Another decision that illustrates what social radicals really mean by”tolerance”

072114In another show of selective tolerance from those who support the “gay” agenda, President Barack Obama on Monday gave employment protection to “gay” and “transgender” workers in the federal government after being convinced by advocates of what they called the “irrefutable rightness of your cause.” However the “tolerance” of the administration does not give religious organizations any exceptions in terms of considering sexual orientation or gender identity. While Churches are able to hire ministers as they see fit (based on a 9-0 Supreme court decision against this administration, which sought to require churches to hire practicing gays even in ordained ministerial positions), there is little leeway given in the new executive order to permit churches to determine prudentially the employment of openly practicing “gay” employees.

One might argue that excluding homosexually-oriented people from working as, say, janitors or cafeteria contractors in a Catholic setting is unjust discrimination. And in this the Catechism does affirm that unjust discrimination against those of homosexual orientation is to be excluded. However, there are many other positions that, while not explicitly “ministerial” (i.e., requiring no ordination), are integral to the ministerial stance of the Church (e.g., catechists, pastoral associates, etc.) Letting the courts and the administration determine who should be included in the definition of the category “minister” is intrusive, a violation of religious liberty, and intolerant of those who hold a moral stance on homosexual activity long attested to in the Judeo-Christian heritage and unambiguously in our sacred texts.  

But, welcome to “tolerance” as defined by secular radicals. In their lexicon, “tolerance” is “your right to agree with me.” “Live and let live” means, “you have the right to live only where I say.” “Bigotry” applies only those speaking out against the classes they say are oppressed. “Phobes” (as in homophobes) applies only to those who oppose their  agenda. “Hate” only exists against the classes they say are “protected” and that they have defined as oppressed. It is never possible for religious or social conservatives to be the object of hate since hate only comes from social conservatives.

Yes, welcome to the tolerant utopia founded by proponents of gay sex, gay “marriage,” and other social inventions.

Pope Benedict spoke frequently of the “tyranny of relativism.” Essentially this means that when a culture decides there is no fundamental basis of truth (whether from Scripture or Natural Law), the result is that there is no real basis for discussion or resolution of issues. Thus, who “wins the day” is based not on reason but on who shouts the loudest and/or who has the most power, money, or political influence.

The way forward in a relativistic world is not to appeal to reason by reference to Natural Law (in philosophy), or to constitutional principles (in political discourse), or to Scripture and Tradition (in theology). Rather, the way forward is to gain power and to implement an agenda that binds.

Farewell to reason rooted in agreed upon principles; hello to tyranny rooted simply in opinion and power.

Revolutions that ride in on the train of “freedom” more frequently usher in a reign of terror, as those who claimed to be oppressed and repressed take up their new power and then, themselves, turn to oppression, suppression, and repression of any whom they thought, or think, to be on the wrong side of the issue.

Expect more of this “tolerance” from social radicals. The tyranny of relativism has ushered in a very poisonous and dangerous climate, which has little room for any true discussion or tolerance. And remember, what social radicals mean by tolerance has nothing to do with tolerating you  if you do not belong to a class or group favored by them.

It will require greater and greater courage from those of us who still think of truth as something higher than ourselves. And if you think that an exaggeration, just try to point to Natural Law, the Constitution, or (gadzooks) Scripture and brace yourself for the immediate scorn that will be heaped upon you.

There are some among the Catholic right who will argue that we should never have accepted Government money in the first place. Fine. But there is a long history to the rise of Catholic Charities as a federally funded provider of social services. Frankly, we were one of the best providers, and the government recognized this by partnering with us. The poor were the ones who benefited. And now, as Catholic Charities is increasingly marginalized and excluded from receiving federal funds, it will be the poor who suffer most. It should trouble liberals and even conservatives just a bit that the “rights” of homosexuals are trumping the service of the poor by what is arguably the best and most efficient of social service agencies.

Call it “tolerance” if you wish, but at least admit it is selective tolerance.

A heavy post needs a little levity. Enjoy this video from a Christian humorist.

28 Replies to “Another decision that illustrates what social radicals really mean by”tolerance””

  1. My twenty six year old son went to work for Catholic Charities a little over two years ago on the advice of his boss from his previous employer, who had left to run the IT department at Catholic Charities of Tarrant Co. Texas. At the time I told him it was a noble gesture but not a wise one as far as job security because of the actions at that time under the present Obama administration. He went there as an IT specialist and it lasted a little less than a year before he was caught in the downsizing. That was over a year ago and he has since gone to work for a banking institution. He was well liked during his time there and I was surprised to hear all the services they provided from housing and education for under privileged children, healthcare clinics, meals on wheels and public transportation. Needless to say reality set in. Rook takes bishop.

