Although Governor Dayton told those in attendance that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness certainly includes the right to marry the person you love,” there was no indication that he nor the thousands of ‘marriage equality’ supporters in attendance were cognizant of the fact that the law discriminates against polygamists, pedophiles and relatives who just want to “marry the person(s) they love.”

Perhaps this embarrassing oversight didn’t cross the minds of those who voted for the law, which now defines marriage as a contract between “two people.” Then again, maybe it was intentional. Maybe those who voted in favor of the law are just a bunch of bigots. Regardless, as it stands today, Minnesota is now the 12th state in the union and 1st in the Midwest to ignore science, cast aside the biological differences between men and women, and redefine marriage along gender neutral lines.

“It is the height of irony,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, “that the Minnesota legislature decided, and the governor signed into law, the redefinition of marriage just after we celebrated the unique gifts of mothers and women on Mother’s Day.”

“Instead of strengthening [motherhood and fatherhood] the Minnesota legislature’s decision to redefine marriage weakens motherhood and fatherhood, and so strikes a blow to all children who deserve both a mother and father.”

The decision of gay rights activists to pressure Minnesota lawmakers into supporting a law they know will lead to the total loss of religious freedom and, as some LGBT activists contend, the eventual destruction of marriage all together, comes a mere six months after Minnesotans narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Although opponents of that amendment said it wasn’t necessary because Minnesota law already supported the traditional definition of marriage, their innocent-sounding claims were nothing more than duplicitous entreaties meant to trick marriage supporters into staying home and not voting.

Noting the surreptitiousness of their arguments, Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, issued a press release last week. In it, Brown claimed that marriage redefiners “always intended to redefine [marriage] at the soonest possible moment.” He later argued that “legislators who voted to redefine marriage were foolish to do so. They cast a terrible vote that damages society, tells children they don’t deserve a mother and a father, and brands supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.”

Recognizing that defenders of marriage are now facing an uphill battle, Archbishop Cordileone encouraged people to work even harder. “We know that now is the time to redouble our prayers, efforts and witness. The truth of marriage is not going away.”

“We know what it takes to work toward a culture of life even in the midst of laws that work against us,” he added. “The same is true for rebuilding a culture of marriage. No matter what the horizon may bring, we will continue in charity and truth to stand for justice and for the most vulnerable among us.”

Proponents of same-sex marriage often claim that conservatives and Catholics especially are hypocrites because Jesus loves and forgives everyone, so if we don’t recognize same-sex couples as being equivalent to heterosexuals, we are not properly emulating Jesus. Mainline Protestants and sadly, dissident Catholics, have largely embraced homosexuality based on this flawed logic. There is also a notion that in order to evangelize, we must walk among the lowly and the downtrodden and be one with them. This is only partly true.

“Marriage of the Virgin,” by Rosso Fiorentino, 1523

Jesus spent his public ministry walking, preaching, and healing amongst the poor and the sick. However, the words he gave us are not merely a commentary on the world constrained by the circumstances of that time. The fashions and follies of the world are constantly changing but Jesus was and is the living and eternal word of God made flesh. Jesus did not seek popularity or approval or fame, but spoke the truth. As Christians, we are not called to bring the brokenness of world into the Gospel and to reinterpret it according to our wishes, but rather, we are called to bring the Gospel out into the world which desperately needs to hear it.

Critics often argue that the only references to homosexuality are in the Old Testament, but ironically, the scripture reading from this past Sunday reinforces the traditional definition of marriage when the Apostles wrote to the early Christians, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from…unlawful marriage.” In this context, the “law” in question is the Law of Moses. It being the Easter Season, the reading is from the New Testament and is in perfect continuity with the many statements made by Jesus regarding adultery and marriage.

When Jesus speaks of man and woman being “joined in one flesh,” this is literally true, for in the act of procreation, man and woman are joined together in body and soul to participate in the creation of a new life. One cannot be pro-life and also support same-sex marriage, because the two concepts are so profoundly inseparable. Every child is the living and breathing expression of the sacred union of man and woman. We cannot separate marriage from procreation without separating procreation from life. Marriage in God’s plan is the source of life. The forces at work in Delaware, Rhode Island, and elsewhere are proudly and happily urging the destruction not just of marriage, but of the sacredness of life itself.

