Now that “The Shore” is coming to an end, television executives are trying to put together the next big ratings-getter. And Ryan Murphy (creator of “Glee”) thinks he’s got just the answer.

Murphy’s show, “The New Normal” – which premiered September 10^th on NBC – focuses on two men, Bryan and David, who are engaged in a committed, gay partnership.  While the couple is out shopping, David sees an oh-so-precious toddler in a stroller and later tells Bryan that “It was the cutest thing I’ve ever seen. I must have it!” He agrees and the premise of the show is set: two gay guys want to start a family, but they “can’t have a child the traditional way,” so they turn to surrogacy.

Its fans praise it for its in-your-face attitude, but “The New Normal” comes off as a cheesy infomercial filled with stereotypes meant to convince on-the-fence Americans that gay marriage really isn’t all that bad, and that those on the political right are just a bunch of racists.

To expose cultural conservatives for what they truly are, the show’s producers created a character named Nana, the Midwestern grandmother of the woman Bryan and David pay $35,000 to be their surrogate. Nana is everything Hollywood liberals think conservatives are: bigoted, mean-spirited, and xenophobic. In one scene, Nana – played by raging leftist Ellen Barken – says she loves gay people because she could never get her hair to look good without them. In another, she informs her granddaughter that she feels like she just ate a “black and gay stew” right before she fell asleep because it feels like she is living in “a nightmare.”

Right. And opponents of gay marriage want all gay people deported.

Hollywood’s incessant mocking of social conservatives is meant to pressure them into supporting liberal causes. But if the show’s ratings are any indication, most Americans reject the upside down reality that “The New Normal” presents.

The reality is that two men cannot start a family in any sense of the word. They have to go behind nature’s back if they want to. But even then, as we are seeing in California right now, situations involving surrogate parents and same-sex couples are increasingly legally complex, and may ultimately lead to three-parent situations.

Moreover, even though Bryan and David may seem like an open-minded, caring couple, when they are told they can “create the perfect embryo” for their child, Bryan odiously demands a “skinny blonde child who doesn’t cry.” Eugenics anyone?

Inasmuch as “The New Normal” may be the norm for left-wing, one-percenters living in Manhattan or in that foreign country we refer to as the state of California, it isn’t normal for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and it won’t be anytime soon.

Americans realize that Hollywood’s deep hatred for traditional values is no laughing matter. I predict that they, like the NBC affiliate in Utah that chose not to air the show, will reject what media elites see as morally permissible. Expect “The New Normal” to last no more than one season.

First, there is the false notion that marriage is a right. Marriage is not a right — not for anyone — it is a license. The difference between freedom and license no longer being widely understood, an easy way to distinguish a right from a license is that in the case of a license, you typically have to obtain a license to have permission to perform the action. Driving requires a license. Starting a business requires a license. Being a barber requires a license. And of course, getting married requires a license.

Licenses may be denied on various grounds, at the discretion of the issuing body. Driver’s licenses may be refused if the driver has too many moving violations or a DUI, for example. Marriage licenses will not be issued in most states to people wanting to marry their first cousin. Closer lines of consanguinity are against the law everywhere. Bigamy is illegal. Polygamy is also illegal. (You won’t see anyone getting a marriage license that will allow them to marry their car, for that matter, though there are some who would wish it so.) There are plenty of circumstances in which the state legitimately denies the request of persons wishing to be married.

So if we accept that marriage is not a right, but a license, then there must be some reasoning behind why the state is involved in issuing licenses for marriage at all. In most cultures, marriage is something sacred, far above and beyond a civil contract. But if there is a government imperative to regulate marriage in any degree, then it must mean that marriage has some impact upon the society being governed.

Of course it does. Marriage is the most natural and stable context for the procreation and education of children (always what the Catholic Church has noted as the primary end of marriage) which, in turn, provides citizens for the nation. Families are the building blocks of civilization. It stands to reason that governments have an imperative to protect them, and even to promote them. This isn’t a position based on religion. Consider, for example, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” written by Adam Kolasinski, a doctoral student in financial economics at MIT:

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

If the propagation of society is “a compelling state interest,” it stands to reason that the state would enact legislation to protect the institution which enables this action. Bigamy and polygamy are widely considered to be bad for the stability of a family unit, which explains why both of these situations are illegal under current marriage regulations. Bigamists and polygamists may believe they are being discriminated against, but I’m not certain that anyone is currently very interested in taking those arguments seriously. From what I’ve seen, most gay marriage advocates seem rather interested in distancing themselves from promoting these unpopular sexual ideologies, despite the fact that they are the logical consequence of promoting any sort of non-traditional marriage that involves consenting adults.

