Written by George Weigel

Francis Eugene George was many things: a dedicated missionary priest; a first-rate intellectual; a shrewd observer of the public square; the first native of the Windy City to be named archbishop of Chicago; a great reformer of the Archdiocese of Chicago. But when word of his death came early this afternoon, my first thought was that he was, in the Lord’s mercy, no longer in pain.

His sister once told a Chicago priest that, if he wanted to understand her brother, he should remember that “he’s always in pain.” A polio survivor from the days of the iron lung, Francis George spent his entire adult life with his legs encased in dozens of pounds of steel. Then he was struck by bladder cancer and lived for years with what he called, ruefully, a “neo-bladder.” He beat that challenge, but then another form of cancer struck, and his last years were filled with new pain, more pain, different pain. Yet not once, since I first met him three decades ago when he was Father Francis George, did I ever hear him complain about the pain — or about the sometimes strange ways God has with those He has blessed in so many other facets of their lives. Francis George could live in chronic pain because he conformed his life to Christ and the Cross. And now, I firmly believe, he is pain-free. For the Lord he served so long and well has welcomed home his good and faithful servant.

Perhaps the most appropriate Gospel passage to ponder at times like this, and when thinking about lives like that of Cardinal George, is the story of the Transfiguration. For in preserving the memory of the transfigured Christ, whose “face shone like the sun” and whose “garments became white as light” (Matthew 17:2), the first generation of Christians was bearing witness to its hope for the human future. The transfigured Christ not only prefigured the Risen Christ, in whose Eastertide Francis George died; the transfigured Christ prefigures the life that awaits the friends of the Risen One in his Kingdom, at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. There, there is no polio, and no post-polio syndrome. There, there is no cancer, no gut-wrenching chemotherapy, no diminishment of vigor. There, there is only fullness of life, with palsied limbs made whole in a wholly new way.

That is the future in which Cardinal Francis George believed. That that is the future in which he now shares is the consolation of those who loved and admired him.

The American hierarchy has not, these past two centuries, been noted for scholar-bishops — unlike, say, the Catholic Church in Germany. But in Francis Eugene George, the Catholic Church in the United States found itself with a leader of world-class intellect, with two earned doctorates yet with none of the intellectual deformities associated with the contemporary academy. He was, in the best sense of the term, a free thinker: one who thought independently of the reigning shibboleths, yet within the tradition of the Church and its intellectual heritage. His was a thoroughly modern intellect; yet how appropriate that he died on the day when the Church reads the Johannine account of Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000, with the Lord’s admonition to “gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost” (John 6:12), for Cardinal George’s fidelity to the tradition was in response to that admonition. He knew that the tradition had something to teach us today; he practiced what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead.”

That Johannine reference works in other ways, too. For when Francis George became archbishop of Chicago in 1997, there were a lot of fragments to be gathered up. Six months after his appointment, we were together in Rome, and I asked him what he’d learned so far about what had long considered itself the flagship archdiocese of the United States. “I’m 60 years old,” he said, “and in the 15 years I’ve got left I’ve got to get people going back to Mass again and I’ve got to get priests hearing confessions again.” He worked hard to do that, and he did so with effect. And if some of the notoriously difficult Chicago clergy never quite got it, a lot of the people of the Archdiocese of Chicago did — and in the brief months of his retirement, the cardinal often remarked in our conversations on how touched he was by people coming up to him in parishes and thanking him for what he had done for the archdiocese.

We spoke several times since, but what turned out to be our final meeting was last November at Mundelein Seminary, which he had thoroughly reformed. (Something of the flavor of the larger-than-life quality of old Chicago Catholicism can be gleaned from the story about the coat of arms of Cardinal George William Mundelein, founder of the seminary. The motto on his arms read Deus Adjutor Meus [God Is My Help], which local clerical wags translated as “God Is My Auxiliary [Bishop].”) The current rector, Father Robert Barron, had built a new daily-Mass chapel for the growing seminary community. The chapel was to be dedicated to the newly canonized Pope St. John Paul II, and Father Barron had invited me to give a public lecture on the late pope after Cardinal George consecrated the chapel — which he did, walking with difficulty on crutches, rubbing great swaths of holy chrism into the altar and then celebrating the first Mass offered there. It was another example of Cardinal George’s extraordinary physical courage — but he was determined to keep his commitment to consecrate the chapel, in no small part because of his love and esteem for John Paul II.

