Where Orthodoxy is Optional…

Where Orthodoxy is Optional… March 25, 2015

orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Gay rights has never been about tolerance. It’s about punishing Christians for believing that homosexual acts are sinful. And it is bound and determined to reach right into Catholic education and the sanctuary and jail those who think so. It is a militant faith.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    Very little now is about tolerance. And diversity isn’t what it used to be. In fact, to be fair, those things are nowhere near talked about like they used to be. In the day, when I was in school and MTV played videos, the promise was of an open society, where all was diversity, tolerance, respecting differences, agreeing to disagree, not imposing your values on others. As my son said a few years ago, “I give you Animal Farm.”

    • Pete the Greek

      Most terms used by moderns are either meaningless or have been perverted to mean something else entirely.

      Diversity, tolerance, green… all of these terms are meaningless now.

    • UAWildcatx2

      It was Bishop Sheen who said that “tolerance” should never be applied to truth or principles. Plus, “tolerance” isn’t a Christian virtue.


    • kenofken

      When, exactly, was American conservative Christianity ever about tolerance where gays are concerned? Was it the during the entirety of the last century when gays and lesbians were regularly arrested and imprisoned for their orientation? Was it during the decades when physical and mental torment were employed to “cure” them? Was it in the 80s, when prominent Christians gleefully celebrated the AIDS epidemic? Was it during the many decades when gay youth were killed for sport, driven to suicide or homelessness? Was is DADT? Was it in the endless juxtaposition of gays and pedophilia and bestiality in virtually every discussion joined by “pro-marriage” advocates? Is it found in the endless spate of new last-ditch legislative attempts to marginalize gays to the maximum extent possible and pre-emptively eliminate them from the protection of civil rights laws?

      In what fleeting nanosecond of time would gay rights advocates find in your movement an example of the tolerance and forbearance you now demand?

      • Dave G.

        Ah, but American Conservative Christianity never strutted like peacocks under the banner of tolerance and diversity and moral relativity. They never said, ‘Trust us, we promise a society of openness, tolerance, respecting differing views. We will agree to disagree. You can’t legislate morality. No intolerance. All morals are opinions. Open to all!’ Yes, I remember it well. In the day, I even believed it. Until I noticed that those saying such things were not exactly practicing them. Conservatives never said anything other than laws are morally based, and right and wrong are absolutes. Some things are wrong. And it’s fine to oppose them. For everything Conservatives can be accused of, promoting those things is not one of them. But the left, which has been the champion force of gay marriage, was either filled with the most unbelievable level of stupidity in history, or knew it was B.S. all along up until, well, now Hence my son’s observation that the morphing of the Left around the issue of gay rights seems a lot more like Animal Farm than Animal Farm. A keen and correct observation.

        • kenofken

          I guess the religious rights deserves points for unyielding consistency in their intolerance, but in what bizarre reality does that create an obligation on the part of gays to passively accept that intolerance and repay it with niceness? For any group to tolerate a sworn enemy who poses an ongoing existential threat to them is not just unlikely. It would be insane and/or suicidal for them to do so.

          • Dave G.

            If one defines intolerance as simply having a moral point of view, then yeah. Conservatives would actually say there is nothing wrong with intolerance, given a situation. So it is good to be intolerant of people who want to have sex with children. Or do 90 mph through a school zone. Or any such thing. Which the Left now also seems to agree with. Intolerance is a beautiful thing for the Left. They’ve come to enjoy and encourage it. It’s now their banner. Their rallying cry. Again. Either one generation of really stupid people, or it was a coup of the century based on lies, falsehoods, deceit and now more tyranny than one could ever have imagined from those old white haired conservatives of the day.

          • Dave

            An existential threat?? No more than the Baptist Church poses an existential threat to alcohol drinkers.

            • kenofken

              Did the Baptist Church end 13,000+ military careers of alcohol drinkers (not for drinking on duty, just for being known to sometimes take a drink)?

              • antigon

                No, inasmuch as drunks aren’t ‘a sworn enemy who poses an ongoing existential threat to them.’

          • antigon

            ‘For any group to tolerate a sworn enemy who poses an ongoing existential threat to them is not just unlikely. It would be insane and/or suicidal for them to do so.’
            May we assume this your defense of the actions described in kenofken’s penultimate post?

  • Peggy

    The homosexual agenda is NOT a live and let live proposition.

    Erick Erickson of Red State blog nailed it when he came up with the slogan: “You will be made to care.”