  2. What will be interesting is the vigor of enforcement of this EO.

    Consider how many dioceses contract with the federal government to provide contract chaplains for military installations, prisons, VA hospitals, and so on. According to the data site, there have been 290 contract actions valued at $1,269,828 since Fiscal Year 12.

    By the way, don’t think about volunteering to provide chaplain services. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits the government from accepting the offer to volunteer. (Remember the bruhaha that happened last fall during the government shut-down?)

    While there is a perfectly legitimate argument whether the Church should provide social services on contract with the government, how is the Church not supposed to provide chaplain services?

    I still can’t help but to think about 2 Cor 6:14 in general when considering the Church doing business with the government. (But again…chaplain services????)

    Your mileage may vary

    1. I suspect but don’t know that this falls under the clerical exemption that Monsignor mentions. The Supreme Court ruled a couple years ago that when it comes to religious ministers, the state has no say whatsoever in their selection and cannot discriminate based on it.

      1. Yeah, that was the 9 – 0 ruling I reference. Incredibly the administration actually thought the govt could involve itself in the ordination question of religious bodies! The justices said, Are you kidding?! Even the four predictable “liberals” on the court were scratching their head on that one.

        1. Well, to be fair, Monsignor, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the person in question was a classroom teacher, not an ordained minister as we generally understand the term. So it’s not quite as absurd as it might appear at first. There was no question of qualification for ordination, since even the Lutheran church in question didn’t claim she was ordained, only that she fit the legal categorization of minister.

          Which actually has interesting implications in this case. Let’s say Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish was receiving a grant from the Feds to do something wonderful and charitable and had to fire a parochial school teacher for marrying another man. According to this, the clerical exemption would apply because the parish could classify him, being a teacher, as a minister.

          But as I pointed out in my other message, parishes don’t usually get federal money for anything, as far as I know. This is going to have MUCH more impact on Catholic Charities and possibly Catholic Hospitals, though I’m not aware of them being the beneficiary of grants or being federal contractors.

        2. And some Catholics question Cardinal Dolan’s wisdom in inviting Obama to the Al Smith Dinner. Gee, I wonder why!

  3. As you confirm, our country is certainly moving away from it’s Christian roots.

    I am not sure our nation will survive in the long run. There seems to be an active agenda to destroy the basic core beliefs and values of this great country. Ironically, democracy actually lets people choose this course contently.

    Clearly, the only thing that stays the same is God. Everything else is transient.

  4. I think this post would resonate stronger if it showed some sign of balance. To use words such are “tyranny,” “radical,” “reign of terror,” “hate”, and other such terms is a weak defense of tolerance. There maybe a valid case to be made for a religious exemption, but such rhetoric makes it easy to paint as partisan, angry, and carrying your own ax to grind.

    1. OK, but neither is it balanced to simply pull words and phrases out their original context and stitch them together. Most of the offending words you cite are explained in the context. Pope Benedict (not a hothead) is the source of the tyranny quote. LGBTQ… surgically altering one’s body to pretend to be a different sex etc and then insisting under penalty of law that we accept all this as fine and deserving of protected status IS radical stuff.

      Humorously, I chose the word “radical” to avoid the word “liberal” due to its political connotations. And yet you accuse me of being partisan. Alas, there is no winning in the PC sensitivity (I would argue hypersensitivity) context. The president is a politician. but he doesn’t get a pass on this one just because he is a politician. When he takes a stance on social issues and seeks to penalize people who disagree he comes on to my radar and is fair game.

      1. My goal wasn’t to criticize, but to offer something to ponder from the perspective of someone who agrees with your view. I did get the source of your first reference to the term tyranny. Each word I picked was used more than once in your blog. If the purpose of your blog is to help bring others along and into the fold, tone is important. That’s my real point.

        1. I am not sure that is the point of my blog. I am inciting urgency among the faithful and striving to show this recent move in the light of other tendencies against religious liberty, and the cultural tsunami underway. I am commenting on a matter in the news and expressing concern. I am having a conversation with fellow Catholics. I am not “Mr PR guy” out there on this. This is something for the lay faithful to engage in that regard. Being drawn into a “lets sound tolerant and nice stance” is a red herring. This isn’t about tolerance, that’s the point, they don’t mean it. They want us to be all anxious about how we sound etc. But meanwhile, they do what they want and don’t have any intention of being tolerant. It is a slight of hand.

  5. Great post Msgr!

    I wonder if some “liberal” types are simply riding the current wave in an effort to fit in, due mostly to fear on their own part.

