Forced out of the closet by the unscripted remarks of Washington’s original gaffemeister, Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Obama has pledged his support for same-sex marriage.  Naturally, the President is being hailed for his bold stand by the liberal media, although everyone knows that he only went public because Biden’s comments on the subject left him no alternative.  Given his druthers, Obama would have maintained his coyness and not made his sentiments public until such time as he he felt he could maximize the political benefits of doing so (i.e., right after the November election).

For better or worse however, the cat is out of the bag and Mr. O is out of the closet, and the strategists behind the Republican electoral machine are wringing their hands now that the spotlight is focused elsewhere than on the economy.  If you are one of the few remaining conservatives who believes that the Republican Party represents traditional cultural values in addition to free market principles, you’ll be disappointed to know that the current Republican leadership has little interest in advocating for traditional marriage on the public stage.  This is why they were cringing in the corner when would-be presidential aspirants like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were stressing the importance of families headed by a mom and a dad.

For his part, Mr. Romney will find it difficult to navigate this issue because the perception is that he has been on both sides of the so-called fence at various points in his political career.  In the 90′s he pledged fealty to the radical gay agenda, promising to out-advocate his then opponent, Ted Kennedy, on all issues homosexual.  Today of course, he has a different opponent and is seeking to appeal to a different constituency, so he will try to portray himself as a consistent, lifelong supporter of traditional marriage.  Doing so without coming off as a flip-flopper will be difficult, and unfortunately he won’t find much help from Speaker Boehner or Republican leaders in the House or Senate, as they’ve made a policy of essentially ignoring all issues that are not economic.

Nevermind that marriage is an institution ordained by God that has served as the fundamental building block of human society since the beginning of time.  Nevermind that basic common sense (as well as several formal sociological studies) tells us that children need the influence of a mother and a father in shaping their understanding of the world, their sense of personal security and confidence, and their preparedness to function as healthy and productive members of society.  Nevermind that natural law, our anatomical appendages, and the reproduction of the human race all seem innately geared toward heterosexual unions.  Republican leaders in Washington today can’t be counted upon for anything more than a tip of the hat toward traditional marriage.  Such would be beneath the station of Washington elites and is dirty work better suited to the hoi poloi (those of us in fly-over country who cling to guns and religion).

But the American people understand the significance of the paradigm shift advocated by Mr. Biden and his Johnny-come-lately boss.  As recently as last week, 61% of North Carolinians voting cast their ballot in favor of traditional marriage and against extending the sanctity of this ancient institution to same-sex unions.  All in all, 35 states have come down on the side of traditional marriage when their citizens were given the opportunity to do so, indicating that while marriage is under assault from many quarters (high divorce rates and an increase in the rise of cohabitation), the American people intuitively understand that traditional marriage is nonetheless an institution not to be trifled with.

So social conservatives had better get ready to rumble.  The stakes couldn’t be higher, nor the impact of the outcome of the election greater.  It’s about more than the economy Messrs. Romney and Obama, and no, the American people are not stupid.

The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts — not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians.

There were 57 signatures, and some were surprising. While there were prominent Catholics on the list, such as Graham Greene and Malcolm Muggeridge, others, like the flamboyant homosexual writer and dilettante Harold Acton, unrivaled soprano Dame Joan Sutherland, and former British poet laureate (and one time Communist) Cecil Day Lewis, had no particularly religious axe to grind. Anglican novelist Agatha Christie, in fact, has long had her name associated with the request, because (according to a popular anecdote) it was Christie’s name that Paul VI took note of, being an admirer of her stories.

It is no secret to the historian that the rich spiritual and human tapestry of Catholicism that so infused the Western world has served as the inspiration for more art, architecture, and music than any other subject. From Mozart’s Coronation Mass to the sacred art of Michelangelo, Bernini, and Caravaggio, to the cathedrals of Chartres, Cologne, St. Vitus, and St. Peter’s itself — Europe is teeming with art that that draws its substance from the Faith. Even Hollywood had a tryst with Catholicism, producing movies like Bells of Saint Mary’s, It’s a Wonderful Life, Ben Hur, Come to the Stable, and The Song of Bernadette.

Can anyone imagine the Catholic Church inspiring art in a similar fashion today, or a coalition of artists, musicians, and actors clamoring for the restoration of this or that liturgy or custom? Rather than finding a common cultural muse in the Church, contemporary artisans have rebelled against its teachings and severed their work from its traditions, and Catholics — also subject to the forces of the zeitgeist — have lost their own moorings, and have all but given up on the arts.

