For those who have been following this past week's election in California, it has been a very heated debate over Proposition 8, a proposed amendment to the state constitution which adds "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This was the second time the people of California were asked to vote on this issue. The first time, in 2000, was Proposition 22 - in which voters added basically the same provision, except it was to the State Family Law, not the State Constitution. However, this law was challenged to the California Supreme Court in the In re Marriage Cases, in which the Court held that any statute limiting marriage to heterosexuals was contrary to the State Constitution. In light of that, obviously the only way to get around that was to amend the Constitution itself.
Enter Proposition 8, the ballot initiative which unleashed a giant media storm, attracting the media elites of Ellen DeGeneres, Brad Pitt, and others. The opponents have referred to it as Prop H8 (hate), making analogies of previous laws refusing to recognize interracial marriage, and attacking the religious convictions of those supporting the proposition. In particular, they appear to have singled out our Mormon brothers for some very nasty attacks. Signs reading "You Have 5 Wives, Let Me Have One!" and "Don't Get Your Magic Underwear in a Wad!" and this commercial below. It is usually the Catholic Church that bears the brunt of these liberal attacks(such as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence), so I am sympathetic to the harsh treatment the Mormons are getting. This is ridiculous, and yet we who support it are the ones accused of hate?
One thing that I will never understand is this schizophrenic attitude that homosexuals seem to have towards tradition. On the one hand, they depart from tradition by being with those of the same sex, rejecting the conventional gender roles of man and woman, and being in relationships with no possibility of procreation. But, on the other hand, they still seek out the blessing of a traditional institution of marriage. They have forsaken the substance, but still yearn for the style.
The complaint commonly raised is "This is my right!", an argument that seems to cover the multitude of liberal sins. Like a spoiled teenager who is quick to reply they "need" whatever they want, be it a stereo, new clothes, concert tickets, etc. - the liberal is equally quick to refer to their every whim and desire as a "right." Abortion is a right, marrying someone of the same sex is a right, drug use is a right, everything is a right! If one reads the Declaration of Independence, we see the actual thought and logic that went into the concept of our rights, a natural law theory, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Further examination of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and further Constitutional case law reveals an intelligent, rational discussion of rights.
No such discussion comes with the ridiculous homosexual claim that there is some mythological "right" of same-sex marriage. "I have a right to marry my partner!" No...you may want to marry him, but you don't have a right to marry him. Many states already provide civil unions which will give them whatever legal protection they want - they want to share property, visit each other in the hospital, be listed as each other's next of kin - fine, you've got it! So, what is marriage? They want the government to recognize their relationship as marriage.
So, why should the government recognize them? 50 years ago in this country, sodomy laws outlawed homosexual acts. Undercover members of vice squads would frequent bars, pretend to come on to other men, and if those men responded would arrest them. These sodomy laws were struck down - rightfully so - with the argument "It's none of the government's business what we do in our bedroom!" And to that argument, I would respond - "You're absolutely right! It is none of the government's business, so why are you asking the government to recognize it?!" Heterosexual relationships - in design if not always in practice - are capable of affecting society. They produce children, which are necessity for the continuation of the species. It stands to reason, then, that the government has some interested in encouraging these relationships to begin and to continue, thus - the recognition of marriage.
Homosexual relationships - for better or worse - do not affect society. 2 people of the same sex can have trust, intimacy, respect, pleasure - even love. To be blunt, the world is no different because of that. It will never go any further than the two of them. There is no reason for us to encourage these relationships to begin or continue. You want to engage in that behavior - there is nothing stopping you. But, please, do not drone on incessantly about how your rights are being violated because your relationship is not treated the same as a heterosexual relationship - it's not the same.
With the success of Prop 8 last Tuesday (one of the few bits of good news that day), Prop 8 H8ers (my new little word for them), are now out in the streets demonstrating and seeking redress from their favorite branch of government - the judiciary, challenging the validity of the ballot initiative. It looks like it's not over yet...
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
This is Only the Beginning..
This past summer I, like several other people, saw the film The Dark Knight. There is a scene towards the end where the Joker rigged two different boats with explosives and made sure that each boat had the detonator to the explosives on the other boat. He then delivered a chilling threat - each boat was told to blow up the other, or they would be blown up themselves. It made for some very suspenseful scenes until the passengers of both made the decision not to allow the others to perish. It was a powerful part of an already great film, very life-affirming and inspiring without being corny or overdone.
If you want an exact opposite scene, I would invite you to look at the events of the night before last, when the American people sold out the unborn children of this country, choosing instead to focus on "other issues." We had a chance, during a moment of economic crisis, to show remarkable selflessness. We failed terribly.
“This is one of the biggest mistakes that the American people have made in the entire history of our nation, and the many reasons why that’s true will come to light as the months go on. But the biggest reason why that’s true is that here we have a president-elect who cannot tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public." Fr. Frank Pavone
In the days leading up to and including the election, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the frankly pathetic excuses offered by alleged pro-lifers in an attempt to justify their support for Obama. I try to imagine them making those arguments in Heaven to the children killed in this Holocaust, telling those children about the economy they'll never be a part of, the education they'll never recieve, the health insurance they'll never benefit from, the world-standing of a country they'll never have citizenship in, the taxes they'll never have to pay for income they'll never earn or property they'll never own. Somehow I don't think they will be terribly concerned about all that nonsense. All that they will know is that we had a chance to finally change the Supreme Court and make a monumental move towards securing their legal protection, and we failed.
Mass hysteria has swept across the country, jubilation over the breaking of a glass ceiling. Leaving aside the valid, if controversial, question of whether Obama won the presidency in spite of his race or, in part, because of it - it is a sad irony that the tragic set-back of the rights of the unborn are overshadowed by the symbolic achievement of the civil rights movement.
My fear, as I have said in the past, is that an Obama presidency, with the passage of FOCA and judicial appointments, would work to discourage pro-lifers, leading them to believe the Kmiecian heresy that the battle to end abortion is hopeless. To any who are reading this, I would beseech you not to give up hope. This article from LifeSiteNews.com is a good description of the responses of many leaders within the pro-life movement. Now is not the time to lose that fervor, but only to step it up. Pray - as often as possible, pray for our country. Pray for President-elect Obama. Our faith is one that believes people can change. Many are fearful of him, and certainly with good cause - every time he has ever spoken about the sanctity of life, he has given every reason for us to believe that innocent children will not be protected under his watch. It was for those reasons I opposed his candidacy. But now that he has won, I pray for him. The early Christians had good cause to fear Saul of Tarsus, and he became one of our greatest saints. Who knows? Perhaps our President-elect will undergo a conversion during this year of St. Paul, and become one of the greatest champions of the pro-life movement.