    My mantra of late has been If everyone likes me than I must be doing something wrong.

    Our government is not only moving away from our Christian roots, but ignoring them all together, as evidenced by their willful ignorance of the decimation of the Christian community in Mosul, and the silence of the American people on this is deafening.

  6. “It will require greater and greater courage from those of us who still think of truth as something higher than ourselves. And if you think that an exaggeration, just try to point to Natural Law, the Constitution, or (gadzooks) Scripture and brace yourself for the immediate scorn that will be heaped upon you.”

    This is an important point. As the Catholic Church becomes increasingly unacceptable to the dominant politically correct ethos, the closer the Church and the faithful will come to the conditions that Christians had to endure from the first to the third centuries. Open persecution at some point in the near future is not outside the realm of possibility.

    The next time I’m in Rome, I plan to visit the Catacombs. I missed them on my first two visits there. Shame on me because they really should be at the top of every Catholic pilgrim’s itinerary, in part because a return to underground worship could well be in our future!

  7. Remember that a majority of catholics voted for Obama believing in his agenda of social justice. Catholics in America projected their hopes into this administration thinking that “liberal democrats” would change the government to a more tolerant Christian way and why should this law surprise them. Obama is doing exactly what he wants and you will still find many who support this type of revenge, opps, I mean social justice. What most catholics don’t understand is what kind of tolerance this administration has and what Obama is doing is the fruit of what he believes and wants, which has nothing to do with what is right or wrong from the way God would see it, unless his view of God is different than our Christian way. Who am I to judge?

    1. OK, you are free as a lay person to broaden the political discussion, and others are free to interact with you, but I want to be clear, as a priest, that I am making a focused point here on a specific moral issue in the news. I am not opining here on the Prez as a politician, or parties or prudential decision about who and what party to vote for. That is a broader issue for the lay faithful to engage.

      1. Sorry Msgr. I am in the hot bed of political catholic doctrine in my neighborhood and I stopped going to my local catholic parish because of its politicizing of the faith. Because I am prolife I am political, I believe in one man, one woman marriage, I am political; the priesthood saying all male, I am political. What is sound Catholic Dogma is political and what is progressive law is sacred law. Just ask your local politician.

  8. Seems like all this is being dreamed up as a way to implement tyranny within the context of a democracy. It’s a simple two-step process.

    1) Issue executive orders to set rules for all of those doing any sort of business with the federal government.
    2) At the same time, make sure as many businesses, churches, etc. have to have some sort of relationship with the federal government by first taking their money (taxes) and then issuing it back to them (grants, etc).

    Presto. Tyranny acheived.

  9. Back in 2004 Cathleen Falsani interviewed then Senator Barack Obama on his faith. One of the questions asked:

Do you believe in sin?


    Falsani: What is sin?

 Being out of alignment with my values.

    A very relativistic response…and right on par with the “tyranny of relativism.”

  10. I have a serious question to understand the impact of this…

    First Monsignor Pope discusses churches (by which I think he means parishes and dioceses?, and uses the examples (since clerics don’t count) of pastoral associates, catechists, and others who publicly represent the Church. I think we can all agree that such people cannot be in such positions when engaging in public scandal, such as a homosexual “marriage”.

    But I don’t think churches get much in the way of federal funds as contractors or partners, correct? So the impacted parties are much more likely to be Catholic Charities, as later examples indicate. What roles in Catholic Charities are so public that they could not be permitted to be in public scandal? High executives I expect, but other than that….Catholic Charities does not do catechetical or pastoral or theological work that I’m aware of.

    I would be interested in hearing thoughts on this.

    1. +“But be ye DOERS of the word, and NOT hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” – James 1:22

      Simply put . . . true Christianity/Catholicism . . . is a . . . clearly defined . . . perfectly marvelously alive! . . . WAY OF LIFE . . . empowered by the Holy Spirit of our Wonderful GOD . . . intricate in its pathways of justice, holiness, goodness and mercy . . . clear about its FAITH in our LORD and Savior . . . Jesus . . . the Blessed Christ of GOD . . . and having its moral . . . spiritual compass . . . set always to its . . . TRUE NORTH . . . our Blessed LORD and Saviour . . . Jesus Himself . . .as our model and teacher . . . and constant daily guide . . . Anyone coming in contact with . . . ANY . . . branch . . . of ministry connected with the Church . . . has an . . . absolute right! . . . to expect that the Christian/Catholic faith and moral standards will be upheld . . . and . . . LIVED OUT . . . as well as . . . taught . . . on EVERY level . . . from the very . . . CENTER . . . of the ministry to the . . . OUTER CIRCUMFERENCE . . . of same . . . in keeping with Christian/Catholic principles . . .

