and Civil Wrongs:
The public seldom recognizes the tyranny of so many of today's government policies, actual and proposed, because people accept uncritically and unthinkingly, the pretense that these policies are designed to increase human freedom by guaranteeing a wide variety of "rights."
Not all claims to rights are valid and may rightfully be called spurious rights. Authentic rights are intrinsic to human dignity under God; the latter are grounded in the claim of unlimited autonomy from the natural law and the rights of God over man.
The claim of militant sodomites to "gay rights" which would prohibit any discrimination against any homosexual [as a homosexual] in any situation will, if accepted by society, violate the human dignity of everyone else. Ironically it will violate the human dignity of the homosexual.
"Gay rights" laws, for instance would prohibit landlords from refusing to rent to homosexuals, even in situations in which the landlord has children in the home and wants to prevent contact with homosexuals. If exceptions for landlords living on the premises were made, this does not change the threat for other families living where there are no exceptions. These laws could also prohibit the exclusion of homosexuals from organizations such as the Boy Scouts.
It would violate the dignity of the homosexual because it would in effect legalize the idea that individuals are to be self-identified on the basis of sexual fantasies, temptations, and behavior resulting from these; that the homosexual has no self-control and must be accorded special "understanding" because he "can't help himself." "He is just another runting animal." But God made every person in His image, with intellect and free will and dignity. The homosexual is as capable of self-control as the rest of us. We all fall as sinners, but unlike the militant homosexual, the only one we are actually talking about here, the rest of us have no PR organization validating our tendency to certain sins. We do not seek to be identified on that basis, nor should we.
Because any one who wants to unjustly [as opposed to just or ethical discrimination] discriminate against a homosexual can do so only if he knows this to be the case, then only those who openly identify themselves as such are vulnerable.
But once the law is established giving the homosexual special class protection [heterosexuals have no such protection under Maine law] under "sexual orientation," which in practice means homosexuals, not heterosexuals, just as race discrimination is identified re Blacks, not Whites, even when it occurs, [otherwise known as race-norming], then there is the incentive for all or most homosexuals to announce their identity as such. Once that happens, it becomes difficult to fire an unfit employee for any valid reason because he can always claim discrimination. Employers would be fearful of law suits when interviewing prospective employees who appear sporting a pink triangle, for instance, giving that person the edge by default, and so forth.
And how does one prove homosexuality? One can easily demonstrate other "protected classes." Once the classification of protected status is reached, it applies across the board, marriage, adoption, etc., even if one step at a time, but it will be inevitable.
Homosexuality is a condition that leads to harmful societal behaviors if not checked in many cases. Blackness, Whiteness, Jewishness, etc., are not conditions that predispose one to sin as such. School boards, the military, landlords, all have a vested moral duty to have leeway in those cases where it is applicable. Most employment and housing situations have no need to so discriminate, period, and they do not, or else why do homosexuals enjoy a higher than average social-economic status? Surely these writers, editors, TV producers, librarians, school teachers, legislators, artists, judges, movie stars, fashion designers, musicians, are not doing so as homeless persons? You get the idea.
At the same time, these laws curtail genuine human rights, not the least of which is the fundamental right of parents to protect their children from persons and things they consider harmful.
Put as bluntly as possible, parents have the God-given right to protect their children from perverts who want to use new laws to gain access to them. As bastard or spurious rights grow, genuine human rights shrink and shrink. When a government forces these "rights" on its people, it is engaging in a tyranny of the worst kind.
THE VATICAN DOCUMENT
In July of 1993, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent to the members of the US hierarchy a document warning that so-called "gay rights" laws were harmful to society, beginning with the basic unit, the family.
Entitled Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons, the document holds that "gay rights" laws, "even when they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society."
The CDF document named "the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted by such issues" as having to keep in mind the effect of gay rights laws on "the housing needs of genuine families" and "landlords' legitimate concern in screening potential tenants," . . . "and the hiring and firing of teachers."
It is clear that not only does the Holy See's document indicate that Maine's laws before the passage of "gay rights" did not endorse the violation of human rights, it actually makes a case for laws that go beyond Maine's former statutes. [In other words, Maine's law prior to passage of "gay rights," was already too liberal by Vatican standards.] The referendum's purpose is offer the people of the State of Maine a chance to go back to our original legal standing prior to the passage of "gay rights, and I repeat, even then we would be too liberal by Vatican standards. And our bishop is against even this liberality, apparently it is not liberal enough for him!