Like the Polish pope — another man determined to “gather up the fragments” and then re-knead them into a contemporary synthesis of Catholic faith and practice — Cardinal George was a keen observer (and critic) of the Western-civilization project. And his concerns about the trajectory on which that project seemed headed were neatly captured in a sound bite, excerpted from a lengthy discussion with his priests, in which the cardinal said that he expected to die in bed; he expected his successor to die in prison; and he expected the following archbishop of Chicago to be a martyr in the public square.

It was a deliberately provocative formulation, intended to get the priests of Chicago thinking seriously about the challenges posed by what Pope Benedict XVI had called the “dictatorship of relativism.” To some it bespoke resignation, even surrender. That misimpression was due to the fact that the cardinal’s hypothetical was always cut short in the reporting of it. For what he said, in full, was that he expected to die in bed; his successor would die in prison; that man’s successor would be publicly executed; and his successor would “pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the Church has done so often in human history.”

Like John Paul II, Francis George knew that the Catholic Lite project — the unhappy dumbing down of the vibrant progressive Chicago Catholicism of the 1930s and 1940s — was unfit either to fight the zeitgeist in the name of freedom rightly understood, or to “gather up the fragments” and help rebuild the American experiment after the zeitgeist had done its worst. But it would be a great disservice to his memory to suggest, as some undoubtedly will, that Francis George was at war with “liberal” Catholicism. In the first place, he refused to think of the Church as something that could be defined in terms of “liberal” or “conservative.” As he said at his first Chicago press conference in 1997, the Church is about true and false, not left and right. Moreover, he knew that Catholic Lite was dying of its own implausibility, so why waste energy battling it? Rather, “gather up the fragments” — including the fragments of good in the once-vital reform Catholicism of Chicago — and get on with the task of re-evangelizing both the Church and the Great American City.

That could be done, the cardinal was convinced, only by what you might call All-In Catholicism: a Church that offered both mercy and truth; a Church that was both pro-life and committed to the effective empowerment of the poor; a Church that could make Catholicism compelling in a culture that was too often simply indifferent to what religious communities had to say. That apathy would not be met by surrendering core Catholic understandings of what makes for human happiness to the zeitgeist. But neither would it be met by argument alone. Arguments were important, this man of intellect and culture knew; but so was witness, and that was why he put such energy into defending the Church’s institutions for empowering the poor — its schools, health-care facilities, and social-service centers — against the encroachments of a government trying to use the Church for its own purposes.

When the U.S. bishops elected Cardinal George their president in 2007, they were acknowledging a change in the dynamics of Catholic life in America that is irreversible. The liveliest centers of Catholicism in America — the parishes, the dioceses, the seminaries, the lay renewal movements, the growing orders of consecrated religious life — are those that have embraced what John Paul II called the “New Evangelization” and what Pope Francis has called a “Church permanently in mission.” The old post-conciliar battles are, largely, over, and the course has been set. Francis George helped set that course. And when it comes time to write his story in full, he will be remembered as the most consequential archbishop of Chicago in the modern history of the Church — and a leader in American Catholicism whose intellectual and physical courage was instrumental in making the Church in the United States, for all its challenges and problems, the most vital in the developed world. He is now where he has always wanted to be.

He is without pain, whole and healed. He has met Christ the Lord, and he is living in the presence of the Thrice-Holy God — to whom I give thanks for his life, his witness, and our friendship.

— George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies. Originally published at NationalReview.com.

Last Wednesday, also known as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, was a very encouraging day for anyone who values the First Amendment and who believes that government doesn’t create marriage and ought not try to deconstruct it.

Americans turned out in droves to demonstrate their support for free speech, religious liberty, and true marriage. They showed their support by patronizing Chick-fil-A, waiting patiently for hours to demonstrate with their time and their money that First Amendment rights and marriage matter.

For those who have been vacationing in some Internet-free wilderness, Chick-fil-A’s president and COO Dan Cathy has been vilified for stating in an interview with a Christian organization that he believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman and for donating money to organizations that are trying to maintain the legal definition as such.

Pandering Politicians and “Diversity”

The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and Washington D.C. as well as Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno and New York City Council speaker, lesbian Christine Quinn, in effect, told the entire nation that conservatives are unwelcome in their cities. In so doing, they revealed a willingness to abuse power and an embarrassing degree of constitutional ignorance.