In his book Utopia, St. Thomas More writes about the great need for those of intelligence to use their gifts to persuade the King to be good, with the hopes that said goodness will influence the people he governs (Reagan would call it "trickle-down morality"). We must pray and write and act for Obama to be good. For better our worse, he is slated to become the President of this country. I do not celebrate, I do not rejoice. In fact, I am rather skeptical of those who tell us now is the time to come together and unite, forgive me but after several years of "Bush is Hitler", "Bush is a Terrorist", "Bush Lied!", etc, I'm not quite ready to count myself as one of his adoring fans. Nevertheless, I pray and hold out hope that he will come around. I will support that which is good in him and continue to oppose that which is not.
We certainly have our work cut out for us. The Supreme Court may be lost to us, perhaps for a generation. Let us do, then, that which we can. Picket abortion clinics. Work at crisis pregnancy centers. Write to political representatives. Educate yourself about everything you can - the science, the law, the history. Knowledge is power. Be active on a state-wide level now. No matter what happens now, sooner or later Roe will be overturned and when it does, we need to have a culture of life in place at our state levels. Attend the March for Life in January. Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act that Obama plans to sign into law.
I will end with 2 quotes, one from politics, the other from literature.
The first quote, given to me from the CatholicVote mailing list was from the late champion of the pro-life movement, Congressman Henry Hyde. "When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, "Spare him because he loved us," and God will look at you and say not, "Did you succeed?" but "Did you try?"'
The second quote, occurring to me a few weeks back when I was watching this film, is from The Two Towers, the second film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.... That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for."
There is indeed some good in this country of our's and it is worth fighting for - and our fight is far from over.
If you want an exact opposite scene, I would invite you to look at the events of the night before last, when the American people sold out the unborn children of this country, choosing instead to focus on "other issues." We had a chance, during a moment of economic crisis, to show remarkable selflessness. We failed terribly.
“This is one of the biggest mistakes that the American people have made in the entire history of our nation, and the many reasons why that’s true will come to light as the months go on. But the biggest reason why that’s true is that here we have a president-elect who cannot tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public." Fr. Frank Pavone
In the days leading up to and including the election, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the frankly pathetic excuses offered by alleged pro-lifers in an attempt to justify their support for Obama. I try to imagine them making those arguments in Heaven to the children killed in this Holocaust, telling those children about the economy they'll never be a part of, the education they'll never recieve, the health insurance they'll never benefit from, the world-standing of a country they'll never have citizenship in, the taxes they'll never have to pay for income they'll never earn or property they'll never own. Somehow I don't think they will be terribly concerned about all that nonsense. All that they will know is that we had a chance to finally change the Supreme Court and make a monumental move towards securing their legal protection, and we failed.
Mass hysteria has swept across the country, jubilation over the breaking of a glass ceiling. Leaving aside the valid, if controversial, question of whether Obama won the presidency in spite of his race or, in part, because of it - it is a sad irony that the tragic set-back of the rights of the unborn are overshadowed by the symbolic achievement of the civil rights movement.
My fear, as I have said in the past, is that an Obama presidency, with the passage of FOCA and judicial appointments, would work to discourage pro-lifers, leading them to believe the Kmiecian heresy that the battle to end abortion is hopeless. To any who are reading this, I would beseech you not to give up hope. This article from LifeSiteNews.com is a good description of the responses of many leaders within the pro-life movement. Now is not the time to lose that fervor, but only to step it up. Pray - as often as possible, pray for our country. Pray for President-elect Obama. Our faith is one that believes people can change. Many are fearful of him, and certainly with good cause - every time he has ever spoken about the sanctity of life, he has given every reason for us to believe that innocent children will not be protected under his watch. It was for those reasons I opposed his candidacy. But now that he has won, I pray for him. The early Christians had good cause to fear Saul of Tarsus, and he became one of our greatest saints. Who knows? Perhaps our President-elect will undergo a conversion during this year of St. Paul, and become one of the greatest champions of the pro-life movement.
In his book Utopia, St. Thomas More writes about the great need for those of intelligence to use their gifts to persuade the King to be good, with the hopes that said goodness will influence the people he governs (Reagan would call it "trickle-down morality"). We must pray and write and act for Obama to be good. For better our worse, he is slated to become the President of this country. I do not celebrate, I do not rejoice. In fact, I am rather skeptical of those who tell us now is the time to come together and unite, forgive me but after several years of "Bush is Hitler", "Bush is a Terrorist", "Bush Lied!", etc, I'm not quite ready to count myself as one of his adoring fans. Nevertheless, I pray and hold out hope that he will come around. I will support that which is good in him and continue to oppose that which is not.
We certainly have our work cut out for us. The Supreme Court may be lost to us, perhaps for a generation. Let us do, then, that which we can. Picket abortion clinics. Work at crisis pregnancy centers. Write to political representatives. Educate yourself about everything you can - the science, the law, the history. Knowledge is power. Be active on a state-wide level now. No matter what happens now, sooner or later Roe will be overturned and when it does, we need to have a culture of life in place at our state levels. Attend the March for Life in January. Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act that Obama plans to sign into law.
I will end with 2 quotes, one from politics, the other from literature.
The first quote, given to me from the CatholicVote mailing list was from the late champion of the pro-life movement, Congressman Henry Hyde. "When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, "Spare him because he loved us," and God will look at you and say not, "Did you succeed?" but "Did you try?"'
The second quote, occurring to me a few weeks back when I was watching this film, is from The Two Towers, the second film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.... That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for."
There is indeed some good in this country of our's and it is worth fighting for - and our fight is far from over.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Enter the 11th Hour
For the past week, I, and so many others, have been holding a collective breath and bracing ourselves for Nov 4th. I continually find myself thinking about two alternate futures - one resulting from a McCain victory, another resulting from an Obama victory. Among all sides of the idealogical spectrum, there is a common perception that we are coming to a fork in the road, a radical divide that will have a dramatic effect on the future of our country.
