Bread of Life

Bread of Life
 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. (john 6: 50)
The miracle of God’s physical presence to us at every Mass is the truest testament to Christ’s love for us and His desire for each of us to have a personal relationship with Him. Jesus Christ celebrated the first Mass with His disciples at the Last Supper, the night before He died. He commanded His disciples, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The celebration of the Mass then became the main form of worship in the early Church, as a reenactment of the Last Supper, as Christ had commanded. Each and every Mass since commemorates Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross through the Holy Eucharist. Because the Mass “re-presents” (makes present) the sacrifice on Calvary, Catholics all around the world join together to be made present in Christ’s timeless sacrifice for our sins. There is something fascinating about continuing to celebrate the same Mass—instituted by Christ and practiced by the early Church—with the whole community of Catholics around the world…and in heaven.

bread of life

Why does the Catholic Church believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist?
The Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is the belief that Jesus Christ is literally, not symbolically, present in the Holy Eucharist—body, blood, soul and divinity. Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because Jesus tells us this is true in the Bible:

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them,

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” - John 6:48-56
Furthermore, the early Church Fathers either imply or directly state that the bread and wine offered in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ. In other words, the doctrine of the Real Presence that Catholics believe today was believed by the earliest Christians 2,000 years ago!

This miracle of God’s physical presence to us at every Mass is the truest testament to Christ’s love for us and His desire for each of us to have a personal relationship with Him.

Sunday, July 19, 2015


St. Thomas Aquinas

Priest and Doctor of the Church

This excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas' Exposition on John's Gospel (Cap 10, lect. 3) is used in the Roman Catholic Divine Office of Readings, Monday of the 21st week in Ordinary Time.

I am the Good Shepherd. Surely it is fitting that Christ should be a shepherd, for just as a flock is guided and fed by a shepherd so the faithful are fed by Christ with spiritual food and with his own body and blood. The Apostle said: You were once like sheep without a shepherd, but now you have returned to the guardian and ruler of your souls. The prophet has said: As a shepherd he pastures his flock.

Christ said that the shepherd enters through the gate and that he is himself the gate as well as the shepherd. Then it is necessary that he enter through himself. By so doing, he reveals himself, and through himself he knows the Father. But we enter through him because through him we find happiness.

Take heed: no one else is the gate but Christ. Others reflect his light, but no one else is the true light. John the Baptist was not the light, but he bore witness to the light. It is said of Christ, however: He was the true light that enlightens every man. For this reason no one says that he is the gate; this title is Christ’s own.

However, he has made others shepherds and given that office to his members; for Peter was a shepherd, and so were the other apostles and all good bishops after them. Scripture says: I shall give you shepherds according to my own heart.

Although the bishops of the Church, who are her sons, are all shepherds, nevertheless Christ refers only to one person in saying: I am the Good Shepherd, because he wants to emphasize the virtue of charity. Thus, no one can be a good shepherd unless he is one with Christ in charity. Through this we become members of the true shepherd.

The duty of a good shepherd is charity; therefore Christ said: The good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. Know the difference between a good and a bad shepherd: the good shepherd cares for the welfare of his flock, but the bad shepherd cares only for his own welfare.

The Good Shepherd does not demand that shepherds lay down their lives for a real flock of sheep. But every spiritual shepherd must endure the loss of his bodily life for the salvation of the flock, since the spiritual good of the flock is more important than the bodily life of the shepherd, when danger threatens the salvation of the flock.

This is why the Lord says: The good shepherd lays down his life, that is, his physical life, for his sheep; this he does because of his authority and love. Both, in fact, are required: that they should be ruled by him, and that he should love them. The first without the second is not enough.

Christ stands out for us as the example of this teaching: If Christ laid down his life for us, so we also ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

Monday, July 6, 2015


For Catholics, when God "establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace" (CCC 600). Thus, anyone who is finally saved will have been predestined by God because it was God’s predestined plan and God’s grace that went before him and enabled him to be saved.

However, this does not mean that God has predestined anyone for hell. Indeed, the Bible cannot be any plainer than to say God is, "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pt 3:9). God wills all to be saved. To be damned, a person must willfully reject God’s "predestined plan" for his salvation (cf. CCC 2037): simple enough.

But for a Calvinist, Ephesians 2:1 declares all who are apart from Christ to be "dead in trespasses and sins." In that view, to say a man could freely choose to accept or reject God’s grace and invitation to salvation would be as ridiculous as saying a corpse could choose to raise itself from the dead. Moreover, for Jesus’ declaration that a man must be "born anew" in John 3:3 to include the freedom to reject the offer would be akin to saying a baby has a say in whether or not he will choose to be born.