Not even the the cardinal archbishop of Washington could be bothered to utter a word of condemnation or even a tut-tut. The loudest voices for his ouster will likely come from Washington Wizards fans, but considering his stats their rationale likely won’t be his sexuality. Though some of the less cordial ones may use anti-gay slurs in voicing their displeasure.

Anyhow, I thought this factoid might be helpful in discussing the Carla Hale matter.

Bishop Watterson High School, where Carla Hale used to teach Phys Ed.

Carla Hale was a teacher at a Catholic high school. Jason Collins plays basketball.

Carla Hale worked for an organization which believes one’s personal example is the most powerful teacher; that students can look up to their teachers for an education not only in their classroom instruction but in how they live their lives in light of the Gospel.

Jason Collins plays basketball and is only a role model for those who choose to emulate him.

Carla Hale, like every other teacher at that Catholic High School, and even Bishop Campbell himself, was charged with teaching not only through classroom instruction, but also through the witness of her life. Hale, like every other teacher and even Bishop Campbell himself, is a sinner in various ways. No one is fired for simply being a sinner—no one would be left to teach. The question is not “does one sin?” but “how does one react to their own sins?”

A teacher who enters into an adulterous relationship but who is never caught cannot be fired for what no one knows about. If the affairs becomes public knowledge, it seems to me that would be grounds for a review of employment. If the person ends it, repents, and honestly, truly seeks the healing and help he or she needs not to do it again, that person could probably stay on. If that person persists in the affair and refuses to acknowledge the wrong, that person ought to be fired. It’s a matter of public witness in a Catholic setting—do you repent and accept the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Church, or do you persist and reject?

None of this, of course, applies to Jason Collins playing basketball. He does not work for an organization that is dedicated to teaching. He does not work for an organization that upholds Catholic morality and works to instill those values in the young. He gets paid to play basketball by an organization whose mission is to field a good basketball team for the entertainment of their fans. Therefore, it really does not matter that Collins has come out as gay (to tell the truth, I’m glad he did… but that’s another post).

Jason Collins still is employed because being actively, openly gay is not a barrier to playing basketball.

Carla Hale is no longer employed by the Catholic high school because embracing the homosexual lifestyle to the point of publicly listing your same-sex partner as a spouse bars one from being considered a teacher of Catholic morality.

Frankly, had Carla Hale not allowed her mother’s obituary to reference her partner as a “spouse,” or if she had accepted that the relationship was inconsistent with Catholic teaching, ended it, sought the counseling necessary to rectify some off-kilter matters in her life, and publicly apologized for the scandal, she would likely still be employed.

Campbell said earlier in the day that Hale was not fired because of her sexual orientation but because her “quasi-spousal relationship” with another woman violates the church’s moral teaching. He said Hale violated a teacher contract and Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus policy that prohibits immoral behavior and requires employees to follow general church tenets.

In an exclusive interview with The Dispatch, the bishop said diocesan officials “don’t necessarily go looking for things like that,” but Hale’s decision to name her partner in her mother’s obituary made the relationship public and initiated the termination process.

As bishop, he said, he has a “fundamental responsibility” to maintain the Catholic identity of the institutions under his purview.

“We do this in an atmosphere of care, of calm consideration, but yet out of the realization that at particular times we have to make particular decisions,” he said. “And they are difficult sometimes, but they do flow from what we believe, who we are and how we are to live.”

His Excellency, The Most Rev. Frederick Campbell, Bishop of Columbus (Catholic News Agency File Photo)

Unfortunately this is not the last word on the matter. According to the Columbus NBC affiliate, WCMH Channel 4, Hale’s attorney has formally filed a criminal complaint against the Diocese of Columbus which carries a possible penalty of up to six months in jail and has no exemption for religious organizations. That Bishop Campbell waited until now to speak publicly on the matter is evidence of how agonizing and heartbreaking this must be for him to see a former employee now lashing out against the Church.

