Dn 7:13-14 / Rv 1:5-8 /Jn 18:33-37

A very smooth advertising executive died and, by some administrative error, went straight to heaven. However, when he arrived at the gates, St. Peter had some bad news for him. “I’m terribly sorry,” he said, “but our new wing isn’t finished yet and we’ve had to set some quotas. Unfortunately, our quota for advertising and P.R. people is already filled. So you’ll just have to wait outside, unless you can persuade one of your colleagues to leave.”

“Just give me a few hours,” the ad man responded smoothly. And off he went. Before the day was over, every single ad executive in the whole of heaven had departed. St. Peter was stunned, “How did you do it?”

“Piece of cake,” replied the ad executive. “I just started a rumor that the devil was looking for a new ad agency.”

“By the way,” he continued, “I won’t be staying either. You never can tell about those rumors!”

We all talk baloney at times. It’s part of being human. But we can really get ourselves in trouble when we start believing our own baloney. And that’s what we do more often than we’d care to admit. Think of all the stories we’ve told ourselves and sold ourselves over the years.

- She’ll never find out.
- I’ll get started first thing tomorrow.
- Nobody will notice.
- Just one more time, and I’ll have enough.
- Who needs him!
- We’ll wipe ‘em out, and then everything will be fine.
- I know they’d want me to have it.
- I’m sure God doesn’t mind.
- Once I get that, I’ll be set for life.

Those lines sound familiar, don’t they. They should, because we’ve probably said most of them, and believed them — partly — and walked around with our eyes squeezed shut, to keep out the truth. And worst of all, we’ve gotten angry when people have challenged us — angry when they’ve spoken up like the child in the nursery story, “Excuse me, sir, but the emperor has no clothes.”

That’s exactly how Jesus ended up condemned and in chains before Pilate in Sunday’s Gospel. When Pilate asked, “What have you done to get yourself in so much trouble?” Jesus answered, “I told the truth.” Now why would his telling the truth make so many people so angry and so fearful that they’d be willing to kill him to shut him up? Because deep down inside, where lies can’t live, they knew Jesus was right about them and about life. They knew that if they let his truth into their hearts, even for an instant, they’d have to change their lives from top to bottom. And they were afraid that that kind of change was just too much for them — afraid it would spoil what little happiness they’d been able to squeeze out of life.

They’d got it just backwards, because ironically, the lies we sell ourselves in our frightened search for happiness guarantee that we’ll always be sad. That’s because the lies that fear makes us live by always build up walls and cut us off from our best selves, from one another, and from the God who loves us.

Jesus has given us an alternative. It’s the only way of living that works, the only way of living that will bring us happiness. That’s why we call it “the truth.” The truth is this: If we make love our sole priority, and put real muscle into our loves, the walls built by lies and reinforced by fear will come tumbling down. And we’ll have the only joy that lasts.

Is loving like that really possible for us? Not on our own! But what we’re celebrating on the feast of Christ the King is that we’re not on our own. We have at our side — and on our side — the Lord Jesus, who has triumphed over all earthly powers and over death itself. And with him there, all things are possible.

So let us look our lies and our fears, large and small, straight in the eye, and call them by name, and bid them farewell. For we have seen Christ our savior; we have taken him as our Lord; and we have no need to lurk in the darkness anymore. We have embraced the truth, and it has set us free.

I will sing of loyalty and of justice;
to thee, O LORD, I will sing.

When you play country music backwards, do you know what you get?  You get your lover back, your dog back, your pickup truck back…  The same could be said for most pop music because most pop music is about: a) falling in love (which in most current music is about falling in bed); or b) about breaking up.  The subcategory of b) is: y) happy songs about how good it is to fall in love again and move on; or z) sad songs about how it hurts to be betrayed.  Bottom line: the modern world doesn’t sing of loyalty and justice much.  It’s much more expert at impulse shopping, faithlessness and the notion that our personal feelings of the moment trump all.  And it is because there is a real alternative to this barren, wind-driven, soulless flux of hormones, impulse, mood, and whim that the psalmist sings.  For the revelation of Christ is that it is really possible (not easy, not comfortable, not warm and fuzzy, but possible and deeply fulfilling) to live a life of real love, loyalty and justice.  That life is given us in the one who endured the ultimate in betrayal and injustice himself and yet declared, “Forgive them.”  It is given to us in the Holy Spirit, who enables us to be forgiven our own betrayals of others and who empowers us to start again in newness of life and to be steadfast in our love for those whom He has given us, be they family, friend, or enemy.  Today, sing of the loyalty and justice of God.