So would gay marriage be beneficial to society? Putting aside the biblical and magisterial proscriptions which I take as a given in a Catholic forum such as this, I don’t see how it would be. Even committed homosexual relationships — including marriages — are more likely to involve promiscuous behavior that is consented to by both partners. There is new evidence that children in gay households experience a negative impact on development. And of course the most obvious problem should be taken into account – by their very nature, homosexual relationships are infertile, meaning that there is no inherent capacity in these relationships toward the procreation and education of children. If the defining characteristic of marriage as a positive good to society is that it provides the best and most stable and natural context for bringing new citizens into the nation, gay marriage fundamentally fails to pass muster.

But this is where the argument for traditional marriage begins to break down. It’s been quite a long time since the defining characteristic of marriage, from a societal standpoint, had anything to do with children. With the advent of modern techniques for contraception in the 20th century, it has become increasingly easy (and common) for marriage and children to be mutually exclusive.

As Catholics, we must understand this: Sterile sex is unnatural sex. When unnatural sex has become commonplace, as it has in a contraceptive culture, it becomes intellectually impossible to make significant distinctions between homosexual sex and contraceptive heterosexual sex. By removing openness to procreation as the fundamental defining characteristic of legitimate marital sexual intimacy, we have embraced any and all sexual relations that express emotional love as the sort of relations which are proper to marriage.

In a 2008 article, Hoover Institution research fellow and author Mary Eberstadt made note of this blurring of the lines from the perspective of the Anglican Church:

By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals.

Thus in a bizarre but real sense did Lambeth’s attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals inadvertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement—and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since. It is hard to believe that anyone seeking a similar change in Catholic teaching on the subject would want the Catholic Church to follow suit into the moral and theological confusion at the center of today’s Anglican Church—yet such is the purposeful ignorance of so many who oppose Rome on birth control that they refuse to connect these cautionary historical dots.

We reap what we sow. The contraceptive approach to human sexuality has a domino effect, with more far-reaching implications than many who have championed it ever imagined. When sexual love is no longer inherently life-giving, it quickly becomes permissive, self-centered, hedonistic. This is true in all relationships, including heterosexual ones. God, in His wisdom, balanced the raw power and pleasure of human sexual intimacy against the responsibility of creating and caring for a new human life. It is, perhaps, the only thing that could keep such a primal appetite in check.

If we are unable to regain this understanding of human sexuality as a culture, this is an argument we will never win. Voluntarily sterile heterosexual marriages are simply not sufficiently different from inherently sterile homosexual ones to make a cogent argument that one is superior to the other. And if one kind of sterile marriage is acceptable to society, why shouldn’t all of them be?

Advocacy of contraception undermines the case for traditional marriage. Being open to life in the marital act, as Catholic spouses are obligated to be, is the only philosophy of sexual intimacy that holds moral weight in the debate over marriage. If we cannot define marriage by its openness to children, we cannot really define it at all. Without such a definition, there’s simply no chance we will prevail in preserving the integrity of this institution which can (and has) become whatever people want it to be.

Source: Flickr

For the life of me, I don’t understand why companies – or prominent figures on their leadership teams – publicly engage in financing or commenting on controversial topics that don’t relate at all to the products and services they’re selling.

Before the recent furor over Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s statements supporting traditional marriage, Starbucks made headlines by supporting same-sex marriage, sparking a protest called “Dump Starbucks” and damaging the brand.

At the time, I wrote:

Once again, what you or I think of gay marriage isn’t at the heart of this issue – good business practice is. You can and should have informed opinions about the most hotly debated issues of the day, but no matter how you slice it, politicizing your brand spells danger. When I donate money to a cancer research foundation, I want to know that my money is stopping cancer. I don’t want to worry about abortion, one way or the other. I don’t even want to think about it, because it stigmatizes my unrelated behavior of trying to fund cancer research. When I want to buy a cup of coffee, I want to buy the best damn cup of coffee I can lay hands on, not worry about what side of a hot button political issue I’m supporting. I’m not looking to join a movement, I just want some caffeine.

As your customer, I want to buy your products or services, NOT your ideology.