In a bizarre side-story, an angry parent was escorted from a charity dinner with the Bishop after an outburst this past weekend. WCMH Channel 4 reports that John Petrucci supports Hale’s dismissal but was concerned about the violent threats that have been directed at Bishop Watterson High School. In response to the confrontation, a spokesman for the Diocese issued the following statement:

“During last evening’s dinner for diocesan ‘Bishop Annual Appeal’ contributors, an attendee, immediately prior to Bishop Campbell’s address, abruptly stood and began speaking regarding Carla Hale in a manner that was not understood or heard by many in attendance. While speaking, he began moving toward the Bishop in a way that concerned many in the audience.  Several attendees thought it necessary to intervene on the Bishop’s behalf, asked the man to leave, and escorted him from the event.  No extraordinary force was either required or applied in this process.

“Bishop Campbell is aware of the passions that have surrounded the Carla Hale issue and is deeply concerned about the anxiety and alarm it has created within our community.  He encourages all on either side of this subject to maintain civility and calm while the grievance process in this case moves forward.”

Given the threats that Petrucci is rightly concerned about, it is understandable that some in the audience may have thought he was a supporter of Hale. The attack on Belgian Archbishop Leonard is one recent example of the anger and hatred that is directed against the Catholic Church. The hacker group “Anonymous” has also issued threats against employees of the diocese. There will surely be worse to come for any who have the courage to defend the truth. Petrucci’s outburst illustrates how easily emotions and passions can overwhelm reason and good judgment. We must choose our words and our actions carefully.

Bishop Campbell and all who share his steadfastness will be called uncompassionate, intolerant, and hypocritical for holding fast to unpopular beliefs. However, we must remember that that love and compassion demand that we make sacrifices for the good of others. Carla Hale’s supporters who call for the Church to violate eternal truths have forgotten that compassion is not just about giving unconditionally, but that sometimes correction is needed when we go astray. The Bishop’s crozier is a reminder of this sacred duty not only to keep his sheep in the fold, but also as a rod to defend from wolves when the time comes.

Until these most recent development, the media coverage of this story has been entirely focused on Carla Hale’s supporters. However, members of the public who support Bishop Campbell and the Dioceses for upholding the Catholic faith have quietly begun to mobilize. A group of parents and students of Bishop Watterson High School has started a petition to offer prayers and encouragement to the Bishop and the Diocese. In the tribulations that lie ahead, they will need our help and our sacrifices.

Preparing the final for my Mass Communications class, I thought I should share some of what we studied about one of the biggest players in the media today: pornography. Let’s count the reasons you don’t want to look at pornography.

1. You don’t want to be addicted.

A brief look, especially for guys, opens hormonal valves that make it hard to stop, because it dumps chemicals in your brain that demand more and more (the excellent “Fight the New Drug” website explains.)

Deciding to take a quick look at pornography is like deciding to open an airplane window for a second. To do so yanks you out of your world into its world.

2. You don’t want to support the pornography industry.

The pornography industry is an unhappy place. Look at the statistics: Women in pornography are much more likely to have been child victims of sex abuse and from foster care situations than the general population. They are more often depressed, more often in abusive relationships, more often the victims of sexual assault in adulthood, and more likely to be living in poverty.

“I work in this business and I know how many girls end up in the hospital suffering from brutal scenes,” wrote one man on an adult DVD industry website. “I know how many of these teenage girls have to go to an emergency room or a 24-hour clinic with chronic [e-coli-like] infections.”

Do you think it’s wrong for the industry to take advantage of people this way? Well, it’s just as wrong for you to take advantage of them through the industry.

3. You don’t want to kill your soul.

Let’s say it: Sin is a real thing, and it really kills your soul. “Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself,” says the Catechism, No. 1861. “If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.”

For a sin to be mortal you need three things, says the Catechism: The act must be gravely wrong, and you must choose it with “full knowledge” and “complete consent.” Pornography is a “grave offense.” When you supply the other two conditions, it’s mortal.

4. You don’t want to be unable to form lasting bonds with real people.

Pornography users have a much harder time forming real, lasting, mutually satisfying bonds with real human beings. Patrick Fagan’s excellent research showed that.

As Pope John Paul put it, the opposite of love is use. To use another human being to please yourself is worse than hating them — and the more you use human beings to please yourself, the more incapable of love you become.

5. You don’t want to be creepy.

Men who are habitual users of pornography stop seeing people: They see parts. The pornography use trains them to think of people in a creepy way. They become creepy in ways that bother them, driving their self-esteem downward.

Davy Rothbart’s R-rated New York magazine piece demonstrates that.  The headline says it all about the porn addict: “He’s Just Not That Into Anyone.” But the quotes in it — for instance from John Mayer — make it clear that pornography brings people to a very creepy place.

6. Women, increasingly, hate it.

As Rothbart’s piece demonstrates, there may be a bit of a generation gap here — some women imitate pornography. Many also use it, as Patrick Fagan’s research points out. But in religious circles, a wife’s discovery that her spouse is using pornography is psychologically just as damaging as a wife’s discovery that her spouse is involved in an affair. Peter Kleponis, who works a lot with pornography addicts and assists dioceses in fighting the addiction, explained to me the “trust wound” they feel.

In Iceland, feminists are behind a push to ban online pornography and the sex industry. Feminist Gail Dines explains that especially now, pornography is far from empowering to women. Pornography increasingly is not about showing women enjoying themselves, but showing behaviors that are debasing; Gail Dines’ presentations are not for the weak-hearted.

7. You don’t want to change to suit your pornography habit.

Pornography draws users into stranger and stranger places, according to the studies Pat Fagan cites.  It also makes them less committed to their spouses, more likely to have lenient views of rape, and, as several news stories pointed out recently, makes them more open to redefining marriage.

It makes sense. As my students learn: We imitate what we see. And we are what we choose.

8. Pornography is the opposite of beauty.

Beauty is ennobling. It draws you toward goodness and truth. It inspires you to be better than you were, more loving, more caring. Pornography apes the appeal of beauty, but  — since its appeal is chemical, not spiritual — it twists it and warps it.

A friend of mine says it’s only a matter of time before the Left, which currently is accepting of pornography, turns against it. Oprah has. Salon, along with lots of pro-pornography articles, occasionally publishes pieces that ask questions like, “Did Porn Warp Me Forever?”

So, you don’t want to look at porn. You want to look at beauty. Here is a place to start: I consider this video (which includes a non-pornographic naked guy briefly) the very opposite of pornography. Let it teach you how to appreciate the vast wide world outside your computer screen.

For more information …

www.FighttheNewDrug.org is a great, dynamic site with lots of facts and testimonials.

www.flrl.org/TrueFreedom.htm offered by the Archdiocese of New York, this site includes many helpful Catholic resources for breaking free from pornography.

That, in a nutshell, is the argument that launched a thousand opinion pieces on early marriages.

Writing last month in “The Daily Princetonian,” alumni Susan Patton urged young co-eds to get busy finding a husband before their chance at marriage passed them by.

What’s followed, over the past four weeks, has been a chorus of “yeas” and “nays” in just about every major news daily and magazine in the country, some arguing for earlier marriages, others arguing against. (See here, here, and here for a sampling)

The arguments are well-intentioned. People want to stem the growing tide of single adults not committing to a primary vocation (43 percent of the U.S. population and rising), not to mention the disintegration of family life; and age is an attractive hook on which to hang one’s hat. It’s a simple, concrete solution to say that everything would be better if more people married at 23…or 43.

But it’s not the right solution.

Some people should, of course, get married at 23. Others should wait until 43. Or 83. There’s much to be said for both earlier marriages (having babies and adjusting to life with another person are easier) and later marriages (they tend to end more in death and less in divorce).

But just saying, “Marry early” or “Marry late” isn’t helpful. It doesn’t address the real reasons people aren’t marrying, and it does little to solve the larger problems marriage faces. Remember, it was our early-marrying parents and grandparents who invented the no-fault divorce culture.

So why aren’t people marrying? Why is there this new kind of vocations crisis? And how is that feeding the larger crisis in marriage itself?

