This past week we
commemorated The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
two solemnities that might seem quaint until we consider them in the light of
our need for the love of God and the crisis of faith that plagues our modern
and increasingly secular world. The
Sacred Heart of Jesus denotes the entire mystery of God’s immense love for
humanity, so powerful that He would become human, suffer with us and for us, in
order to reconcile us with God, despite our sinfulness. The Immaculate heart of Mary epitomizes the
purity of human love that is both humble and yet so powerful as to risk
everything to accept the will of God, even overcoming the despair of losing a
beloved only Son.
If we accept this
notion of being loved unconditionally by God, our creator, then we are
compelled to seek the Truth God has set before us, Truth that has been revealed
in scripture, in the life of Christ, and in nature itself. This is one of the basic tenets of
Christianity, and it is supposed to be protected by the 1st
Amendment of the US Constitution. Christian
belief in Natural Law undergirds our entire democracy.
This past week, I
heard a news blurb about a bill currently being debated in the Ohio
legislature. It seems that our
Republican governor and state senators are seeking to strengthen the state’s
oversight of abortion clinics, and withdraw State funding of Planned
Parenthood. I’m not sure if this is in
response to the horrific findings revealed in the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell,
an abortionist accused of numerous murders and hundreds of medical licensing violations. Sadly, this trial has been all but ignored by
the press, and it is obvious that the State of Pennsylvania has been remiss in
its oversight of abortion clinics. What
amazed me about what I heard on the radio is that the Democrats who oppose this
bill described it as, “a war on women, anti-woman’s rights, and anti-family.” The Republican author of the bill explained
that killing unborn children is the ultimate act of child abuse, and that a
majority of Ohioans oppose the use of tax dollars to fund the killing of unborn
babies. She also cited the need for
better enforcement of medical licensing laws which have been so poorly enforced
in abortion clinics, to the detriment of women’s health and safety.
I was shocked
that a law to protect unborn children from abortion, and to protect women from
violations of medical licensing requirements, would be referred to as a “war on
women” and “anti-family,” when killing babies is about as “anti-family” as it
gets. Furthermore, half the aborted
babies are female, and women are put at risk if the clinics are failing to
follow medical guidelines, not to
mention the fact that so many young women who are being victimized by sexual
aggressors, are taken to these same clinics to terminate unwanted
pregnancies. The paradox is that people who would protect
life, seek better care and safety for women, and encourage families, are
described as perpetrators of a war on women, and accused of being “anti-family.”
Speaking of
paradoxes, the Supreme Court is expected to deliver its ruling on a same-sex
marriage case this month. “Marriage
equality” is being promoted as if it the most natural thing in the world for same sex couples to get
married. For over 4000 years, marriage
has been held out as the unique institution in which a man and woman come
together to have children and form a family.
The family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society, and the only
means by which we can naturally
reproduce. Are same sex couples entitled
to happiness? Of course. Should they be discriminated against for their
sexual orientation? Absolutely not. But it is impossible for them to procreate naturally, and recent studies
emphatically demonstrate that children raised in traditional heterosexual
families thrive far better than children of same sex couples. Therefore, calling homosexual relationships a
marriage, (an institution for the procreation of children) is a lie, a paradox.
If the Supreme Court
determines that same sex marriage is indeed a “civil right,” then it will be a
violation of the 14th Amendment (the “equal protection clause”) to
speak against gay marriage. In other
words, it will no longer be legal to express our religious belief that same sex
marriage is a violation of natural law and therefore, just wrong. When the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, it cast aside 4000 years of
moral teaching, and established that abortion was a good thing that could not
be denied or restricted by any State law.
In doing so, they were asserting liberal
secularism as the law of the land.
If the Supreme Court determines that gay marriage is a civil right, they
will be once again foisting secular
liberalism on our society, making it illegal to say otherwise. Anyone who denies that gay marriage is a good
thing will be opposing the United States Government.
In Canada, where
gay marriage is now the law of the land, their Supreme Court has already ruled
that biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior is punishable as a “hate
crime.” Here in the US, a florist was recently
found guilty of a hate crime for refusing to participate in the planning and
set up for a gay wedding, and fined $5000.
School curriculum in states where gay marriage is now legal, emphatically
states that homosexuality is a “normal, healthy” (i.e. good) behavior, even going so far as to encourage children to
experiment, in order to discover their sexual orientation. Parents who have objected to such teaching
have been refused permission to have their children excused from these classes,
and even taken to court for truancy. New
Jersey has a new law on the books called the “Bias intimidation statute” in
which a person is guilty of a crime if, “something he says, does, or intends,
causes an individual or group to be intimidated because of their race,
religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or ethnicity.” In New Jersey, if a homosexual feels
intimidated by someone affirming Christianity’s opposition to homosexuality,
that person is guilty of the crime of “bias intimidation.” This is beginning to sound like the
anti-blasphemy laws in Muslim countries where any religious belief other than
Islam is considered the crime of blasphemy, punishable by imprisonment and even
death. Will we have anti-secular
liberalism laws?
The Supreme
Court, if it establishes gay marriage as a civil right, will set up a paradox
in which the 1st and 14th Amendments will be at odds with
one another. They will have to choose
between gay marriage and religious freedom.
We cannot have both. This is a
crisis of faith and a denial of the Truth of nature. Will the court once again cast aside 4000
years of Judeo-Christian belief in Natural Law, or will it resist the
temptation to push our country even further down the path of secular liberalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment