How the world’s greatest Catholic poet healed this ex-Catholic’s heart

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

Thomas J. Neal, Ph.D.'s avatarCatholic Springtime

Originally at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/living/dreher-dante/index.html

by Rod Dreher

As a young man, I converted with great enthusiasm to Catholicism, and for 13 years was an ardent Catholic, eager to argue for the faith with all comers. The idea of not being a Catholic was utterly alien to me.

But spending four long years writing as a journalist about the sex abuse scandal destroyed my ability to believe in the Catholic Church’s claims. I didn’t lose my faith suddenly; it was torn from me bit by bit, like a torturer ripping out his victim’s fingernails.

I had never believed that the Catholic Church (or any church) was perfect, and had full confidence that the arguments for Catholicism would enable me to withstand any challenge.

But nothing prepared me for the things I learned in writing about the scandal — the cruelty, the mendacity, the cynicism of the clergy. I eventually lost the ability to believe…

View original post 1,244 more words

An Orwellian future for Ireland too?

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture Matters1 Comment

If it happened there, why do we think it will not happen in Ireland as well? What happened?

Freedom of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist there today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government. That country is Canada.

Canada used to be one of the most democratic countries in the world, and one of the countries which was regularly ranked as one of the best countries in the world in which to live. Is it so anymore? Canada is now one of the countries in the world which is leading the charge to the totalitarianism of political correctness, which is threatening the treasured values of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the rights and duties of parents to raise and educate their children. Communist ideology in the heyday of its practical application will be very much in the historic shade if democratic countries fail to stop this new totalitarian juggernaut.

Dawn Stefanowicz is an internationally recognized speaker and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights Institute. In a recent essay, posted on the website of the Princeton-based Witherspoon Institute, she gives a chilling picture of not just where Canada is headed but of where it has already arrived.

I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

Canada’s Lessons

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.

Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.

Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.

The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

Hate Tribunals Are Coming

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.

Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.

When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.

Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?

Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for the American Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.

An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscated at the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Dawn Stefanowicz’s book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, is available at http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org. Dawn, a full-time licensed accountant, is married and has two teenaged children.


Still flying in the face of language, truth and logic

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture Matters2 Comments

Clare’s question about yesterday’s Garvan Hill post on the Irish Government’s confusion of language, truth and logic needs a reply. She asked: In what way do you imagine any straight marriage would be different, after marriage equality? Do you think the partners would no longer love each other, or no longer complement each other, or what?

In the real world different things need different names. If we do not give different things different names we can get very confused. 

In this case the two types of partnership we are talking about do share a number of things, desire, commitment and, above all love. But each has distinctly different modes of expressing that love physically. In one case, that of a man and a woman, a very distinct set of consequences can follow from the act of love. This makes the totality of the man and woman partnership radically distinct from the man and man or woman and  woman partnership. To say that this difference is radically different is not in itself to elevate the one over the other. It is a simple matter of fact. 

If, in our language – and as a consequence, in our laws – we do not signify that difference we will confuse things in a serious way. Our laws depend on clarity of language – knowing what we mean when we speak. Understanding what a law obliges requires understanding the things that law is about. This requires that our naming of things fits the realty of things.

If I give the name ‘marriage’ to the binding commitment of persons in any sexual relationship I create confusion. Issues surrounding consanguinity, consummation, generation of offspring, and many other elements have to be encompassed in our laws governing marriage between men and women but have no relevance in the relationships of same sex couples. Trying to cater for both with the same law is to no one’s interest – other than that of the Anarchists who have now jumped on to the Yes bandwagon.

However, if we keep the term Civil Union, or Partnership, for one and Marriage for the other, the laws needed for the benign regulation of each can be framed appropriately. There is no denial of equality in this. In fact it is enabling us to do what is of the very essence of equality, giving to each what is his and her due.

To come back to the flawed concept of equality, by looking again at the case of our two diplomats, we can see that the logic of the “Yes to equality” campaign would require us to meddle with language to achive their “equality”. If  the posting was to Russia, and one diplomat did not speak Russian but did speak Chinese, to treat him “equally” we can resort to calling his Chinese by the name Russian, and, hey presto, we can ignore the difference in their skills and send either of them off to represent us in Russia. 

The “Yes to equality”  campaign, not so ably, but very ruthlessly, led by our elected parliament is still flying in the face of language, truth and logic.

Irish political class defying language, truth and logic

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture Matters3 Comments

It is a mind-boggling experience to walk through the streets of Dublin these days. Left, right and centre, posters are screaming at us, “Yes to equality”, “Yes to equality”, “Yes to equality”. But when we ask ourselves what does this mean we are confronted with a choice of two very worrying conclusions. The first is that the members of our political establishment  – across all party divides – have no grasp of the English language, nor of the logic which normally guides human reasoning. The second, probably more plausible – since they are all reasonably well-educated men and women – is that they are deliberately attempting to deceive and manipulate the electorate which put them into power, all for some unfathomable reason.