I can’t make this clear enough. Brands that take this approach may feel like they’re doing the right thing, but all they’re really doing is hurting their business. I can’t think of a friend or family member who doesn’t go to Starbucks at least some of the time. And because I know the religious and political affiliation of most of my friends and family, I know that this move will significantly impact their willingness to give money to Starbucks again. If I were a business owner, I couldn’t imagine making a decision that I knew would alienate a large portion of my customer base. It would be a purely selfish move, and it would mean that my personal political preferences are more important to me than the satisfaction of my customers. People get rightfully upset when companies get greedy, raising prices and keeping profits and offering poor customer service. How is this different? It’s a sort of intellectual greed, a means of saying to the consumer, “It’s not about you and your experience of our brand – it’s about us and what we want.”

I understand that both Howard Schultz and Dan Cathy felt they had to say what they believed in, but it wasn’t particularly smart business. If people want to support or boycott Starbucks because of it, I get it. If they want to boycott or support Chick-fil-A because of it, that’s their right. But why invite that type of trouble to your business? You’d be hard pressed to argue that either Starbucks or Chick-fil-A gained more customers than they lost by jumping into the fray.

Chick-fil-A company spokesman Don Perry (who, at the time of this writing has just been reported to have passed away) apparently agreed that the best approach to the topic is to leave it alone:

The quick-service chicken chain said Thursday in a statement that “going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

For the company, leaving the policy debate means “not proactively being engaged in the dialogue” on gay marriage, spokesman Don Perry wrote in an email. Perry did not respond to questions on whether the company would stop donating to causes that oppose gay marriage.

[snip]

Chick-fil-A said in the statement that the elder Cathy founded the company with the intent to apply “biblically-based principles to managing his business.”

“For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family,” it said.

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” the company added.

But good business practice – or prudence, if you prefer – isn’t slowing this train down. This afternoon, it’s being reported that Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, is donating $2.5 million of his own personal funds to support gay marriage efforts in Washington State. Writes Jena McGregor of the Washington Post blog:

It’s too early to tell whether Bezos’ massive gift will have repercussions with customers who are opponents of the issue. Will they stop ordering books and toys from the world’s largest online retailer, as some customers have threatened to do with Chick-fil-A’s sandwiches? Will groups against gay marriage protest the company’s decision, as they did when Starbucks spoke out on its position? Will Mike Huckabee start a “Boycott Amazon.com Day”? Who knows.

I don’t know about you, but I wish companies would focus on the business at hand and not on issues that divide their customer base. Organizations interested in corporate responsibility have plenty of non-controversial options available if they want to give money to charity or support a cause. I want to be able to spend my money where I get the best products and services for the greatest value, not have to constantly assess whether or not the company providing them is aligned with my values.

Sell me coffee. Sell me chicken. Sell me books. But as a customer, leave me out of issues that keep me from giving you my money. It’s better for all of us that way.

Kmiec quoted Pope Benedict on page 78 of Can a Catholic Support Him?: Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama. And so we read:

“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principle focus of her interventions in the public area is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage… and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.” (Address to Members of the European People’s Party 30 March, 2006)

Kmiec should at least be credited with putting forward the toughest argument against his candidate. According to the Pope the non-negotiable issues are abortion, embryonic destructive research, euthanasia, cloning, traditional marriage, and parents’ rights in education. But in answer to this, Kmiec defends Obama.

He writes:

“Does Senator Obama contradict any part of that papal list? He is on record as wanting to ‘discourage’ abortion; he has spoken in favor of the importance of family and supports a definition of marriage that is limited to a man and a woman – its ‘natural structure.’ The Senator’s faith-based initiative is strongly aimed at assisting parents – in the best traditions of Catholic subsidiarity – with education.”

Kmiec goes on, but the above paragraph is damning enough. President Obama has done nothing to discourage abortion. Indeed, he has insisted, in a manner much bolder than even I thought possible, that abortion be made more available, that citizens pay for it, that Catholic institutions pay for health plans that now have to cover abortifacient drugs, and that any attempt to resist will be met with penalties…or fines… or taxes… I can’t keep track.

President Obama has done anything and everything he can to carry through several parts of the Freedom of Choice Act without having to pass the act itself, which Kmiec believed was not likely given the Barack Obama he knew, the Senator he had spent time with, the man he had grown to admire.