Quinn wrote this in a letter to the president of New York University:

NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity….We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families….Let me be clear—I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views. We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anyone and anything that runs counter to that….As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. (emphasis added; irony Quinn’s)

How do progressives demonstrate tolerance and revel in diversity? They ostracize anyone who does not think exactly as they do. Here are some of the men and women who, according to these elected leaders, would be unwelcome in their cities: Jesus Christ; every Old and New Testament writer; virtually every biblical scholar in the history of Christendom until the late 20^th Century; the pagan writers Juvenal and Horace; all faithful Catholics and Southern Baptists; all faithful members of the Eastern Orthodox Church; all faithful members of the Anglican Church of North America; all faithful members of the Presbyterian Church of America, Orthodox Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches; all Orthodox Jews; all Muslims; the 3,700-member Coalition of African-American Pastors; and, of course, Barack Obama (between the years 2004 and mid-2012 when he opposed “same-sex marriage”).

The good news is that outside the irrational, hypocritical, bullying world of homosexual activism, these five received widespread condemnation even by progressive pundits and the ACLU.

The Strange Theology of Alderman Moreno

Cardinal Francis George responded  to Rahm Emanuel’s claim that support for true marriage is inconsistent with Chicago values (which may be true, if Emanuel is using “Chicago” as a presumptuous synecdoche for himself).  Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, have been encouraged by his unequivocal words, a portion of which are quoted here:

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval…. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Alderman Moreno had this to say about Cardinal George and the Bible: 

“It’s unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts,’ said Moreno, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.

“The Bible says many things,” Moreno said. “For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just disingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian.”

Four thoughts: 

• I’m not Catholic, but I assume that cardinals have read and studied the Bible more thoroughly than have altar boys and occasional church attendees. 
• Generally speaking, it is not cardinals and other theologically orthodox religious leaders who pick and choose those parts of Scripture that suit their fancy. It’s theological heterodox religious leaders, atheists, and homosexual activists who cherry-pick and decontextualize Scripture. 
• Clearly, a man who thinks it’s “irresponsible” to suggest that Christians must believe what Christ believes understands virtually nothing about Christ’s Lordship or the nature of God. 
• I wonder if Moreno will catch any flak from progressives for violating the separation of church and state by using his Christian beliefs about “equal rights” to shape public policy? 

The Look of Love

Pandering politicians like mayors Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Vincent Gray have a greater commitment to currying favor with homosexual activists, who have become increasingly brazen in part because of conservative cowardice, than they do to protecting constitutional rights.

The behemoth of homosexual activism has grown by gorging on political and judicial power, academia, the mainstream press, the entertainment industry, and the arts. Now it stands slavering over the church and marriage. It licks its chops while waiting for these last delectable morsels of civilized life to be handed to them on a silver platter by an obsequious public afraid of confrontation and persecution. Yum, yum, eat ‘em up. 

And they’re no fools. They gussy themselves up in Sunday-go-to-meetin’ finery, deceiving America—especially America’s gullible youth—with the language of love and “social justice,” keeping their gimlet eyes affixed on images that appeal and beguile. Homosexual activists keep Americans from the hard intellectual work of critically analyzing their flawed presuppositions, propositions, and analogies:

• They want to keep Americans from thinking deeply about whether marriage is a private institution concerned only with the romantic and sexual feelings of adults.
• They want to keep them from thinking about whether marriage is really an infinitely malleable social construct or whether it has an intrinsic nature.
• They want to keep them from wondering why, if marriage has no intrinsic connection to sexual complementarity or procreative potential, we limit it to two people.
• They want to keep them from asking whether prohibiting polyamorists from marrying the persons they love constitutes hatred, discrimination, and intolerance.
• They want to keep Americans from demanding evidence for the claim that homosexuality is by nature like race.
• And they definitely want to keep them from asking whether children have any inherent rights to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Homosexual activists don’t want Americans to ask whether the desires of couples who are sterile by design supersede the rights of children.

Public Controversies and Good Business Practices

Throughout the Chick-fil-A imbroglio, a number of commentators have said that although Dan Cathy has a right to express his views and donate his money to whatever cause he wants, getting involved in controversial social issues is just bad business practice. It’s curious that I have never heard those same pundits fret about the “bad business practices” of Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage in Washington State; Disney; General Mills; Home Depot; JC Penney; Marriott; Microsoft; Nabisco; Office Depot; Starbucks; or Target, all of which have very publicly taken sides on the controversial issue of homosexuality.

