Leftists to Orphans: Drop Dead
The Peoria-based Catholic Charities is the largest of four Catholic Charities agencies that sued the state after civil unions were legalized in June. Catholic Charities in Springfield, Belleville and Joliet are appealing the latest judicial decision regarding state contracts.
DCFS did not renew their contracts after the agencies, based on religious convictions, refused to recognize the new civil unions law. The state said their refusal discriminated against same-sex couples.
Catholic Charities in Peoria, Springfield, Belleville and Joliet filed suit, maintaining they had property rights and a religious exemption. They argued they should have the contracts and be allowed to continue their long-standing practice of referring unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to other agencies.
Catholic Charities of Peoria first signaled the possibility of withdrawing from the lawsuit last week after a Sangamon County Circuit judge ruled, for a second time, that the faith-based agencies do not have an automatic legal right to a state contract.
Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal advocacy group that is arguing the cases pro bono, vowed an appeal on behalf of the four agencies. But Patricia Gibson, chancellor and general counsel for the Catholic Diocese of Peoria hesitated to say flat out that the Peoria diocese would appeal.
The news article does not estimate how many orphaned children will be denied homes or foster homes due to this debacle.
There is, of course, no benefit to the homosexuals to have the foster care agency that will not service them, but which was willing to transfer their cases to agencies without reservations about placing children among sexual deviants, shut down: it is retaliation, and nothing more, for the dishonor and humiliation the Catholic faith offered them by not being willing to join them in their attempt at doublethink and make-believe in which they would like the public to join them.
The Left feels it is a civil right, akin to allowing Blacks to vote or drink from public fountains, for the public to be required to think that a civil union meant to celebrate a psychologically unhealthy and morally abhorrent sexual deviation is one and the same as sacred matrimony.
Toleration is not enough. Neutrality is not enough.
If I say, “Your sins are less than my own, I will not judge you, go your way in peace.” That is not enough. Ask the personal columns who wanted not to carry gay ads, or the photographers who did not want to photograph gay weddings, or the clerk who wished someone else to issue the gay marriage license, and now ask the Catholic foster home charity who wished not to assist gay couples. We have to help them do something we think is immoral, and if we balk, we are reviled or punished at law. If I say, “I shall not stop you, but I shall not help you.” they answer, “Oh, yes you WILL!”
And this is why I can no longer count myself among the Libertarians, fine men that they are. Their philosophy of mutual toleration and total governmental neutrality on all matters of faith and morals overlooks a fundamental non-negotiable reality: there is no middle ground between good and evil, because the evil, knowing itself evil and loathing itself, must destroy the good to maintain its self esteem, or to sate its malice.
The Left rarely talks about what is really as issue here. Perhaps they are hiding their motive or perhaps they simply are crippled by not having the moral vocabulary to express the thought.
What is at issue is honor. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is not about law. It is not about justice, or rights, or civil rights, or atmospheres of hostility or social acceptance. Those are either euphemisms for honor or side effects. Because honor is imponderable, and because, unlike an innate legal right, honor must be earned by honorable conduct, the Left do not ever call it by its right name.
Now, you may ask, why should I, or any man, pay honors to a behavior which logic finds either unnecessary and experience proves deleterious for any greater good? Why would anyone demand that I applaud a behavior that shatters homes and ruins lives and is an abomination in the sight of all normal men of every continent and era? Should not we honor acts of fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice, rather than unseemly and grotesque self indulgence in a sexual appetite which is misaligned?
Why can I not ignore them, and they ignore me? Why can we not, as the Libertarian solution would have it, allow us to agree to disagree, and have the law neither forbid our side from forming private groups as we see fit, and exclude whom we see fit, and them likewise?
The Libertarian solution does not take into account that there is no neutral ground.
Like passing a law making pi equal to thee, merely by having the law degree that abnormality is normal does not change the psychology of abnormality. At some level, they know they are unhealthy and perverted, and they resent those who are not.
To soothe the uneasiness of this resentment, they require first toleration, and then tokenism, and then mainstreaming, then admiration, and then adoration, and then condemnation of those they resent, and after what they can do to shame, diminish, deter, punish, wound and obliterate those they resent, they do.
The cost in human suffering is not reckoned. They don’t care what orphans go unplaced.
There is no middle ground, and no compromise with and no stopping place for their demands, because their demands are not based in reality.
A Libertarian would say that a society where gay marriage and Catholic charities can coexists is the only moral solution, and the state does not take sides. The problem is that gay marriage and Catholic charities are mutually exclusive, given the reality of the nature of man, and the nature of guilt and sin, and the nature of what sin makes men do.
You see, you, dear reader, have been sold a lie. You have been told from every television show and comedy routine and political cartoon since you were a child that tolerant and easy-going do-your-own thing vices are willing to live and let live, and that blue-nosed intolerant angry and judgmental virtues, motivated only by hate, are seeking out vice in order to destroy harmless pleasures, and will not leave well enough alone.
The opposite is true. Vice is intolerant of virtue and cannot stand to share the same world with it. Saints know all men are sinners and forgive all. Sinners go mad trying to pretend sin is good and goodness is sin, and condemn all.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