Later, his brother Tiburtius was converted to the faith and both brothers practiced it with great zeal. Consequently, the prefect Turcius Almachius condemned them to death. Their executioner Maximus, however, himself was converted and suffered martyrdom along with the two brothers. Their remains were buried in one tomb by Cecilia.

At this point Cecilia came under the eye of the prefect and was soon sought by his officers. Before being taken prisoner, she made arrangements to have her house converted into a place of worship for the Roman Church. After a glorious profession of faith, she was condemned to be suffocated in her bath. Miraculously, this failed to harm Cecilia, so a soldier was assigned to behead her. Striking the neck of Cecilia three times without completely decapitating her, the soldier fled, leaving the virgin soaked in blood. She lived for three more days, during which time she was able to make dispositions for the poor. She was buried in the Catacombs of Callistus among the bishops and confessors who were martyred for the faith.

St. Cecilia is the patron saint of music. Many medieval pictures of Cecilia show her either holding a crown of martyrdom in her hand or playing the organ. While musicians played at her wedding, Cecilia sang in her heart to God. When the Academy of Music was founded at Rome in 1584, Cecilia was made patroness of the institute, whereupon her veneration as patroness of church music in general became more universal. Today, Cecilian societies (musical associations) exist everywhere, and the organ has become the primary attribute depicted in Cecilian art.

Prayer

St. Cecilia, pray for us that we make music in our hearts to God and manifest our love for Him in our daily deeds. In the holy name of Jesus we pray. Amen.

That the Tuohys were unconcerned about their portrayal struck me as an act of faith. Sean said that it really didn’t matter how they appeared, because everyone at church who really knew the Tuohys would recognize them if the portrayal was accurate, and dismiss it if Hollywood got them wrong. His only concession to the magic of the silver screen came in a lament. At his current stage of life, Sean is in the "cuddle weight" division. When country western star, and sometime actor, Tim McGraw (who is very fit) asked what Sean thought about being played by him, Sean, laughing, replied, "if you could take your shirt off in the film and walk around for about 20 seconds, you and I are good." But, to be honest, that image would have been an illusion, and the truth of what appears on screen is so much more appealing. The Tuohys trusted director John Lee Hancock to get it right.

The Tuohy’s faith in Hancock was well placed. Hancock pulled off something that has eluded just about every filmmaker other than Tyler Perry: he portrayed authentic Christians in a mainstream Hollywood film. Over the past few decades, Christianity has been essentially ignored as a part of a character’s profile in most Hollywood roles. Easily identifiable Christians (you can tell who they are by the clerical collars) are primarily relegated to performing weddings and funerals, or are remarkably unsuccessful exorcists. Otherwise they are ultimately the ones who turn into werewolves or are revealed as the sweaty serial killer. But Christianity, as part of the normal life of a character, was hard to find in mainstream Hollywood film. I mean, the world is coming to an end in 2012 and no one bothers to pray?

I do not know anything at all about Hancock’s personal faith commitments, or even if he has one, but what I can say after speaking with him and seeing the film he directed is that he strives for authenticity. It comes out in The Blind Side in just the way any fair-minded person of faith would hope: integrated rather than preachy, complex, and introspective. In other words, Hancock dared to portray these Christian folks as real people. And he did so while crafting a very entertaining story perfect for the holiday season.

Get a Life

Hancock argues that the main reasons most Hollywood filmmakers do not get Christians "right" in films is a combination of stereotypes and laziness. To them, "Christians" are a type — like "bank robber" or "town drunk." Once they come across a wild-eyed preacher on the late night cable access channel, they think they understand, and so they do not bother to dig deeper.

