“All evil begins with a lie. If we can identify the lie, we succeed in unmasking the evil” Great homiletic wisdom from the late Msgr. William Smith, moral theologian and priest of the Archdiocese of New York. Following on those words were these: “All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” In two sentences, Msgr. Smith has provided for us the key to identifying the false gods and decoding the lexicon of the Culture of Death. This lexicon is most easily decoded by considering the polar opposite definition of that which is held up to us by the opposition as virtue.
Most of societal reengineering has occurred in the area of sexual morality and family life. In the past few years the very definition of the family has come under withering assault by the homosexual and lesbian communities with a pitched battle that has ensued. We are assured that gay and lesbian partnerships and families are not motivated by anything other than love and that children raised in such homes are not subject to any distortions in their psychological or faith formation. We are told that gay marriages are no different than heterosexual marriages, and can be just as healthy, and that heterosexuals need to practice the virtues of tolerance, openness, and inclusivity.
Children who are either adopted into, or born into such arrangements are taught implicitly that either a mother or a father is not essential to the wellbeing of children, that they are optional, that a second mother or father is a suitable replacement. Implicit in such a statement resides the evidence of the war against the opposite sex from those with same-sex attraction. It also denies the mountain of social scientific literature that consistently indicates the absolute necessity of a mother and a father in a stable marriage for children’s optimal development.
Gay and lesbian partnerships/marriages also open the floodgates to the perversion of sexual morality and the utilization of the immoral and unethical practices of surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. Such grotesque manipulations of human sexuality mock the very nature of conjugal union in marriage as designed by the Creator, along with the denigration of motherhood or fatherhood, depending on which parental role is being deemed not essential.
Here the false virtues come into sharp relief. Openness in this context is the false virtue, being the diametric opposite of fidelity. If we are open to the concept that each person is free to define morality for him or herself, then we absolve ourselves of our divine mandate through Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, and Holy Orders to be faithful witnesses to the gospels and to be a sign of contradiction in the world. We also simultaneously obliterate the need for bioethics, thereby descending into the morass of moral anarchy where each person is his or her own source of moral norms.
The tolerance demanded by the gay and lesbian communities is the deadliest of the false virtues. The very word conjures minimalistic visages. Who aspires to being tolerated? Love, respect and discernment are the virtues that oppose tolerance.
Because we are called to embrace God’s wise design for His creation, we are necessarily called to discern that which opposes what God has revealed in His plan. We are called to witness that plan in both word and deed. We are called to love and respect all persons as children of God, but also to engage in fraternal correction using the revealed Word (2 Timothy 3:16). True love demands that we not tolerate sin in our midst, much less condone it.
Fidelity and love call us to acknowledge the limits laid down by God for all of humanity, the goods contained within those limits and the perils that await those who seek to live beyond those limits. This necessarily implies that we cannot be tolerant of every lifestyle, be open to every redefinition of morality, or include within our moral boundaries those behaviors that God forbids.
The opposition is very skilled in the rhetoric of presenting false virtue as authentic civic virtue, with far too many Christians having been cowed into silence. The result has been the lightning disintegration of society, beginning with conjugal fidelity and leading to divorce, abortion, rampant sexually transmitted diseases, the scourge of AIDS, and a majority of Americans now eschewing marriage altogether.
In Part II, science as the new Ba’al.
I think the definition of “optimal” is open to debate.
I agree that children need both male and female influences. I agree the tradition family naturally provides them.
But even in traditional families, outside role models sometimes figure significantly. For example, I was living apart from my partner for over a year, and a male teacher at our Catholic school really took our older son under his wing, and provided the kind of support that his absent father would have otherwise provided.
To facilitate this arrangment in no way denigrated fatherhood, or deemed the role nonessential.
Arguably, it is “optimal” that both parents share a culture and religious faith, and discord is the natural result when this is not the case.
On the other hand, the tradeoff for this discord can be children who have deep understandings of multiple faiths and cultures.
This might be a different definition of “optimal.”
Thank you for the interesting post I won’t be commenting further.
“True love demands that we not tolerate sin in our midst, much less condone it.”
Excellent. I look forward to Part II.
[…] Coming Home, Gerard Nadal discusses the “false virtue” of the rhetoric of […]