  • HornOrSilk

    http://wishtv.com/2015/03/24/gen-con-asks-pence-not-to-sign-religious-freedom-bill/ here is an example of how things are going…. fight for religious liberty, and get threatened

  • Aradhel

    Here’s another example, from the Indianapolis NBC affiliate:


    The bill does not give discrimination carte blanche but the media have consistently represented it that way and so it is perceived. Alas.

  • Newp Ort

    “Gay rights has never been about tolerance. It’s about punishing Christians for believing that homosexual acts are sinful.”

    Well, gay rights is only about you to the degree that you oppose them. What rights have gays attained that orthodox christians and conservatives didn’t fight against tooth and nail?

    Intolerance breeds intolerance. Doesn’t make it right for them to do it back to you, but there you have it.

    Isn’t that basically what you want here, to have the freedom to be intolerant because of your religious beliefs? And they want to be intolerant to you because of your religious beliefs. There’s bound to be conflict. It’s not because they’re punishing YOU, you just want different things. You’re being a bit self centered, don’t you think?

    • Artevelde

      I suppose the tables have been turned a bit in terms of raw power. But, just as you could be on the side of the strange forest-dwelling midwife asking not to be burned at the stake because she doesn’t fit in nicely, you can equally well be on the side of the local thatcher who refuses to mend her broom because he doesn’t like witches. It’s not particularly nice, engaging or even Christian, but individually and as groups, we should have the freedom not to deal with people we don’t want to deal with. If at the end of the day that means a civilization becomes fragmented beyond repair, it probably means it’s on its last legs anyway, and no amount of legislation can change that.

  • Owen

    “administrated”? Obviously the editor at CBS SF wasn’t taught by nuns.

  • SteveP

    Certainly any material problem or injustice can be fixed with more law. This is what some folks call “progress”.

  • HornOrSilk

    Here is some good commentary as to what is going on in Indiana. While I pointed to one website the other day as an example of a birther (and he is), the blogger in general is anti-corruption and pro-freedom and has a lot to offer despite my strong disagreements with his birther-belief.


    This one shows how Indiana’s bill/law is just following national standards:


    Makes you wonder, will the people threatening Indiana reject all states who hold similar laws? Clearly they are pro-discrimination, because they are encouraging discrimination against Indiana and upset that a law is saying people can’t discriminate against people of religious faith.

    • wlinden

      Yes. What happened to “Colorado, the hate state”?

  • HornOrSilk

    http://www.indianaforefront.com/this-ford-recalled/ another example of what is going on behind the scenes.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    I hate to say it, but:
    Agreed. It’s a Catholic school. Those lawmakers are free to send all the letters and petitions they like, but the gov’t doesn’t get to impose in this case.

  • brian_in_brooklyn


    Your (or my) vision of orthodoxy is always optional for Americans–or are you rejecting the First Amendment?

    As for an investigation of working conditions, that certainly falls within the purview of government. The ability to change circumstances at archdiocesan institutions will be limited, however, by that very same First Amendment. Yet an unlikely, ineffective action proposed by two assemblymen leads you to scream persecution,

    Meanwhile, a proposition that may go before California voters that calls for the murder of gay people (thankfully, also unlikely to pass) elicits not a peep out of you.

    So, Shea’s Law seems to be:
    Investigating working conditions of my tribe? “Persecution!”;
    Proposing the murder of the gays? “Yawn.”

    • Stu

      While I am amused at someone turning the tables on Mark in such a way, that is hardly his position.

      If and when the proposal to execute homosexuals is serious enough to be concerned about, I’m quite confident the Mark would have words against it. But to give attention to every single wacky idea out there proposed by every single wacky person out there is a fools errand.

      And as to the First Amendment, it’s not applicable here or are you rejecting what the Constitution actually says?

      • brian_in_brooklyn

        Hi Stu,

        I do think that the First Amendment is applicable: the archdiocese says that they are exempt from many workplace regulations due to the free exercise clause, and Mark speaks (disparagingly) of optional orthodoxy. If orthodoxy is enforced, then it violates the First Amendment. If that isn’t what Mark wants, then what does the opening line to this post mean?

        My point is that a highly unlikely investigation of the archdiocese is, for Mark, beyond the pale. Mark has often spoken of the threat he perceives from the Gay Rights movement.When gay lives are threatened, whether by an equally unlikely proposition or a much more tangible torching of a gay bar in Mark’s own back yard, we hear not a peep from Mark. Surely, a responsible opponent of the movement would just as stridently–and just as publicly–denounce all threats of violence against the movement, yet Mark is silent.