      Christianity/Catholicism is . . . NOT . . . just teaching ideas to mentally consider now and again . . . whenever convenient . . . to be put away on a mental-shelf whenever it is . . . NOT . . . quite so convenient . . . or if so legislated by government to be put away as illegal . . . NOR . . . is it a way of life to live . . . or NOT to live . . . however one whimsically pleases . . . Anything flying under the colors of Christianity/Catholicism . . . should (and yes I know that . . . being human . . . we often miss the mark when trying to so live) . . . conform itself from its center to its circumference to the holy truths and ways of our LORD . . . And we are admonished strongly by the Holy Spirit of our GOD through Sacred Scripture to even: “From ALL APPEARANCE of evil REFRAIN yourselves.” – 1 Thessalonians 5:22

      Re Christian/Catholic ministries that are not individual churches/parish-communities . . . below is . . . just one . . . internet link . . . to what amounts to multitudes upon multitudes of Roman Catholic ministry organizations which are not churches in themselves . . . which includes abbeys, priories and convents . . . just to mention a few . . .


      . . . all for Jesus+

    2. Do any Catholic Charities in America care for children by any chance? Just wondering.

      1. +Now-and-again . . . I’ve been blest with a chance to help out within Catholic Charities . . . and was given the opportunity to assist in their . . . really . . . quite marvelous work . . . re the adoption of babies . . . and Fox television has broadcast news segments lately . . . showing Catholic Charities very actively at work among the . . . FLOOD . . . of immigrant children . . . who are flowing over our southwestern borders here in the United States right now . . . Below is . . . just a TINY sampling . . . of a few of the many internet sites that feature Catholic Charities services for children . . . all ‘round-about our wonderful country . . .

        “But Jesus said to them: Suffer the LITTLE CHILDREN, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven IS FOR SUCH.” – Matthew 19:14

        Catholic Charities programs for CHILDREN and families focus on building and … 32 % percent to be precise, have quit their jobs to stay home with their child, 82% …

        Gifts will only be distributed to CHILDREN who are enrolled in Catholic Charities West Michigan programs at the beginning of December. CCWM works with …
        Services-programs-foster care

        Foster families help CHILDREN in crisis situations have a loving, stable home. Foster care has been a part of Catholic Charities’ work since our inception, growing …

        Catholic Charities St. Cloud CHILDREN’S Home has been working with youth for nearly 90 years. Today, we are a residential treatment facility for young people …

        . . . all for Jesus+

  11. I am simply outraged what our great country has been reduced to! How did this happen right under our noses? This is certainly not the America I grew up in, and I’m only 55. I often wonder if my grandparents would have migrated to this country, had they known what was to come? To be honest, I’m ready to migrate back to the old country they came from. Who knew this would come full circle?

  12. The Church has been bargaining with the devil for decades and is now shocked at what has happened? Hardly. The Catholic Church here in the USA has been in bed with this aggressively secular State for decades and much of the Church still supports the growth of the secular State. American Catholics embraced Americanism ( and its heresies with both arms and are now paying the price. And for what gain? Money, of course, as you readily admit. The Church should never have ceded its duty to care for the poor to the State. And it should never have been in bed with politicians of either party that support the genocide of the unborn and other crimes.

    To quote St. John Bosco:

    “Fly from bad companions as from the bite of a poisonous snake. If you keep good companions, I can assure you that you will one day rejoice with the blessed in Heaven; whereas if you keep with those who are bad, you will become bad yourself, and you will be in danger of losing your soul.”

    If this forces the Church to wake up to who its enemies are and/or form truly Catholic social services free of regulations that hinder evangelizing, then God will have pulled the good out of this otherwise heinous executive order.

  13. i can’t comment on the situation in the USA but in the UK the radical secularists use the trick of saying that they can’t give tolerance to the intolerant. And by ‘intolerant’ they mean, of course, anybody who disagrees with them. You don’t agree with abortion? You’re just intolerant. You don’t agree with contraception? You’re just intolerant. You don’t agree with embryonic stem cell research? You’re just intolerant. You don’t support gay marriage? You’re just intolerant. You don’t agree that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless’? You’re homophobic and because you’re homophobic we can’t tolerate you. You think that gay people can be helped to lose their same-sex attraction? That’s homophobic. We can’t tolerate that.

  14. Just came across this:
    In the same document in which Greenpeace talks about the ExxonMobil money it chillingly asserts that climate “deniers” aren’t entitled to free speech. Why? Because “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.”
    Source: BP, Greenpeace and the Big Oil Jackpot (No Frakking Consensus Blogspot)

Comments are closed.