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.

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.

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.

LifeSiteNews reports that the terms of employment which were approved by the union that represents Carla Hale explicitly forbid this kind of posturing: “A contract may be terminated at any time for gross inefficiency or immorality, for serious unethical conduct, or for willful and/or persistent violations of reasonable regulations of the school or the Diocesan Office of Catholic Schools.” Many disagree with the Catholic Church regarding the morality of same-sex unions, but surely they cannot disagree that lying to your employer for 19 years and then abruptly denouncing them in public is grossly immoral and seriously unethical.

Only royal trumpeters should toot their own horn. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

The Catholic Church teaches that people with homosexual feelings fully deserve human dignity and compassion. However, the media frenzy that Hale is all too happy to keep feeding is the very definition of willful and persistent violation of Catholic teaching. In the Gospel, Jesus admonishes his disciples against such public displays, “When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.”

Meanwhile, the principal and other employees of the school have received threatening emails and phone calls from Hale’s supporters. From Hale’s handling of this case, it is clear she is aggressively pushing an agenda that goes beyond simply getting her job back. Even if the school wanted to bring her back, how could they possibly do so now with the media circus and angry mob following on her heels? Far from being contrite and resolving to sin no more, Hale is poisoning whatever sympathy might have remained for her from her former employer.

The invective and demagoguery surrounding this case is typical. All who defend Catholic teaching are derided as hypocrites, bigots, and simply mean-spirited. How wounding these criticisms must be to the heart of Bishop Campbell and the employees of the Diocese of Columbus and Watterson High School who so deeply love the Church and seek the best for all God’s children. Pray for them. Write them a letter to show your support. Thank them for their steadfastness and their courage in defense of the Catholic faith. Unlike Hale, these good servants of God’s people do not seek earthly recognition, but it couldn’t hurt to let them know they are not alone amidst the storm and fury of anti-Catholic persecution which is becoming so fashionable in our time.

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.

“He created them male and female and blessed them.” Genesis 5:2

Tax returns are due next week, which is a potent reminder of just what is at stake. One of the many arguments in favor of same-sex marriage is that gay and lesbian couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. Homosexuals should be careful what they wish for, because for many dual-income households, taxes are actually higher than if they were single. The big tax savings for married couples is from having children.

Barring infertility, heterosexuals have the advantage that they can make one child after another whenever they please whereas same-sex couples must go through the lengthy and expensive process of adoption or surrogacy. If marriage is a basic right, any law discriminating in favor of heterosexual marriage would violate that right. On these grounds, any tax benefit for children would have to be unconstitutional because it would unfairly punish same-sex couples.

This is not a slippery slope. This is not even just another argument that same-sex marriage proponents are already using. This is being proposed as a law in California now. Before Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8) has even been decided, the liberals have already moved on to the next battle. No matter how strenuously proponents of same-sex marriage deny it, marriage is about having children, and the law must recognize this fact one way or the other.

Children are the reason marriage exists. It is through the act of procreation that a man and woman are joined in both body and soul to participate in the miracle of new life. We may be labeled as bigots and intolerant for defending this truth, but any law which recognizes “equality” of same-sex couples will have to contend with this basic fact of our existence. Once marriage is redefined as a right, any distinction of that right will violate the principle of equality which is so bitterly sought today.

Alfred Kinsey, the famous (or infamous) sexologist, estimated that 10% of the American population is homosexual. A 2011 Gallup poll found that Americans believe that as much as 25% of the population is homosexual. According to the findings (emphasis added):

There is little reliable evidence about what percentage of the U.S. population is in reality gay or lesbian, due to few representative surveys asking about sexual orientation, complexities surrounding the groups and definitions involved, and the probability that some gay and lesbian individuals may not choose to identify themselves as such. Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figure. Gates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that “10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual.”

Americans’ current collective estimate — which is substantially higher than Gates suggests — is likely driven more by perceptions and exposure than by scientific measurement or reality.

In addition to the far lower demographic estimates of the homosexual population in America, the US Census Bureau data indicates that “same-sex partner households made up less than 1 percent of all households in both 2000 and 2010.”

Why does this matter?

Simply put, the fight over same sex marriage is about far more than just tax benefits or visitation rights. It’s about attaining societal legitimacy for behavior that was once considered deviant — and statistically, still is. Further, it’s about silencing those who oppose their agenda, the 1st Amendment be damned.