In an October 2008 interview, Kmiec was asked by an Eric McFadden whether or not Obama would try to overturn the Hyde amendment which bars federal funds from going to pay for abortions and mandate coverage for abortion on demand. To this Kmiec answered in part:

“Again, ‘mandate coverage for abortion on demand’? This has never been Senator Obama’s position.”

Yet here was are, four years later, finding ourselves dealing with a health care law with mandates that include federal funding of abortion… just as we thought… just as the bishops warned. Were those warnings paranoia? Were they Religious Faith Partisans, as Kmiec labeled them? Or were they really just people who knew that a Democratic politician from Chicago who had voted three times against saving babies born after botched abortions could do nothing else but to expand abortion?

As for marriage, well we know that the President has “evolved” on that issue. He has directed that his Justice Department refrain from enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. He has thrown his support behind attempts to repeal it. He has said that the States should be able to decide for themselves what marriage means. He has no problem with it personally.

This ought not be a surprise though. The political base of the Democratic Party simply would not stand for it much longer. But more than that Barack Obama has always just said what he needs to say in order to get elected. He was for gay marriage in 1996 when running for Illinois State Senate. He was undecided while running for re-election in 1998. He was against it 2004. Then in 2006, after becoming a Senator from Illinois, he wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he could be wrong. What exactly did Professor Kmiec see or not see here?

Finally, in terms of parental rights, it was President Obama who ended the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program by capping it at the current students enrolled. The program is a proven help to low-income, mostly African American children in the Washington D.C. area who can get vouchers to attend private and parochial schools. The rights of parents to send their children to the best schools so that the kids can escape the grinding poverty of the District didn’t matter to President Obama in 2009 and it still doesn’t.

While an agreement to re-fund the program was reached recently, Obama’s 2013 budget requests zero funding for the program. Nothing. Sorry, parents. You gotta send your kids to the failing school down the street.

If nothing else, this demonstrates the kind of self-delusion one has to adopt in order to defend then-candidate and certainly now President Obama over and against the words of the Holy Father. Perhaps Ambassador Kmiec can be excused for having been too starry-eyed. Perhaps he was just so offended by having been refused communion – which I do think was an injustice – that his judgment was clouded… for several months afterwards.

Whatever the case, let’s pray that Kmiec, who does still on occasion attempt to defend Obama, comes to his senses and rejoins reality.

Seriously, that’s supposed to be a real question, Kyra Phillips? That a Catholic bishop should just chuck 2,000 years of tradition and the teachings of Christ because a minority of people who claim to be Catholic have abandoned the true meaning of marriage?

And, by the way, Bishop Malone is not simply “changing tactics” in his efforts to educate the people of Maine about marriage, he’s expanding and deepening the educational effort — launching a website, for instance, dedicated to the beauty of marriage.

The media has been trying to create this false narrative that Bishop Malone and the diocese of Portland is backing off of its commitment to protect marriage. Bishop Malone sets Kyra Phillips straight on that, too:

Phillips: So, Bishop, let me ask me – ask you. You know, this plan of action has changed quite drastically since 2009, you know, where you had very active campaign. And now you’re moving toward education and putting funds towards that. Are you softening your stance on same-sex marriage?

Bishop Malone: Not at all. It will be even stronger and more vigorous. One of our discoveries in 2009 was that really, many of our Catholic people in Maine could use a bit more profound understanding of how the church has understood marriage for 2,000 years. So, I decided, while we will certainly be in close contact with our allies who will lead the political battle, we intend to focus on the education and formation of consciences of our people.

Bravo, bishop! We’ve got your back.

As for Kyra, quick question: when are you going to ask a pro-abortion faith leader if they’re going to change their views in favor of abortion because a large number of their congregation is pro-life?

Oh that’s right — never, I bet.

Ph/t: NewsBusters

In New Hampshire, Minnesota and North Carolina, pro-marriage advocates are on offense, working to repeal gay marriage (NH) or adding marriage to state constitutions that don’t have it yet (MN, NC).

In New Jersey, Maryland and Washington State, gay marriage activists are trying to legalize gay marriage, and are attempting to prevent the issue going before a vote of the people in those states.

Today in Maine, gay marriage activists announced that they will attempt to pass gay marriage by a vote of the people in 2012. The people of Maine defeated gay marriage in 2009 by a 53%-47% margin.

Meanwhile, the presidential election in November will between a Republican candidate who supports marriage and Barack Obama, whose record on marriage is abysmal.

The outcome of this race will directly influence the future make-up of the Supreme Court and, in turn, how this issue is ultimately decided in the courts.