The starting point of their error – or deception – is the fundamental error of thinking that equality, fairness, and justice can be achieved by obliterating or ignoring the differences which distinguish one thing from another.

Men love women in one way, men love men in another way – generally, but not always, in the disinterested love we call friendship. The same is true for women. Arguably the love found in friendship, be it between people of opposite sexes or of the same sex, is the purest and most generous form of love there is. But the love of a man for a woman, given the full complementarity of their sexual natures, is a truly unique expression of love. No other love is like it, in either its form of expression or in its potential consequences. This makes it very special both for them, for the human life which that love can generate and for human society as a whole. This is the only love which generates new love as well as new life, not just the love of man and woman, but the love of children and parents, the love of siblings, the love of uncles and aunts, the love of generations down through the centuries, our love for our ancestors – and for those of faith, their everlasting love for us.

This love is very special. It is special not simply because it is expressed sexually but special because of how it is expressed sexually and because of the potential consequences which its physical expression has. It has its own unique form of communication and which come from both nature and society. Its rules of engagement have been refined and developed over millennia but rest on one constant element – the complementary sexual gifts of male and female. Remove that element from the relationship between two people and we have something entirely different. You may have love but you do not have the raison d’etre for the institution we call marriage.

Marriage is the name we give to this structure, these rules of engagement which we have created around this unique relationship. Marriage is the name which society and its laws give to this venerable edifice. It is not only there in statute law but also used to be there in common law – when a man and a woman, outside of the laws of society, independently established a mutual sexual bond with each other, we called it ‘a common law marriage’. When two people got married but then discovered that the male partner was unable to perform the “marriage act” our understanding was that no marriage existed. Marriage is no fluffy, luvvie dovey thing. It is a fundamental building block of our civilization.

Society has taken on itself the task of establishing the rules for this relationship because of the multiple implications it has for its members in general and for the flourishing of individuals, generation after generation, who come into society by virtue of the acts of love of its married members. It is not the love itself that demands this. The love of friendship, sexually expressed or not, does not require society to manage it, the love of siblings, aunts and uncles does not require it. The sexual expression of the love of a man and woman does. The management of love is not the business of society. The management of procreation – and many of its consequences – is. That is why marriage exists.

What has happened to create in our world today this demand of a redefinition of marriage which takes from under it the very foundation on which it is based. It is the emergence of another demand, the demand for a social recognition and approval of the sexual expression of the love of friendship between men themselves and between women themselves. This expression of love has been disapproved of in most societies in varying degrees down through history. That is a matter of fact on which we make no judgement. What we can judge is that there is no question but that this disapproval has been accompanied by appalling injustices.

However, the efforts now being made to win approval for this physical expression of love, by seeking to equate it with the love of a man for a woman and a woman for a man, and to apply to it all the structures which nature and society place around that relationship for the protection of families and society, is profoundly misguided.

To suggest, to argue, that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is to deny equality to two men or two women who want to love each other and be committed to each other’s company for life is a denial of equality is deeply flawed.

The nature of things must always be taken into account when a judgement is being made about the fairness or otherwise of their distribution among people. The different nature of the way in which love can be expressed – as between a man and a woman and between two of the same sex – make the application of the test of equality in this case meaningless. Think of these different forms of expression as a language. They are different forms of communication. We do not need to go into detail. It is obvious. Now consider two people seeking a diplomatic post in a foreign country. They are equally qualified in all respects except one: one of them does not speak the language of the country he wishes to be posted to; the other does. Is the obvious preference of one over the other an unjust discrimination? Is it an unjust denial of equality? No. The reality is that they are not equal in this respect. In the same way the relationship between two men or two women is not equal to the relationship between a man and a woman. Nature, not society has determined that.

The longing for respect, recognition and approval by homosexual people needs to follow a path other than that being pursued at present, the path of redefining marriage. The pursuit of this end can only result in the ultimate destruction of the very thing they wrongly identify as the panacea for the injuries suffered in the past, or which they anticipate in the future.

Thoughts on the Irish marriage referendum

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture Matters3 Comments


Apart from the very serious matters at stake in the substantive issue in the forthcoming Irish referendum – marriage, family, and children’s right to health, happiness and well-being – the two politically disturbing things are the thuggery on the street and the sinister uniformity among the paties. There is a real stench of political corruption here. If we are not successful in securing the integrity of our Constitution we can only fear the worst in terms of what these people, the political establishment here and their Stormtroopers trying to crush free expression, will be prepared to move on to after victory. The stakes in this are very high and very frightening.