1. People are busy chasing after false gods.

Most of us grew up hearing that what would make us happy was money or power, fame or “stuff,” not cuddling babies or dying to self for the good of another. We also were told to put our education and careers first, to pursue what the world thinks impressive. But we weren’t told to pursue what God thinks impressive. We weren’t encouraged to bring him into the career planning and life planning process or taught how to discern his will for our life.

The results? Men and women who spend their lives trying to measure up to everyone’s expectations, save for the one Person whose expectations actually matter. Men and women who don’t know who God made them to be or how he wants them to live. Men and women who are trapped in careers for which they’re not suited, relationships that have turned destructive, and lives that aren’t leading them to joy.

Some of those people probably should have married at 23. Others should have become priests. Or missionaries. Or missionaries who then married at 35. But because God was never allowed into the equation, they followed the wrong path. All it takes to do an about face is to let him back in. But many people aren’t doing that. They just keep walking…in the wrong direction.

2. People don’t understand what marriage is.

Over the last half-century or so, “happily ever after” became not an ending for fairy tales, but rather an expectation for marriage. Likewise, people decided looking for a spouse meant looking for a soul mate, the one person who could fulfill their every emotional and sexual desire.

And they’re still looking. They’re looking and looking and looking, but never finding the perfect fit.

Reason being? There is no perfect fit…save Jesus. In the end, he’s the only one who can completely fulfill us, who will never disappoint. Which is why the Church doesn’t teach that marriage will fulfill us. It’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to help us make the journey to the One who will fulfill us. It’s a holy calling whose ultimate purpose is to make us holy. And that doesn’t happen through long walks on the beach. It happens through feeding a crying baby at 3 a.m. or mowing the lawn when we’d rather watch the game, through forgiving when we’d rather fight and staying when we’d rather leave.

It’s those daily deaths to self—some ordinary, some extraordinary—that make both for a successful marriage and a successful journey to God. When you know that, you look for a spouse differently. You also approach marriage differently. When you don’t know that—when all you know is what Hollywood tells you—well, you just keep shopping. Or you buy but demand a refund when your purchase inevitably disappoints.

 3. People are wounded.

Chasing after false gods and looking for a spouse in all the wrong ways quickly takes its toll. Mistakes are made and wounds incurred, wounds that can make the bearers all but incapable of (or wary of) marriage.

That means we’ve now got almost an entire population of men and women from 18 to 80, who are in no shape to enter into a healthy, loving, life-giving relationship. Some don’t see that. Others do see but have no interest in changing their situation. It seems easier, safer, to just pretend the wounds aren’t there.

Obviously, that’s silly. God’s grace is rich, and his mercy is abundant. The payoff for working through our woundedness and entering into a loving marital relationship (or the priesthood or consecrated life) is a thousand times more rewarding than the comforts of just hanging out by ourselves, licking our wounds.

But if the devil is great at anything, he’s great at deceiving. And he’s deceiving a whole lot of people on that point right now.

***

That’s why people aren’t marrying and staying married like they used to. Or, at least, it’s a good part of the reason. And addressing those problems—not just advocating for legions of child brides or graying brides—is what has to happen if we want to see this new vocations crisis reversed.

The truth is, men and women who are marriage material are in short supply right now. Telling people (especially faithful Catholics) to get married at 23 is almost like telling people to win the lottery. It might be a good thing for them. Or it might not. Regardless, so much is out of our control. That’s just life in a thoroughly messed up post-Christian culture.

But that life doesn’t have to be a miserable life.

When you live your single years as God intends you to live them—faithfully, obediently, chastely, seeking truth, and making a gift of yourself to all those around you—there is wholeness. There is peace. There is joy.

At least, that’s been my experience.

Single at 38 certainly wasn’t my plan. My plan was married at 23. It hasn’t worked out that way. But you know what? I don’t have any regrets. My single years haven’t been easy. But the alternative—knowingly stepping out of God’s will—would have been much harder.

Besides, the years haven’t been wasted. They’ve been beautiful, blessed years, and if I ever do marry, every one of them will contribute to making me a better wife and mother.

So, if you’re not married at 23 or 33 or 43, don’t panic. Look to God’s will. Deepen your understanding of marriage. Don’t hurt yourself, and deal with the hurts you’ve got.

