Are the Dark Clouds of Persecution Beginning to Gather?

CONSIDERATION OF A HISTORIC PARALLEL

By F. Douglas Kneibert

Mention the words "persecution of the Catholic Church" and eyes begin to roll. What persecution? Are churches in the West being burned, priests being hunted down, and believers being thrown into prison? Obviously, no. But those are the wrong questions. In Western democratic societies, persecution seldom bursts forth on the scene full-blown. It's more likely to come in steadily escalating phases, often disguised as something else -- even as something good. Might we be in the early stages of just such a progression?

To speak of persecution of a religious minority is to be directed to Holocaust studies, which constitute the most exhaustive historical examination we have of how democratic civil and religious rights can be undermined and lost in a remarkably short timespan. The manner in which this process unfolded may have something to say to the Catholic Church today. Obviously, there are vast differences between Germany of the early 1930s and the U.S. today. But there are also some unsettling similarities.

It hardly bears repeating that Germany in the early 20th century was heir to a rich cultural heritage that was far removed from its barbaric origins. Or so many thought. The Constitution of the Weimar Republic, out of which the Third Reich emerged, granted civil and religious rights to its citizens in conformity with the European norm at the time.

Although Germany had a long history of hostility toward the Jews, the first stage of the process that led directly to Hitler's "final solution" was centered in the popular culture during the waning days of the Weimar Republic and the early years of the Nazi regime, which assumed power in 1933. A virulent anti-Semitism found its voice in the media, in books, in motion pictures, and even in children's literature. When it came to demonizing the Jew, Adolf Hitler had literally written the book with Mein Kampf.

Anti-Semitism was pervasive in Germany in all outlets of the popular culture, but newspaper cartoons bear special mention. Here Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer newspaper was in a class by itself, publishing over its 17-year lifespan a vicious series of crude cartoons that caricatured, stereotyped, and condemned Jews for any number of alleged offenses.

Fast-forward to contemporary America, where editorial cartoons ridiculing the Catholic Church have become standard in what used to be called "family" newspapers. Pat Oliphant is the most notable among several cartoonists whose pens fairly drip with anti-Catholic venom. No other religious group approaches the enmity that is heaped upon the Catholic Church in the daily press. In fact, other religions are almost totally exempt from criticism, by the dictates of political correctness.

Anti-Catholic movies like The DaVinci Code have become so common that they constitute their own genre. The same for books, especially those by Dan Brown of DaVinci fame. New York Times bestsellers The Last Templar by Raymond Khoury and The Third Secret by Steve Berry work the same basic plot line -- the uncovering of some long-suppressed truth reveals the Catholic Church to be a gigantic fraud.

Jokes about and contempt for the Church are standard fare for TV comedians and on talk shows. Far-left websites such as The Daily Kos spew out a steady stream of anti-Catholic vitriol. The same for "gay" bloggers, with Bitch Ph.D. and Towleroad perhaps being the most vicious.

If the Jews of 1930s Germany were alive today, they would recognize these things not as scattered occurrences but as part of a pattern with which they were all too familiar. But by the time they could see where things were heading as the Third Reich steadily tightened the screws, it was too late for most of them.

One might argue that the Catholic Church in the U.S. has encountered prejudice throughout her history and what we are seeing today is merely the status quo. However, there are ominous signs that the stakes are being raised. Hear William Donohue, a historian and president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: "Today's brand of anti-Catholicism is more virulent and more pervasive than ever before in American history.… The degree of hostility exhibited against the Catholic Church is appalling. Quite simply, Catholic-bashing has become a staple of American society."

For German Jews, the middle stage of persecution, in which they became the target of legal sanctions, began in 1933, when the Reichstag, Hitler's rubber-stamp parliament, enacted a law prohibiting Jews from holding jobs in Germany's vast and all-encompassing civil service. Jews, who had played leading roles in forming the Weimar Republic, found themselves cut off from any voice in the government. Other laws would progressively bar them from other professions and activities, isolating Jews from German public life.

Substitute "Catholics" for "Jews" and switch to Massachusetts in 2006, when the legislature passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in placing adoptive children. Since the law contained no religious exemption, the Catholic Church's long-standing role in arranging one of the most loving services possible -- placing unwanted children with traditional families -- came to an end in the second-most Catholic state in the union. Score one for those who would like to shrink the Church's sphere of public influence.

