"Our Catholic doctrine must be preached not by word alone but by deed...It means we must refuse to cooperate with unbelievers whenever our cooperation might be interpreted as approval...In the long run this policy will make Catholics visibly a group apart. It will attract ridicule, ostracism, and, finally, persecution. But it is our plain duty."-Rev. Paul Hanly Furfey, 1944 (Former Head of the Department of Sociology at the Catholic University of America)
The Dictatorship of Relativism:
Pope Benedict XV, in 2005, warned Catholics of the looming threat of the Dictatorship of Relativism. As you know, the Dictatorship of Relativism is an ideology that preaches the tolerance of all sorts of alternative moral values and sexual expressions. But it is also known for being utterly intolerant of those who criticize their ideology and their lifestyles. Hence, there is a kind of purposeful irony in Benedict’s choice of words; a kind of oxymoron. Dictatorship implies excessive intolerance. The term relativism, on the other hand, signifies an indiscriminate kind of tolerance. But as Judge Robert Bork once said, “non-judmentalism” eventually turns judgmentalism. I would add that this kind of judgmentalism is loaded with the kind of bigotry relativists or secular-liberals protest against. This kind of double-standard whereby tolerance is preached but intolerance is practiced is best exemplified in the gay-rights movement.
In 2006, Pope Benedict published his book, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. And once again he issued a warning that has come to fruition. He said, “Very soon it will no longer be possible to affirm that homosexuality (as the Catholic Church teaches) constitutes an objective disorder in the structure of human existence…” His prediction was put to the test with two Catholic men of high public profile- Cardinal Francis of George and Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. Recently, they both took a lot of heat for taking a stand against the tactics of the gay-rights movement and same-sex marriage.
Pope Benedict XV, in 2005, warned Catholics of the looming threat of the Dictatorship of Relativism. As you know, the Dictatorship of Relativism is an ideology that preaches the tolerance of all sorts of alternative moral values and sexual expressions. But it is also known for being utterly intolerant of those who criticize their ideology and their lifestyles. Hence, there is a kind of purposeful irony in Benedict’s choice of words; a kind of oxymoron. Dictatorship implies excessive intolerance. The term relativism, on the other hand, signifies an indiscriminate kind of tolerance. But as Judge Robert Bork once said, “non-judmentalism” eventually turns judgmentalism. I would add that this kind of judgmentalism is loaded with the kind of bigotry relativists or secular-liberals protest against. This kind of double-standard whereby tolerance is preached but intolerance is practiced is best exemplified in the gay-rights movement.
In 2006, Pope Benedict published his book, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. And once again he issued a warning that has come to fruition. He said, “Very soon it will no longer be possible to affirm that homosexuality (as the Catholic Church teaches) constitutes an objective disorder in the structure of human existence…” His prediction was put to the test with two Catholic men of high public profile- Cardinal Francis of George and Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. Recently, they both took a lot of heat for taking a stand against the tactics of the gay-rights movement and same-sex marriage.
Cardinal Francis George:As for Cardinal Francis George, on December 21st of 2011, he criticized organizers of Chicago gay-rights parade by saying, “You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholics.” As Mark Misulia from First Things reported, “The analogy was made by the Cardinal that, by planning a route for the 2012 gay pride parade that would directly conflict with or even prevent parishioners from attending mass at a downtown Chicago parish, the public demonstration of the gay activists would be comparable to more explicit anti-Catholic practices adopted by the Klan.” Later, the Cardinal added that this was “an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church.” For several days Cardinal George stuck to his guns by not recanting his original statement.
Then something happened. The gay-rights movement, along with the media, did what they do best, and that is, shut down their opposition. Evidently, Cardinal Francis George felt the heat and he retreated. As such, he went public with an apology on a local Fox News station in Chicago. He said the following: “I am truly sorry for the hurt my remarks have caused, particularly because we all have friends or family members who are gay and lesbian. This has evidently wounded a good number of people. I have family members myself who are gay and lesbian, so it's part of our lives.”
Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum:Next, we have Rick Santorum, Republican candidate for president, who attended and gave a presentation at the New England College in the state of New Hampshire on Thursday, January 5th. He too faced the heat when asked a question about his views on same-sex marriage.
