Would Catholics be better off in America today if scientists discovered a “Catholic gene?” Sadly, I think we would. Sadly, I think our culture promotes and celebrates victimhood and punishes morality. Sadly, I think the discovery of a papal mitre in our double helix could be a legal benefit to Catholics.
Rather than just a life-style choice that’s so un-21st century, Catholics could warrant legal protection similar to the laws that prohibit racial or gender discrimination. In the past if a Catholic pharmacist refused to sell an abortifacient contraceptive the Catholic pharmacist could lose their job. But if Catholicism was discovered to be a genetic defect some of the secular new age compassionistas might be forced to become open minded about our perceived narrow-mindedness. (And that would be fun to see.)
Oh the pretzel twisting gymnastics of feigned compassion we’d witness.
Remember, a few years ago a lesbian couple sued a wedding photographer over the Christian’s unwillingness to take pictures at their wedding. The lesbians won. But if Catholicism were a genetic issue, perhaps the rights of genetically programmed homosexuals wouldn’t trump the rights of genetically disposed Catholics? Who knows? We could argue we’re victims too.
And a few years ago New York City created the “Harvey Milk” school for homosexual, transgender or “curious” students. If Catholicism were deemed to be genetic would the public school system establish a “Catholic” school for young Catholics or “curious” Catechists? The John Paul II public school maybe?
Would prayer be allowed in school?
Would it become illegal for atheist or anti-Catholic adults to abort babies because they discovered the unborn baby had the dreaded “Catholic gene?”
Would it be illegal to prohibit our free speech around abortion clinics because we could argue that from the moment of conception we are genetically designed to protect life?
In short, if people just realized that us Catholics couldn’t help being so narrow minded about love, fidelity and protecting life maybe they wouldn’t despise us the way they do.
While I choose to believe we are made to love, being Catholic, however, is not genetic. We all have free will. Catholics choose to believe that God is love. Catholics choose to believe that we should love our fellow man as we love ourselves. Catholics choose to believe life is sacred. And because Catholics choose to believe in such radical beliefs Catholics can therefore be discriminated against by those deemed powerless to choose.
Comments
Post a Comment
Unfortunately, if a Catholic gene were discovered, they would soon figure out how to screen for the defect and abort babies who would grow to be such threats to “free society.”
It would actually make things worse. Belief in God already is in the minds of many people genetic ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene ).
But since its genetic, it has no credibility so “it can safely be ignored since we can move beyond our genes through science” or “develop retroviruses to cure this unfortunate condition”.
Evidence has little weight for people with agenda. The same evidence that can be used to discredit religion can be used to justify homosexuality. It’s amazing how much cognitive dissonance there is in the intelligentsia.
“Would prayer be allowed in school?”
Prayer IS allowed in school.
Perhaps you were thinking of government-imposed prayer, which is illegal (and should be).
Let’s not forget that Catholics in this country were persecuted and discriminated against for decades in the early years… that’s why the Catholic schools were created in the first place, not to mention the fact that these schools successfully sued and won in the US Supreme Court the right to have their students bussed to Catholic schools by the public system.
Second, the Harvey Milk School is for ALL students in the NYC Schools in danger of dropping out due to harassment, although the focus *is* for the LGBT students in the district.
Third, the suit you mentioned was 100% legitimate, as the photographer was for hire to the public, and wasn’t an employee of a particular church. The state obviously has a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. It suit would just be as legitimate if it was a lesbian who refused to photograph a heterosexual couple, or anyone refusing to photograph a Catholic wedding!
All in all a sub-standard article.
It has become a fashion to criticize the catholics, their church and everything connected with them.The sad part of it is the critics are mostly selfish and disgruntled catholics who do not want to lead a christian life.
Whole article seems a bit whining and quite negative to me. Sadly (to use your word), not much substance. We Catholic readers deserve better.
The criticism isn’t against those attending Mass, KC… it’s the abuses done by too many in the clergy: from the abusive or fornicating parish priest, to the higher-ups who paid off abuse victims and illegally moved these abusers from parish to parish, to the bishops sticking their noses in where they aren’t welcome in ballot measures violating the civil righs of Americans under *secular* law… need I go on?
Catholicism is genetic. It’s completely natural and part of every human being. I’m fond of saying that everyone in the whole world is Catholic, they just don’t know it yet. If you truly believe that Jesus Christ is Who He says He is; if you truly believe that He came to reveal this to us through His life and His Church; if you believe that the Catholic Church has the widest and deepest understanding of human nature; if you believe that Christ’s Church is the primary center of truth, goodness, beauty and wisdom in the world… if Christ is the God of the universe… aren’t we all Catholic all the way down to our genes?