We see pockets, of course. There’s been a small resurgence in fiction written by Catholic authors, andThe Passion of the Christ was a masterpiece, but unless there is some great renaissance lying in wait beneath the surface of postmodern secularism, it appears we have conceded the fight.

In an interview published recently in Lay Witness, Barbara Nicolosi, Catholic blogger and founding partner of the Act One program designed to help Christians break into the movie business, lamented this loss of Christian artistry. She noted that while the Church used to be considered the patron of the arts, we have by and large lost our sense of the beautiful, both inside and outside of our parishes. We see it not only in the ecclesiastical sphere — liturgies and architecture and music — but in our general failure as Catholics to engage and uplift the culture by helping to shape it:

I’m very sad that we have had so few Catholics go through the [Act One] program. I have gone to these schools — the Catholic schools, the special Catholic schools — I’ve gone to them all several times and spoken there and pleaded, and what I find there is that kids do not have any apostolic drive. After getting these great Great Books educations, what they want to be is maybe a DRE in a small country parish in the backwoods where nobody will notice them and they can just shut the world down and out. You know, there’s nothing apostolic in that. St. Paul could’ve done that — the Church would be nothing if we had done that. We have not received a mandate to head for the hills.

While Nicolosi might overstate her case, her point is valid:

While we certainly need DREs in backwoods parishes, we cannot be satisfied with that. If our most faithful schools are creating isolationist Catholics with bunker mentalities, how can we ever hope to speak to the world? The Mystical Body is made up of many parts; surely we need directors and writers and musicians and artists nearly as much as we need religion teachers and catechists and priests. When the two are separated, the result is a Catholic ghetto, rather than a culture with Catholicism at its heart.

Nicolosi identifies the problem:

There is something wrong in a Church in which we are preparing kids to only play in the Catholic subculture. [whispers] There was never supposed to be a Catholic subculture! You know what disciples do in the Catholic subculture? They have personality fights and power struggles.

For many Catholics — especially those with children — a retreat from the world seems at times the only option. Overwhelmed and surrounded by a secular, hedonistic, over-sexualized culture that grows increasingly antithetical to the faith, it becomes a constant battle to shelter our families. But in doing so, we risk losing touch with the very world in which we are meant to be the leaven.

If the popular culture is an unhealthy environment for Catholic families, so too are echo chambers filled only with the ideas we like and agree with. This can transform into fantasy, a microcosm where — as my friend and Catholic journalist Hilary White recently described — Catholic enclavists have gone off into the woods to create a happy and comforting little Catholic world, well insulated from Outside. The kids are homeschooled, the women commonly wear the trademark shapeless plaid jumper/white t-shirt and sneakers combo, the men work at home, the books on the shelves are all from Ignatius or Angelus press, the jokes are clean and not very funny, conversation is always holy, the horrors of the squelching, seething pornographic world Outside are clucked at primly and the introduction of ironic humour is a wild and somewhat scandalous sensation.

This is precisely the sort of mentality that is incapable of confronting the culture. Rather than trying to bring the light of the Church into a hostile world, such people find it safer to keep the light under a bushel basket. The reasons for doing so are noble, no question: We parents will stand before God and account for the formation of our children and want only what is best for their souls. But what also of the souls entrusted to our care? What of those individuals in society who, lost and needing a lifeline, find that all help has been withdrawn and they are alone?

Those of us who have been blessed with a Catholic education and who wish to avoid being contaminated by a sinful culture may wish to consider the wisdom of the venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, who famously wrote in his Idea of a University, “It is a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless literature about a sinful man.” Understanding that what we want man to be is something loftier than what man is, Newman believed that engaging the world meant understanding the reality of it. He continued:

If then a University is a direct preparation for this world, let it be what it professes. It is not a Convent, it is not a Seminary; it is a place to fit men of the world for the world. We cannot possibly keep them from plunging into the world, with all its ways and principles and maxims, when their time comes; but we can prepare them against what is inevitable; and it is not the way to learn to swim in troubled waters, never to have gone into them.

And those troubled waters are ripe with possibilities, though we won’t see them if we avoid them out of fear. I’ve watched tremendous “R”-rated movies, found brilliant satire in shows like The Simpsonsand Family Guy, heard poetic Christian allegory and a pining for salvation in the dark rock ballads of U2, been soothed by the tragic voice of Amy Winehouse, and seen gripping accounts of dystopic consumerist futures in the writings of William Gibson. Critical consumption combined with a Catholic worldview allows us to recognize artistry even when the artist falls short or the message misses the mark. Art is both an inspiration for and a reflection of the culture it derives from, and where it fails to inspire, it cannot help but provide insight (even if only to shed light on what is broken in the heart of postmodern man).

