|
When you try to pass a law – or it is approved – which goes against any Catholic moral principle, it is common to hear this argument: “Why are Catholics bothered? No one is forcing them to do that” Or this one: “They are intolerant, because they want to impose on others their own ethical convictions.” What do you say, then, when in the name of tolerance silence is demanded in the face of iniquitous laws? |
| Spain lived recently a convulsion that culminated with one of the largest popular demonstrations that have taken place in this country. One and a half million people, among whom there were several cardinals and bishops – marched through the streets of Madrid to protest against the socialist government. This, chaired by Rodríguez Zapatero, had just passed a law that equated homosexual unions with the families and, consequently, the right to adopt children. It was the straw that broke the camel´s back. Before that there were already other laws considered iniquitous by Catholics, such as abortion, divorce ” express” and the destruction of human embryos in research. But if the reaction of Catholics could be summarised in a “enough is enough,” which made them take to the streets in a demonstration with peaceful and festive crowds; this did not happen the same with their adversaries. A few days later, and almost in the same scenario, there was a gay manifestation – a lot less crowded – that was fraught with insults against the Church. Among these was the accusation of intolerance, an accusation repeated ad nauseam in all means of communication considered “progressive”, that is to say, the vast majority.
This is a serious accusation, especially in an era in which “tolerance” is seen as an essential virtue for peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society. To be labeled intolerant is to be considered violent and fascist – never to be considered a communist, even if this dictatorship has been even more bloody than fascism. But, what is claimed with the “tolerance”? What the Left accuses the Church of – including both the hierarchy as well as faithful Catholics – is opposing the adoption of laws that allow behaviors contrary to Christian ethics. They are shocked and offended at this attitude because these laws are not binding, but are limited to legalizing, or, in any case only to decriminalize, those behaviors. In other words, as no one is forced to have an abortion, it is incomprehensible that someone is opposed to abortion. In the same way, they feel that it is detrimental to the family formed by a man and a woman, the fact that two men or two women join civilly and that union received the category of family. In this way, they are presented as tolerant – because they do not want to bind Catholics to have abortions or to have homosexual relations, – while they consider the followers of Christ not only as a backward medieval people, but as dangerous people for society, because they want to impose their ethical principles on others. This is their thesis and therein lies the reason for their growing discomfort and even hatred against the Church. The insults of the gay manifestation are explained from this point of view. What do you say to this? First: Catholics are citizens like any others and not second-class citizens. Therefore, they have the same right as the other to see reflected in laws their convictions of any kind. If a group fights – while respecting the rule of law – so that Parliament approve the euthanasia, another group has the same right to fight for the contrary, without having to receive insults or disqualifications. Second: It is false that the laws against which Catholics protest do not affect anyone other than those who practice them, at least in the vast majority of cases. It is true that no one forces anyone to have an abortion or to have homosexual relations, but that does not mean that there are no innocent victims: In one case, there will be an aborted child and in another the child that can be adopted by a couple who does not meet the conditions necessary to give him a good education. If the argument of the progressives looks at other cases, such as terrorism, nobody – except those directly involved – would have to protest, since no one is obliged to put bombs. If you are not forced to kill, why does it bother you when others kill? Wouldn’t it be the rejection of terrorism, therefore, a case of intolerance? Of course, in this comparison it will be objected that it is not the same to kill an adult as a fetus. However, the science clearly indicates that this is not the case and that the embryo is already a human being different from the father and the mother and, therefore, the possessor of the right to life, which is the first and most basic of all human rights. How to keep silence, then, when in countries such as Spain there have already been killed nearly a million human beings since the abortion was legalized? Would it be understood that the Church keeps silent if, instead of fetuses, those killed would have been adults, even if they had been criminals? And it is not more serious to kill innocent children that serial killers? The force of this argument lies in the fact that these legalized behaviors, for the requested tolerance, affect other people, even if they are “born”, as in the case of the fetuses. But, what about the euthanasia? Apparently, here progressives act loaded with reason: the damage is applied on one same and why the Catholic rejection of a law that allows this practice is seen as an example of absolute intolerance and intolerable interference in the freedom of the human being. Forget those who think that even the damage we do to ourselves has a social character, because each one of us is a member of the community and, in the same way that hurts a parent when he hits his y child, it hurts the society when one of its members is prejudiced or when this does this to himself. Forget also that the victims of euthanasia are in almost all cases the sick or elderly and that these are very easily manipulated to get to sign their own death. Simply submit to the punishment of solitude or do not give them the care they need. Third: There is another argument against those who accuse Catholics of being intolerant in fighting this type of law. It is that all that is legal is seen by most people as morally good. In a short period of time, once approved a law that was opposed even the majority in society, the behavior allowed becomes socially accepted, even to be seen as strange behavior, although this has not been – for the moment – prohibited. As well, many who had not aborted, as abortion was prohibited, abort now without being aware of the seriousness of what they do. Or many who have oriented their lives to the constitution of a family, they let themselves get carried away by other relationships that neither do them or society any good. Or many who would have fought to save their marriage, at the first difficulty resort to divorce. |
