Friday, March 2, 2012

Archbishop George on anti-Catholic bigotry under an lavender banner

Archbishop of Chicago Francis Cardinal George's superb essay, with my commentary.

Religious liberty and its discontents

In a TV interview on Christmas Day, I said that I feared the Chicago Gay Pride Parade this year might grow into a demonstration disruptive of Catholic freedom to assemble and worship God in the local parish church. My words surprised many and wounded others. When one says something hurtful, the only decent response is to apologize. I am particularly sorry to have hurt not only those who feel they have been personally affronted but also members of families who are struggling to maintain strong family ties with gay or lesbian sons or daughters. This is a situation I have known in my own family.
Cardinal George expressed concern that a Gay Pride Parade that passed in front of a Catholic Church during scheduled Mass might interrupt the services with acts of vandalism or violence. He said "You know, you don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism. So I think if that's what's happening, and I don't know that it is, but I would respect the local pastor's, you know, position on that."

He's right. There have been acts of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian vandalism, mockery and hatred by homosexuals (here, here, here, here, here) and actual disruption of worship (here, here, here, here).

Imagine if such tactics were used against Jews in synagogues or against blacks.

Cardinal Georges' analogy to the KKK is obvious and justified. Catholic haters even share terminology.

He explains further:

What concern prompted my remarks? Of what am I afraid? What lies behind words I am sorry to have spoken is my deep-seated concern for the liberty of the Catholic Church in our country. Is this a false fear or is our liberty becoming more restricted? Let me bring to mind a few cases in point.

If someone a year ago had told me that Catholic social service agencies in Illinois would be forbidden by law to arrange adoptions or place children in foster homes, I would have said that he or she could not be serious. If others had said that a well-established Catholic college in the archdiocese would be told by a government agency that it is no longer Catholic, I would have thought that impossible. If two years ago I had been told that Catholic hospitals and universities and other institutions that are securely part of the church’s ministry would have to insure their employees for medical “services” that are immoral, I would have thought that we were still protected against a decree that would force our institutions to close or to secularize themselves. If I had imagined that the church could not go to the aid of women who have been trafficked or of refugees needing care without offering them “the full range of reproductive services” (including abortion and sterilization), I would have dismissed the thought as a mere fantasy. If the thought had occurred that the U.S. government would attack in court the right of a church to determine who are its properly recognized ministers and who are not, it would have been dismissed as pure fancy. Similarly fanciful would have been a law, actually introduced in a State legislature, revising the church’s internal governance, taking it from priests and bishops and vesting it in committees dictated by State law. These developments have made me anxious. The church’s work with the poor and the disadvantaged, the sick and the uneducated, the hungry and the homeless has never been threatened before. Loss of these ministries, as well as a weakening of our right to govern ourselves and to worship God in an orderly and regular fashion, will affect not only Catholics but also our whole society.
The history of the West has been deeply intertwined with church-state relations. Western statutory and constitutional prohibition on entanglement between church and state was enacted primarily to protect religious independence from state power. The great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century have understood that crushing the church was essential for the consolidation of secular power.

Notice how atheists and other worshipers of state power never invoke the Establishment clause to protect religious exercise from state power. Atheists invariably use the First Amendment to suppress religious expression, never to defend it.
In previous generations, Catholics were protected against individual and organized prejudice by an exemplary legal system. In a society that is pluralistic in its moral standards, the law always provided religious exemptions and conscience clauses that protected both individuals and religious institutions. These traditional safeguards of liberty can no longer be taken for granted. Now it is the law itself that has become, in some instances, our adversary. This is a new development for Catholics in America: the legal system is being changed to remove protections for our faith and our religious liberty. Catholics risk being once again excluded from the American consensus. That is my fear.
It is a justified fear.
Bishops swear to teach and uphold the Catholic faith and to defend the liberty of the church. There have been many reasons to oppose the Catholic faith and the church that teaches and practices it. The calendar of martyrs bears witness to this opposition from age to age. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the diplomats accredited to the Holy See about contemporary situations where Catholics’ freedom of religion is endangered: “In many countries, Christians are deprived of fundamental rights and sidelined from public life; in other countries they endure violent attacks against their churches and their homes. In other parts of the world, we see policies aimed at marginalizing the role of religion in the life of society, as if it were a cause of intolerance rather than a valued contribution to education in respect for human dignity, justice and peace.”
Anti-Christian hatred and suppression is a tapestry, woven differently in different societies, but all of the same cloth. We need to recognize it for what it is. The incessant "separation of church and state" litigation and the legally-mandated violation of the conscience of Christians by the encroachment of laws based on Civic Atheism and its ideological spin-offs are mere anti-Christian bigotry, applied. It is another expression of the hate that has claimed the lives of tens of millions of Christian martyrs in the past century. In many Western countries this hate is rendered less violent (but no less fervent) by the inheritance of Christian tolerance that remains, for the time at least, in (formerly) Christian cultures.