Having been born in America in the 1980's (and thereby missing the turbulent 1960's or the even more turbulent 1860's), there always seemed a sense of relative security in America. By security, I do not refer to our physical safety from enemies, but rather being secure in our identity. Unlike so many other countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America, there has been a general stability in place with regards to what America is and is not for the past 200+ years. Now, that stability is torn asunder as the "culture war" written about by James Davison Hunter 17 years ago has reached epic proportions. I laugh when I hear presidential candidates on either side talk of their being the candidate to unite the country. No matter what is said and done, once one is declared the winner, half of America will be jubilant and the other half will feel bitterly disappointed. That cannot be helped. One side wants marriage between a man and a woman, the other side does not. One side wants to spread the wealth, the other does not. One side wants to continue to sit down with terrorists without pre-conditions, the other does not. One side wants abortion-on-demand, the other does not. One side wants socialized medicine, the other does not.
These are not issues with which a true common ground can be found. One side will win, the other will lose. Candid as it may sound, it is the blunt truth and cannot be helped. Too many people on both sides are too invested in this fight to take it lightly. Tuesday will determine whose vision of America is sustained, and whose is denied.
And all along the conservative movement, there remains the 500 lb gorilla in the room - the role of our Christian faith in all of this. For far too long, the secular media and the left have tried to shame our faith away, and many have complied. They have feared having their words thrown back in their face with the scorn and indignation. One example in the past year as been those who have mocked Governor Palin's claim that our fighting the Iraq War could possibly be God's plan. *gasp* How dare she! It is not so much that she supports the war, which would cause enough shrieking, but that she would claim God approves as well. When they hear such a claim, undoubtedly images of jihadists murdering civilians in the name of Allah come to their mind. And yes, I will not deny that these are horrific things which should frighten us, but there is another, valid fear that we should have - and that is not taking into account God's will at all. Palin supports the war, shouldn't it go without saying that she believes it is God's will? Or do we dare assume that a person would support a war on one hand, while also believing God opposed it?
Similar criticism came four years ago, in Obama's last election, when his opponent, Dr. Alan Keyes dared make the statement "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Again I ask - doesn't Dr. Keyes's opposition to Obama automatically imply his belief that Obama would not be Jesus's choice? Or would we be more comfortable with him if he were running against someone he believed his God supported?
Then we turn to the Johnson Amendment. In the history of the United States, churches traditionally enjoyed tax-exempt status. That changed in 1954, when this exemption became conditional upon churches (and other non-profits) refraining from becoming too political and endorsing candidates. While it is easy to brazenly say the churches should stand up, to hell with tax exempt status. But, in reality, there are a great many churches that are single-church denominations, and could not have enough funds to operate if taxes were suddenly levied upon them. Other, more affluent churches, would also be hit hard - after all, the money going to Uncle Sam has to come from somewhere. What ministry will have to go without? In light of this significant concern, we are left with "voter guides" and tightrope-walking-sermons which delicately lay out issues, emphasize those which we should show the greatest concern for, and stop short of coming out and telling us who to vote for. It is the equivalent of telling voters "We're not going to tell you to come up with the number four, just remember you need to add two plus two....*wink,wink*." The latest and best-publicized of these is the "Faithful Citizenship" document released by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Some Catholics have criticized this document, among them Bishop Martino of the Diocese of Scranton, PA, who declared that "the USCCB doesn't speak for me and wrote his own letter for the Catholics within his diocese, which employed much greater clarity than the "Faithful Citizenship" document. Another Catholic, Deal W. Hudson, authored an article arguing that the USSCB letter may work to Obama's advantage, the vague wording providing liberal Catholics with a sense of justification in voting for Obama with a clear conscience.
I thank God that, as the election draws nearer, there have been greater voices raised in the name of faith, insisting upon it playing a decisive role in the election. One group of voices has come with the encouragement of the Alliance Defense Fund, the last Sunday of September, designated Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in which pastors from 20 different states defied the Johnson Amendment and preached politics from the pulpit.
Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, has also written a beautiful letter outlining why he, as a Christian, is compelled to oppose Senator Obama's bid for the presidency. I would encourage anyone reading this to read the letter.
Below is a video of Fr. Tom Celso, a priest with callforhersos.org, stating in plain English - Do Not Vote for Barack Obama! (about time)
In addition to speaking out about it, Christians are taking up action in these final days. Father Corapi has called for an election novena to Our Lady of Victory in the last nine days prior to the election. Our Lady of Victory intervened in 1571 during the Battle of Lepanto, during the Crusades, when Christian forces faced an overwhelming naval battle against the Turks. The Pope called all of Christendom to pray the rosary, and, through the intercession of Mary, the Christian forces succeeded. We pray for a similar intercession now. http://www.fathercorapi.com/PDF/ElectionNovena.pdf
There are also those who have taken up the cause of fasting on election day for a pro-life victory. Unaware that someone else had the idea first, I began a "facebook event" this past Thursday and began asking people to commit to fasting - as I write this Saturday night, already over 600 people have committed to. Imagine my suprise when I found someone else had already created a similar event, and I am happy to say that over 3,000 people now have made the commitment to fast this election day for an end to abortion.
If by chance you're reading this before election day, I would ask you to pray, and I would ask you to fast. And, of course, I would ask you to vote.
Having been born in America in the 1980's (and thereby missing the turbulent 1960's or the even more turbulent 1860's), there always seemed a sense of relative security in America. By security, I do not refer to our physical safety from enemies, but rather being secure in our identity. Unlike so many other countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America, there has been a general stability in place with regards to what America is and is not for the past 200+ years. Now, that stability is torn asunder as the "culture war" written about by James Davison Hunter 17 years ago has reached epic proportions. I laugh when I hear presidential candidates on either side talk of their being the candidate to unite the country. No matter what is said and done, once one is declared the winner, half of America will be jubilant and the other half will feel bitterly disappointed. That cannot be helped. One side wants marriage between a man and a woman, the other side does not. One side wants to spread the wealth, the other does not. One side wants to continue to sit down with terrorists without pre-conditions, the other does not. One side wants abortion-on-demand, the other does not. One side wants socialized medicine, the other does not.