The Firing of CFO Adam Smith

Adam Smith, the CFO and treasurer of a medical device manufacturing company in Tucson, Arizona, and a lecturer at the University of Arizona, visited a Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, recorded his conversation with the young woman who waited on him, and then posted his recording on YouTube. He is now the former CFO and treasurer of the medical supply company, Vante.

Some are arguing that he shouldn’t have been fired and that conservatives are hypocritical for not supporting his right to express his views. That line of thinking seems flawed. Adam Smith’s problematic behavior was not the expression of his political or religious views. The problems were, first, he publicly impugned the character of a young woman whom he did not know, saying to her, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and continue to work here.”

Second, he continued to record her even after she told him that she was uncomfortable with him recording her.

And finally, he posted this recording, presumably without her permission, online. If this remarkably poised and respectful young woman is under 18, Smith’s actions may not have been merely rude and inconsiderate, they may have been illegal.

The lack of respect for the feelings of this young woman and his lack of judgment in posting his video are more than sufficient justification for his firing.

Final words

Some claim that this incident was “really just about the First Amendment.” It wasn’t. It was equally about the truth of marriage. It was equally about whether marriage has an objective status and whether our government should recognize, promote, and regulate it—or whether it should be deconstructed to accommodate the desires of a small group of people with specious arguments, abusive voices, political power, and deep pockets.

Let’s hope Americans will not slip back into inertia, acquiescence, and cowardice. As Michael Medved said, Wednesday was inspiring.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Originally posted in Catholic World News.

Cardinal Francis George has criticized Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s recent comments on Chick-fil-A, a restaurant chain whose president said recently that he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said in response. “They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

Emanuel is also co-chair of President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

Cardinal George responded: 

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

“The value in question is espousal of ‘gender-free marriage,’” he continued. “Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus.”

“Was Jesus a bigot?” Cardinal George added. “Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more ‘enlightened’ if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free. Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage.”

Read Cardinal George’s full comments HERE.

With all due respect to Cardinal Francis George, I think his apology is misguided and his reasoning troubling:

During a recent TV interview, speaking about this year’s Gay Pride Parade, I used an analogy that is inflammatory.

I am personally distressed that what I said has been taken to mean that I believe all gays and lesbians*are like members of the Klan. I do not believe that; it is obviously not true. Many people have friends and family members who are gay or lesbian, as have I. We love them; they are part of our lives, part of who we are. I am deeply sorry for the hurt that my remarks have brought to the hearts of gays and lesbians and their families.

I can only say that my remarks were motivated by fear for the Church’s liberty. This is a larger topic that cannot be explored in this expression of personal sorrow and sympathy for those who were wounded by what I said.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

His primary justification or at least his public justification was that his analogy was hurtful. I wonder if he would publicly state that homosexual acts are “abominable.” Surely, that would be “hurtful” to those who identify as homosexual, and yet that’s how Scripture characterizes them.

The notion that the presence of hurt feelings means that Cardinal George has done something wrong suggests that the ethical legitimacy of public speech is determined by the subjective response of hearers. But consistently applied, that principle would prohibit all expressions of moral propositions.

Although it’s unpleasant to say something that results in hurt feelings and at times hurt feelings result from our sinful words, sometimes “hurt” or bad feelings result from an encounter with truth.

Anyone who bothered to read his original comments knows that he did not suggest that all homosexuals are “like members of the Klan.” His comments were about “some” homosexual activists. Moreover he expressed his “hope” that the “gay pride” parade would not “morph” into something like the marches the KKK led against the Catholic Church.

I understand why non-Christians have lost sight of how profoundly wrong homosexual acts are, but when followers of Christ have so little spiritual discernment and so much theological ignorance, society is in deep trouble.

Homosexual activists as an organized public movement do not preach violence or engage in violence, but many express hatred. I have been on the receiving end of multiple hair-curling epithets and death wishes.

In addition, the effort to teach little children in our government schools, subsidized with public dollars, that this sin is good is an unconscionably evil act. Homosexuality is so serious a sin that it puts people at risk of eternal separation from a Holy God, and we’re teaching children in school that it’s morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Most of us are so desensitized or inured to the wickedness (if I may use this somewhat archaic term) of homosexual acts and so spiritually obtuse that the evil of teaching children that wrong is right doesn’t even register on our moral barometer.

Moreover, homosexual activists seek to prohibit parents from opting their children out of such teaching. I can’t think of a group that seeks such an egregious and arrogant usurpation of parental rights.

