Do you know the name Charles Chaput?  Archbishop Chaput is the leader of Colorado’s Roman Catholic Church.  Last month he spoke at a symposium in Toronto.  For those reading this in North Jersey, Toronto is a large city in a place called Canada.  Chaput caught more than a few ears when he spoke about Christian values.  “Tolerance is not a Christian virtue,” he stated.  The Canadian media flew into a rage.  Chaput, most of its members argue, is out of touch.  He’s a troglodyte and a hater.  If you’re a Christian reading this you know the drill as you’ve been hearing it locally with the discussions about Delaware HB 5 and a companion marriage bill in the state senate.  The goal of the left, and notice I didn’t write gay, is to cow Christians and force them to submit to the latest cultural fads. 

 

As a Christian you’re told you must be tolerant.  Chaput says otherwise.  The text of his remarks were mailed me by a friend and appears in the March 12 edition of The Wanderer, a Catholic paper based in St. Paul, Minnesota. I’m going to share of few of the man’s words:

 

“Frankly, I just got tired of hearing outsiders and insiders tell Catholics to keep quiet about our religious and moral views in the big public debates that involve all of us as a society.  That’s a kind of bullying.  I don’t think Catholics should accept it.”

 

Some of you reading this aren’t Roman Catholic and may not be much impressed by the hierarchy of the Church.  The other day I had a long running debate with a special friend about the leader of the Roman Church.  My girlfriend was a cradle Catholic and descended from strict Irish Catholics on both sides of her family.  Despite all of that I still love her!  She thought the Pope was off base about his remarks to reporters about condoms while recently flying to Africa.  As editorialists at The Washington Post lectured the Pope is ignoring modern reality.  First, for both my conservative girlfriend and the lefties at the Post, no Pope has had any serious legal authority for 150 years.  People aren’t fired at the stake for disobedience.  Secondly, from what I read in the papers or watch on TV or hear on radio most men in Africa eschew condoms.  For the last 30 years the men leading the Roman Church have been working to steer it much more closely to Biblical roots and this brings howls of protests.  The Pope can’t make you do anything.  He admitted as much at his installation when he told a worldwide audience if Catholics couldn’t follow he would lead a smaller church.  He simply reiterates his institution’s millennia old traditions.  The writer’s at the Post claim he ignores reality.  No, he reminds us of our call to holiness and the need to try and be closer to perfection.  You can’t become an editor at the Post by being a moron, I suppose.  So they must have alternative motives.

 

Getting back to Delaware HB 5, the sexual preference bill allowing extra-judicial protections for folks who practice alternatives to standard heterosexuality: The language of the bill opens business owners and institutions to lawsuits from workers claiming they’ve been discriminated against for what they practice not only in the bedroom but as well as in the barn. 

 

Might this be objectionable to not only Christians but to Jews, Muslims and many, many more of your neighbors? 

 

Again, what consenting adults do within the walls of their own residences that don’t violate current assault and homicide statutes is already protected by federal and state constitutions.  Tolerance is a hallmark of the current legal system, however.  Tolerance doesn’t mean I must spend 4 hours everyday on a radio show cheerleading for a lifestyle I care not with to involve myself. 

 

This is a message I received late Wednesday in my personal email from a libertarian friend:

 

“Bill:

The solution to the “gay” “marriage” issue is simple: a contract between the two parties.

No need for an amendment or law, modifications to any of our morals, etc.  All they have to do is formalize their relationship by a contract- the same as millions of other “marriages…aka businesses” take place every year.

All a contract would do is bind both parties in equity…the distribution of the marital estate and would allow insurance companies to provide insurance coverage- because of the contractual bond between the two.

This is so simple it begs one to realize that the “gay” agenda has another goal and it has nothing to do with marriage.”

 

His question is a warning.  Sounds rather Biblical, wouldn’t you say? 

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.