These are not issues with which a true common ground can be found. One side will win, the other will lose. Candid as it may sound, it is the blunt truth and cannot be helped. Too many people on both sides are too invested in this fight to take it lightly. Tuesday will determine whose vision of America is sustained, and whose is denied.
And all along the conservative movement, there remains the 500 lb gorilla in the room - the role of our Christian faith in all of this. For far too long, the secular media and the left have tried to shame our faith away, and many have complied. They have feared having their words thrown back in their face with the scorn and indignation. One example in the past year as been those who have mocked Governor Palin's claim that our fighting the Iraq War could possibly be God's plan. *gasp* How dare she! It is not so much that she supports the war, which would cause enough shrieking, but that she would claim God approves as well. When they hear such a claim, undoubtedly images of jihadists murdering civilians in the name of Allah come to their mind. And yes, I will not deny that these are horrific things which should frighten us, but there is another, valid fear that we should have - and that is not taking into account God's will at all. Palin supports the war, shouldn't it go without saying that she believes it is God's will? Or do we dare assume that a person would support a war on one hand, while also believing God opposed it?
Similar criticism came four years ago, in Obama's last election, when his opponent, Dr. Alan Keyes dared make the statement "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Again I ask - doesn't Dr. Keyes's opposition to Obama automatically imply his belief that Obama would not be Jesus's choice? Or would we be more comfortable with him if he were running against someone he believed his God supported?
Then we turn to the Johnson Amendment. In the history of the United States, churches traditionally enjoyed tax-exempt status. That changed in 1954, when this exemption became conditional upon churches (and other non-profits) refraining from becoming too political and endorsing candidates. While it is easy to brazenly say the churches should stand up, to hell with tax exempt status. But, in reality, there are a great many churches that are single-church denominations, and could not have enough funds to operate if taxes were suddenly levied upon them. Other, more affluent churches, would also be hit hard - after all, the money going to Uncle Sam has to come from somewhere. What ministry will have to go without? In light of this significant concern, we are left with "voter guides" and tightrope-walking-sermons which delicately lay out issues, emphasize those which we should show the greatest concern for, and stop short of coming out and telling us who to vote for. It is the equivalent of telling voters "We're not going to tell you to come up with the number four, just remember you need to add two plus two....*wink,wink*." The latest and best-publicized of these is the "Faithful Citizenship" document released by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Some Catholics have criticized this document, among them Bishop Martino of the Diocese of Scranton, PA, who declared that "the USCCB doesn't speak for me and wrote his own letter for the Catholics within his diocese, which employed much greater clarity than the "Faithful Citizenship" document. Another Catholic, Deal W. Hudson, authored an article arguing that the USSCB letter may work to Obama's advantage, the vague wording providing liberal Catholics with a sense of justification in voting for Obama with a clear conscience.
I thank God that, as the election draws nearer, there have been greater voices raised in the name of faith, insisting upon it playing a decisive role in the election. One group of voices has come with the encouragement of the Alliance Defense Fund, the last Sunday of September, designated Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in which pastors from 20 different states defied the Johnson Amendment and preached politics from the pulpit.
Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, has also written a beautiful letter outlining why he, as a Christian, is compelled to oppose Senator Obama's bid for the presidency. I would encourage anyone reading this to read the letter.
Below is a video of Fr. Tom Celso, a priest with callforhersos.org, stating in plain English - Do Not Vote for Barack Obama! (about time)
In addition to speaking out about it, Christians are taking up action in these final days. Father Corapi has called for an election novena to Our Lady of Victory in the last nine days prior to the election. Our Lady of Victory intervened in 1571 during the Battle of Lepanto, during the Crusades, when Christian forces faced an overwhelming naval battle against the Turks. The Pope called all of Christendom to pray the rosary, and, through the intercession of Mary, the Christian forces succeeded. We pray for a similar intercession now. http://www.fathercorapi.com/PDF/ElectionNovena.pdf
There are also those who have taken up the cause of fasting on election day for a pro-life victory. Unaware that someone else had the idea first, I began a "facebook event" this past Thursday and began asking people to commit to fasting - as I write this Saturday night, already over 600 people have committed to. Imagine my suprise when I found someone else had already created a similar event, and I am happy to say that over 3,000 people now have made the commitment to fast this election day for an end to abortion.
If by chance you're reading this before election day, I would ask you to pray, and I would ask you to fast. And, of course, I would ask you to vote.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Gandalf and Saruman
In the past few years, I have grown accustomed to engaging in debate with those in the pro-choice movement concerning my opposition to pro-choice political candidates. Although I disagree with their initial starting point - that life does not begin at conception - the rest of their reasoning, following that proposition seems relatively logical. After all, if life does not truly begin at conception, then abortion is an elective medical procedure whose legality should not pose any great upset to one's conscience. The aim of my argument has always been the assumption that, were that initial proposition to change, and my friend believed that life began at conception, then accordingly, abortion would be tantamount to murder, and its abolition would be our chief priority.
This assumption has been challenged over the course of the past year, where, again and again, in both online reading and personal conversations, I have come across those who believe that life does indeed begin at conception, and at the same time, are quite comfortable supporting Sen. Obama in his campaign for president. They justify their position in numerous ways - some speak at length about other issues, such as war, the environment, and the economy - as though somehow these were comparable to the wholesale slaughter of infants. Others speak of the need to get at the "causes of abortion", believing that its permittable to allow Roe v. Wade to continue so long as there are changes in welfare and education. Finally, there are others, such as Professor Nicholas Cafardi, who have declared "While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle permanently." http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14918
On the first excuse - and yes, I call it an excuse, because that is all it is, I would repeat the reasoning of Archbishop Chaput, that a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate if and only if they have a reason they could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when they meet them and need to explain their actions as we someday will. Cutting through all the rhetoric and banter proffered by those who support Obama, there is no reason sufficient enough to continue this massacre - not the economy, not the war, not the environment, not anything. I would remind the reader of one European nation that was eager to look the other way about a candidate's lack of respect for life, so long as he promised to help build up the economy. 11 million people killed - and we still do not appear to have learned the lesson of Germany.