This non-violent inheritance will not remain forever, and in many societies it will be superseded by more direct means of suppressing Christianity as moral relativism and loss of Christian ethics encroaches. It has happened in many cultures, and there is no reason to believe that we are immune from anti-Christian violence. There will, I fear, be blood.
In our age and in our country, opposition to Catholicism stems mainly from the rejection by many of our moral teaching and of the anthropology that underlies our understanding of the gift of human sexuality. The church’s moral teaching is based on the preservation and encouragement of moral goods; in our society, morality is addressed through the legal defense of individual rights. Catholics, in both private and public life, have generally worked to keep the two visions compatible with each other. Religious liberty is both a moral good and a legally protected right. Strengthening religious liberty and refraining from playing rights off against each other will help keep everyone in the American consensus. That is my hope. God bless you.

Cardinal George's warning needs to be taken seriously. We must not forget that de-Christianization is always repressive, and is often a sanguinary affair. 


  1. Still upset about having your banner removed from the auditorium I see.


  2. In Toronto we have seen our 'pride parade' transform from a rights march from St Patrick's (RC) to St James (HC) to a display of vulgarity that could only be decsribed as Bacchanalian.
    They have moved from placards and supporter marches to a no-go zone of flashers, nudists, and sex acts.
    On any other day of the year you would be arrested on grounds of public indecency.
    How does this serve to engender support for the homosexuals in our society? I does not.
    I have a homosexual in the family who refers to it as 'shame week', as in 'it's a bloody shame'. He, and I, are convinced it only reinforces a negative stereotype and lumps gays in with the a lunatic fringe.

  3. So, mockery is bad. I assume that you will now remove and apologize for your mockery of people like Jessica Ahlquist?

  4. There is a difference you fail to see, Anon.
    When a guy makes critical and even inflammatory statements on a blog on the web about the tactics of a lobbyist group (SP's) it is NOT the same as invading a religious ceremony.
    Let's use a similar, if reversed contrast.
    An atheist(s) writes a blog critical of religion and uses inflammatory language. On the other hand a 'Pastor' of a bigoted group of religious maniacs pickets the funerals of soldiers and gays saying they will burn in hell etc.
    Get it?
    There is a line of decency, and both these types of 'activists' have crossed it. They are not merely critical, angry, or even in some cases intolerant, but this second group actually inhibit the rights of the people attending the ceremony to practise their faith or lay their dead to rest in peace.
    You see?

    1. I see you didn't bother to look at the links Egnor provided to show how horribly the Catholic church is being mocked. Most of them have nothing to do with this parade, or with people invading a religious service. The only conclusion you can draw from the links included is that mockery is bad.

      Your attempted defense of Egnor's idiocy just reveals that you don't bother to check any evidence before you post. You just jump up and shriek on command.

    2. Anon,
      Is your idea of 'proof' is some sort of twisted legalism?
      I am not on trial, and I am not testifying on the subject. Nor am I acting counsel for Dr Egnor.
      I am making a comment on the blog with regards to the POST.
      Yes I saw the links. So what?
      I am not defending Mike. I don't need to.
      He is quite capable of defending himself.
      I am expressing MY opinion in the comments section.
      You might try READING the post, as opposed to have hissy fits over the photo-links.
      Drag queens dressed as nuns do not come into it, other than to illustrate the commonplace contempt of many in the so called 'gay rights' movement (that IS a mockery of the concept).
      I did not address that issue as it seems glaringly obvious.

      "You just jump up and shriek on command."
      Oh dear...and you know me so hurts that such an intimate friend would say such a thing about me. PLEASE.
      Grow up and quit projecting your hysteria onto others.