In The Blind Side , the Tuohys are decidedly Christian. They send their kids to Wingate Christian School. Leigh Anne identifies herself as attending a prayer group. When Michael’s mother declares Leigh Anne a "good Christian woman," Leigh Ann replies, "I try to be." But unlike most films that come out of strictly Christian production houses, where the final reel inevitably leads to an altar call, The Blind Side is content to tell the Tuohy’s story, and trusts the audience to draw the implications. Yes, the Tuohys are Christians, but they are also business people, Sean is the owner of chains of fast food restaurants, Leigh Anne is a designer and philanthropist, both are devoted (yet tough) parents. Their daughter, Collins, is a cheerleader who studies hard, and has to deal with the racist attitudes of some of her schoolmates. SJ, their son, takes a keen interest in Michael’s training, and is a wheeler-dealer when the recruiting coaches come to call. The family is well-rounded, integrated, and attractive. You can tell that faith informs their lives and, for once, it does not seem weird or out of place. Their circumstances — helping to raise Michael Oher — are extraordinary, but that is what makes for a great story: ordinary people doing an extraordinary thing.

It’s Complicated

The Christians in The Blind Side are not made out of cotton candy or cardboard. Christians are not a "type," they are people who struggle with living in the world, just like everybody else. In fact, trying to adhere to the standards of a Christian calling is a source of dramatic struggle. Shortly after Michael Oher is admitted to Wingate, a disagreement erupts between the faculty and staff over whether keeping him is a good idea. On one side are clear-eyed pragmatists who look at numeric scores and see failure — the right thing to do is to kick him out. Then there is Mrs. Beasley, Michael’s biology teacher, who sees a disadvantaged student who just needs a chance and someone to believe in him. But ultimately what gets everyone’s attention is the plaque on the wall that reminds them that Wingate is a Christian school. They exist to serve. And even though Michael Oher’s problems are substantial, as the Bible passage inscribed over the gates of the school reminds them, "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Coach Cotton is also conflicted. When he first sees Michael he has visions of a state championship. He looks on the outside and imagines that this mountainous teen is his ticket. But when Michael proves slow to learn on the gridiron, the coach’s dissatisfaction shows. He doesn’t do everything right. He is afflicted with aspirations that sometimes get in the way of treating others as God would treat them. And all that means is that he is a human being; he is real. Coach Cotton needs Leigh Anne Tuohy to come along and show him the importance of really knowing his players. Interrupting practice, she storms onto the field to have a conversation with Michael, using familiar metaphors about protection to increase his understanding of his role on the team. Needless to say, Michael exceeds expectations, and Coach Cotton learns a spiritual interpersonal lesson. As in all of life, there is growth.

Dealing with Doubts and Doing the Right Thing

The Tuohys are not saccharine saviors. There is never the sense that they wear permanent halos. Leigh Anne, in particular, can be tough, even threatening, when it is called for. When the Tuohys first bring Michael into their home they are fearful of theft. When their motives for intervening in Michael’s life are questioned by a representative from the NCAA, Leigh Anne expresses self-doubt. The Tuohys recognize the dangers of selfish ambition, and they are aware that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? " (Jeremiah 17:9). As a result, they are introspective, weighing their actions against an unyielding standard rather than on merely favorable outcomes. Living the Christian life is not a static condition, but a living drama that contains many anxious moments. The film does not shy away.

What does come across in The Blind Side — and in interviews with the real-life Tuohys — is their commitment to doing the right thing. They don’t spend a lot of time talking about it, they simply do it. Sandra Bullock, who plays Leigh Ann in the film, noticed. Skeptical of some Christians and leery of the hypocritical judgmentalism that some people who claim faith exhibit, Bullock was touched. "I’ve finally met someone who practices, but doesn’t preach…she [Leigh Anne] has no idea the path that she has begun in terms of adoption and fostering. It’s not been on the forefront of people’s minds. It is on the forefront of my mind every day now, when I get up, when I look around, I think ‘Is he? Is she? What is their situation?’ And it’s because of this family… I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith. I finally met people who walk the walk and it’s made me happy."