It is painful to think that on the eve of the centenary of the beginning of the struggle through which mythology tells us we heroically secured political independence, we find our political culture in such a depraved condition. Was it worth it? I honestly do not know. Can we rescue our politics and begin all over again? We can only hope so.

No matter which side you might be on in this referendum, you  have reason to be worried about the future.

A little light relief – for some anyway

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

  

BACK STORY, courtesy of the New York Times
“All we know is that it was a documentary about coconuts that rather lost its way.”
That’s Michael Palin, one of the members of the British comedy troupe Monty Python, riffing on the origins of their cult classic “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”
The spoof of the King Arthur legend, alternately hilarious and ridiculous, is frequently on top-10 lists of the greatest comedies.
Mr. Palin and the four other surviving members of Monty Python regroup at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York today for a 40th anniversary screening of “Holy Grail.”
Another member, Terry Gilliam, said a “lack of money” saved the film from mediocrity: “We couldn’t afford real horses.”
The Monty Python actors, now in their 70s, rose to fame with a BBC television series, “Monty Python’s Flying Circus,” that ran from 1969 to 1974. Their surreal, nonconformist and irreverent humor influenced shows like “Saturday Night Live.”
On Saturday, they will also debut the feature-length documentary “Monty Python — The Meaning of Live,” which followed the clan on their reunion performances in London last summer.
Your Morning Briefing is published weekdays at 6 a.m. Eastern and updated on the web all morning.

Psalm 1

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

Caroline's avatarBeautiful Life with Cancer

I want joy, not happiness. Forever, not temporary. I want joy because the wicked man speaks and I do not listen. I see the error of his ways. Oh Lord, give me joy. 

When it turns to gossip, as it always does, oh Lord show me the way!  I want to build up, not tear down. I don’t have to insult to build up. Oh Lord, show me your way!

Like a love letter, I delight in your words. I hold them to my chest and I can’t wipe this smile off my face. I can’t get enough, it is never enough, all I want is you. Lord, all I want is you.

Make me like a tree, planted firm along the riverbank. Give me abundant fruit, pleantiful and never ceasing. I will drink of your eternal water and my leaves will never cease.  Oh Lord, make me a tree. 

View original post

Equality before the law?

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

Can we have a comment from the Minister for Justice on this please? Is this Justice, is this equality before the law? If the Yes side were to win is this not enough to invalidate the result.

Ireland’s police force – An Garda Siochana – registering students to vote in the forthcoming referendum on marriage and at the same time handing out badges promoting a “Yes” vote to redefine marriage. 

Are we not looking at the mocking of democracy here?

Last week it was Twitter and other multi-national corporations being coached by the Irish Prime Minister to encourage Ireland to get with modernity and destroy the institution of marriage. This week it is the country’s police force getting on he bandwagon.

How stupid can these people be? How stupid do they think the Irish electorate is?

  

Twitter rides into town – is this the emergence of a new colonisation?

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture Matters1 Comment
Well, thanks, but no thanks. We would prefer to make our own decisions freely…

Irish citizens – no matter what side they are on in the current referendum battle being engaed over the future of marriage – should be outraged by tech giant Twitter’s interference in their democracy.

At an event attended by Prime Minister Enda Kenny,  Managing Director of Twitter Ireland, Stephen McIntyre claimed that a ‘No’ vote to prevent the redefinition of marriage would be bad for Ireland’s international reputation. You can be quite sure he did not say that without checking first with head office.

In response, a spokesperson for the Iona Institute, an Irish social values think-tank, Ben Conroy said “I wonder if Mr Kenny would be so keen about multinationals getting involved in Irish politics if they were endorsing particular political parties?

“I think a lot of eybrows would be raised if Twitter said ‘vote for Renua (the new rival to Kenny’s political party), it’s good for business’ and threatened that voting for another party could somehow hurt our international reputation.

“Twitter’s clear implication is that if we vote No it will be bad for business and bad for our international reputation”.

He continued: “The most powerful economy in Europe, Germany, does not have same-sex marriage so the idea that voting No would be bad for business is clearly ridiculous”.

He went on “Stephen McIntyre is clearly right that ‘individuals perform better when they feel respected and supported’. Presumably Twitter employees feel completely free to publicly support a No vote without any consequences for them? Inclusion should be a value that applies to all, not just to people who agree with Twitter about redefining marriage”.

In the past couple of days some Twitter subscribers are asking themselves whether the price the social media giant is asking to let them use its facility is not taking them beyond the pale of patriotism. The absentee landlords of the 19th century were a scourge they thought the country had escaped from. Are they now going to be replaced by the faceless corporations of Palo Alto  and other West Coast enclaves of political correctness?