While returning to the former, the status quo would partially violate the Vatican directives [wherein re discrimination regarding teachers we do not now as we did not then, even though according to the Vatican we may do so and even may be morally impelled to, but in Maine this just discrimination does not occur as a matter of course, indeed, open homosexuals teach and indoctrinate] the defeat of the referendum would overwhelmingly violate the directives, the most imperative and relevant of which are listed below:
Please note that this document was specifically addressed to the American hierarchy because of the grave concern that exists since the Bishops have largely caved-in to the cultural imperatives dictated by the erroneous use of emotional blackmail through the smearing of opponents with the tag of 'homophobia' in this politically correct era within the US. Sloganeering has mostly replaced sound thought and reflection. The Big Lie is repeated like a mantra until it is absorbed by a non-reflective society, paired with a cultural attack on traditional institutions which have allowed themselves to adopt the homo-promo agenda. The most recent example is the obit pages of local papers which announce without any indication of shame that the deceased had a homosexual lover. The Portland Press depicts homosexuals kissing in what is styled as the "Family Section."
"Recently, legislation has been proposed in some American states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. ... Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity may in fact have a negative impact on the family."
[Attorney Wessler of the Maine Attorney General's office who was part of the coalition attempting to derail the first referendum has stated on Channel 8 that there is no way to actually distinguish between orientation and behavior, thereby revealing what family advocates have been saying all along, that the orientation only aspect was a ruse and a practical impossibility.]
In reference to the homosexual movement, an earlier document in 1975, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, stated, "One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination ... There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least completely harmless ..."
The 1993 document then addressed the matter of violent acts against persons of homosexual orientation, which it deplored, but added this caution based on the 1975 advisory:
"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered . . . neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."
During the same broadcast in which Wessler was interviewed, a police officer was asked about "hate crimes," which he said were up, listing a number from the books. [Another officer indicated the opposite was true, privately.] Well, if this is so, that the rate is up, then that puts the lie to the often reiterated factoid that homosexuals cannot report hate crimes because of fear of exposure and thus need legislation protecting them as a class. Which is it, please? If they cannot report these crimes, then how come they are reporting them at an all-time high? They cannot have it both ways.]
"Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons ... Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered conduct."
[Recall that Wessler is on record as asserting that there is no difference between orientation and behavior according to the January 9th 6 PM news broadcast on Channel 8.]
Regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation in rights legislation, the Vatican advises the following caveat:
"Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, in respect to affirmative action and quotas in hiring practices. This is all the more mistaken as there is no right to homosexuality."
The Vatican states outright that homosexual orientation should not be judicial basis for claims, because, "The passage from recognition of homosexuality as factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection of homosexuality ... thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of the terms of violation of basic human rights."
"The 'sexual orientation' of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc., also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests itself. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not want or see no reason for their sexual orientation to become public knowledge, hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not arise.
"Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be 'either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing' and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that is more likely to be found those who seek 'to manipulate the Church etc.'
"Since in assessing proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life, more careful attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures ... do they confer equivalent family statues on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing ...?
"Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws."
During the last legislative action to enact a "gay rights law" protecting homosexuals from discrimination with regard to housing, employment and credit, the Catholic Church in Maine under Bishop Gerry's capitulation to the sodomites' pressure, some of it from homosexual priests within this see, was manifested in his so-called "neutral stance." At the time I confronted the Chancery with the absurdity of that position. Either something is morally to the good or it isn't. If "gay rights" was a moral good, then the Bishop should endorse it outright; if such legislation was morally unsound than he could not remain neutral. His position viz a viz both Vatican directives was untenable as is clear from the highlighted paragraphs above.
Today his position is even more unsound and flies in the face of the Holy See's expectations, for Bishop Gerry is considering coming out [no pun intended] in favor of "gay rights" by asking Catholics not to support the referendum, thus removing the only protection families have of guaranteeing the exclusion of these special rights under the guise of "human rights." His neutral ruse is now cast off. Was his neutrality merely a holding tactic while surveying the temperature of the water so as to measure when the frogs would be inured to the increasing heat enough so as to not jump out? It turns out, we later learn that he has been covertly working with the homosexual lobby, no friend of the Church, to get a "gay rights" bill he can favor, meaning an exception for him but not for the rest of us. But every bill has had that stipulation, so this is also a lie for a rationale. He simply wants the bill passed, period.