Romans 9:18-22 is perhaps the favorite-among-favorites of Calvinists:

So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction . . .
Could Paul be clearer? Our salvation is entirely dependent on God’s unchangeable will. The free will of which the Catholic Church speaks is simply unbiblical. Shall we all join the local Calvinist ecclesial community, then? The answer seems—predestined.

Spiritual, Not Literal, Death

In fact, the Catholic Church agrees with the Calvinist in saying those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" do not have the power to "bring themselves back to life." Man cannot "work up" grace or faith; these are unmerited gifts from a loving God (see Eph 2:8-9). The hundreds of millions of babies the Church has baptized should suffice to make this point obvious. How many good works has a baby done to merit anything from God?

A key area, among others, where Catholics and Calvinists diverge is at the definition of "dead in trespasses and sins" and "born anew." Calvinists seem not to understand that these are metaphors. Paul is speaking of a spiritual death. Thus, the "dead" man to whom Ephesians 2:1 refers is still a human person complete with a living soul and a functioning intellect and will. No separation of soul and body requiring the reconstitution of personhood has occurred.

Moreover, by "born anew" in John 3:3, Jesus did not mean the sinner’s soul somehow ceased to exist, needing to brought into being from non-being. If this were so, then there would truly be no sense in which the sinner would be able to cooperate with God in the process.

The truth is: The soul of the unregenerate man "dead in sin" remains alive and able to know and to will (assuming we are talking about an adult convert). His soul is spiritually dead. Even though an unregenerate soul cannot merit anything from God, this does not mean he cannot cooperate with God who calls him to salvation. This seems to be what we find in the case of Saul of Tarsus. If ever a man was "dead in sin," it was Saul. Yet, in Acts 22:16, he was asked to cooperate with the grace of God in the cleansing of his sins when Ananias said to him, "rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

The Choice Is Ours

What the Calvinist misses is clear throughout the Bible. Man is truly free and God calls him to freely choose to serve or not to serve the Lord. From the famous Old Testament charge of Joshua to "choose this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," (Jo 24:15) to the very words of Jesus Christ himself, "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink" (Jn 7:37), man’s freedom to choose to obey or disobey the will of God for salvation is absolutely central to the teachings of Sacred Scripture.

But doesn’t a statement like "hath not the potter power over the clay" from Romans 9 seem awfully Calvinist? Not when we consider it is actually a reference back to Jeremiah 18:6: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? Says the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel."

If you were to take this verse out of context you might get a Calvinist interpretation of Jeremiah. However, the next four verses are enlightening, to say the least:

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-10)
Far from denying free will, Jeremiah glaringly affirms it. The same can be said of Paul. Throughout Romans and elsewhere, Paul clearly teaches all men must freely cooperate with God’s grace to be saved. For example, look at Romans 2:6-8: "[God] will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing [good works] seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life, but for those who . . . do not obey the truth . . . there will be wrath and fury."

Or try Romans 11:22: "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off."

In Romans 6:16, Paul makes clear that we must continue to obey to attain final justification: "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?" (Gk. justification).

Indeed, Jesus himself could not be any clearer in Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" As God, Jesus clearly desired to gather his children, Israel, but they would not. If the Calvinist view of predestination were true, God never willed to gather them at all. Jesus got it wrong here. If he truly willed to gather them, they would have been gathered!

Grace Is Sufficient

But what about Romans 9:18-19? "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth. Thou wilt say therefore to me: ‘Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?’" (D-R).

To be sure: there is a certain mystery involved in God’s predestined plan. We could ask many unanswerable questions. For example, why does God give more grace to some than others (see Rom 12:6, 1 Pt 4:10)? Why does God allow someone to be born and live knowing they will eventually choose to reject him and go to hell (see Rom 9:22)? This is precisely what Paul is talking about when he refers to "vessels of wrath made for destruction" (Rom 9:22).

We could go on. Why doesn’t God give the one rejecting him more grace? It may be true that if God had given more grace to someone in hell, he would have made it to heaven. The only response to questions like these truly is: "But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?" However, he errs who takes this to the point of turning God into an unjust God. Even if some are given more grace than others, everyone is given sufficient grace to be saved. That is clear in Scripture, as Titus 2:11 tells us: "the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men " If God did not give a man sufficient grace to be saved, then God would truly be unjust in condemning him. There is no mystery there at all.