I don’t know what you’re smoking there, Mark, but *I* was raised going to a United Methodist church, but I dumped religion 35 years ago when it wasn’t giving me the answers I needed regarding my gender identity. You *choose* your religion.
Marlene, where did you find those answers? If you chose to find them in the wisdom of the secular world, dismissing the wisdom of the Catholic Church, and I chose to find them within the wisdom of the Catholic Church, one of us in for a big surprise when we meet our Maker. Most God-less secularists I know truly believe that science and evolutionism explains the source of our existence, and that we are all God-less right down to our genes. They would say something similar to what I say about all of us being Catholic—we are all soulless products of random chance, but we just don’t know it or can’t accept it yet. I choose to find the answers for our existence where existence has been studied on its deepest levels. I dumped science (and the political agenda it imposes) years ago when it I realized it could never offer those answers—but something else, (when examined with intellectual honesty and spiritual integrity and without puerile defiance), could.
Marlene, The lawsuit was not legitimate. If you research it you will find the photographer was self-employed and was devout. She did not believe in homosexual marriage. She offered other names to the couple and explained why she wouldn’t photgraph the ceremony. They demanded her only to make an issue of this. She was sued for her religious conviction, not for any hate on her part.
“Marlene, The lawsuit was not legitimate.”
Kind of hard to argue that, as the photographer lost the lawsuit.
Her photography business was a public accommodation, and she refused service based on the customer’s sexual orientation. Not much different from a restaurant refusing to serve people because of their religion.
The lawsuit is under appeal. Ironic to use discrimination to argue one is being discriminated against. This isn’t at all like a restaurant. It’s a woman who works for herself. This is a moral disagreement. Not discrimination. Endentured servitude is what you are asking for.
Mark—I found my answers in legitimate scientific community, not religion. Religious books when it comes to science facts are horribly outdated and invalid. That and the fact I grew up reading about such luminaries such as Christine Jorgensen, Renee Richards, Canary Conn, and Jan Morris, among many others showed I was not alone, and we weren’t the vile creatures religious bigots were claiming we were.
Sorry, Pam… your 1000% wrong! Since she is running a business which is not officially affiliated with a particular religion, she is by local state, and federal law *required* to take on *everyone*! She’s not allowed to discriminate… PERIOD!
Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination! She’d be violating the law had she refused a Jewish couple, or an interracial couple, or any other minority—no ifs ands or buts! She can close on major holy days and on Sunday to her heart’s content.
*However*, had she been an employee of a church as it’s official photographer, and operated on church property, *then* she’s allowed to discriminate through the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. But as an independent contractor, she cannot use her rights under the Free Exercise Clause to violate discrimination laws.
Um, not to break up your pity party, but federal, state, and local civil rights laws already protect Catholics from discrimination on the basis of religion, as does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That protection exists, moreover, without regard to the existence of any Catholic gene. Contrary to the disinformation of right-wing propagandists, civil rights law does not depend on whether a characteristic is genetic. Religion, nationality, citizenship, and veterans’ status are not genetic, but discrimination based on them is generally illegal. Your mockery of anti-gay discrimination and attempts to remedy it, moreover, tells us more about your sorry character than anything else.
Marlene the case is on appeal because they believe they will win. The basis in law I’ll leave to them. She did not discriminate. She practiced her faith. That’s what you are really having trouble with.
Pam—She can practice her faith all she wants! What she *cannot* do is use her faith to discriminate against *anyone* under local, state, and federal laws… period!
As I said, she can close for Mass or any other reason because of her faith. But she’s NOT allowed to discriminate!
Marlene, She can be faithful to her beliefs under local, state and federal laws. The suit is on appeal. The Thomas Moore Center is representing the photographer. They have a strong track record of success. You choose to frame the issue as discrimination. Others don’t see it that way. From here it looks like you stated what the problem really is in an earlier response. People of faith made you feel like a freak. That wasn’t Christian. Christ is real and how we live and act does matter and we are each unique and each carry crosses and have gifts. Are you open to the whole truth? There are many loving, holy people who will embrace you as a child of God and help you draw closer to him. Look at the world around you. He is screaming the reality of his existence. I would be glad to help as best I can. God bless, Pam
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.