As for the second excuse, it is not enough to address social causes of abortion and allowing the law to remain as it is. This argument was addressed earlier this week in a joint statement by both Cardinal Rigali and Bishop William Murphy (no relation). They have stated that we must do both - do good and oppose evil, that is, work to support unwed mothers and work to end legalized abortion. I think, in particular, the current election reveals a fallacy in this second excuse. Many act as though abortion laws in this country are static - that it is pro-lifers who are trying to change them, as pro-choicers merely attempt to preserve them in their current form. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sen. Obama and the pro-choice movement have repeatedly let it be known that they are not satisfied with current abortion laws, but rather are actively working to expand them. The most horrifying example of this is FOCA, or the Freedom of Choice Act, the passage of which Obama has promised Planned Parenthood would be his first official act as president. This bill, if signed into law, would essentially bring us back to Jan 23, 1973, the day after Roe, sweeping away every restriction the pro-life movement worked to get passed in the past 35 years. So, let's call this foolish strategy what it is - one step forward, two steps back. Even if greater support for unwed mothers decreased abortion in some instances, the increased legal availability of abortion would undoubtedly increase abortion in other instances.
The final and most naive excuse is that the abortion battle has been lost. This is the height of moral cowardice and sloth, to abandon the legal protection of unborn children after putting up a fight of - what - 35 years? Africans were siezed and sold as slaves for over four centuries. That ended. As an Irish-American, my ancestors fought English occupation for roughly seven centuries. The English were driven out. Women went millenia without the right to vote. They got it. And yet so many in our own country are ready to claim exhaustion and defeat after abortion has enjoyed constitutional protection for merely three and a half decades. In previous postings, I have referenced Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, I think it warrants repeating. "Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God". Abortion can remain until the Second Coming, or it can be driven out of our country - it depends upon us rolling up our sleeves and driving it out. We are Americans! We need to be mindful of the legacy of our founders - brave men and women who had the courage and conviction to swear allegiance to the natural law, dig in their heels and do that which was morally required. They were willing to take up arms and fight a revolution, and yet so many of our "pro-life" contemporaries nowadays shirk back when they consider voting for a pro-life candidate. In comparison, so little is necessary in these current times, and they are unwilling to do even that.
I am reminded of two fictional wizards from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels. The first, Gandalf, recognized the great evil of the ring of power and the villian Sauron, and actively working to build an alliance that would oppose it head-on. One dramatic example of his courage is seen towards the end of the first movie, in which, protecting his comrades, he bravely stands on the Bridge of Khazad-dum with his staff, he loudly declares, "You shall not pass!", sacrificing his life in the process.
The second wizard was named Saruman, head of the order Gandalf belonged to - so we can assume was once a wise and decent individual. But then he allies himself with the forces of darkness, betraying the principles he had once believed in. He did this, simply, because he believed that Sauron's victory was inevitable.
It may seem overly simplistic and childish to make comparisons between mythical creatures and supporters of political candidates, but what is literature if not a commentary on great and universal truths? There have always been evils in our society - foreign occupation, slavery, discrimination, genocide, etc. - that have appeared inevitable. And with those evils, there have been those who used said percieved inevitability to justify their own failure to confront the evil head-on and work to end it. Our time is no different in this regard.
We have a daunting task ahead of us, to say otherwise would be a lie. Some have deserted the defense of life because of the difficulties involved. Should Obama win, and FOCA be signed into law, there may be others yet who resign themselves to the self-fulfilling prophecy that abortion is here to stay. But, even should that happen, with all of its difficulties, we must be prepared to begin again, possessing the work ethic of Sisyphus, the heart of the abolitionists, and the steadfastness of the Gospels. Even should we never see the end of abortion in our lifetimes, it is a fight worth fighting - the greatest fight there could be. We speak for those who are most innocent, most helpless, and most in need of our advocacy. We must dig our heels in and prepare for the long haul, a voice crying out in the desert. We must do this, not because a pro-life victory is guaranteed, not because it is likely. In truth, even if one could prove that a pro-life defeat was inevitable, I would say we still need to do this. We need to, first and foremost, because abortion is evil and, as such, we who call ourselves human beings have a moral duty to stand up and condemn it.
That is the principal reason why we oppose abortion - because, when faced with the utterly inhumane, all that is human within us cries out in opposition against it.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf
This assumption has been challenged over the course of the past year, where, again and again, in both online reading and personal conversations, I have come across those who believe that life does indeed begin at conception, and at the same time, are quite comfortable supporting Sen. Obama in his campaign for president. They justify their position in numerous ways - some speak at length about other issues, such as war, the environment, and the economy - as though somehow these were comparable to the wholesale slaughter of infants. Others speak of the need to get at the "causes of abortion", believing that its permittable to allow Roe v. Wade to continue so long as there are changes in welfare and education. Finally, there are others, such as Professor Nicholas Cafardi, who have declared "While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle permanently." http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14918
On the first excuse - and yes, I call it an excuse, because that is all it is, I would repeat the reasoning of Archbishop Chaput, that a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate if and only if they have a reason they could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when they meet them and need to explain their actions as we someday will. Cutting through all the rhetoric and banter proffered by those who support Obama, there is no reason sufficient enough to continue this massacre - not the economy, not the war, not the environment, not anything. I would remind the reader of one European nation that was eager to look the other way about a candidate's lack of respect for life, so long as he promised to help build up the economy. 11 million people killed - and we still do not appear to have learned the lesson of Germany.
As for the second excuse, it is not enough to address social causes of abortion and allowing the law to remain as it is. This argument was addressed earlier this week in a joint statement by both Cardinal Rigali and Bishop William Murphy (no relation). They have stated that we must do both - do good and oppose evil, that is, work to support unwed mothers and work to end legalized abortion. I think, in particular, the current election reveals a fallacy in this second excuse. Many act as though abortion laws in this country are static - that it is pro-lifers who are trying to change them, as pro-choicers merely attempt to preserve them in their current form. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sen. Obama and the pro-choice movement have repeatedly let it be known that they are not satisfied with current abortion laws, but rather are actively working to expand them. The most horrifying example of this is FOCA, or the Freedom of Choice Act, the passage of which Obama has promised Planned Parenthood would be his first official act as president. This bill, if signed into law, would essentially bring us back to Jan 23, 1973, the day after Roe, sweeping away every restriction the pro-life movement worked to get passed in the past 35 years. So, let's call this foolish strategy what it is - one step forward, two steps back. Even if greater support for unwed mothers decreased abortion in some instances, the increased legal availability of abortion would undoubtedly increase abortion in other instances.