If you do all that, there’s no guarantee of a spouse. But there is a guarantee that you will be doing something real to fix the marriage crisis in our culture. Even more fundamentally, there’s the guarantee of grace. There’s the guarantee of walking side by side with Christ. And that’s the best guarantee of all.

Archbishop Vigneron and Bishop Gumbleton may be less at odds than Bishop Gumbleton seems to think.  Vigneron’s statements that some individuals should not present themselves for Communion referred to those who publicly advocate for such things as same sex marriages, or any other serious matter, such as the legalization of abortion, not to the private individual who struggles with these matters in his or her conscience, as Gumbleton seems to have in mind.

Congressman Pelosi is an excellent example of a public figure who advocates for positions seriously in conflict with Church teaching. Were the Church to forbid her communion, that would not be a punitive act, though she and others may perceive it that way.  Archbishop Vigneron forbade communion to no one.  What he requested was that Catholics who behave as Pelosi does, not present themselves for communion.  He is calling Pelosi and others to take their faith seriously and to form their consciences in accord with Church teaching.  Undoubtedly Vigneron would agree that no one can know the state of Pelosi’s conscience.  Only God can. But it is Vigneron’s responsibility to ensure that the Catholic faithful are not mislead by the actions of prominent Catholics and thus he is correct to instruct them about the wrongness of Pelosi’s positions and how her objective actions are ones that compromise her eligibility to receive Communion.  Moreover, if in fact, she is culpable for not having formed her conscience correctly, reception of the Eucharist brings her no benefit and some harm, for unworthy reception of the Eucharist is in itself a serious sin.

The eighty-year old couple mentioned by Bishop Gumbleton who have a gay son is another case entirely.  Ties of affection such as theirs can easily cloud one’s judgment.  If they are struggling to accept Church teaching (as Gumbleton suggests) they may not be subjectively guilty for their failure to accept Church teaching.  Nonetheless, even for them Vigneron’s remarks should be helpful. Any Catholic who struggles to accept Church teaching on such clear issues as the impossibility of same sex marriages or of the immorality of abortion, should be striving prayerfully to accept that teaching. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church on matters of faith and morals.  Catholics should experience great interior turmoil when their views conflict with Church teaching.  They need to pray about their eligibility to receive Communion and keep asking God to enlighten their intellects so that they can accept Church teaching.  The fact that the couple wept because they worry about their eligibility to receive Communion indicates a great love for the Eucharist and, one hopes, for the Church as well.  If they were to understand the Church’s teaching fully, they would experience much peace about how much God loves them and their son, and they could receive the Eucharist without hesitation.

My own Catholic father did not accept the Church’s teaching on the need to go to confession.  Since he knew this conflicted with Church teaching, he did not receive the Eucharist for many decades although he faithfully attended Sunday liturgy and occasionally daily mass as well.  For those long years, I prayed for him and counseled him about the Church’s teaching and finally he returned to confession and Communion.  The fact that he abided by Church teaching in respect to eligibility for receiving Communion was extremely impressive to me. I believe he received powerful graces from that fidelity. Had he received Communion without going to confession, I don’t know how efficacious the graces of the Eucharist would have been or whether he would ever have reconciled himself to confession – and been able to enjoy the powerful graces of that sacrament.

I will pray for Bishop Gumbleton that he help the eighty-year old parents understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and the Church’s teaching on worthy reception of the Eucharist. And I pray that they will be able to return to Communion, joyfully praising the Lord, the Church, and Archbishop Vigneron.

A former physical education teacher lost her job because of her relationship with another woman.

…

Apetition [sic] was created on Change.org in support of Hale as a teacher, simply requesting: “Reinstate faculty member Carla Hale and apologize for discriminating against her on the basis of sexuality.”

…

Supporters added, “It’s unfair that someone who cared so much about her students and her job should lose them on the basis of something she cannot even control.”

Not quite. A distinction anyone should be able to see plainly has been entirely ignored.

A person with homosexual tendencies and same-sex attraction who lives a chaste, celibate life would not be fired by a Catholic school for “being gay.”