Last March in Connecticut, two dissident Catholic state legislators who are advocates of same-sex marriage introduced a bill requiring Catholic churches to elect boards to run all parish functions, stripping ecclesiastics of their authority in that area. The bill's stated purpose was "to revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations." Bridgeport Bishop William Lori denounced the bill as "a thinly veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage." In the face of massive opposition, the bill was pulled before a hearing could be held. But such a brazen attempt to use the force of statutory law against the Catholic Church in Connecticut was a wake-up call that the field of battle is being expanded.

On the other side of the nation, in California, another official assault on the Catholic Church occurred in 2006. Outraged at the Church's stand against gay adoptions, the city/county governing board of San Francisco passed a unanimous resolution that accused the Church -- which it denounced as "a foreign country" -- of being "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive," and "ignorant." That the governing board of a major urban area would engage in such a vicious attack on the Catholic Church would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. Attorneys for the Thomas More Law Center, which filed suit against the Board of Supervisors, argued in court that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message that Catholics are outsiders, not full members of the political community." That sounds eerily familiar to anyone knowledgeable about the plight of Jews in 1930s Germany.

Lest anyone think that such occurrences are strictly a local phenomenon, consider what happened last spring during Pope Benedict's trip to AIDS-devastated Africa, where he stated that condoms aren't the answer to the crisis. European capitols and the news media erupted in outrage, but things didn't stop there. The Belgian parliament went so far as to pass a resolution calling the Pope's remarks "unacceptable," and demanded that the government make a formal diplomatic protest to the Vatican, which it did. Predictably, this unprecedented condemnation of Catholic teaching -- on the part of an entire nation no less -- came from a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic, at least in name.

The Vatican recognized the Belgian protest for what it was, saying the Pope's remarks had been "used by some groups with a clear intent to intimidate, as if to dissuade the Pope from expressing himself on certain themes of obvious moral relevance and from teaching the Church's doctrine." Like all tyrannies, the emerging politically correct tyranny cannot abide dissent.

In another vitally important area of American life, the federal judiciary, practicing Catholics face steep hurdles in the Senate confirmation process, if not outright rejection. When President George W. Bush nominated Judge Bill Pryor for a seat on a federal appeals court in 2003, Senate Democrats, several of them Catholics (as is Pryor), perceived a possible threat to Roe v. Wade and blocked Pryor's confirmation. Using the coded language in which pro-aborts have become expert, Pryor's "deeply held personal views" disqualified him, despite the Constitution's prohibition of a religious test for public office.

The Conservative Committee for Justice said the only conclusion that can be drawn from the bitter fight over Pryor was that "devout Catholics need not apply" for federal judgeships. Those worrisome "deeply held personal views" arose again in 2005 and 2006 when Bush nominated two other Catholics to the Supreme Court, Judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both were confirmed, but only after the usual Senate suspects raised the same fears that prompted their opposition to Pryor.

Court appointments are vitally important, considering that the federal judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court (and to a lesser but significant degree the lower state courts) plays a huge role today in determining the kind of society in which we live. Besides often siding with the Culture of Death on the life issues that are so fundamental to Catholic moral theology, judges have also begun legalizing same-sex marriage, bypassing entirely the legislative process and even overturning public referendums.

A historical footnote on this topic: One of the Nazis' earliest acts upon seizing power was to bar Jews from holding judgeships. Later they were prohibited from practicing law as well.

The principles underlying Western law emerged largely from the Judeo-Christian tradition. But when one's Christian beliefs collide with the tenets of liberal orthodoxy, the latter most often prevail. Furthermore, some of our nation's most basic assumptions are being brought into question today -- even by our current President. On at least two occasions Barack Obama has stated that the U.S. "is not a Christian nation," although a 2008 Gallup Poll found that 77 percent of Americans so identify themselves. Whatever Obama intended by those startling words -- which marked a major departure from the past -- they're not a comforting sign at a time when Christian expression is increasingly under attack.

Blaming the Jews for Germany's various ills was a central facet of Nazi propaganda. Economic hard times were blamed on Jewish bankers and merchants. The Jews caused Germany to lose World War I, and the Jews were the force behind Bolshevism. Besides, they were "foreigners," not real Germans (recall the San Francisco Board of Supervisors' depiction of the Catholic Church as a "foreign country").

In like fashion, the Catholic Church is singled out for blame in a variety of areas. By opposing abortion and same-sex marriage, Catholics are against civil rights for women and homosexuals. The Church's stand against embryonic stem-cell research is anti-science. Her opposition to condoms makes the AIDS epidemic worse. The list could go on.