The final and most naive excuse is that the abortion battle has been lost. This is the height of moral cowardice and sloth, to abandon the legal protection of unborn children after putting up a fight of - what - 35 years? Africans were siezed and sold as slaves for over four centuries. That ended. As an Irish-American, my ancestors fought English occupation for roughly seven centuries. The English were driven out. Women went millenia without the right to vote. They got it. And yet so many in our own country are ready to claim exhaustion and defeat after abortion has enjoyed constitutional protection for merely three and a half decades. In previous postings, I have referenced Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, I think it warrants repeating. "Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God". Abortion can remain until the Second Coming, or it can be driven out of our country - it depends upon us rolling up our sleeves and driving it out. We are Americans! We need to be mindful of the legacy of our founders - brave men and women who had the courage and conviction to swear allegiance to the natural law, dig in their heels and do that which was morally required. They were willing to take up arms and fight a revolution, and yet so many of our "pro-life" contemporaries nowadays shirk back when they consider voting for a pro-life candidate. In comparison, so little is necessary in these current times, and they are unwilling to do even that.
I am reminded of two fictional wizards from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels. The first, Gandalf, recognized the great evil of the ring of power and the villian Sauron, and actively working to build an alliance that would oppose it head-on. One dramatic example of his courage is seen towards the end of the first movie, in which, protecting his comrades, he bravely stands on the Bridge of Khazad-dum with his staff, he loudly declares, "You shall not pass!", sacrificing his life in the process.
The second wizard was named Saruman, head of the order Gandalf belonged to - so we can assume was once a wise and decent individual. But then he allies himself with the forces of darkness, betraying the principles he had once believed in. He did this, simply, because he believed that Sauron's victory was inevitable.
It may seem overly simplistic and childish to make comparisons between mythical creatures and supporters of political candidates, but what is literature if not a commentary on great and universal truths? There have always been evils in our society - foreign occupation, slavery, discrimination, genocide, etc. - that have appeared inevitable. And with those evils, there have been those who used said percieved inevitability to justify their own failure to confront the evil head-on and work to end it. Our time is no different in this regard.
We have a daunting task ahead of us, to say otherwise would be a lie. Some have deserted the defense of life because of the difficulties involved. Should Obama win, and FOCA be signed into law, there may be others yet who resign themselves to the self-fulfilling prophecy that abortion is here to stay. But, even should that happen, with all of its difficulties, we must be prepared to begin again, possessing the work ethic of Sisyphus, the heart of the abolitionists, and the steadfastness of the Gospels. Even should we never see the end of abortion in our lifetimes, it is a fight worth fighting - the greatest fight there could be. We speak for those who are most innocent, most helpless, and most in need of our advocacy. We must dig our heels in and prepare for the long haul, a voice crying out in the desert. We must do this, not because a pro-life victory is guaranteed, not because it is likely. In truth, even if one could prove that a pro-life defeat was inevitable, I would say we still need to do this. We need to, first and foremost, because abortion is evil and, as such, we who call ourselves human beings have a moral duty to stand up and condemn it.
That is the principal reason why we oppose abortion - because, when faced with the utterly inhumane, all that is human within us cries out in opposition against it.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A Time for Choices
We are almost 40 days before the 2008 presidential election - an election that will almost certainly determine who will make the next one, possibly two, appointments to the United States Supreme Court. When Roe v. Wade was first decided in 1973, there were 2 justices dissenting from the majority opinion. We now have 4 justices that would likely dissent if the case were re-decided today. It has taken us almost 35 years to go from 2 to 4 justices. We have never been as close as we are now to having a Court that can reverse this decision once and for all. Of course, I harbor no illusions, I realize that a reversal of the Roe decision by itself will only bring the decision back to the states - but that would be a start. Merely taking constitutional protection away from this genocide will bring us one step closer to ending it altogether.
The bishops feel they must speak about the proper formation of conscience and valuing life and, for fear of losing tax-exempt status, they go no further. I understand, and I do not criticize their reasoning. But for myself, I will be blunt - anyone who is serious about bringing abortion to an end in this country has to vote for McCain. There is no proportionate reason - not the war, not the economy, not anything - to vote for Obama. Nothing can make up for the fact that you will be giving control of the court to someone whose only criticism of Roe is that it doesn't go far enough! And please, do not cast a vote for a third-party candidate because that accomplishes nothing - yes, a nice statement is made, and you can feel as though you have accomplished a moral victory, and in the end, it is still Obama getting control of the Courts.
The 40 Days for Life campaign has begun again today. www.40daysforlife.com I would encourage you to take a look at the website, find out if there are any locations near you where you can help out in witnessing outside abortion clinics. If you can't make it, then please, join all of us who are volunteering in prayer these next 40 days, and some form of fasting or self-denial. Please - act as though the future of legalized abortion in the United States depends upon your prayer and fasting, because it does. You have the power to end this.
The bishops feel they must speak about the proper formation of conscience and valuing life and, for fear of losing tax-exempt status, they go no further. I understand, and I do not criticize their reasoning. But for myself, I will be blunt - anyone who is serious about bringing abortion to an end in this country has to vote for McCain. There is no proportionate reason - not the war, not the economy, not anything - to vote for Obama. Nothing can make up for the fact that you will be giving control of the court to someone whose only criticism of Roe is that it doesn't go far enough! And please, do not cast a vote for a third-party candidate because that accomplishes nothing - yes, a nice statement is made, and you can feel as though you have accomplished a moral victory, and in the end, it is still Obama getting control of the Courts.
The 40 Days for Life campaign has begun again today. www.40daysforlife.com I would encourage you to take a look at the website, find out if there are any locations near you where you can help out in witnessing outside abortion clinics. If you can't make it, then please, join all of us who are volunteering in prayer these next 40 days, and some form of fasting or self-denial. Please - act as though the future of legalized abortion in the United States depends upon your prayer and fasting, because it does. You have the power to end this.
Friday, September 19, 2008
What is Sex?
In Robert Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons", there is a conversation recounted between Thomas More and Richard Rich. At one point, More asks Rich, "How if there were an Act of Parliament to say that God should not be God?" The implied answer is that the legislature has no authority to make such a declaration. It is a good sign when governments are aware of their own limitations, an awareness our own government appears to be lacking.
