Where to begin...

 

 

I begin this posting by thanking Rob for his recent post of September 28 entitled “Human Rights Campaign gets nasty.” His subject deals with the launching of a new campaign against the National Organization for Marriage. But that’s not the point of the organizers of the campaign; rather, the point is to introduce odium against a group of dedicated folks whose sin or crime, take your pick, is to support the traditional notion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The purpose of the campaign is not to engage in robust political debate but to demonize people with whom one disagrees. While this tactic may be the hallmark of totalitarianism, it is not what’s expected in and of a democracy.

Now our friends at the National Catholic Reporter pick up the task of advancing the assault on traditional marriage not by the same tactics employed by the Human Rights Campaign but by news manipulation, another tactic of totalitarian dictatorship. It is hard to come by an article (there are exceptions) in this periodical that treats fairly or tries to explain to the faithful—and anyone else who may be interested—the teachings of the Church and why the Church teaches what it teaches. The publication’s recent article of September 29 entitled Group aims to mobilize Catholics for equality [HERE] represents a new frontier in journalism that claims to be faith-based in a particular faith—or as it self-explains: “the only truly independent, journalistic outlet for Catholics and others who struggle with the complex moral and societal issues of the day...and the NCR is the only significant alternative Catholic voice that provides avenues  for expression of diverse perspectives, promoting tolerance and respect for differing ideas.” I wish this were true, but if I may borrow from the film Jerry Maguire, show me the differing ideas! As I survey the internet, I see lots of avenues for expression of diverse and independent perspectives on issues important to Catholics and others.  I do wonder if the publication meets the standard of N. 24 of Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) that “no project... may claim the name ‘Catholic’ unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority,” but I digress.

The NCR’s September 29 article offers little help in explaining the Church’s position on marriage and why she teaches what she teaches. Moreover, the article is patently critical of her teachings and actions when asserting that the Church and “Catholic allies have used deep pockets and organizational strength to speak out for state laws that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.” I wonder who the allies were and what deep pockets were behind the 1983 Charter of the Rights of the Family issued by the Holy See, which had the temerity to declare that marriage is “that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman”? And, what is the retort of the NCR?

The NCR champions a “group of politically savvy Catholics” who claim that “the bishops are out of step with the majority of Catholics on this question” regarding the definition of marriage and who further profess that 62 percent of American Catholics think otherwise and believe “that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable.” Taking this important point and applying it in another context, one could conclude that Bishop Clemens August von Galen was out of step with the “politically savvy” of his time.

It is disheartening to believe the implied claim that only those who can agree with the Human Rights Campaign’s views “know love when they see it.” Can it not be that those who disagree with the organization’s position—and, perhaps, the position of the NCR—can also love, but can they also say that this organization’s (and the NCR’s) views are wrong?

The NCR article takes great care in noting who contributed how much to various citizen initiatives designed to safeguard the traditional view of marriage. The article is silent on who contributed how much to citizen initiatives that were a counterpoint and support same-sex marriage. While critical of those Catholics who are exercising their rights as citizens—be they clerical or lay—to support traditional marriage, the article applauds those who have different views and assert them, sometimes in an un-Christian manner.

I fear that the Church and her faithful are in for more difficult times. But, I also see hope because it is difficult times which bring out the best in many.

 RJA sj