Hey, Frank Bruni, Lay Off Our Fathers!

Progressivism has now progressed to the point that it wants to be the pope — and not only of Catholics but of the whole world.First Hillary Clinton declares her job is to change “deep-seated” religious beliefs around the world that interfere with abortion rights.This week, Frank Bruni, fresh from asserting with approval that Mitchell Gold wants to make Christians take homosexuality off their sin list, decides to attack the Catholic Church for committing the primal sin of patriarchy. “Catholicism Undervalues Women.” The pope is always a man!

Likening Pope Francis’s call for equal pay for equal work to a Pringles vendor decrying obesity, Bruni wrote: “But the Church’s refusal to follow some other Christian denominations and ordain women undermines any progress towards equality that it trumpets or tries. Sexism is embedded in its structure, its flow chart. Men but not women get to preside at mass.”

I had two reactions to Frank Bruni, speaking as a Catholic woman. First: Hey, Frank, lay off our fathers! Some of us appreciate men who commit themselves sacrificially to the service of God and God’s people. The collapse of civilized masculinity is one of the unacknowledged crises of our time. Priests are not ministers or rabbis. They are not first and foremost knowledgeable teachers of religion, like clergymen in many other denominations; they are in themselves a sacrament, a making visible of God’s grace in the world, and the source (by the grace of God) of the sacrament of the Eucharist that unites us each Sunday. God did not just send a Holy Spirit to save us; He became a man, who died for our sins. Each Sunday, and in the confessional, the priest stands as an image of Jesus Christ for us.My second reaction: Frank Bruni, please stop insulting the free will of millions of American Catholic women. We were fortunate enough to be born free; we do not need the self-appointed clergy of the Holy Church of Secular Progressivism imposing its morality on us. (Frank would probably be surprised to learn that 37 percent of young Catholic women who attend Mass, and go to confession, support the Church’s teaching fully.)

Read the Full Article at the National Review Online

AP Poll Finds Religious Rights Trump Gay Marriage

A surprise Associated Press poll finds that the public doesn’t believe government can force business owners to violate their religious beliefs as it is on gay marriage.  Asked whether “wedding related businesses” should be required to service same sex couples, voters said no, 52-45.  Similarly, when there is a conflict (between gay rights and religious liberties), voters chose religious liberties by a 56-40 margin.

The poll also showed a large enthusiasm gap between on the question of whether gay rights were “important.”  Only 27 percent labeled them “extremely” or “very” important while 47 percent labeled them “not very” or “not at all” important.  The gap was similar for religious liberty, with 50 percent labeling them “very important” while only 28 percent labeled them slightly or not at all.

You can read a full summary of the poll’s findings at The Pulse 2016.

A letter to Justice Anthony Kennedy

Dear Justice Kennedy:

The forces for gay marriage are powerful. You have been their hero in the past, when gay people were not so powerful. The tables are turned now, as I think is clear to everyone. The LGBT community has built a powerful cultural, legal, and political movement. They are not helpless or friendless. They do not need you to distort the Constitution to win the right to live as they choose. We who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage do need your help. We live at a time when our livelihoods are under new attack, when our standing as equal citizens is under attack, when the system of ideas and the deep human realities that gave rise to marriage for millennia are now being dismissed as mere bigotry, as irrational, incomprehensible hatred.

Let me offer you four reasons why you should reject the idea that marriage equality requires all states to treat gay unions as marriages.

1. It is not true that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equal. Not all sexual relationships are equal, even if they are loving and committed. Same-sex couples have to deal with the preference that the majority has for opposite-sex relationships, ranging from mama’s slight mourning for the family her son will likely never have to Westboro Baptist’s awful, crude, ugly, and unchristian hatred. Opposite-sex couples have the task of managing the reality that from the about age 14 until the woman ages out around 45, every single act of sex could make new life. Nothing the Supreme Court says or does about marriage will change these realities, but importing gay marriage into our Constitution will unleash a cavalcade of consequences for traditional believers.

2. The equality line will require continual policing, because it is based on an untruth about human nature. Maintaining the idea that there is no significant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples will require actively suppressing the reality that the potential for new life in opposite-sex unions is both morally and socially significant, that it colors the meaning not only of marital unions but of most every sexual interaction between male and female. Of course we will notice that sex makes babies, but every time we do, we will have to twist our heads in a pretzel to think of the ways same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are the same and to make those the significant features of marriage.

3. This policing of the equality line will fall the heaviest on those most committed to the older view of marriage, that it is deeply rooted in the reality that society must bring male and female together to make the future happen; that marriage is more than a relationship, it is a social institution with purposes larger than the intentions of the young couple in love, that it exists to channel erotic love in such a way that men and women can live together across the gender divide, and share the task of loving and raising their children. This means that sustaining marriage privately, without public or governmental approval, will become immeasurably harder, as the portions of society most committed to marriage, classically understood, become consumed with the task of figuring out how they survive the hatred and dhimmitude directed their way. When the solicitor general of the United States concedes that the argument he is making may lead to stripping Christian schools of their tax-exempt status, you know we are not making things up, or whining, or complaining for no reason. If we want to get to live and let live, we need your help to not constitutionalize the Human Rights Campaign’s sexual morality.

Read the Full Article Here