The Price of Freedom

The good news is that St. Paul has already told us precisely who God "hardens" in Romans 1:24-28:

God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity . . . because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions . . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up . . .
God’s will is immutable; therefore, God’s will is always accomplished. The mistake is to reject free will because of this truth. We have already seen that it is God’s will for all to be saved (2 Pt 3:9, cf. 1 Tm 2:4, 1 Jn 2:1-2). But it is also true that some men will not be saved (cf. Mt 7:13, 25:46; Rv 21:8). This implies the freedom to choose to serve God or not (cf. Dt 28:15, Mt 19:17-22). All of this must be understood within God’s predestined plan. How do we reconcile all of this? We conclude that God’s will has an antecedent and a consequent nature. It is God’s antecedent will that all be saved. However, as a consequence of God’s gift of free will, some reject God’s antecedent will. It then becomes God’s consequent will for that soul to go to hell. God’s will is accomplished and our free will, which is revealed in Scripture, is preserved. It is God’s predestined plan for us to have free will (CCC 600).

Tim Staplesis Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of...


Thursday, June 25, 2015


How same-sex “marriage” advocates use violence against traditional marriage supporters

In this newly released video, volunteers with the American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) describe how they were violently assaulted by pro-homosexual "marriage" advocates while promoting traditional marriage on college campuses and in the public square.

"That empty slogan about tolerance comes crashing down after you see how TFP volunteers were criminally assaulted by same-sex 'marriage' advocates," said TFP Student Action Director John Ritchie.

"The video speaks for itself. They don't tolerate God's marriage. In fact, our volunteers have been bullied, pepper sprayed, hit with glass bottles, sprayed with pesticide, punched, and spit on for peacefully stating that marriage is what it is – the union between one man and one woman."

"When you watch same-sex 'marriage' activists destroy your signs, desecrate the Bible, blaspheme, and burn your literature, it becomes clear that the homosexual agenda is not really about tolerance," Ritchie said. "It's about the formation of a strange dictatorship – a dictatorship of pseudo-tolerance and make-believe equality – where freedom of speech is only allowed if it advances sinful lifestyles; where God, family values and public morality are off limits and targeted for destruction."

Subscribe to our weekly TFP newsletter for free and get more future videos.

Sunday, June 14, 2015


 St. Dismas receives the grace of final perseverance

Final perseverance: You can't get to heaven without it

26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Ezekiel 18:25-28

If he turns from the wickedness he has committed, and does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life.

Both the first reading from the prophet Ezekiel and the parable which our Savior offers in Matthew 21:28-32 (the parable of the two sons, the one who would not work but converted and the other who said he would work but did not) hint toward the reality that what is most important of all is the manner in which we finish. Certainly, the beginning and the middle are important, but the end or the finish makes all the difference.

In a stage of the Tour de France, it is possible for a rider or (more likely) a small group of riders to lead the day for over a hundred miles (this is called a break-away from the pelaton); however, it almost always happens that the main pack of riders (i.e. the pelaton) will catch this small break-away with less than a mile to go before the finish. Having led the stage for all those miles, the break-away group will lose all hope of victory in just the last minutes of the several hour long day of racing. What is most important is how one finishes.

So it is with the life of grace. Certainly, it is important to start well and to live in Christ’s grace throughout life, but what is most important of all is to die well, to finish well, to complete one’s life with the grace of final perseverance. This alone will bring us to heaven: We simply must die in the state of grace.

However, the Church teaches that we cannot merit this grace, not even by a holy life. How then do we gain perseverance and eternal salvation?

We cannot merit the grace of final perseverance

Final perseverance is the preservation of the state of grace until the end of life. It is the final grace which is necessary for salvation. It is by final perseverance that a man dies in the state of grace and is ultimately to be admitted into heaven. Without the grace of final perseverance, a man would certainly be damned.

The decree on justification from the Council of Trent (session six) speaks of the grace of final perseverance and states that this special gift “cannot be derived from any other but him [i.e. God]” (chapter 13). Further canon 22 of the same session teaches that: “If anyone says, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God [i.e. without the grace of final perseverance], in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.” This is the point of the Council’s teaching: Without the grace of final perseverance, which can be given by God alone and is not obtained through human merit, a man cannot possibly be saved. However, with that grace, a man’s salvation is certain and most sure.