Faith and Works

Cinema works best when it "shows" rather than "tells." Faith, as the Apostle James notes, works the same way: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’ (James 2:14-18). If you claim to have faith, show it.

The Blind Side gives an honest, real-world, fair shake to Christians, allowing their lives to speak for themselves. We care about these people because they care about each other in the same way that all of us would like to believe ourselves capable. What makes the film even better is that it is based on a true story, where real people can serve as living examples of a lived-out faith. I wish the cast and crew all the best this holiday season. I feel as if I have received an early gift.

Here is what’s going on here, and what isn’t.
1. The conversations between leaders of the SSPX and the Holy See are just that: conversations. These are not negotiations, for there is nothing to be negotiated; nor is this a dialogue between equal partners. On the one hand, we have the bishop of Rome and those curial officials whose work is an extension of his papal office; on the other hand, we have a society of clergy who have been living in disobedience to the Roman pontiff for decades, and their lay followers, many of whom are more confused than willfully schismatic. The purpose of these conversations is to make clear what the Second Vatican Council taught (especially about the nature of the Church), to listen politely to what the SSPX has to say, and to invite the SSPX back into the full communion of the Catholic Church, which the SSPX broke in 1988 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed the schismatic act of illicitly ordaining bishops without the authorization of the Roman pontiff (and against the direct, personal pleas of Pope John Paul II).

2. Despite what some “Vatican insiders” have said, these conversations do not represent a bold initiative by the Holy See; and despite the carping from the mainstream media, these conversations are not a craven papal concession to the demands of angry traditionalists whose dissent from Vatican II Benedict XVI is alleged to share. Rather, the conversations now underway are an act of pastoral charity by the pope, who is quite clear about the settled doctrine of the Church and who wishes to invite all, including members of the SSPX, to adhere to that doctrine. Nor is this about mutual enrichment; it is not easy to see how the Catholic Church is to be theologically enriched by the ideas of those who, whatever the depth of their traditional liturgical piety, reject the mid-20th century reform of Catholic thought of which Joseph Ratzinger was a leader. The pope is under no illusions on this score; his purpose is to invite the SSPX back into full communion, thus preventing the schism of 1988 from becoming a permanent wound in the Mystical Body of Christ.

3. The issues to be engaged in these conversations do not involve liturgy; the pope has addressed the legitimate pastoral needs of SSPX clergy and SSPX-affiliated laity by his decree allowing the unrestricted use of the 1962 Roman Missal. The real questions have to do with other matters. Does the SSPX accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by both reason and revelation? Does the SSPX accept that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over, and that the Catholic Church rejects the use of coercive state power on behalf of its truth claims? Does the SSPX accept the Council’s teaching on Jews and Judaism as laid down in Vatican II’s “Declaration on Non-Christian Religions” (“Nostra Aetate”), and does the SSPX repudiate all anti-Semitism? Does the SSPX accept the Council’s teaching on the imperative of pursuing Christian unity in truth and the Council’s teaching that elements of truth and sanctity exist in other Christian communities, and indeed in other religious communities?

Those are the real issues. Conversation about them is always welcome. Those who confuse conversation with negotiation make genuine conversation all the more difficult.

Although often depicted as a courageous rebellion against forces of intolerance and persecution, relativism is really cowardice. Because truth requires something of us. Pontius Pilate knew this. To acknowledge the truth would demand that he release Jesus and incur the crowd’s wrath. So he chose to avoid the truth. Then he dressed up his cowardice in a pseudo-philosophical inquiry: “Ah, but what is truth?”

So also today. Truth requires something of us. It requires humility to admit that we do not define reality, self-denial to reject our disordered desires, repentance to confess our errors. The truth about language demands that we speak honestly and not lie. The truth about sexuality means that we strive for chastity and defend marriage. The truth about human life requires that we protect the unborn. Many find it easier to deny truth than to take up these challenges. And, like Pontius Pilate, they dress up this moral cowardice in pseudo-philosophical questions: “Ah, but who is to say what marriage is … what sexuality is … what words mean? After all, what is truth?”