A voter stepped up to the microphone and asked, “What assurances can you give New Hampshire voters that you’re not going to strip us of our Second Amendment rights?” In response, Mr. Rick Santorum tried several times to give a reasoned explanation. I say “tried” because he was interrupted several times by the audience. His essential argument was this: If some people want to propose a change to something that has existed since the founding of this country- i.e. the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman -then a persuasive argument must be made for it. With that said, if, in fact, some people want to change the legal definition of marriage to also include same-sex couples, then why not broaden that definition to include two men marrying three women or one man marrying two women or three men marrying each other? At first, a few shouted, “That is irrelevant!” But then when Santorum pressed those in the audience, amid multiple interruptions, to follow logical conclusion of their argument, some retorted, “So be it!”
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum happens to be correct on this one! In fact, there are indications that Hollywood is showing some sympathy towards polygamy. There are some sitcoms and television shows to this effect such as HBO’s “Big Love.” “Big Love” is about a polygamist and his three wives. It is going on its third season. To be sure, we are witnessing the beginning of sympathy for this lifestyle as well. And why not? If same-sex marriage ends up being accepted by most Americans, then there is no logical argument against polygamous unions.
The Logical Outcome:
In any case, at the New England College convention, Rick Santorum was firm in his position that if the audience would not let him speak, he would move on to this next question. His difficulty in finishing his answer is instructive. A dialogue with those who subscribe to the principles of secular-liberalism and gay rights is hard to come by. Quite often, the weaker one’s argument becomes the louder they shout and more disparaging they become. Indeed, their moral code is so much their own that when they are opposed by their critics they take it personally...very personally. So much so they would rather not have to endure such a disagreeable hearing. This is why challenging their position on same-sex marriage, for them, is tantamount to hate. Hence, we have the growing phenomenon of hate-crime legislation.
What is also instructive is the concession made by some in the audience that even if the legal recognition of same-sex marriage leads to the acceptance of polygamy then it is still worth recognizing. The cold sobering reality of same-sex marriage is that if it gains currency in our nation then the morality of “why not?” will accelerate the erosion of the American family. Dysfunction will become the norm. As a result, democracy, free enterprise and religion liberty- which heavily depends on the self-governing nature of the nuclear family -will cease to exist as having any cultural significance. Without this model where most U.S. citizens are introduced to self-governance and self-discipline, our nation will not know the truth of civic and political virtue. Carefully consider what Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote in 1948:
“[A] danger to a nation that does not arrest the decay of the family is the creation of a mentality that will refuse to make sacrifices, suffer trials and inconveniences for the sake of the protection of the country…The fewer sacrifices a man is required to make, the more loath he is to make those few. His luxuries will become necessities, children a burden, and ego a god…Once sacrifice is separated from the home, sacrifice is uprooted from its nation.”
In any case, at the New England College convention, Rick Santorum was firm in his position that if the audience would not let him speak, he would move on to this next question. His difficulty in finishing his answer is instructive. A dialogue with those who subscribe to the principles of secular-liberalism and gay rights is hard to come by. Quite often, the weaker one’s argument becomes the louder they shout and more disparaging they become. Indeed, their moral code is so much their own that when they are opposed by their critics they take it personally...very personally. So much so they would rather not have to endure such a disagreeable hearing. This is why challenging their position on same-sex marriage, for them, is tantamount to hate. Hence, we have the growing phenomenon of hate-crime legislation.
What is also instructive is the concession made by some in the audience that even if the legal recognition of same-sex marriage leads to the acceptance of polygamy then it is still worth recognizing. The cold sobering reality of same-sex marriage is that if it gains currency in our nation then the morality of “why not?” will accelerate the erosion of the American family. Dysfunction will become the norm. As a result, democracy, free enterprise and religion liberty- which heavily depends on the self-governing nature of the nuclear family -will cease to exist as having any cultural significance. Without this model where most U.S. citizens are introduced to self-governance and self-discipline, our nation will not know the truth of civic and political virtue. Carefully consider what Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote in 1948:
“[A] danger to a nation that does not arrest the decay of the family is the creation of a mentality that will refuse to make sacrifices, suffer trials and inconveniences for the sake of the protection of the country…The fewer sacrifices a man is required to make, the more loath he is to make those few. His luxuries will become necessities, children a burden, and ego a god…Once sacrifice is separated from the home, sacrifice is uprooted from its nation.”
