Hodges on same-sex marriage dominates a nation of 320 million, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent may provide a sliver of a silver lining. For he notes that with this decision, whatever democratic victory the proponents of same-sex “marriage” had State by State, five lawyers usurped it and thereby ending the democratic process; and thereby casting a pall over the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage.” As no one has power over the Natural Law, which is derived from Nature and Nature’s God, Obergefell v. Hodges is the law, or rather, the secular law of the land. Justice Kennedy’s opinion bases his case for same-sex “marriage,” on four principles and traditions that rebel against the Natural Law.

The first premise that same sex marriage is based on is the “concept of individual autonomy” and the right to choose one’s mate, regardless of race. Basing same-sex “marriages” on a par with racial differences, this court (citing the Earl Warren Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia) equates being homosexual with a genetic or biological ethnicity and then conflates the two and simply makes it, that is marriage, a matter of personal choice. Since the Court allows interracial couples (male and female) to marry, then they have to (this is Obergefell v. Hodges’ argument) allow those of the same sex to marry. Can it not be pointed out that racial differences are not the same as gender differences? All the Warren Court was doing in Loving is citing the obvious. Or in Chief Justice Earl Warren's unanimous opinion:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered. (emphasis added)

The Sixth Circuit Court made this same point in 2014 and as such, it seems that all the Warren Court is doing here in Loving, is correcting an injustice that violated the Natural Law of one man wanting to marry one woman -- albeit of a different race. What the Kennedy Court does here, in their first of four arguments, is actually disregard this issue of race and make Loving all about choice. Loving, as far as the Kennedy decision is concerned, could have been about polygamy, group marriages, or interspecies marriages. The Court’s majority force the issue of being about choice and what they end up trying to do is circle the square. That is, Kennedy is forcing through an ideology. In short, it is not about race -- even though the court decision explicitly states that it is -- the marriage issue is about choice and to that extent, the Loving case is being misused for ideological purposes by the Kennedy opinion. Squaring the circle, or circling the square is not hard once the argument goes off tangent, as we will see in Kennedy's next arguments for same-sex "marriage."

The Kennedy Court’s second principle in favor of same sex “marriage” is based on two violations of the Natural Law, viz. contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965) and sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas 2003), and soppy appeal for those who are lonely. It is no wonder that Kennedy choose Griswold and Lawrence because it seems, as with the case of Roe v. Wade, these cases were contrived by the original complainants to challenge morality laws, which were upholding the Natural Law. While citing Griswold, Kennedy points out that the Constitution protects the “right of married couples to use contraception.” This is a point that he will later cite as a precedent for allowing homosexuals to engage in infertile sexual acts together. That is, the Court allows fertile couples to force their bodies to be infertile, via chemical contraceptive pills, so the Court has to now allow same-sex couples the same right to engage in sexually infertile “acts of intimacy.” The Court further notes that opposite sex couples enjoy sexual intimacy (Lawrence v. Texas) therefore they have to allow same-sex couples the same “right” to sexual intimacy, all the while using the euphemisms “intimate conduct” and “intimate association” for acts of mutual masturbation, anal and/or oral sodomy --none of which constitutes true sexual union. The Court cannot extend “rights” when they go against the Natural Law, as it tries to do here by connecting contraceptive “rights” to the “right” of sodomy. Regarding the appeal to the universal fear of loneliness, Justice Kennedy cites the right of prisoners to marry while under incarceration as well as the desire of wanting someone around to care for oneself. This is a non sequitur and, just as with the first premise citing Loving, Kennedy’s attempt at extending “rights” that violate or ignore the Natural Law, it falls flat. The Kennedy Court -- no Court -- can legitimately create rights it cannot grant. Nonetheless, Obergefell has the force and coercion of the state behind it.