Advocates for same-sex marriage are often loathe to admit that their push for legitimacy would open the door for the State to sanction other forms of sexual behavior now considered deviant. Whether they don’t want to acknowledge this “slippery slope” in a way that would weaken their case or sincerely disbelieve it, the handwriting is already on the wall.

Today, I came across two stories that I believe are bellwethers of what is to come.

In California, there is a legislative push to federalize a state law that prohibits counseling someone in an attempt to change their sexual orientation. The kicker? In this law, pedophilia is classified as a “sexual orientation.” And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”

The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

Even as I write this, I see that another facet of this story is playing out in the Virginia Gubenatorial race. It’s hard to believe.

I also came across a story from 2010, in which a Columbia University professor was charged for having an incestuous relationship with his 24-year old daughter — a relationship that lasted 3 years. His attorney offered a predictable defense:

He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.

‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.

‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?

‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’

And further:

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was “intellectually consistent” with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. “What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated,” he said. “That is not the proper domain of our law.”

Galluzzo continued: “If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?”

These are the fruits of the push for homosexual legitimacy. This is the fallout of the ongoing same-sex marriage debate. Normal sexual relationships become one option in a panoply of accepted “lifestyles.” Normal, natural, traditional marriage becomes marginalized as other kinds of relationships are recognized by the state. Marriage, and the sexual intimacy that is truly proper only to marriage, get twisted into something unrecognizable.

I have written about this here before, but it bears repeating: there is no logical way, absolutely none, to divorce sex from procreation and preserve the integrity of marriage. Further, there is no way to divorce sex from procreation and keep deviant sexual behaviors classified as, well, deviant. Sex has two polar aspects that exist in balance as they relate to each other. These are the natural biological end of sex (namely, children) and the (sometimes, but not always) unifying love and pleasure that is shared by its participants. The Christian conception fuses both, making it both immanent and sublime, always balancing the raw, unimaginable power of creating life against the raw, incredible intimacy of true conjugal love.

Try to have one without the other and everything goes sideways. Sex, when it is about ONLY procreation, objectifies men and women and turns them into breeders. Sex, when it is only about pleasure and intimacy makes any form of sexual gratification between consenting individuals a legitimate means to that end. Same sex, multi-partner, non-procreative (ie., sodomy), self-gratification, etc. It’s all on the table if it’s just about how good it feels.

Contraception shattered sex into its component pieces. It was only a matter of time before sexually conservative people over-emphasized making babies, and sexually “liberated” people over-emphasized the pursuit of maximum gratification, in whatever sort of relationships they felt like engaging in.

We no longer can make a natural law argument (or a pragmatic one, for that matter) that sex belongs in marriage and marriage is about kids and family when so many married couples stopped having kids and building families. This door may only be cracked open now, but it’s going to get kicked open soon. And the consequences are not going to be pretty.

UPDATE: 4/4/2013 @ 4:46PM

In the interest of accuracy, when I wrote this post, I said that “In this law, pedophilia is classified as a “sexual orientation.” And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.” This was a misstatement of fact.

In actuality, the word “pedophilia” never appears in the bill, California SB 1172. Instead, it defines sexual change efforts as follows:

“(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The ambiguity of the definition would cover any inclination considered to be a sexual orientation. Concerned about the implications of such broad language in situations such as pedophiles going in for psychiatric counseling, it has been alleged, but I have been unable to verify, that an attempt to amend the bill and add specificity was attempted.

Considering that there have been recent attempts by some groups to push the American Psychological Association to de-stigmatize pedophilia and de-classify it as a disorder, a cause for concern in this legislation still exists.

Corey Braun, the operator-owner of a Chick-fil-A near Foothill and Day Creek boulevards, provided dozens of free entree tickets to gay marriage supporters at a demonstration… “There were a lot of things said over the past year,” Braun said. “I wanted to show that Chick-fil-A doesn’t discriminate against anybody. We serve everyone. We’re happy to serve the community and this was an opportunity to have this group come in and show them our hospitality regardless of their beliefs, sexual orientation, or whatever. “ He added: “Chick-fil-A has never been about hate.”