Earlier today, a federal district court found for a transgendered man whose job offer from the Library of Congress was taken back after those in charge discovered he was planning on having a sex-change operation. His lawsuit, brought under Title VII, and as the decision states:
"It is unlawful for an employer 'to fail or refuse to
hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The 'ultimate question' in every Title
VII case is whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against her because of a protected
characteristic. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,
511 (1993)."
Its in this context that the plaintiff makes his argument. While the categories of race, color, religion, or national origin are obviously inapplicable, the plaintiff makes the claim that his job offer was taken back because of sex. In order to make this, the plaintiff has 2 smaller arguments - gender non-conformity and that discrimination based on transexuality equals discrimination based on sex.
First, gender non-conformity. Following other lawsuits that have found discriminating against women for being manly or men for being womanly is equivalent to discriminating based on sex because, in those cases, "the discrimination would not apply but for the victim's sex." However, the judge finds that, in order for this to hold, there must be "unequal burdens on men and women." After further analysis I won't go into here, the judge finds the gender non-conformity applies in this case.
Second, in advancement of the theory that discrimination of transexuality is discrimination based on sex, the plaintiff's witness, Dr. Walter Bockting, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School offered testimony as to what defines sex. Not content that sex is defined by chromosomes (men being xy, women xx) - Bockting claims there are 9 factors involved in determining a person's sex - one being gender identity or "one's personal sense of being male or female." The decision goes on to say that the court lacks competence to determine whether or not Bockting is correct in his assessment of what defines sex. The court then goes on to agree that this case qualifies as discrimination "based on...sex" because the Library was willing to hire David Schroer until "it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally, and physically, a woman named Diane."
So, which one is it? First, the judge says its not within the competence of the court to determine what sex is and then, in the same breath, declares that the plaintiff truly did change his sex.
Particularly disturbing is the court's own acknowledgement in the last few pages that this is a clear departure from what has been found in other circuits. The 7th Circuit held that discrimination based on sex only means “it is unlawful to discriminate against women because they are women and against men because they are men.” The 9th Circuit found the only purpose of the statute is to make sure men and women are treated equally. These and other circuits have consistently held that the protection of this law does not protect transexuals.
So, how does this court find its justification for this departure? "In their holdings that discrimination based on changing one’s sex is not discrimination because of sex, Ulane, Holloway, and Etsitty essentially reason 'that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.'"
Does this make any sense whatsoever?! The statute reads discrimination "based on...sex." Looking at the text of the statute, is there any other way to reasonably interpret it except that it addresses unfair treatment of men over women or women over men? The judge not only comes up with a specious argument, but articulates his conclusion as though he were stating the obvious and it is everyone else who has been over-reaching.
Keep your eyes on the the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. With any luck, sound judicial reasoning will prevail and this decision will just be a bad memory.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1090-70
Earlier today, a federal district court found for a transgendered man whose job offer from the Library of Congress was taken back after those in charge discovered he was planning on having a sex-change operation. His lawsuit, brought under Title VII, and as the decision states:
"It is unlawful for an employer 'to fail or refuse to
hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The 'ultimate question' in every Title
VII case is whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against her because of a protected
characteristic. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,
511 (1993)."
Its in this context that the plaintiff makes his argument. While the categories of race, color, religion, or national origin are obviously inapplicable, the plaintiff makes the claim that his job offer was taken back because of sex. In order to make this, the plaintiff has 2 smaller arguments - gender non-conformity and that discrimination based on transexuality equals discrimination based on sex.
First, gender non-conformity. Following other lawsuits that have found discriminating against women for being manly or men for being womanly is equivalent to discriminating based on sex because, in those cases, "the discrimination would not apply but for the victim's sex." However, the judge finds that, in order for this to hold, there must be "unequal burdens on men and women." After further analysis I won't go into here, the judge finds the gender non-conformity applies in this case.
Second, in advancement of the theory that discrimination of transexuality is discrimination based on sex, the plaintiff's witness, Dr. Walter Bockting, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School offered testimony as to what defines sex. Not content that sex is defined by chromosomes (men being xy, women xx) - Bockting claims there are 9 factors involved in determining a person's sex - one being gender identity or "one's personal sense of being male or female." The decision goes on to say that the court lacks competence to determine whether or not Bockting is correct in his assessment of what defines sex. The court then goes on to agree that this case qualifies as discrimination "based on...sex" because the Library was willing to hire David Schroer until "it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally, and physically, a woman named Diane."
So, which one is it? First, the judge says its not within the competence of the court to determine what sex is and then, in the same breath, declares that the plaintiff truly did change his sex.
Particularly disturbing is the court's own acknowledgement in the last few pages that this is a clear departure from what has been found in other circuits. The 7th Circuit held that discrimination based on sex only means “it is unlawful to discriminate against women because they are women and against men because they are men.” The 9th Circuit found the only purpose of the statute is to make sure men and women are treated equally. These and other circuits have consistently held that the protection of this law does not protect transexuals.
So, how does this court find its justification for this departure? "In their holdings that discrimination based on changing one’s sex is not discrimination because of sex, Ulane, Holloway, and Etsitty essentially reason 'that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.'"
Does this make any sense whatsoever?! The statute reads discrimination "based on...sex." Looking at the text of the statute, is there any other way to reasonably interpret it except that it addresses unfair treatment of men over women or women over men? The judge not only comes up with a specious argument, but articulates his conclusion as though he were stating the obvious and it is everyone else who has been over-reaching.
Keep your eyes on the the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. With any luck, sound judicial reasoning will prevail and this decision will just be a bad memory.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1090-70
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Go Green: All the Way to Human Life
The following is not my own work, but a copy of an article by Coleen Kelly Mast. I think she raises some very good points about the "green" culture we are currently living in:
Go Green! It’s a recurrent theme now, especially as we enter the summer months. I read in the paper that our local park district has adapted this theme for all of this summer’s classes. We can learn how to fertilize our lawns without dangerous chemicals, how to garden vegetables organically or build flower gardens for migrating song birds. Other interesting classes include ‘Creating Green Interiors’, ‘How to Avoid Toxic Toys’ and ‘Parenting Green 101′ for ‘reducing your family’s impact on the planet.’ This is all wonderful. Our family has been doing this for a long time by eating organic foods and avoiding packaged products. When our children in grade school were asked to save the earth by bringing all their pop cans into school to recycle, I had to explain to them that we were already a step ahead because we never drank pop and didn’t need aluminum cans in the first place! Ever since God put Adam in charge of the earth, with its fish, birds, cattle and all and creepy things, we should have been taking care of all of it. “Fill the earth and subdue it,” he said as he gave us all the plants and animals and told us to have dominion over all.