Well versed in the techniques of propaganda, the Nazis realized early on the importance of controlling the media. The infamous Nazi book-burning episode in 1933 sent a clear message that only approved books would be allowed in Germany. Jewish journalists were hounded, and Jews were prohibited from editing newspapers. In a short period of time, all media outlets, including the theater and motion pictures, were brought under the thumb of Josef Goebbels's Ministry of Propaganda and National Enlightenment.

The silencing of dissenting voices is always one of the first steps taken by authoritarian governments. In that respect, what has been happening north of the border is of special interest today, where the so-called Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) has been running roughshod over free speech and religious rights -- all in the name of tolerance. But it is an intolerant tolerance.

Consider the case of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, who wrote an article in the Canadian Catholic Insight magazine defending Church teaching on homosexuality. When a gay activist complained to the HRC, Fr. de Valk was charged with promoting "extreme hatred and contempt" toward homosexuals. Although the charges were eventually dropped, the accused was forced to spend several thousand dollars in legal defense fees, not to mention suffering the disruption of his life.

The Rev. Stephen Boisson, an evangelical pastor, was not so fortunate. His letter to the editor of a Canadian newspaper, in which he presented the biblical teaching on homosexuality and criticized societal inroads made by gay activists, cost him dearly. Besides fining him $5,000 for his "hate crime" and ordering him to apologize to the gay complainant, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal fixed a firm muzzle on his free-speech rights. Because we could soon be seeing something similar in this country, the tribunal's order is worth quoting in part: "Mr. Boisson and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet…disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.… Further, all disparaging remarks…are directed to be removed from current Web sites…."

Rather than being appalled at such blatant assaults on speech and religious rights, some states in this country have based their own hate-crime laws on Canada's. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have hate-crime statutes that cover sexual orientation. While some give lip service to protecting free speech and religious expressions, in the area of "public accommodations" those rights may not pertain.

In the effort to marginalize Christians, this may well be the most critical battleground today. In some states, Christians have faced charges and been penalized for "discriminating" (as broadly defined) against homosexuals. Let two examples suffice for several.

In 2004, 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia for demonstrating against a homosexual "Outfest" event held on public property. Although a judge eventually ruled in their favor, the threat of long prison terms and stiff fines was very real. Last year, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photographer $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian "commitment" ceremony.

Federal hate-crime legislation that includes sexual orientation -- with all the potential that holds for vastly expanded scope, prosecutions, and penalties -- was being fought over in the Senate as of this writing, the House having already approved it.

Hate-crime laws are Orwellian by their very nature, their model being the "thought crime" laws that Big Brother enforced in 1984. The day is fast approaching when offenders, such as the Catholic Church, may be those who take God's word seriously in the area of sexuality. Will sacred Scripture itself come to be equated with "hate" in the eyes of zealous prosecutors and judges? The message behind these laws is clear: If you follow biblical and Church teaching on sexual morality, be sure you do it behind church walls and not in a public place. But how long will those church walls remain inviolate? Germany's Jews found that their synagogues offered scant protection.

Speaking of hate crimes, the gay furor that broke out following the defeat of same-sex marriage by voters in California last fall saw churches vandalized, religious services interrupted by obscenity-shouting protesters, and some Christians physically assaulted. Hitler's brown­shirts, the main tool for intimidating, beating, and killing Jews in the early years of the Third Reich, would have approved.

For Germany's Jews, their persecutors were on the Right, but those who would silence the Church are overwhelmingly on the Left. Among its constituent elements, militant homosexual groups are by far the most aggressive. The Catholic Church, along with some evangelical bodies, is the only serious impediment to realization of the gay agenda, liberal Protestant churches having sold out to the Spirit of the Age long ago.

As Holocaust studies demonstrate, the value of having an early-warning system is crucial when persecution raises its ugly head. At the moment, that persecution is comparatively mild, especially compared to what Germany's Jews experienced in the early 1930s, residing mainly in the various organs of the popular culture (if "culture" is still the right word). But the warning light is beginning to flash a brighter yellow as the conflict spreads into the legal and legislative arenas.

Jesus warned His followers to heed the "signs of the times." The signs of our time are pointing toward an intensifying battle with those forces that seek to prevent the Church from being the Church. It's a battle that every Catholic who loves her must be prepared to fight.

F. Douglas Kneibert is a retired newspaper editor and a 1999 convert from Protestantism. He writes from Sedalia, Missouri. The foregoing article by F. Douglas Kneibert, "Are the Dark Clouds of Persecution Beginning to Gather?" was originally published in New Oxford Review (July-August 2009), pp. 42-45, and is reproduced here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706.