I agree that the analogy was inflammatory and that the point that homosexual activism is becoming increasingly hateful, aggressive, and tyrannical could have been made without it. Cardinal George could have said that some homosexual activists discriminate based on religion; that some activists hate people who hold orthodox theological beliefs on homosexuality; that some employ hateful and obscene rhetoric; that some march in the streets violating public decency laws and promoting evil ideas; that some seek to diminish other people’s fundamental constitutionally protected liberties; and that some seek to use public schools to promulgate their philosophical, moral, and political beliefs about homosexuality. All of this may be hurtful to hear, but it is not unethical to say.

What I wish Cardinal George had said was that homosexual acts are soul-destroying acts that are “detestable” in God’s eyes and that the parade is a tragic, offensive event that shouldn’t take place on any day in any neighborhood. It is not an act of love to affirm or appear to affirm that which God condemns.

*Cardinal George should not use the terms “gay” and “lesbian.” Those terms do not merely denote same-sex attraction and volitional acts. They connote biological determinism, immutability, and an inherent morality. What other groups would Cardinal George choose to identify by their disordered inclinations and freely chosen sinful acts? Rhetoric matters.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

I’m reluctant to beat a dead horse, but in light of a comment made by the pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and an editorial in the liberal National Catholic Reporter (NCR), a bit more needs to be said about the “gay pride” parade brouhaha.

1.   In addition to the cowardice of conservatives, it is the failures of religious leaders that have helped create the cultural mess we’re in right now. NCR recently wrote favorably about this portion of a statement issued by Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s pastor, Fr. Thomas Srenn:

The annual Pride Parade is one of the hallmarks that make Lakeview unique and we in no way wish to diminish its place in the community.

This should be a deeply troubling comment coming from any Christian leader, whether Catholic or Protestant. The word “hallmark” means either “a mark indicating quality or excellence” or “a conspicuous feature.” Perhaps Fr. Srenn is a skillful rhetorician and was deliberately playing on that ambiguity. Perhaps he thinks the parade is a conspicuous and obnoxious Lakeview feature but hopes that others will assume he finds it an excellent Lakeview feature.

But, viewed in light of the second half of his statement, that is to say, his wish that the parade’s “place in the community” not be diminished, it seems more likely that he looks on the parade positively.

Such a view would be at minimum an odd notion coming from a Catholic priest, presumably well-schooled in theology. How can a Catholic priest view positively a parade that celebrates that which the Catholic Church views as profoundly sinful? I wonder too if he would be willing to invite children to attend this hallmark of the unique Lakeview community.

2.   NCR opines that Cardinal George’s analogy is a “nonsensical historical comparison.” I’ve already argued ad nauseum that there are valid and obvious points of correspondence between the KKK and the “gay liberation” movement (i.e., hatred of the Catholic Church, vitriolic rhetoric directed at the Catholic Church, and offensive parades). But now NCR raises another issue. If NCR editorial board is so incensed by nonsensical historical analogies, perhaps they could write an indignant editorial about the nonsensical comparison of race to homosexuality, or the nonsensical comparison of the civil rights movement to the “gay liberation” movement, or the nonsensical comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Come to think of it, why hasn’t there been an editorial in the Chicago Tribune arguing that the comparison of race to homosexuality is bizarre?

3.   I can’t conceive of a group in America today that holds the Catholic Church in as much contempt as the movement to normalize homosexuality (i.e., the “gay liberation” movement). Fifty years ago, who could have imagined that homosexual activists would become the oppressors of religious freedom? Not some, but many homosexuals detest the Catholic Church because of its theological position on volitional homosexual acts — a theological position that survived the Reformation and is, therefore, the same theological position of many Protestant churches. In fact, there was no theologian prior to the late 20th Century who affirmed volitional homosexual acts as moral acts.

4.   NCR also drew attention to one of the central stratagems of homosexual activists: ad hominem attacks. NCR described Cardinal Francis George’s analogy as “embarrassingly imprudent.”

Conservatives, like all other humans, are ridicule-averse. Ridicule conservatives. Call them homophobes, bullies, haters, and bigots. Call them old-fashioned and out-of-step with the times. Suggest that Lady Gaga would find them totally uncool, and you win the debate through the cowardly forfeit of conservatives.

5.   I would not have used the analogy Cardinal George used, but not because it lacks soundness. I wouldn’t have used it because the emotion it generates within the perpetually petulant world of homosexual activists creates such a gaseous environment, it clouds even what passes for discourse today.

The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists.