Much at Stake:Returning to Cardinal Francis George, one thing I must mention is that he is one of many spiritual fathers in the Catholic Church and I am one of many spiritual sons. I speak as a spiritual son and not as a many media critic. I speak as one wants the best for our bishops and priests. After all, if they do not succeed then the mission of the Church will be seriously endangered. I am one who is very concerned about the future of America and the viability of the Catholic Church in this nation. As such, when a member of the Catholic clergy shows weakness by retreating or being silent amid scandal, we who love the Mother Church should be grieved. Simply complaining about their faults is not enough. We have a duty as spiritual sons and daughters to take up prayer and spiritual sacrifices on their behalf.
St. Augustine, in his book On Pastors, said, “There are men who want to live a good life and have already decided to do so, but are not capable of bearing sufferings even though they are ready to do good…Now it is a part of the Christian’s strength not only to do good works but also to endure evil. Weak men are those who appear to be zealous in doing good works but are unwilling or unable to endure the sufferings that threaten.” Both clergy and laity are guilty of this. We have come to believe that being Christ-bearers is a vocation without persecution. In fact, when we are besieged with disdain and are ostracized for having spoken the truth, we count it as unusual. This is why the prayers of Catholics are of the greatest necessity for their pastors. They are very much like us- weak! And like us they need to be built up with grace. As Christ said, “Without me, you can do nothing!”
Cardinal George is a shepherd of souls in a tough and ruthless city. The infamous “Chicago way” came down hard on him after he rightly and courageously compared the gay rights movement to the KKK. Sadly, he apologized for having spoken the truth. He had a weak moment. But it must be acknowledged that this weak moment, his apology, can have a demoralizing effect for faithful Catholics. It was, in my opinion, a step back in our efforts to preserve the sanctity of marriage in our country.
Concluding Thoughts:
The reason why this is worth discussing in public is because for decades the Catholic laity have been waiting and even yearning for the shepherds of the flock, their spiritual fathers, to be the courageous watchmen. “You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.” (Ezekiel 33:7) This title was used to describe the Bishops by the early Church Fathers. And in his delivery at the November USCCB assembly in 2011 on religious liberty, Bishop William Lori of Connecticut recalled the duty of U.S. Catholic bishops to be just that- watchmen! But if watchmen retreat from the wolves what will become of the sheep?
If Cardinal Francis George and Presidential candidate Rick Santorum taught us anything in recent days it is this: If we do not give witness to the Gospel and to the sanctity of marriage today, and take the hits, it will be much harder to give witness tomorrow. Pope Benedict XVI warned that very soon it will no longer be possible to affirm that homosexuality constitutes an objective disorder. But it may be the case that in the near future the proclamation of Christ as Lord and Savior will be fraught with similar restrictions; that is, if we do not persevere in our witness.
The reason why this is worth discussing in public is because for decades the Catholic laity have been waiting and even yearning for the shepherds of the flock, their spiritual fathers, to be the courageous watchmen. “You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.” (Ezekiel 33:7) This title was used to describe the Bishops by the early Church Fathers. And in his delivery at the November USCCB assembly in 2011 on religious liberty, Bishop William Lori of Connecticut recalled the duty of U.S. Catholic bishops to be just that- watchmen! But if watchmen retreat from the wolves what will become of the sheep?
If Cardinal Francis George and Presidential candidate Rick Santorum taught us anything in recent days it is this: If we do not give witness to the Gospel and to the sanctity of marriage today, and take the hits, it will be much harder to give witness tomorrow. Pope Benedict XVI warned that very soon it will no longer be possible to affirm that homosexuality constitutes an objective disorder. But it may be the case that in the near future the proclamation of Christ as Lord and Savior will be fraught with similar restrictions; that is, if we do not persevere in our witness.