There are three outcomes to this year’s marriage battles:

1) gay marriage activists and advocates of protecting marriage split these battles and the war for marriage continues on into the future.

2) gay marriage activists succeed in more states than they fail, convincing themselves that momentum to redefine marriage is on their side, emboldening them to press on, while religious liberty continues to be rolled back as a result.

3) advocates of protecting marriage succeed in a majority (if not all) of these contests and we go on to remember 2012 as the year that efforts to redefine marriage were stopped in their tracks. Emboldened by success, advocates of protecting marriage go on to repeal gay marriage where it is currently legal and are left free to dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to the important task of building up marriage as the foundational social institution of our country.

… I don’t know about you, but I want to see #3 come to pass this year.

Why is it important for Catholics in particular to work actively to protect marriage? The seven bishops of New Jersey explain why succinctly today:

Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?

Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and marriage is indispensable to both purposes. Citizens have the right and the responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of the institution of marriage. Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach that marriage is the union of man and a woman.

Their entire letter is well worth reading. They recommend doing three things to help protect marriage:

First, pray for all married couples and all families. Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.” Third, we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the governor with a simple message: “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.”

I would add a Fourth thing to do: join/support the National Organization for Marriage (where I work) which is dedicated to protecting marriage across the U.S. and a Fifth thing to do if you live in one of the states I mention above: find the local group in your state in charge of protecting marriage and join them.

They will have things for you to do which will enormously help in the fight to protect marriage.

Sixth, take action on these pending action alerts right now:

• New Hampshire SSM Repeal Vote
• Stop the NJ Same-Sex Marriage Bill!
• Help Stop Same-Sex Marriage in Washington!
• Tell Governor Christie You Expect Him to Keep His Promises on Marriage
• Thank Senate President Mike Miller! (MD)

Seventh, share this post on Facebook, Twitter and via Email!

I’ve written many times before about the threats of redefining marriage, to religious liberty, to individuals, to Catholic institutions, and — most importantly — to the next generation and to society. Please join this important fight. Let’s make 2012 a year of marriage victories we can be proud about. THANK YOU!

Here’s how Pedersen responded to a constituent of his who emailed him asking him not to redefine marriage (emphasis mine):

Thanks for your message.  I strongly disagree with you on this issue and am the House prime sponsor of the bill that will provide marriage equality for same-sex couples.  I can assure you that the legislation will provide strong protection for religious liberty. No priest or clergy person will be required to solemnize any marriage, and no religious organization may be compelled to permit its facilities to be used in connection with any marriage.  But civil marriage is a legal construct of the Revised Code of Washington, and it is very much up to the legislature to define who can marry.  I believe that our state has a strong interest in not discriminating against — and harming — the families of same-sex couples based on the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.

All families in Washington are hurt by our current policy of treating some families as different and inferior.  All families in Washington will be strengthened by making civil marriage available to couples regardless of their sexual orientation.

Okay, a lot of things to respond to here.

First, it takes some gumption to tell a constituent that they are for “harming families.”

Second, “the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.” Hold the phone. A majority of people polled by Gallup in Washington State said religion “was an important part of their daily life.” Gay marriage has never been approved by a majority of citizens, and if gay marriage is voted on by the people of Washington state, it will fail there too. The attempt to call believing Christians a “small and dwindling minority” is offensive, and speaks more of his bigotry against people of faith than anything else.

Third, Pedersen’s promises about religious liberty are a red herring. There is no mention, for instance, of any protections provided for individual religious liberty, and there are numerous and increasing examples of individual religious liberty being curtailed wherever marriage is redefined. What, for instance, will happen to religious adoption agencies? The same thing as what just happened in Illinois because of their civil unions legislation? Not hard to imagine. But of course, Pedersen would be happy to see Catholic and faith-based organizations pushed out of the public square. They are, after all, in his mind, “harming” people.

I’ll stop myself here, but I could add much more.

Dear readers, lets send a message to Mr. Pedersen! It’s important that he hears from the “small and dwindling” community of believers who strongly defend marriage, and who strongly defend the right of Churches to preach the good news about family and promote the common good in the public square! Tell him it’s not “harming” anyone to believe that kids deserve to know and be loved by their mom and dad.

Or you could just send him a link to this blog post.

Here is Mr. Pedersen’s contact info:

Mr. Pedersen’s webpage on the WA State Legislature website.

Email him at: pedersen.jamie@leg.wa.gov

Olympia Office:
330 John L. O’Brien Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7826

District Office: (206) 729-3206

THANK YOU!

photo composite. main image: stephencuyos.com via flickr

Catholic Vote editor Josh Mercer is going to be ticked that I didn’t think of any of these when he asked bloggers for this sort of thing a few weeks ago. But, as 2012 approaches, here’s a quick run-down of events from the past year that will impact the Church in America in our time, in no particular order.

1. Denver Babies Start College

Tim Drake and others have noted the big influx of religious vocations sparked by Pope John Paul II’s Denver World Youth Day. At Benedictine College, at least two leading monks trace their vocations to that 1993 event.

But apart from the event itself, Denver marked a “metanoia” for America’s Church. That was when we realized the faith could be serious and energetic, and that it wasn’t just the bastion of old age. Ever since, Americans have been organizing pilgrimages to ship young young people to World Youth Days around the world.

The Denver metanoia didn’t just produce many religious and priestly vocations, it produced Catholic family vocations too.  And in 2011, babies born in 1993 are turning 18 and beginning their Freshman year in college.

The renaissance of faithful Catholic colleges and universities that America has witnessed is therefore booming – and many of the schools are maturing to meet the new demand.

It is hard to overestimate the power of universities to change a culture. A Spanish Marxist once said “give us 10 universities and we will change the face of Europe,” and that is what happened. As Catholicism becomes even more of an intellectual countercultural force in America, developing leaders convinced of its truth and its importance, its influence will grow exponentially.

2. The Penn State and Hollywood Wake-up Calls

For years Catholics have been alarmed and saddened by a steady drumbeat of news stories about Catholic sexual abuse, which often recounted incidents from decades past. But the storyline was: “That awful Catholic Church is so out of touch they allowed child sex abuse to occur in their midst!” The problem: by focusing on that sub-story, the media has been ignoring the even more important story: “There is an enormous child sex-abuse epidemic that our society is ignoring, a problem so pervasive that even religious institutions are caught up in it.”

The Associated Press reported about the widespread sex abuse problem in the public schools, but the series got no traction.

After 2011, the tragedy of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State and the burgeoning Hollywood casting scandal could change that. If the media gets serious about rooting out child abuse in the society at large, then the Catholic Church can even switch from villain to important ally. Thanks to the media’s attention, Catholics have now become the leaders in protecting children, and can share the knowledge we have gained from our successes and failures.

3. “Catholicism,” by Father Robert Barron

The Catholic Church was the great shaper of “mass media” for centuries as we pioneered communicative art forms from painting and sculptures to manuscripts and cathedrals. The Church learned to speak to the masses in ways that informed their minds, moved their hearts and strengthened their wills.

But in the 20th century, the Church slipped from being at the vanguard of media to being the trailers. The Church’s use of the forms of communication was mired in mediocrity. The Catholic Church of Michelangelo and illuminated manuscripts had birthed the Catholic Church of felt dove banners and “We Celebrate” workbooks. The Church had triumphantly embraced the radio, then stopped as the world kept moving.

Several developments are changing that. CatholicVote.org’s own pro-life Internet videos are one example. But the best example of the new Catholic excellence in media is Father Robert Barron’s Catholicism series. This DVD review of the beauty, truth and goodness of our faith is itself a model of beauty, truth and goodness. And it is not just a great achievement of its own. It is a sign that our talk of the New Evangelization is bearing real fruit.

4. Pro-Life Victories

This year has been a great year for pro-life victories. So much so that Lifesite news is celebrating with “The 12 Days of Pro-Life Christmas: Marking Victories in 2011.” Among them: The House voted twice to eliminate Planned Parenthood funding, five states have restricted abortion coverage by insurance, and 70 pro-life bills have passed in statehouses.

The impact of pro-life victories is deep and wide. The abortion issue is a “gateway issue.” Once you adopt a position on abortion, a lot of other issues fall into line behind it. Once you believe that innocent human life needs to be protected even when you can’t see it, you have to reset your entire worldview: To be pro-life reverses relativism, moral indifferentism, and utilitarianism.

And, even greater, in this season when we watch It’s a Wonderful Life we can remember that each human being allowed to be born instead of aborted will help transform America in a unique and unrepeatable way.