But why does our politically-correct respect for nature have to stop there? Let’s take our ‘going green’ to the next level! We can ‘go all the way’ to respect the souls of men and women who were made in the image of God and respect our natural powers to love and give life.
If we think it’s wrong to pump chemicals on our lawn or in our food, why do we pump them into millions of single young women for fornication and birth control?
If we know that it is against the law to torture animals, why is it still acceptable in our laws to torture and kill little babies in the womb?
If we won’t test our shampoo on animals why would we choose to test out marital activity on an uncommitted human heart through cohabitation?
If we avoid buying toxic toys for our babies to chew on, why would we buy spiritually toxic video games and movies for our preteens and teens?
If purity is good for our food and personal hygiene products, shouldn’t it be even more important for human hearts and our powers to love and give life?
Many Catholic schools and churches ‘go green’ by recycling pop cans or pulltops. What if every Catholic parish would start a campaign to ‘go green’ with family planning? They could advertise for weeks in the bulletin for everyone to get rid of all birth control chemicals and devices and hold natural family planning classes day and night until every couple knew their bodies and cycles well enough to plan the size family that God wanted them to have! They could have NFP couples mentoring and encouraging others new to the practice.
Many Catholic schools and parishes have had the asbestos removed from their buildings so the air can be pure and safe. What if every Catholic parish spent just as much time and money to keep everyones’ souls pure by advertising the benefits of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? The pastor could increase the confession hours and make the Sacrament available different days and times so everyone could receive God’s mercy conveniently. What if they ran support groups to educate people about mortal sin and help them avoid it, so the souls of young and old would be even more pure than the air?
Many Catholic parishes collect clothes and games for the poor. What if we opened our parish halls to collect impure items so that we could destroy all the immodest clothing, impure magazines, movies, and video games? What if we stood and prayed the rosary while the garbage truck chewed them up and then we sang songs of praise to God?
Okay, so it’s not a perfect world; it’s not the Garden of Eden. Precisely; it’s a better world. We have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. He has made all things new. He offers us His grace to restore all things to purity, goodness and truth. The Creator of all desires for us pure love, pure souls, pure minds and pure bodies.
Catholics can ‘go green’ all the way! The Church offers us the education and support we need to have the purest love, the most exciting family life, the greatest self-discipline, and the path to kindness and peace for all the living. Most importantly, to make up for our human frailty, the Church offers us the most pure food — the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ himself! Purity is great — but it’s not just for plants and animals, gardening and consumable products. What if purity of soul would be our goal?
Go Green! It’s a recurrent theme now, especially as we enter the summer months. I read in the paper that our local park district has adapted this theme for all of this summer’s classes. We can learn how to fertilize our lawns without dangerous chemicals, how to garden vegetables organically or build flower gardens for migrating song birds. Other interesting classes include ‘Creating Green Interiors’, ‘How to Avoid Toxic Toys’ and ‘Parenting Green 101′ for ‘reducing your family’s impact on the planet.’ This is all wonderful. Our family has been doing this for a long time by eating organic foods and avoiding packaged products. When our children in grade school were asked to save the earth by bringing all their pop cans into school to recycle, I had to explain to them that we were already a step ahead because we never drank pop and didn’t need aluminum cans in the first place! Ever since God put Adam in charge of the earth, with its fish, birds, cattle and all and creepy things, we should have been taking care of all of it. “Fill the earth and subdue it,” he said as he gave us all the plants and animals and told us to have dominion over all.
But why does our politically-correct respect for nature have to stop there? Let’s take our ‘going green’ to the next level! We can ‘go all the way’ to respect the souls of men and women who were made in the image of God and respect our natural powers to love and give life.
If we think it’s wrong to pump chemicals on our lawn or in our food, why do we pump them into millions of single young women for fornication and birth control?
If we know that it is against the law to torture animals, why is it still acceptable in our laws to torture and kill little babies in the womb?
If we won’t test our shampoo on animals why would we choose to test out marital activity on an uncommitted human heart through cohabitation?
If we avoid buying toxic toys for our babies to chew on, why would we buy spiritually toxic video games and movies for our preteens and teens?
If purity is good for our food and personal hygiene products, shouldn’t it be even more important for human hearts and our powers to love and give life?
Many Catholic schools and churches ‘go green’ by recycling pop cans or pulltops. What if every Catholic parish would start a campaign to ‘go green’ with family planning? They could advertise for weeks in the bulletin for everyone to get rid of all birth control chemicals and devices and hold natural family planning classes day and night until every couple knew their bodies and cycles well enough to plan the size family that God wanted them to have! They could have NFP couples mentoring and encouraging others new to the practice.
Many Catholic schools and parishes have had the asbestos removed from their buildings so the air can be pure and safe. What if every Catholic parish spent just as much time and money to keep everyones’ souls pure by advertising the benefits of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? The pastor could increase the confession hours and make the Sacrament available different days and times so everyone could receive God’s mercy conveniently. What if they ran support groups to educate people about mortal sin and help them avoid it, so the souls of young and old would be even more pure than the air?
Many Catholic parishes collect clothes and games for the poor. What if we opened our parish halls to collect impure items so that we could destroy all the immodest clothing, impure magazines, movies, and video games? What if we stood and prayed the rosary while the garbage truck chewed them up and then we sang songs of praise to God?
Okay, so it’s not a perfect world; it’s not the Garden of Eden. Precisely; it’s a better world. We have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. He has made all things new. He offers us His grace to restore all things to purity, goodness and truth. The Creator of all desires for us pure love, pure souls, pure minds and pure bodies.
Catholics can ‘go green’ all the way! The Church offers us the education and support we need to have the purest love, the most exciting family life, the greatest self-discipline, and the path to kindness and peace for all the living. Most importantly, to make up for our human frailty, the Church offers us the most pure food — the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ himself! Purity is great — but it’s not just for plants and animals, gardening and consumable products. What if purity of soul would be our goal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)