Organizers of Chicago’s annual celebration of sexual deviancy, oxymoronically named the Chicago “Gay Pride” Parade, decided to change the parade route and time for the 2012 parade. This change would have resulted in the disruption or cancellation of the 10:00 a.m. mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

On FOX Chicago Sunday, Mike Flannery and Dane Plancko asked Cardinal Francis George how he felt about this. Cardinal George expressed his hope that the “gay liberation movement” would not “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.” Dane Plancko followed up by suggesting that such an analogy might be “a little strong,” to which Cardinal George agreed, adding that we should “look at the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people.” Cardinal George explained that in the rhetoric of both groups, the enemy is the Catholic Church.

In the face of silly demands by homosexual activists that he resign or apologize, Cardinal George instead offered the following clarification:

“Organizers [of the parade] invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church…One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.”

As is their wont to do, homosexual activists — ever the embodiment of tolerance and freedom — became livid over Cardinal George’s analogy. As too is customary for homosexual activists, they seem to believe their indignation and “hurt feelings” serve just as well as an actual argument.

Here are some of the responses of prominent homosexual activists to Cardinal George’s comments:

He has crossed so far over the line of basic decency that he couldn’t see it with a pair of binoculars…This outrageous comparison of the LGBT community to the Ku Klux Klan was so degrading… that apologizing will not be sufficient….If he has a shred of dignity and a shard of class he will immediately step down. (Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out)

As a lay Catholic, I am profoundly saddened that Cardinal Francis George defiles his office by comparing our LGBT family, friends and fellow Catholics to the Ku Klux Klan. (Catholics for Marriage Equality)

This is a sacred time of year for many people of faith, a time when we should be creating and cherishing unity in our communities-not casting about dangerous and divisive rhetoric. (Human Rights Campaign)

How ironic that those who defend a parade that celebrates sexual perversion and violates public indecency laws would describe Cardinal George’s rhetoric as indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. It is homosexual acts that are indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. We would do well to remember the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” In reality, homosexuality is a sin so serious that Scripture warns that those who engage in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

As such, affirmation of homosexuality would be a desacralizing act. Unity and peace are goods to be sought but never at the expense of truth and never with the “unfruitful works of darkness.” Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.” If we truly love those who experience same-sex attraction, we will speak the truth about homosexuality, offer them the hope that is found in Christ alone, and come alongside them as they seek to pursue holiness.

Cardinal George’s analogy is fair and apt. Many homosexual activists harbor unconcealed hatred for not only the Catholic Church but also for all Protestant denominations that hold orthodox views of homosexuality. And these homosexual activists openly express their hatred in vile and vitriolic rhetoric. If Fox Sunday Chicago reporter Dane Plancko is unaware of this, he needs to do more research.

Was Cardinal George comparing the celebration of sexual deviance to the racism and violence of the KKK? Of course not. He was comparing the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of the KKK to the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of homosexual activists. But once again, petulant homosexual activists, desperate for the ideological high ground, are demonstrating either their obtuseness in dealing with analogies or their deceitfulness.

Homosexual activists become enraged — or feign indignation — at any analogy that compares any aspect of homosexuality or the homosexuality-affirmation movement to anything immoral, unethical, or sinful because they don’t believe homosexual attraction and acts are immoral, unethical, or sinful. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept the ontological or moral assumptions of homosexual activists.

The salient question for conservatives is, “Does the analogy work?” In other words, are there points of correspondence between the two ideas or phenomena being compared, and are the points of correspondence relevant to the issue or issues being debated? Whether it offends the sensibilities of those who choose to make their unchosen homosexual attractions central to their identity is irrelevant.

If every Catholic parish and every Protestant church had a leader who would speak the truth about homosexuality with the clarity, conviction, and courage that Cardinal George did, perhaps we could end the sorry spectacle of the Chicago “gay pride” parade for good.

To read more on the attitudes and actions of homosexual activists to Christian orthodoxy, please click on the following links:

Homosexual Rainbow Sash Movement Threatens to Disrupt Pentecost Mass, Confront Cardinal George (Catholic Online)

‘Jesus is a homo’ Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service (Catholic Online)

Anti-Christian Activists Seek to Intimidate and Censor Church Doctrine (Illinois Family Institute)

‘Safe schools’ chief was member of radical Act Up (WorldNetDaily.com)

‘Hunky Jesus’ Contest in San Francisco Mocks Christianity on Easter Sunday, but Don’t Look for ‘Hunky Muhammad’ Contest Anytime Soon (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)