Eden Anderson, a board member with the local LGBT rights group Equality Inland Empire, called Braun’s appearance at the demonstration surreal…

“The crowd was very accepting, of course,” Anderson said. “We got quiet and we were listening, and with some skepticism. But really, what I experienced with the community, is when people are open and apologetic and accepting, it’s touching to us. It feels like acceptance and we just want to be accepted and engaged in society, so when it’s confirmed, I think the overall reaction was, yes, certainly that Chick-fil-A in Rancho Cucamonga is welcoming to us…”

Anderson said the LGBT community was surprised by the turnout [at the "Chick-fil-A days"] last year “and how much it hurt. ”

“A lot of them aren’t just against marriage equality,” Anderson said. “They believe gay people are a sin against nature and God and it felt like a display of disregard for our humanity. “

I suppose that skeptics would say 1) He is showing support to the gay marriage movement in spite of the company’s tradition of Biblical values, or 2) He is just out for profit wherever he can get it.

I say Kudos to Corey Braun. Whatever his personal intentions were, the public perception of Chick-fil-A is squarely against the LBGT movement so for him to do what he did seems a fitting example of putting good advice into practice:

But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you (Mt 5:44)

Again, for the skeptics, I get it that he is just giving them coupons for chicken and doing nothing to warn them against the risk of cooperating in mortal sin. Or is he? The simple act seems to have impressed many in the crowd who weren’t looking for logical counterarguments but for a regard for their humanity. Even though I think the natural marriage side has a lock on the logic of maintaining the true definition and meaning of marriage, opinions can certainly be swayed by emotion. The quotes by Anderson demonstrate that pretty clearly: “open and apologetic and accepting…touching…accepted and engaged…welcoming…how much it hurt.”

Simply put, Braun’s act showed people who might never consider embracing (or re-embracing) orthodox Christianity what the love of Christ looks like. Pope Francis and clergy throughout the world did a similar thing yesterday:

Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us. This is what I do. And I do it with my heart. I do this with my heart because it is my duty, as a priest and bishop I must be at your service. But it is a duty that comes from my heart and a duty I love. I love doing it because this is what the Lord has taught me.

We don’t know if Corey Braun’s actions were motivated by what the Lord taught him, but being associated with Chick-fil-A likely suggested to the demonstrators that that indeed was his motivation.

What is striking is how surprised Anderson seems to be. Authentic Catholicism (not Westboro Baptist or other fringe Protestant groups) “doesn’t discriminate against anybody;” all of us sinners need God’s grace and the sacraments. Catholics should show everyone “our hospitality regardless of their beliefs, sexual orientation, or whatever.” Catholicism “has never been about hate;” it is about loving Christ and the Church He founded, and our neighbors as ourselves.

Catholicism certainly does not “believe gay people are a sin against nature and God:”

…Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (emphasis mine, CCC 2357-2359)

It’s cliched, but we hate the sin and love the sinner.

Nor do Catholics disregard the humanity of anyone. A quick glance at the Church’s pro-life work, combined with its other charitable efforts, should make that clear.

In other words, orthodox Catholicism (Scripture, the Catechism, the Pope) contains within it everything that so touched the hearts of these “marriage equality” demonstrators. To the extent that they see the Church as a great oppressive evil demonstrates how clearly evangelization is needed; both for supporters of same-sex “marriage” to understand the Church’s position, but most importantly for Catholics to realize both the intellectual, philosophical, and Scriptural foundations of our beliefs and the charitable way it needs to be lived out. We’ve been too lax in accepting the predecessors that made same-sex “marriage” conceivable: contraception, the sexual revolution, divorce, moral relativism, and a deference to government to provide moral guidance. The “marriage equality” movement could end if Catholics demonstrate (not simply argue) to the world what true charity, chastity, and marriage really is.

P.S. The free-market economist in me can’t help but point out that the reconciliation between two opposing sides was not sparked by a politician nor by a preacher, but by a businessman. Again, the skeptic might claim that Braun just wanted to get more customers, but what did it cause him to do? How did he act to satisfy this desire for profits? He treated his potential customers with dignity and charity. The invisible hand comes to the rescue again!

Last night as my wife and I were getting dinner ready, our oldest daughter, a sophomore in high school, dropped the question: “So, what do you guys think of gay marriage?”

I tried to downplay the shock and delight I felt that she actually initiated such a substantive discussion with us,  and decided to see what she was thinking. I deployed the old technique of answering a question with a question, and I turned it back around on her.

