two cheers for tolerance
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 21, 2006
On the First Things blog, Jody Bottum comments on the sacking of a Catholic public official who dared to oppose the gay-rights agenda. It's not a novel argument-- certainly not to readers of this feature-- but it's admirably concise.
The lesson many people drew from this incident was that a devout Roman Catholic, or indeed anyone who ascribed to the traditional view in Western civilization that homosexual acts are immoral, was unfit for high office in the European Union. Some people thought, however, that such things could not happen in the United States.
Well, then, could it?
The removal of Robert Smith is thus an early-warning sign.
Maybe not an early warning; those came a long time ago. But we don't really disagree. The advance continues, and our side is in retreat. While those of us who oppose homosexual activities may still be allowed to voice our obections,
There is no guarantee, however, that such generous toleration will continue.
Will American democracy in the 21st century tolerate a public figure who unapologetically professes the teachings of the Catholic Church? Or have the Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan won the long-term victory? Read Bottum's analysis and worry.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Spring Challenge Grant
Progress toward our Spring Challenge Grant goal ($17,584 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Ignacio177 -
Jun. 26, 2006 10:06 AM ET USA
Another example: look at the heat a MLB manager took for calling a sportswriter a "fag" (I am still not sure why that is a bad word what does it mean other than "homo"? Why has it become like the "n" word for blacks?) a word that use to mean cigarette. He will be sent to re-education camp or something like that.
Posted by: rpp -
Jun. 22, 2006 12:58 PM ET USA
Canada has adopted the "we tolerate everyone except Christians" quite some time ago. That Europe and now America is doing the same is is inevitable.
Posted by: shrink -
Jun. 21, 2006 11:25 PM ET USA
Here's a question closer to home:Will American Bishops in the 21st century tolerate a fellow bishop who unapologetically professes the teachings of the Catholic Church, excludes homosexuals from the seminary, revokes the faculties of all Jesuits in his diocese for failing to enforce Vatican directives on homosexual seminarians, and directs his priests to preach on the immorality of homosexuality? Or were the bishops routed years ago by the sexual lobby within and without the Church?
Posted by: -
Jun. 21, 2006 9:14 PM ET USA
"Will American democracy in the 21st century tolerate a public figure who unapologetically professes the teachings of the Catholic Church?" Di, we are already there: does JFK or Judge Pryor not come to mind? In fact, even within the Church, especially the Church in America, we have the majority of Catholics--clergy included--refusing to tolerate those who unapologetically profess the orthodox teachings of the Church. Some might even argue that the Know Nothings have taken over the USCCB.
Posted by: visions -
Jun. 21, 2006 8:20 PM ET USA
From more intimidation, I mean tolerance, google "Know Thy Neighbor".