A person with heterosexual tendencies who is still single and maintains a chaste, celibate life would not be fired by a Catholic school for “being straight.” Seems ridiculous to say this, yes, but it is important when setting up the parallels here.

Simply being gay is not sinful and is not grounds for dismissal anymore than being straight is. A person who is gay but maintains that chastity consonant with his or her state of life—a virtue to which we all are called, by the way, gay, straight, bi, married, single, whatever—would not be fired for being gay.

The error, the sin, the grounds for dismissal, comes when the person decides that it is appropriate and acceptable to act upon their disordered desires and then does so. Again, this applies equally to a heterosexual person who pursues extra-marital sex and cohabitation as it does to those persons who engage in same-sex relationships and pursue same-sex “marriage.”

Whether a person is born gay or not is immaterial because, contra Lady Gaga, “Born This Way” Does NOT Mean “Act This Way”. Whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual, that person has a choice whether he or she will participate in sexual relations at all at any given moment, let alone whether they will act on disordered sexual desires—again, whether disordered but basically heterosexual or disordered and basically homosexual.

This teacher was not dismissed because of something she “cannot control” but because of what she chose to do in an area she most definitely can control.

There is a difference between disposition and behavior. Between inclination and action. Between thinking something and doing something. Between desire and activity. This mighty important distinction has been utterly lost in this discussion it seems.

The Diocese of Columbus is being sued for violating the city of Columbus’ statute against discrimination, which includes sexual orientation, and has no religious exemption. Three interesting points here:

1) The fairly recent Hosanna Tabor case should be a strong argument to toss the Columbus statute and force them to re-write it with a religious exemption.

2) Since she was not fired for the simple fact of her homosexuality but because she had engaged in behavior antithetical to Catholic teaching it is possible that the statute does not actually apply at all.

3) If this statute does apply, it means homosexual activities are more protected in law than heterosexual activities because there would be no civil law preventing the Diocese of Columbus for firing a teacher who was cohabiting with an opposite-sex partner.

We shall see how this plays out, but it is another sign that the only intolerance still allowed is anti-Christian intolerance.

Saint Joseph Cathedral, Columbus, Ohio.

And on this point, we must completely agree.

Other faith traditions that allow divorce and contraception, and that don’t treat marriage as a sacrament, must have a difficult time defending against the “marriage equality” arguments. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has had clear and consistent teachings on these issues since the beginning. That’s because it has a clear understanding of what marriage actually is and requires, as the Rite of Marriage makes clear:

The priest then questions them about their freedom of choice, faithfulness to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children:

“Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?”

“Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

There is clearly, at a minimum, a recognition that marriage involves a gift of self to the other, mostly to the spouse but also to whatever children may spring from their union. In this, marriage mirrors the self-donation that Christ gave on the Cross for His bride, the Church.

What happens when marriage is entered into for somewhat alternative reasons, reasons that the “marriage equality” side seems to prefer, like “We want the state to recognize that we really like each other”? You get stories like the following {with my own occasional thought in squiggly brackets}:

The mother who says having these two children is the biggest regret of her life

I felt completely detached from this alien being who had encroached upon my settled married life and changed it, irrevocably, for the worse…

Quite simply, I had always hated the idea of motherhood…{which is why the Church requires openness to children as a condition of marriage. If you don’t want kids, why enter into the arrangement specifically designed to create them?}

I know my life would have been much happier and more fulfilled without children…

Two years and four months after Stuart was born, I had my daughter Jo… I believe it is utterly selfish to have an only [child]…{But it’s not selfish to want neither of them?}

Yet I dreaded her dependence; resented the time she would consume, and that like parasites, both my children would continue to take from me and give nothing meaningful back in return…

What I valued most in my life was time on my own; to reflect, read and enjoy my own company and peace of mind. And suddenly that peace and solitude wasn’t there any more. There were two small interlopers intruding on it. And I’ve never got that peace back…{I wonder if anyone ever pointed her to St. Therese’s “little way,” or to Brother Lawrence’s “practice of the presence of God.”}

From the moment we decided we would be spending the rest of our lives together, I confessed I didn’t want to start a family.

I was acutely aware that a child would usurp my independence and drain my finances. I felt no excitement as my due date approached… I focused on enjoying the last months of my freedom…{True freedom comes from living consistently with God’s will and detachment from material things. Again, I wonder if anyone ever pointed her to St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila.}

There are a few chilling stories interspersed:

[I]n May 1979, Stuart was born, blue in the face as the cord was wrapped round his neck. While other mothers would be frantic with worry, I remained calm when the doctor whisked him away. I sent Tony back to work and for the next four hours I waited without any apprehension. I did not really think about Stuart at all, until Tony returned after work and asked where he was. He was fine, of course, but when they wheeled him back into the ward I did not experience that sudden leap of the heart that new mums are expected to feel. Instead I sat down with a cup of tea and thought bleakly, ‘What have I done?’…

When Stuart was three weeks old, I pushed him in his pram to the shops for the first time with our red setter Amber in tow. Outside the baker’s I tethered the dog to the pram and left Stuart outside with Amber while I bought a loaf and cakes. It was not until I got home, made myself a cup of tea and started eating my cake, that I realised something was amiss. My dog wasn’t there waiting for her usual titbit. So the first thought that impinged on me was: where is Amber? I missed the dog before it even occurred to me that I’d left Stuart outside the shop. I can’t say, even then, that I was worried. I just rang the baker to check Stuart and the dog were still outside, retrieved them and came home.

The result of this method and attitude of parenting?

I don’t believe either that Stuart or Jo sensed any coolness on my part, although Jo once said, ‘You never tell me you love me, Mum.’ And I didn’t, it’s true.

So as we debate about the importance of marriage, let’s remember that it is, of course, a debate about what marriage is in its essence. We defend marriage not just because we have strong opinions only about who can be married; we want to defend marriage in all of its essential aspects, significantly the bearing of children.

In a statement that should come as a shock to exactly nobody who understands the real agenda behind gay marriage, lesbian author, journalist and gay rights activist Masha Gessen lays out the real plan behind the push for “marriage equality” (emphasis added):

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.…(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

It’s a pretty shocking claim. Shocking not because of what she says – that much is obvious – but because of the rare honesty of someone willing to say it.

Because of that, it will be drowned out. It will be denied. If Gessen isn’t disowned by her movement, she will be marginalized or ignored.

We’ve seen this kind of thing before. Are you aware that pro-abortion feminists like Camile Paglia, Judith Arcana, Naomi Wolf,and others have admitted, frankly, that abortion is the taking of a human life? Many are not. Their openness works against linguistic obfuscation that drives the pro-abortion movement, just as Gosnell’s trial throws the reality of abortion into stark relief.

Allow me to quote from them (with my added emphasis) and see if you’ve heard any of this in mainstream abortion debates.

Of the three, Paglia was perhaps the most blunt, when she wrote:

I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

Arcana, herself an abortionist, was similarly honest:

I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.

Wolf, though she tried to lessen the impact of her statement with the nuance of appeals to emotion and necessary evils was also quite direct:

War is legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the foetus, in its full humanity, must die.

Wolf’s statement was made in 1995. Arcana’s in 1999. Paglia’s in 2008. If you search the Internet, you can find more such statements over the years.

But has this changed the debate about abortion? No. Have the majority of abortion supporters been equally honest about just what it is that they are advocating for – the taking of human life? Absolutely not. We’re still, 40 years later, arguing with people about whether or not an unborn child is even a human being. We can’t even get the media to cover Kermit Gosnell’s demonic practices, despite the fact that he is responsible for the deaths of more people than any serial killer in history.

And so it will be with gay marriage. The fact that any in the movement are willing to admit their true agenda signals, as it did with abortion supporters before them, that they sense victory on the horizon. Things have reached a tipping point where public support for gay marriage has outweighed reason or critical thought.

If enough people support their cause, what difference does it make if people know the truth? In the view of people like Gessen, the cat is already out of the bag.

But to my mind, truth matters. In my view, the more people who know what is really at stake, the better. Let’s not let the deception stand.

Spread the word.