Cowardice is a dangerous thing. Physical cowardice gets men killed in battle. Moral cowardice destroys the foundations of society. It has produced what Cardinal Ratzinger famously termed the “dictatorship of relativism.” Not content to live their own lives without meaning, relativists insist that the entire society reject any objective truth about life, sexuality and marriage. Moral cowardice can be lived comfortably only when no one else announces truth.

In the face of such cowardice and dictatorship stands Christ the King. He summarizes His life in reference to the truth: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth” (Jn 18:36). Similarly, John Paul II remarked that the most important word in the Gospels is “truth.” Not love, peace, or joy, but truth. Truth is the context, the atmosphere — the operating system, if you will — that makes the others possible. It is the stable environment that enables the others to flourish.

Love depends on the truth because it seeks to be definitive. The language of love — always, forever, completely, entirely — must rest on a solid foundation, not shifting sands. Without the bedrock of truth love becomes mere sentimentality, subject to the vagaries of situations and emotions. Without truth you cannot have true love.

Likewise, genuine peace cannot exist without truth. Peace comes about by a common adherence to something impartial and objective — when disputing parties reconcile by acknowledging an authority independent of them. If we cannot refer to objective truth, then disputes can only be settled by power — fiscal, political or military. If there is no such thing as “right,” then we have only “might” to end disagreements.

Finally, joy cannot exist without truth. It always comes from the outside — from something beautiful and real that is unbidden and unexpected. The relativist never experiences such joy because he has defined all reality according to his small mind and even smaller heart. The one in love with the truth finds true joy — the joy of finding something more than oneself, more than our minds can construct themselves, more than our hearts can hold.

A bit of the relativist lurks in each of us. We all labor under a fallen human nature and tend to compromise the truth so that life might go a little more easily. To the extent we imitate Pontius Pilate in this way, our love becomes colder, our peace disturbed and our joy dreary. To the extent, however, that we submit to the King of Truth our love increases, our peace deepens and our joy radiates.

A new homosexual website, ChurchOuting.org, is intent on publicly disclosing who the gay priests are in the Archdiocese of Washington. The goal of this outing is to intimidate gay priests, as well as heterosexual priests who may be “romantically involved,” into voicing objections to the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage.

This initiative is the work of Phil Attey, self-described as “Liberal-Gay-Ardent Obama Supporter”; he was active in the Obama Pride Metro-DC campaign. According to one news report, “Attey is going to approach priests he thinks are gay, and warn them that they better stop lobbying against gay people, seeing how gay they are…or…else?”

Catholic priests are also being pressured to sign the “Declaration of Religious Support for Marriage Equality,” a statement by Clergy United for Marriage Equality. The statement, while it is not one we support, is respectfully written. Accordingly, we will write to members of the Steering Committee of this group asking them to dissociate themselves from this attempted hijacking of their effort.

The Catholic League is prepared to assist any priest in the Archdiocese of Washington who is the victim of harassment, intimidation or stalking. Whatever resources the priest needs, we will see to it that he is served. If radical gay activists want a showdown with the Catholic League, we will not disappoint them.

“The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” said Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund, a group that helps defend religious liberty through legal action, whose attorneys are representing Jackson along with attorneys from Stand4MarriageDC.

He continued: “The D.C. Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote. ADF will defend the right of the residents of our nation’s capitol to participate in a legitimate democratic process in the district.”

On September 1st, Stand4MarriageDC, headed by Jackson, had filed a petition that would allow DC citizens to vote on the following proposition: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the District of Columbia.”  Last Tuesday, however, the two-person D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics (DCBOEE) ruled that the proposed ballot “authorizes or would authorize discrimination proscribed by the HRA [the Human Rights Act]  and is therefore not a proper subject for initiative.”

The same day that the ballot was shot down the D.C. City Council scheduled a December 1st vote on the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” which would legalize homosexual “marriages” within the District of Columbia.  The measure is expected to pass easily.