5. Conscience Battles

In a stinging article this month,  Miami, Fla., Archbishop Thomas Wenski explains how the Obama administration “is running roughshod over conscience protection provisions long part of the law that find their justification in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, a foundational human right.” Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has called the administration’s actions “the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism.”

These attacks on conscience might mean the end of Christians’ use of public institutions to serve the world, Father Robert Barron suggested in remarks at Notre Dame’s Ethics & Culture Center. We may soon no longer be able to operate adoption agencies or service organizations. Our service will have to take a different form.

6. Marriage Defeat in New York

The redefining of marriage in New York ― the biggest defeat for traditional marriage since California ― does not pose a threat because of what it does for homosexuals so much as for what it does to the rest of our marriages.

The state is only in the marriage business to start with because marriage is the unique procreative relationship that creates, protects and nurtures the next generation. The state has an interest in guarding and encouraging that.

To redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships changes the meaning of marriage for all couples. Once that’s done, marriage is just a piece of paper from the government acknowledging that a couple said “I love you in a special way” in front of a witness. Marriages become government-issued Valentines.

The ramifications for the Church and the family are huge. The fundamental building block of society is the family, not the couple. The family glues one generation to the next one (and the previous one) and inspires us to make life continually better. With marriage redefined, the family will no longer be protected by the state any more than any other relationship. As Pope John Paul II put it, “families will be the first victims of the evils that they have done no more than note with indifference.”

7. Liturgical Changes in the English-speaking World

If you think in terms of 100-year blocks, a lot of the news events I have mentioned will pale in their significance to the American Church compared to the liturgical changes Pope Benedict got done this year.

In 100 years, the loss of marriage will play itself out as the culture learns the hard way that the definition of marriage wasn’t just an arbitrary thing after all. Conscience battles will drive our increasingly faithful Church to be more inventive and less bureaucratic in our works of mercy. Just as abortion replaced slavery, the devil will find some other seemingly unthinkable evil to dupe the public into accepting once abortion is gone.

But the change in the Liturgy will be more like a tectonic shift: Slower and more significant. A generation of Catholics will grow up in the Church Vatican II intended, learning a theologically accurate creed (believing in things visible and invisible, not just “seen and unseen;” believing that Christ is of the same substance, not “one in being” with the Father); repeating a more befitting penitential rite and forming their relationship with Christ with a more reverent Eucharistic rite.

This liturgy teaches us how to be like Christ. The new liturgy will help raise up Catholics who understand that God is unapproachably great, our sin against him is a disaster of eternal proportions, and his renewal of mankind is as quiet, subtle, total and unstoppable as the dewfall.

—————————-

Tom Hoopes is writer in residence at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kan., where he teaches in the Journalism and Mass Communications department and edits the college’s Catholic identity speech digest, The Gregorian.

It said: “marriage is so gay.”

She did so, but was “offended.”

She was not, of course, asked to leave the park. She was not criticized or ridiculed or otherwise harassed — all of which would be wrong. On private property, she was asked to respect the family atmosphere.

But in news reports about the incident, she makes clear why the “to each his own” arguments you often hear as valid reason to rewrite out laws don’t quite hold up to our new reality.

It is, in fact, as wet as anyone getting off a Dollywood log flume.

Olivier Odom, the woman with the t-shirt, says: “If marriage equality is going to happen, it’s not going to happen if people sit at home quietly.”

From AP:

Odom said that they visited the water park July 9 with friends and their friends’ two children when she was asked by a person at the front gate to turn her shirt inside out because it was a family park.

Odom said she complied so as not to make a scene in front of the children, but felt offended.

“That’s what we found so offensive — that he said it was a family park,” Tipton said. “Families come in a wide range of definitions these days and we were with our family.”

The two said they felt they needed to file a complaint with Dollywood because they believed it was important to stand up for their beliefs in marriage equality.

“If marriage equality is going to happen, it’s not going to happen if people sit at home quietly,” Odom said.

Odom said they understand the park can have dress code policies, but she felt Dollywood needed to make their policies clear and provide better training for employees when determining what is considered offensive.

Odom and Tipton are not legally married, but held a ceremony last year in North Carolina. They wrote an email to the park asking the park “to implement policies that are inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; conduct staff sensitivity training; and issue a public statement indicating that the park is inclusive of all families.”

This isn’t just about rewriting the institution of marriage in our laws. It certainly is not simply about being legally friends with financial and visitation and other benefits. It’s about validation. It’s not about tolerance, but enforcing a new moral code.

Take that with your cotton candy.