        If someone had torched a Catholic chulrch in Seattle last year, followed rhis year by a “kill the Catholics” proposition in California, would Mark have been silent? Would Mark approve of voters being allowed to vote on the civil and marriage rights of Catholics? Wouldn’t he denounce bills that would omit Catholics from public accommodations laws?

        All of these things are happening To gays now, so I find it difficult to form much outrage about any supposed threat to religious liberty posed by an unlikely investigation into the working conditions of the archdiocese of San Francisco

        • kenofken

          What does it mean that a couple of lawmakers “call for an investigation”? 99.99% of the time, it means they want a headline. I don’t think a week has gone by in Obama’s presidency when Republicans in Congress aren’t calling for an investigation or high crimes prosecution against him.

          Hell, for that matter, I’ve called for war crimes investigations of the entire senior staff of the Bush administration. Was that a threat to their liberty? Let’s just say they aren’t losing any sleep over it.

        • Stu

          The First Amendment applies to the government.

          • brian_in_brooklyn

            Right the government–like California legislators. Or like a force capable of imposing an orthodoxy.

        • Eric

          Ahhhhh, I see. You’re upset that a Catholic blogger wrote about a perceived injustice regarding a justifiably unsettling situation involving church/state issues. How dare he. By the way Mark, somebody called me a faggot the other day. I trust a post addressing this injustice is forthcoming.

          • brian_in_brooklyn

            In the past two days, Mark has said that Gay rights is about “mustering the legal force ” needed for “punishing Christians” and “it is bound and determined to reach right into Catholic education and the sanctuary” and jail those who think” homosexuality is sinful–all of this inflammatory rhetoric about two legislators calling for an unlikely investigation! Meanwhile, you dismiss–and Mark ignores–dangers to gays that are really happening.

            Inflammatory rhetoric like Mark’s against a minority that still faces real dangers is irresponsible and hardly seems charitable

            • Eric

              Dismiss the issue? I wasn’t dismissing the issue. I was dismissing your comments. They remind me of my daughters complaining when they feel the other received an extra couple marshmallows in their bowl of lucky charms. I then proceed to explain how ridiculous they’re behaving. I guess I could adopt your method and start counting marshmallows.

              Now focus.

              Catholic blogger

              Church issue

              Is it mandatory that Mark devote equal time to every single injustice that manifests itself in our broken world? OR can a blogger take an interest in a particular issue and devote time to addressing that issue without random commenters feeling the need to boo-hoo when they feel they’re pet issue has been neglected?

              Put your big boy pants on and stop counting marshmallows.

            • Joseph

              Forgive Mark for not having the foresight of a blind man.

          • Joseph

            Someone called you a bundle of branches? How insulting!

          • wlinden

            I have repeatedly been called “faggot”. Does this mean that I am infringing on your victimhood, or the catcallers are, or something?
            Or do we conclude that it is “mere vulgar abuse”?

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      I admire how you don’t care at all about breaking that ‘hysterically histrionic homosexual’ stereotype. Just be yourself and let the chips fall where they may, I always say.

  • AquinasMan

    Off topic, but, meanwhile, a woman is getting her career taken away from her with the approbation of her bishop, for saying nothing less controversial or contra-doctrine about the homosexual agenda than Mark Shea has said here. Whereas calling out a bishop on a Blog may seem to be a delicate matter, it’s shameful that a network as prominent as Patheos appears unconcerned with a prelate who delivers up the sheep like this. Unless I’ve forgotten how to operate a search window, the word “Jannuzzi” returns zero hits on Patheos. I don’t know if that’s off-limits according to your managing editor, but it seems bizarre that we’re bitching about San Francisco politicians being San Francisco politicians, while hack celebrities are bum-rushing a woman straight out of her livelihood in New Jersey with the polite approval of the local bishop.

    • antigon

      Yup. And the good bishop invoked the current Pontiff as his justification for this clericalist assault on one of the faithful, & of course implicitly on the Faith.
      O mercy! one is inclined to observe.

  • Joseph

    It’s funny (and sad at the same time) to read the comments of those defending the erosion of religious freedom. They are using the Jedi mind trick: ‘these aren’t the droids you’re looking for’.
    What’s happening isn’t really happening, Mark, and it will set absolutely no precedent in the future. Can’t you see that?