The DCBOEE’s rejection of the action is not unexpected.  On June 15th, they rejected a similar referendum initiative that would have permitted voters to decide whether same-sex “marriages” from outside the District of Columbia would be recognized.

“We always believed we’d have to take it to Superior Court,” Jackson said after receiving a copy of the DCBOEE’s ruling. “We believe the board has a wrong interpretation of the Human Rights Act.”

The DC Human Rights Act of 1997 prohibits discrimination for “sexual orientation, [and] gender identity or expression” in a variety of areas, but never mentions marriage.  One section of the D.C. Code requires that ballot initiatives not violate this provision.

The petition to the D.C. Superior Court against the DCBOEE’s ruling, therefore, seeks a declaration that “the Initiative does not violate the HRA, because this Court and the Court of Appeals have consistently held that the regulation of the marital relationship falls outside the intended scope of the HRA.”

Furthermore, the petition argues against even the principle that the DCBOEE could reject the initiative for violating the HRA.  According to the petition, the section of the DC Code requiring the law be in accord with the HRA was “imposed by the [D.C.] Council on the people’s right of initiative [and] is an impermissible requirement not authorized by the Charter Amendment Act.”

The D.C. Charter acts as a constitution for the city of Washington.

“The Home Rule Charter tells us that we should have the same rights as the DC Board of Elections and as the DC City Council,” Jackson contends.  “In other words, if they can vote on something, we can vote on something.  If they can initiate a law, we should be able to initiate a law, as what is done in Maine and California.”

Not all members of the D.C. government agree with him.  D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, who supports same-sex marriage, said that he thought D.C. had a “fabulous council” to make decisions that D.C. citizens may not.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, criticized such an attitude: “The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy.  For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America’s well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.”

She continued: “D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight.  They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs.”

And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis’ senior demon, Screwtape, explains to a junior demon, Wormwood, why God sends us “dry times:”

He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs — to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. We can drag our patients along by continual temptation, because we design them for the table, and the more their will is interfered with the better. He cannot “tempt” them to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there, He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

It’s an illustration of the double standard that often prevails when it comes to same-sex “marriage.”

Vidala was a deputy manager at a Brookstone store in Boston’s Logan Airport. Last August, a manager visiting from another store told Vidala she was planning to “marry” her female partner. Vidala said he “quickly changed the subject.” As a Christian, he considered homosexual behavior immoral, and same-sex “marriage” an “oxymoron.” The woman’s comments made him uncomfortable.

But the visiting manager didn’t get the message—or maybe she did. She talked about her wedding plans over and over. Vidala later told Fox new she was goading him into commenting on her relationship.

Vidala said, “By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter. So I did.” He told her, “Regarding your homosexuality, I think that’s bad stuff.” He also reported that he had intended to tell her he would prefer she not bring up the subject at work, but she just started laughing.

And then she told him, “Get over it…keep your opinions to yourself.” She then complained to human resources, and Vidala was fired. Why? Because by “imposing” his beliefs on her, it constituted “harassment.”

So pummeling a junior-level Christian employee with endless comments he finds offensive is OK. But making a single critical comment to a lesbian senior-level employee is a firing offense.

Even more disturbing is the reason Brookstone gave to back up its decision. In Massachusetts, same-sex “marriage” is legal. So a lesbian employee can prattle on about her wedding plans without harassing anyone. function fbs_click() {u=location.href.substring(0,location.href.lastIndexOf(’/'));t=document.title;window.open(’http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}

The implications of this are frightening. If same-sex “marriage” is foisted upon other states, then expressing disagreement with it—or even criticizing the homosexual lifestyle—could become a firing offense for everyone. If employers had taken this attitude 90 years ago, people could have lost their jobs for disagreeing with laws forbidding women from voting!

This is how far the gay agenda has come in this country. Any disagreement is portrayed as hatred and harassment. And the victim—as in this case—is often a Christian.

Peter Vidala’s firing will have one beneficial effect, at least. It will help the rest of us understand why same-sex “marriage” laws are like no other. Oppose them beforehand or speak out afterward, and you will be punished.

ID)) : ?>
ID); ?>