In his third argument for same sex “marriage,” Kennedy appeals to “the permanency and stability [which are] important to [the] children’s best interests.” After all, “[w]ithout the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their [homosexuals’] children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.” Not to mention that these children of homosexuals, whether biological or adopted, may be “harm[ed] and humiliate[ed]” by not experiencing a legal marriage of their same sexed “parents.“ (I put parents in quotes because only one homosexual parent could possibly be biological, not both.) Here Justice Kennedy continues the façade, the charade, the legal fiction that when we are talking about same sex couples, we are talking about normal “sexual intimacy” and normal fertility too. What is extremely evident here is the lack of normalcy and yet, children are being born into or adopted into homosexual unions. “As all parties agree,” writes Justice Kennedy, “many same sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted,” as if this is a sociological fact. Just because they can create a loving or supportive “family,” does it follow that they all do or even that most do and what about the children from such homes?

To answer this question, the Witherspoon Institute published in 2014 their collection of research essays in No Differences?: How Children in Same-Sex Household Fare -- Studies from Social Science. Here they gather a growing amount of research showing that these children do not fare as well as children in a two parent—two gendered home. However, to the ideological left, such studies only confuses the issue because in the end, all that matters is the ersatz “marriage” or the appearance of normalcy--as if the child has no right to a mother and a father at the same time.

The fourth argument for same-sex “marriage” is derived from the tradition of marriage itself. Here Justice Kennedy cites Alexis de Tocqueville who was a chronicler of 19th century American life, mores, and politics. The farcical irony here is that, while Kennedy finds a reference to the centrality of marriage in the social fabric in 19th century American life, de Tocqueville’s work is mainly centered on the role of democracy in America, the very tenet that these five Justices usurp with what Justice Scalia, in his dissent, called a judicial putsch. Writing in his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts notes that the majority opinion is “deeply disheartening” because the democratic process has been ended by this decision. He says that, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”

As to the philosophical premise of the Natural Law itself, Justice Kennedy so orders its irrelevancy. While he concedes that opposition to Same Sex Marriage and holding to the traditional understanding that marriage as between a man and a woman “may long have seemed natural and just, …. it’s inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.” In short, its place in a nation’s mores is to be nullified because state supported traditional marriage “stigma[tizes] and injure[s]” same sex couples and that goes against our “basic charter.” Apparently what he is trying to say is that same sex “marriages” are as American as all the other evils the Supreme Court has legitimized: contraception, abortion, and sodomy. Licentiousness first, second, and always -- that’s the American Way for Justice Kennedy under the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process clause guaranteeing equal protection (cf. the infamous “Mystery Clause” of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992). Justice Kennedy does concede, however, that those who hold to traditional marriage, “based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, …[that] neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here [in Obergefell v. Hodges].” Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, questions whether that may prove true within the body politic, as this new "right" becomes the “New Orthodoxy” dominating 320 million people. Alito writes:

We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

And this may happen, despite Justice Kennedy’s assurance that the First Amendment’s protection to religious liberty will also be upheld. Kennedy writes toward the end of his opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

Someone should thank Justice Kennedy for acknowledging the First Amendment’s protection and freedom of religion, but why does he then grant future debating rights to only one side viz. the pro same-sex marriage crowd? His opinion continues, “In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.” Are those against same-sex marriage excluded from initiating such a debate? Perhaps, this is a too close reading of the text here, but given the societal impact of the court’s decision for a newly found constitutional right, it is as if the Court wants no opposition to a government imposed edict. (Is this what fascism looks like?) Surely the First Amendment right to freedom of speech will also protect those who wish to engage, “in an open and searching debate,” with those who hold to a pro-homosexual marriages! Or will those who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage, with an utmost, sincere, and divinely inspired conviction, be forever cast as the new bigots? Well, if that is the case for those who oppose same-sex marriages, it can then be argued that those who oppose traditional marriage are also religious bigots or Natural Law bigots. Perhaps, with this decision, we are all bigots now -- religious, philosophical, or homosexual.

In any event, with Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Kennedy has thrown down a challenge to a nation, and especially to people of religious and philosophical convictions, to either defend the Natural Law or quietly and politely accept the reigning political ethos of the radical individual. We must comprehend the true scale of this phenomenon. On the one hand, those who call themselves homosexuals are a rather small percentage of the population and it is not the 10% figure that is touted in the current homosexualist and mainstream media propaganda. By the Centers for Disease Control's own survey, homosexuals are 2% or less of the population ( ). However, on the other hand, the number of homosexualists is much higher and would include, of course, morally befuddled heterosexuals. What that number may be could be as high as attested by the 62% to 38% vote in the Republic of Ireland's March 15, 2015, referendum in favor of same-sex marriage. The Vatican has confirmed and defended the comments of Pietro Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, who said this Irish referendum vote was a "disaster for humanity." Raymond Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying of the Irish vote, "I mean, this is a defiance of God. It's just incredible....Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviors, they never dared to say this was marriage (cf: ).