At its best, it can also be a lot of fun.

We can try to avoid all of this in the interest of avoiding danger, but there is no guarantee of safe passage in this life. If we do not bring Christ to the world, who will? We alone have the sacraments, and the rich intellectual and cultural and moral tradition of the Catholic Church. What we can learn about artistry from the master storytellers of our age, we can infuse with the hope of the greatest story ever known.

Of those who are willing to speak to the world through culture and the arts, it must be conceded that their message is often the last thing the world needs to hear. That’s why it’s so important for the faithful to once again inspire and create culture, not only in an explicitly religious sense, but through the wider lens of the Catholic worldview. This is the worldview that encompasses both sinners and saints, that professes belief in a God made Man who ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, and died on a cross. Catholicism encompasses the breadth of human experience, from the height of ecstasy to the darkness of death. We have something to say because our Faith does not find hope in the notion of sinless man, but in the recognition of fallen man redeemed.

Steve Skojec is a veteran blogger, freelance writer, photographer, and a columnist and blogger for Crisis Magazine. He’s a traditionalist, a technophile, and a foodie. He holds a BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville where he graduated with honors in 2001. Steve has worked as a public relations consultant, art coordinator, administrative assistant, cemetery groundskeeper, assistant TV producer, religion teacher, and Realtor.

Created in 1949 and dedicated to Europe’s defense, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization served as the Free World’s primary military and political vehicle for containing the aggressive threat posed by the Soviet Union. In his 1946 post-World War II “Sinews of Peace” speech, Winston Churchill described the Cold War’s decisive military and political battle zone: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.” NATO succeeded in deterring war, in all likelihood a thermonuclear war, on Europe’s central front.

Elsewhere, however, the fighting never stopped. The Soviet Union constantly probed and stoked peripheral theaters, exacerbating and in some cases igniting conflicts in the globe’s less critical but still bloody corners. A short list of hot wars within the Cold War should jog hazy memories: East Asia (Korean War), sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Angola, Ethiopia, the Congo), Southeast Asia (e.g., Malaysia and Vietnam), Central Asia (e.g., Afghanistan), the Middle East (take your pick), and Central and South America (e.g., El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Soviet adventurism gave local conflicts a Cold War veneer, and to the eternal detriment of the locals, turned these terrible little conflicts into devastating Cold War proxy wars with global political implications (and often with a strategic economic angle).

In order to sap Western will and sow distrust, the Soviets always littered these proxy wars with Marxist utopian hooey (“Workers’ Paradise is the future”) and anti-American propaganda that reworked 19th century European autocrat and World War II-era Nazi anti-American themes in Marxist lingo.

NATO obits in the early 1990s saw NATO as a creature of a bipolar world that the obit writers believed disappeared when the Soviet Union shrank to Russia. The world, however, was never really bipolar. It has always been fragmented, with multipolar eddies. Since World War I, the fragments have been heavily armed. The fragments have also been grappling, often violently, with the terms of economic and political modernity.

Sept. 11 was the first time NATO actually invoked its founding treaty’s Article 5. Article 5 commits member nations to the active military defense of a NATO ally when that nation suffers a direct attack. It’s the alliance’s Three Musketeers Clause — one for all, and all for one.

Article 5 connects this brief history to the troubled present. The Syria-Turkey border is a NATO border. After pro-Assad dictatorship Syrian forces fired into Turkish territory, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: “NATO has responsibilities (to protect) Turkey’s borders, according to Article 5.” A rhetorical threat? Perhaps, but Bashar Assad knows NATO intervened militarily in Libya.

NATO 2012 confronts several complex belligerencies and difficult security challenges. Afghanistan, that miserable link between the Cold War and the Global War on Terror, remains unresolved. Syria also has Cold War echoes (Russian political games in the United Nations). Iran’s nuclear weapons quest and nuclear threat will be a central subject in Chicago.

The 1990s’ obit writers stroked their chins when fragments of the former Soviet empire clamored to join NATO. Many in the “it’s dead” crowd, having bought into the decades of Soviet anti-American agitprop, failed to appreciate NATO membership’s immense prestige and global influence. NATO membership enhances national status. Moreover, it makes a definitive statement about shared political and security goals that translates into diplomatic strength. As a result, NATO can focus peacekeeping power in ways the United Nations cannot and never will. The Clinton Administration used NATO, not the U.N., as the primary political and then military instrument in its Balkan intervention and peacekeeping operations (especially in Kosovo).

In the 21st century, NATO’s ability to coordinate and focus political and military power is a global resource.

To find out more about Austin Bay, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.