What has changed that suddenly he is for "gay rights" when the legislative agenda has remained constant? What in the first referendum was so repugnant to him that he refused to support it? Nothing. He has merely revealed his true colors, the banner of the sodomite march through Maine a little at a time as slowly "get used to it" apathy sets in or fear of reprisal silences those less apathetic but too weak to resist!
Is he being blackmailed by his own sodomite bureaucracy? These questions need to be asked even it they will not be answered by the Chancery convincingly. He is on record as telling Maine Catholics they do not have to vote for "gay rights." He is in effect telling his confused flock that this latest bill is so vital he is supporting it officially, but not vital enough that we are bound in conscience to support it, although he said as much in so many words about the euthanasia bill. So we have to draw the only reasoned conclusion clear-thinking persons are wont to do and declare that he has risked everything as a bishop to support and help pass a bill so dangerous to the Catholic, that he, the bishop needs an exemption for his schools and other institutions, where homosexuals are already known to be "out" and vocal, but it is such a good bill we need it, and it is only harmful to the bishop, not to other Catholics who may have kids in public schools, mainly because the Catholic schools in Maine are so bad. Which is it, bishop?
We Catholics in Maine stand on firm ground if we stand in solidarity with the Holy See. By supporting the latest referendum that would prevent the inclusion of sexual orientation as a minority class requiring special protection, we are even technically obeying our bishop who told us we do not have to vote against it, that is, vote in effect for "gay rights." Our Bishop has violated Vatican norms and left the Catholics in Maine without authoritative support in their own diocese.
According to The 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 212 §3, [Christ's faithful] "have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the Sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to other of Christ's faithful ..."
Canon 227 states "To lay members of Christ's faithful belongs the right to have acknowledged as theirs the freedom in secular affairs which is common to all citizens ... they are to heed the teaching of the Church proposed by the Magisterium, etc."
In accord with our rights as Catholics and in keeping with the Magisterium as proposed by the afore-cited documents, we respectfully disassociate ourselves from the Bishop's mistaken position on "gay rights" masquerading as "human rights." It is important to answer the sodomites' charge that the referendum, if passed will place "prior restraint" on future generations or the legislature. But that is what all laws proscribing action do, by definition they serve as a prior restraint. For example, the US and Maine Constitutions are prior restraints on the governmental powers expressed therein. As for the straw man of hampering further generations, there is nothing in Maine law that would prohibit another referendum drive to over turn a previous one. We must not let ourselves be gulled by legalese that is defined by the opposition for their own advantage. And anyway, if they feared prior restraint so badly, does that mean that if the measure passes, they will quietly slink away for good? Of course not, they will be back and back until ... so much for their ploy on restraint!
If we overturn "gay rights," no person, either homosexual or heterosexual would enjoy protection simply because of a so-called orientation that can neither be proved nor disproved regardless of marital status. That is the way Maine law has always been. If this pattern of civil law is so untenable why has not the Bishop proposed legislative correctives prior to this time?
Until the legislature defied the majority and passed this bill, under Maine statutes all persons were equal as to sexual status. Discriminatory acts with regard to that orientation, according to the Vatican may be proper with respect to housing and employment. If any legislation is to be supported by the diocese, surely then legislation in line with this proper discrimination, and not the opposite, would be the morally sound position.
When faced with a situation where a Catholic must consult his conscience whether to either disobey an errant Bishop or an inerrant Catholic Tradition, it is imperative that he obey the Vicar of Christ when he teaches in union with Tradition, both for the salvation of his soul and for the salvation of others. A Catholic has the moral imperative to correct others following an erroneous path under the precepts of the spiritual works of mercy. He is also instructed under Vatican II to be a leaven in society, which is based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
St. Thomas Aquinas instructs us that even a prelate is to be corrected in public, if necessary. In the Church the law of justification is the salvation of souls. To abandon homosexuals to the sodomite agenda with its slow but steady erosion of family rights, is to abandon our duty as Christians and is in fact a grievous offense against God and neighbor.
us act with love
and courage and steadfast to the truth, keeping the Faith always. Let
not be deterred or grow discouraged because we have no Bishop with the
courage of a true Shepherd. Let us hold up our heads high, praying
for his redemption and conversion and moral courage. Meanwhile let us
about the task of rejoicing that Christ has trusted us with passing on
the truth to a land wherein darkness is settling like a funeral pall on
the polity. Let us be a light unto the nation [and the State of Maine].