What can the Catholic Church do now? The US Bishops, along with our Holy Father, after declaring a national day of prayer, repentance, and fasting (like he did for Peace in Syria on Sept. 7, 2013), should issue a public letter to be read out at all Masses, explaining the issues noted above and explaining the Natural Law as it applies to all individuals regardless of orientation. (Granted, the Catholic Church has not defended well its Natural Law teaching since Humanae Vitae -- why should she start now with same-sex marriages? Because uncontrolled evil has spread as a direct result of the deafening silence on Natural Law!) The letter should be open and honest regarding her opposition to contraception, abortion as contraception, and sterilization as well as to sodomy -- regardless of orientation. The letter should explain that we all labor under the effects of Original Sin, but that the Grace of Jesus Christ can help us overcome our faults and failings -- regardless of orientation. Such a letter should explain that under no circumstance can homosexual sodomy be approved for it is “intrinsically disordered” from the Natural Law of our bodies, as male and female. (cf. CCC 2357) However, for those who have these deep-seated tendencies, the Church calls for “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that every “sign of unjust discrimination” be avoided (cf. CCC 2358) and that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are both called to chastity. Such a public letter from the Bishops would provide a set of “Talking Points” to counter, rebut, or otherwise refute this current meme that being “gay” is natural. Additionally, the pro-chastity organization for those dealing with same sex attraction, Courage (founded by the late Fr. John Harvey, Oblate of St. Francis de Sales) should be promoted in every diocese (cf. ). Politically, the US Bishops should endorse the movement calling for a Convention of the States (cf. ) wherein States may attempt to amend the US Constitution (under Article 5) without Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. One such amendment could be based on the Hyde Amendment ( wherein people of conscience would be protected from supporting same sex “marriages” or involvement -- and tacit approval -- of same sex marriage through the professions such as cake bakers, photographers, wedding planners, and wedding chapels. Catholic businesses and other people of conscience should be advised to restate or strengthen their public mission statements to include their Constitutional right not to condone same sex “marriages.”

The Catholic Bishops should also be defending their pastors when they refuse giving the Holy Eucharist to same-sex couples, just as they should refuse giving Holy Eucharist to those publicly known to be living in the sin of fornication or adultery under Canon 915. The letter should state that Catholic priests are pastors of souls first and foremost and that they have a special and devote duty to defend the reception of the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege. Any public notice as to a same-sex relationships, such as newspaper or internet obituary, constitutes public (and under Canon Law, notorious) knowledge, and it then becomes the pastor’s responsibility to make known beforehand that Holy Communion is only open to practicing Catholics who are prepared for its reception. At the very least, the Catholic Church should withdraw from being a public relator of any civil marriages. The Church should only recognize the sacramentality of Matrimony as being between one man and one woman and leave the civil issue to the courthouse. Also, we should exclusively start calling it Matrimony--as its root comes from “matron or mater”; and the word better acknowledges the Natural Law bonding of mothers with fathers.

As for Catholic families, they will be bearing the brunt of this culture war. Their children, our Catholic children, will be facing an onslaught of opposition from the merging swarm. The secular society is going to try and blot out the Natural Law from the public square. The public schools will be the first promoters of this evil. To avert internal conflict in children who tend to give teachers awe and complete obedience ("My teacher says so."), Catholic children should be trained in chastity and the Christian virtue of modesty, not to mention critical thinking. They should be strongly warned that, via Original Sin, concupiscence affects us all and that one’s passions, sexual or otherwise, can affect our use of reason as to the truth of the Natural Law. They should be warned against evil persuasions regarding sodomy via the modern pop culture and media and that families should follow Pope Francis’ lead and give up watching general TV, cable or satellite unless they censure their viewing habits. Families should be trained to avoid any vicious custom and corrupt habits that this new ruling will be manifesting over and within our society. And finally, while same sex attraction is not a sin in itself, it is profoundly and intrinsically disordered, and, if acted upon, is objectively sinful. (cf. Romans 1).