But why is it impossible to merit final perseverance? St. Thomas explains: “What we merit, we obtain from God, unless it is hindered by sin. Now many have meritorious works, who do not obtain perseverance; nor can it be urged that this takes place because of the impediment of sin, since sin itself is opposed to perseverance; and thus if anyone were to merit perseverance, God would not permit him to fall into sin. Hence perseverance does not come under merit.” (ST I-II, q.114, a.9, sed contra)

The Common Doctor explains further that, while it is possible to merit the glory of heaven, this glory can be lost through sin. Indeed, it is only through the special grace of final perseverance that a man may avoid sin at the end of his life and instead persevere in grace and come into the fulfillment of the glory of heaven which he had merited through his works. Hence, while we do merit glory in heaven, we do not merit the attainment of that glory which is gained only through the grace of perseverance. Therefore, it is not possible to merit final perseverance – no matter how good a man may be, final perseverance (i.e. the actual attainment of heaven) is never gained through works. Even the just man may well fall into sin and, turning away from God at the moment of death, suffer the eternal second death.

How we gain final perseverance

If, then, we are unable to merit final perseverance through good works – if a good man may well fall away and a wicked man (by God’s grace) may be converted at the last moment – how is it that we may hope to gain this most necessary grace?

St. Thomas offers the wisest answer: “We impetrate in prayer things that we do not merit, since God hears sinners who beseech the pardon of their sins, which they do not merit, as appears from Augustine [Tract. xliv in Joan.] on John 11:31, Now we know that God doth not hear sinners, otherwise it would have been useless for the publican to say: O God, be merciful to me a sinner, Luke 18:13. So too may we impetrate of God in prayer the grace of perseverance either for ourselves or for others, although it does not fall under merit.”

We gain final perseverance through prayer, through asking and begging this special grace from our heavenly Father. This is the particular hallmark of the spirituality of St. Alphonsus Liguori. St. Alphonsus bids that at the end of every prayer period (and many more times throughout the day) we ask the good Jesus for the grace of final perseverance.

What is more, the Doctor of Morals tells us that we must recall the great love and mercy of God (especially as shown us in the mysteries of the life, death and resurrection of the Christ) and, inspired by this divine love, be strengthened to ask for the grace of perseverance in all boldness.

St. Alphonsus believed so strongly in the certainty of this daily prayer for final perseverance that he would often say: “All those who are in heaven are there for this one reason: They prayed, they asked for perseverance. All those who are in hell are there for this one reason: They did not pray and they did not ask the Lord for the grace of final perseverance.” Everything depends on this one prayer – our whole life (not only this life, but also the next) rests upon the daily petition (with confidence and love) for the grace of final perseverance.

St. Louis Marie de Montfort adds that this grace is always given to those who entrust themselves to the care and protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Servus Mariae non peribit - The slave of Mary will not perish.

What is the grace of final perseverance?

Final perseverance is, of course, that last grace which confirms us in the Lord at the moment of death. However, it is also possible to recognize the grace of final perseverance as the body of graces which we receive throughout our whole lives. St. Alphonsus argued that final perseverance is the whole string of graces leading up to the last grace.

By analogy to sports we can see that a rider in the Tour can scarcely win if he is not near the front of the pact as they come to the final miles of the stage. Likewise, we admit that the best way to die in the state of grace is to live in the state of grace.

Still, it is also good to recall that even the greatest sinners have hope for the grace of final perseverance. Consider St. Dismas, the good thief who converted in only the last hour of life and found mercy in the wounds of our Savior. The Council of Trent teaches that “all should place the firmest hope in the succor of God” – and we recall that our Lord desires not death, but life.

The saints (especially Sts. Francis de Sales and Alphonsus Liguori) consider the Lord’s great mercy and love in granting the grace of final perseverance.

When we look to the goodness of God, we cannot help but be certain of the grace of perseverance not only for ourselves but for all sinners. When we look at our wretchedness, we recognize more easily just how merciful the Lord is to be willing to extend this grace to us – and we see why we must pray daily for this special gift.

Posted by Father Ryan Erlenbush

Tuesday, June 2, 2015


10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage”" is Harmful and Must be Opposed

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Special Request: Please consider supporting TFP Student Action as a special Guardian of Truth member. Click here for details.

Other resources:

Why 'Gay Marriage' is Wrong: Answering Top 10 Objections

Is Sodomy No Longer a Sin?

Are We Still One Nation Under God?

Equality's Next Victims: Transgendering Our Children

Video: Attached by "Tolerance"

12 quotes: Why "marriage" equality will literally destroy natural marriage

To receive free pro-family updates, subscribe to our newsletter now.