“Well, what do you think about gay marriage?”

“I think…” she began, “that Catholics are partially right and partially wrong about it. They’re right because it’s immoral, and people aren’t supposed to do that. But I don’t think they should be able to make laws telling people that they can’t be with who they want to be with. It’s wrong but it’s their choice.”

Considering the fact that we’ve never discussed this issue, I thought that was a pretty decent answer. These are difficult concepts to fully grasp at any age, let alone in high school. My daughter attends a Catholic school with a pretty solid reputation for orthodoxy, so she’s in an interesting environment to explore these issues. As anyone who has ever been to Catholic school knows, even if the administration and faculty are good, the other students come from many different backgrounds, and not everyone is going to agree. In other words — a pretty good place to begin learning to think for yourself amidst differing opinions.

So we talked about the issues. We talked about how in the history of Christendom, there were Catholic confessional states that both espoused the divinely revealed religion and outlawed sinful behavior. That there were, and still are, many Catholics who believe that this is the ideal form of government. We talked about how this nation was not founded upon that sort of governing principle. That here, our government was founded on the idea of liberty as everyone’s fundamental right, and how because of this, our system of laws don’t allow us to be as restrictive in legislating morality as, say, a Catholic monarch of France.

We talked about the concept of liberty itself, and how it flows out of free will. God is, in a sense, the ultimate libertarian. Although He gives us very clear rules to live by, and makes the consequences for breaking them known, He also loves us so much, respects the free will He has given us to such a radical degree, that He allows us to make our own choices. He wants us to choose Him, but He gives us the freedom to choose Hell instead.

That’s pretty astonishing when you think about it.

This is why I have come to believe so strongly that freedom, not government, is the only path toward this nation’s restoration. Let people have liberty, and demand that they be responsible with it. Liberty does not absolve us of the consequences of our actions, it makes us accountable for them. If we choose poorly, we have to live with the outcome of those decisions. If we hurt others, we will have to contend with the law. But the panoply of options at our disposal, from whether or not to wear a seatbelt to what substances we can ingest to the size of our sodas to the decision of whether to homeschool should belong to us, not the government.

This is not the current prevailing view in America. The more the government takes away our right to choose for ourselves, the less likely it is that we will think for ourselves. Failing to exercise of our free will will cause it to atrophy, along with the intellect that informs it.

Am I advocating getting government out of the marriage business? I’m still undecided. I recognize that there is a certain danger in the non-governmental approach. My marriage confers with it certain rights and responsibilities, and under the laws of the United States,  certain benefits. From tax breaks and child credits to custody, visitation, and survivorship rights, being married affords me social incentives and assistance that I would not otherwise receive. And despite my libertarian inclinations, I think this is a good thing. The State does have a compelling interest in ensuring the growth of its future citizenry. In most of the Western world (and no small portion of the East) fertility is at below replacement levels. Providing tax and legal incentives for marriage is, for the time being, a positive example of government intervention. Give men and women a reason to have children and take care of them together as husband and wife, and you’re more likely to have stable families. Common sense applies.

And yet, my marriage is not made real because I was issued a piece of paper by the courthouse, but because I made solemn vows to my wife before God. Our union is inherently, naturally capable of producing and nurturing children: those tiny, cute, sometimes stinky and often whiny building blocks of society.  If the government were to be prohibited from defining marriage at all, it might keep them from turning it into little more than a societal contract between two consenting adults of whatever gender who want to provide sexual pleasure to each other in a formalized context. If the government continues to define marriage in spite of us, pretty soon they’ll force the new definition on us. Elsewhere in the world, this is already happening.

So while I see the appeal of traditional, natural marriage protected and promoted by civil law, I remain concerned that the government is overreaching. It never stops at the inch when it can take the mile. I worry that the negative impact of allowing our government to have a say in marriage may soon outweigh the positive. When it comes down to it, I’ll take liberty for those I disagree with over government control and redefinition of what I believe in any day.

Which brings me back to the conversation with my daughter. I told her that it was very likely that she was going to hear people say, “Why can’t Catholics just leave people alone? Why do you impose your beliefs on others all the time? Can’t you be compassionate toward people who aren’t like you?”

This is, I told her, a misunderstanding of compassion. Compassion is the fruit of love, and love wills the good of the other even when they can’t see it. As a parent, just because my children want to eat candy for breakfast lunch and dinner does not mean I should let them do it. Even though they believe it would make them happy, in reality it would make them sick. What if they said to me, “Why can’t you just accept us, daddy? Don’t you love us? You’re happy eating meat and vegetables, and that’s fine for you. So let us eat the way we want and stay out of our business.”

Would any loving parent give in to that? No! That’s not love, it’s neglect, possibly even abuse. Love doesn’t mean just accepting when another does wrong and looking the other way. That’s indifference. Applied to adults, love is caring enough about another to tell them when they are in danger, whether that’s physical danger or the danger that is posed to their immortal soul.

In the end, forcing the government to release its grip on marriage may be our only hope. But giving people the freedom to do what they want is not the same thing as embracing it. We should respect the radical free will that God has given to us, but at the same time, we should recognize that God loves souls, and He wants us — all of us — to choose Him.  That means that no matter what happens, it falls back upon believers to speak to the world and tell them that love sometimes means saying “No, it’s not okay and I’m not going to lie to you and say that it is. You may be free to do it, but what you’re doing is wrong.”

Penn Jillette, an outspoken atheist and critic of the Church, has an interesting take on evangelism that we should all consider:

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and that people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward, and atheists who think that people shouldn’t proselytize, ‘just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself,’ how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that? I mean if I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.

True liberty is a little bit terrifying. Getting the government out of our lives is like riding a bike for the first time without training wheels. It means standing over an abyss with only your reason and your conscience to guide you, knowing that you might just fall. The state loves to place restrictions on us, and for some of us I think that replaces the notion that we need to speak the truth. “Well, it’s against the law, so now I don’t have to deal with it.” But that never works. You can’t pass a law that makes people good. Congress will never introduce a bill that turns hedonists into Christians. The President can pardon a criminal, but he can’t absolve sins. The Supreme Court can determine the constitutionality of laws, but it can’t overturn concupiscence.

This is a fight. A fight for souls that is rapidly intensifying. I am not opposed to good laws, but I think we should be wary how much we attempt to legislate belief and behavior, lest those precedents, once established, be turned on us.

Liberty is a noble thing, but only if we can be worthy of the responsibility that goes with it. In the words of President John Adams:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Whereas all of the other sacraments were instituted by Jesus during his ministry on earth, marriage was instituted at the beginning of the world and cannot be altered by any human law, and indeed is common to all civilizations. From a purely biological standpoint, this truth is so obvious as to be almost trivial. Procreation requires the union of man and woman. Even at the lowest level, every cell in the human body carries a special kind of DNA which can only be inherited from the mother. God’s handiwork is clear.

Balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet by Frank Bernard Dicksee, 1884.

It doesn’t stop there. The clamor for recognition of same-sex couples is only further evidence of just how important marriage is. Just as Adam yearned for a companion in the garden of Eden, people with homosexual desires still feel this yearning for companionship. Just as Eve was created as the complement to Adam, we all desire the completeness of another person with whom we can share everything. Even in the brokenness of sin, we are made in the likeness of God, and thus we all desire to love unconditionally.

However, marriage and procreation are inseparably linked. It is not enough that we love another person. In order for the sacrament of marriage to be valid, a man and a woman can not just consent to love one another forever unconditionally and to be faithful to one another. If that’s all there was to it, the debate about gay marriage would be over. The essential third component to marriage which even transcends our human mortality itself is the openness to life, which is to say, the intention to procreate if at all possible.

This openness to life elevates marriage to the divine, because in the act of procreation, we share more than just intimacy and companionship, but indeed we become co-authors with God of the very universe itself. Just as Jesus commands us as Christians to protect the unborn, the weak, the infirm, the elderly, and the outcasts of society, this respect for life also compels us to defend the means by which life comes into existence. As Jesus tells Peter when he falls asleep in the garden at Gesthemane, “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” In our depraved culture, it is easy to forget that procreation is a spiritual act as much as a physical one.

Through a respect for life and marriage, we have the power to stamp out the darkness of the Father of Lies. The 80’s pop ballad, “Love is a Battlefield” was only half right. We, the poor banished children of Eve, should open ourselves to life. We should not be fighting the battle of the sexes—which can never be won, but rather should commit ourselves to the never-ending battle against Satan and destruction in which our victory is ensured only through the Passion and Resurrection of Christ that we celebrate this week.