Catholic families, husbands and wives should be urged to do a reality check of their lives against the Church’s teachings on the Natural Law. How have they conformed themselves regarding chemical contraceptive usage, sterilization, in vitro fertilization? Have they been as generous as they can be to bringing new life into the world? How have they made their home into a domestic church, as advocated by the Second Vatican Council? How have they limited the evil effects coming from various media outlets from television, to cable TV, to the Internet? Have Catholic families had their homes blessed or have otherwise consecrated themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Do they pray together the rosary, the Angelus, the Holy Scriptures, and pray before and after meals as Pope Francis recently requested? Have they committed themselves to a sacramental lifestyle by attending Sunday Mass and regular sacramental confessions? Have they removed themselves from the near occasion of sin? Do they commit themselves to the corporal and spiritual works of mercy (cf. CCC 2447)? In short, are they truly living the Catholic Christian Faith in all its fervor or have they slid into lukewarm spirituality and are no different than their secular pagan neighbor? Keep in mind, this new civil “right” for same sex “marriage,” is for an estimated homosexual population of less than 2% of the population. It was pushed through by loud public support of those we have identified as homosexualists. The "victory" of these in the service of evil will work it way through every secular institution and impact all religious ones. Politically correct and safe from critique, the homosexualists’ agenda is a real threat to hearth, kith and kin. Certain members of the political class, up until a few years ago, once supported traditional marriage but have now flipped with the changing winds (e.g. Bill & Hillary Clinton, and Barack Hussein Obama). The rapid rise of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is ubiquitous within the Western pop culture, cable and television shows, and now commercials. Like those who argue against Islamaphobes, homosexualists, for their part, demand approval for sodomy and they further demand the absence of any disapproval. They will demand governmental or state protection from any criticism and are working to enshrine laws and statutes labeling such critical speech as “hate speech.” Christian Europe and the West are dying out for lack of children and the homosexualist agenda certainly cannot remedy that. They have jettisoned any Western philosophy that relies on the Natural Law and are truly post-modern and even post-pagan. Post-pagan in the sense that even the ancient pagans held to some type of morality from above -- from “the gods.” The homosexualists’ post-modern ideology is based on pure emotion or affectation -- don’t tell me whom I can or cannot “love” and don’t tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, for “I feel” this “truth” in my heart. Each homosexualist then becomes his or her own infallible source of morality and will brook no critique. “Not that there is anyone wrong with that” (A Seinfeld reference, here, playing off homosexual political correctness). But, of course, there is something wrong here.

In this essay, I have attempted to lay out the rational of Justice Kennedy, et al., as to why traditional marriage is no longer the norm and to show how faithful Catholics, Christians, and all families concerned about the truth, as found in nature, should argue back and defend themselves and traditional marriage. We are not bigots. We stand for truth. The Kennedy diktat will irk a people, a nation, whose founding principle is about freedom from tyrannical rulers; a point that Justice Kennedy may have anticipated when he underscores our First Amendment rights for religious freedom or for “philosophical premises.” In any event, Obergefell v. Hodges will be fundamentally transforming our nation but it will be doing so by way of a delusional groupthink that we can control or disregard nature and gender. It takes a Potemkim village or nation to raise such pro-homosexual children and we do not have to condone it. Finally, in a left-handed thanks to Justice Kennedy, we now have the Constitutional right not to condone same sex “marriage;” since, by philosophical premise of the Natural Law and based on our utmost “sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, [we hold that] same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” for the sake of our children, our families, and our nation!

The Pope is coming for the final days of the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia. We will have to wait and see what will happen then and what will happen at the October Synod on the Family. Until then, the coming persecutions have not yet even begun in earnest, but know that they are coming. It will tear at the Mystical Body of Christ, as surely as did the Roman flagellum, thorns, and nails on the historic body of Christ. Who will stand by the Church Crucified in the days to come?