By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
I realize now that it is a mistake to react as I often do when another domino falls against traditional values in the culture wars, whether it is the legalization of abortion and marijuana or the mainstreaming of pornography on the Internet and cable television. What I say to myself, after the initial jolt of anger and disappointment, is: “Well, we’ve hit bottom. At least it can’t get any worse now.”
The problem is that the secular left doesn’t think that way. There is always another trace of Christian values that they can find to attack. I am convinced now that the left won’t be content until traditional Christianity is seen by the population as a whole as a bizarre set of beliefs that society had to overcome on its path toward enlightenment; something in the category of slavery, concubinage, and the burning of witches.
The contours of the homosexual revolution are an example of how the game is played. What began as a plea for tolerance and a call for an end to the bullying of homosexual teenagers, moved in increments toward same-sex marriage and criminal charges against merchants who refuse to participate in those marriages. At every step of the way, the homosexual activists and their allies insisted that it was fear-mongering to suggest that there would ever be a push for same-sex marriage or a denial of the religious freedom of those with traditional values who wished to live their lives in accordance with the biblical understanding of sex and marriage. All they wanted was “tolerance.”
The latest maneuvering is the insistence of homosexual activists that they have no intention of using the force of law to compel Christian churches to perform same-sex marriages.
I don’t buy it. I say that is precisely what the homosexual activists want; that now that same-sex marriage has been declared a constitutional right by the Supreme Court, the next step will be to insist that no church has the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples, just as it would have no right to deny the constitutional rights of racial minorities that seek to be married.
One can see how the momentum for this demand will take shape by what happened just one day after the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Catholic Education Daily, a publication of the Cardinal Newman Society, reported on the marriage of Fordham University’s theology chairman, Patrick Hornbeck, “at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan, to his same-sex partner.” Newman Society President Patrick Reilly correctly warns that this is just the “beginning of a new flood of challenges to Catholic identity that most Catholic colleges and universities are unprepared to face.”
Reilly warns that “even if a Catholic college leader wants to uphold Catholic teaching on marriage, the persistent embrace of dissent and opposition to the Church at many Catholic universities makes it highly unlikely that the law will now permit them to uphold moral standards for professors.”
One can predict the next step for the homosexual activists. If Fordham is able to withstand whatever pressure that may be brought to bear over Hornbeck’s public rejection of the teaching of the Church on same-sex marriage — and there seems to be little pressure on the university so far — the argument will be made that there is no reason any longer for the university to refuse health-care packages that cover abortion for their employees.
Why refuse university dollars to those who dissent from the Church’s teachings on abortion, but keep on the payroll as head of the school’s theology department a man who rejects the Church’s teaching on marriage? Good question, no?
And, more to the point, why deny permission to a same-sex couple who wants to get married in a Catholic ceremony in the Fordham chapel? Why draw a line between using campus facilities by a couple who dissents from the Church’s teaching on same-sex marriage — and using university funds to pay the head of the theology department who dissents on the same issue?
The Obama Justice Department would leap at the chance to argue in court for the same-sex couple; Elena Kagan would pull every string she could find to write the Supreme Court decision backing that couple.
The Newman Society reports that Bob Howe, Fordham’s senior director of communications, was asked whether the university is concerned about Hornbeck’s opposition to Catholic teaching. Howe told reporters that same-sex unions are “now the law of the land, and Professor Hornbeck has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.” Howe added, “While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church.”
How long do you think it will be before Howe moves toward advocating that the Catholic Church join in giving couples such as Hornbeck and his partner their constitutional rights? I put my money on maybe a year or two.
On another topic: “topic teaching” in Finland, discussed in the July 2 edition of First Teachers. This teaching method calls for students to no longer take separate courses in, say, history, foreign languages, and grammar, but to instead to be taught a “topic” within which the separate courses of study are incorporated. For example, rather than taking a course in “French history,” Finnish students will study the “topic” of France, with the country’s “geology, climate, culture, and language” being covered along with the record of the country’s past. Instead of the students changing classrooms for individualized subjects, the teachers of the separate courses move to the students and teach them within the overall framework of the “topic.” So far, Finnish educators tell us the plan is working well.
One of our readers, S.M., writes to cast some doubts on the scheme. He calls it “yet another brushfire in the teaching path.” S.M. contends “we may find a better reward if we focused more on ‘what’ is taught in our schools, rather than ‘how’ it is taught. When students were best taught how to learn, a classic curriculum was in use and there were likely as many approaches to presentation as there were teachers. The goal of the classical curriculum was to preserve and extend the heritage of our country and the accumulated wisdom of the past. ‘How’ to teach a topic was probably never a hot item in the teachers’ lounge.
“When schools last produced students who could think for themselves, problem-solve, and understand what they learned, schools were not run by a centralized bureaucracy in Washington. They were administered locally, mostly as a neighborhood responsibility. Things changed when the Department of Education appeared in 1980. The record has been consistently bad for the past 35 years. When students were most interested in their coursework, seeking truth was in vogue. Perhaps a renewed pursuit of truth would better address what is missing in education, rather than a continued pursuit of popular brushfires.”
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress