Dogpatch, Ergo Sum

100th Pro-lifer

2012-01-30T10:12:00.004-06:00

The Hundredth Monkey principle could be applied to almost any ideological interest. I have a specific interest in mind, that of recognizing the need for Pro-life tax resistance.

As seen in this article, there is a Catch-22 dilemna here. It wouldn't take a majority of citizens to mount an effective tax resistance, nor even a majority of Pro-lifers. A few thousand would probably do the trick. The Catch-22 is that those kind of numbers might be there, but nobody wants to be first, so the numbers never get off the ground. As of this writing, there are 12 signatories, a dozen folks who are willing to say "If our taxes are killing innocent babies, then I ain't paying the taxes." At what point does this become a large enough number to attract attention? What is the threshold level that would make this very small movement a groundswell of significance? If a couple thousand were to say, "No abortion taxes - - and we mean No!", I think that would cause a great stir.

More significantly, at what point will you, the reader, decide to add your name to the list? Would you consider joining us if there were, say, 99 people already signed up? How about if only 49 signatures were in place? How about 20? 12?

There are those 12, at least. (My hope, of course, is that, by the time you are reading this, the number will be beyond 12.) At some point, one added name may put us over the "100th Monkey" threshold, and the Pro-life tax strike will become a well recognized phenomenon.

Please consider becoming the 13th (or 14th or 20th or 57th) to sign up.

100th monkey

2011-11-22T12:47:00.002-06:00

Ever hear of the so-called "Hundredth Monkey" principle? In simplified terms, it refers to a sort of collective consciousness, especially amongst social animals. The theory is that within a given group of animals, perhaps even throughout an entire species as a whole, the group itself may learn things, may acquire a pool of common knowledge, an awareness shared by all members. This depends upon a certain critical mass (e.g. 100 monkies) within the group. When the theoretical 100th monkey comes to learn something, the critical threshold is met, and the knowledge passes over into collective group consciousness. The whole group now automatically knows that thing without having to learn it one by one.

Very interesting. But this blog writer has something other than monkeys in mind. In human society, this phenomonon corresponds to what we call culture. It is our culture that tells us what clothes to wear, how to speak in certain situations, what behavior is acceptable, and so on. Rather than make a thousand difficult decisions in the course of an average week, the human animal can allow his culture to dictate how to handle those thousand situations. It's automatic; we navigate those events routinely, with little or no deliberation, drawing upon a sort of "group think" or collective consciousness to guide us.

This can work both for good and for ill. A sound human culture can be a powerful incentive toward honest and constructive behavior and a strong deterrent against criminal and immoral behavior. A wayward culture can steer people towards savage behavior. Sometimes the effect can be comical, as when everyone in a given past culture "knew" that the world was supported upon the back of a big turtle.

Now, since a human is much more complex than a monkey, the collective consciousness principle is also more complex in humans. For one thing, a strong individual human may very well operate to some extent against the predominant cultural grain. Similarly, a relatively small group of humans may break away from the mainstream and form a contrary counter-culture. This means that human culture may contain many sub-cultures and sub-sub-cultures, and these separate pools of consciousness may intersect with each other in complex ways. Moreover, human culture is capable of changing in a relatively short period of time, oftentimes quite dramatically. Some past blog posts offer a few thoughts on how human culture may change by small degrees and also by great tidal shifts.

We are at present obviously in the midst of great cultural turmoil. Many cultural assumptions of the past have been discarded, replaced by new and often unprecedented assumptions. Moreover, this appears to be a global phenomenon. Once distinct local cultures are picking up the mores of more dominant cultures, and the world is fast becoming one giant cultural ocean, with a wide variety of sub-cultural pools that are no longer geographically based. It is unclear where this cultural storm is headed.

No cause to disparage the phenomenon itself; it is simply the way we are wired. We are social beings, and this collective consciousness is an integral part of being human. Better to be aware that we are thus wired, and live within that awareness. Know also that we needn't be passive participants, that each one of us has the capacity to affect our culture, at least to some small degree. Better to seek the truth of things, and to possess the mental and moral tenacity to be willing to buck the dominant cultural tide when it is wrong. To be more than a passive follower; to deliberately nudge one's culture or sub-culture toward true values. To be, perhaps, that 100th monkey.

2 Chronicles 7:14

2011-09-10T09:18:00.002-06:00

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
- 2 Chron.7:14 [KJV]

Note that this oft-quoted text is a call for God's people to repent and turn from their wicked ways. It has become routine to hear Pro-life folks pray for the conversion of the murderous abortionists, or for pro-abortion politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Barak Obama, and to urge others to likewise pray. But the damned murderers are not the ones who first need to repent.

It is a major theme of the Pro-Life Strike website that Pro-Lifers need to repent of the willingness to fund abortion, so that our prayers will be genuine. How can God hear our prayers to stop abortion when those praying are willingly funding the holocaust? For God to hear our prayers and heal our land, we must repent, and that means we (WE, not the abortionists) must turn from our wicked ways. We cannot pay for death and then pray for life; such prayers are worthless.

Thieves, beggars, and dogs

2011-08-27T08:00:00.003-06:00

Let me be clear: After over a year in Nicaragua, I can say that it is not a paradise on earth. Au contraire.

It isn't so much the prevalence of thieves, beggars, and mangy dogs that rankle me, but the fact that these seem to be an accepted part of the landscape. This is not to say that most Nicaraguans are thieves or beggars, but that many Nicaraguans just shrug their shoulders at such things; it's merely part of life here, or so it seems. Stray dogs that wander in and out of churches and homes and businesses are routinely ignored, their unbidden presence taken in stride, like that of houseflies or cockroaches. Neighborhood children make a habit of begging from total strangers, with some of them routinely swiping things from their neighbor's yard or house; it's often just laughed at. It is not at all surprising that many of them continue their thieving and beggaring as adults, and that the beggaring is usually opportunistic and dishonest. Nor is it surprising to routinely encounter petty cheating and skullduggery among relatively respected businesses. Such businesses are in the minority, and are easily avoided after the first petty theft. And one just learns to keep one's doors locked when unattended, and to keep tabs on small stealable articles.

Now, I am quite well practiced in the art of opposing my surrounding culture, so I am not inclined to passively accept these things as normative. What's wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. I must live with the situation, but i will not be pressured or coerced into merrily accepting it. I do not subscribe to the axiom to "do as the Romans do".

Nor should I neglect to mention the positive aspects of life in Nicaragua. In contrast to stray dogs, I find the presence of other animals here quite appealing. The frequent clip-clop of a cowboy riding his horse past my house, the cattle and pigs and chickens kept by my neighbors, are all in fine relief to the relative sterility of the American scene which characterized most of my life. The songs of tropical birds are a cheery part of my mornings now. Perhaps most charming of all are the harmless little lizards that dart about on my walls, often stopping to look at me as I sit at my desk. The beauty of the northern woods has been replaced by tropical mountain vistas. And I have found it very easy to adjust to a habit of fresh fruit from the market all year long.

But the nuisance of the stray dogs and the ameliorizations of the above paragraph are of little consequence. I must maintain my sanity in the face of culturally accepted dishonesty. And that is best achieved by putting it into proper perspective.

I am living now in a place where petty thievery and dishonest beggary, while not practiced by most folks, are largely accepted as almost a normal and inescapable part of life. That's not good. I have recently come from a culture where abortion and sodomy, while not practiced by most folks, are largely accepted as a normal and inescapable part of life, and are sanctioned by the state. That's worse. Pick your poison.

St. Joseph's Lay Catholic Community

2011-08-09T11:58:00.002-06:00

As noted in my "Exit" post and elsewhere, I have been trying to find a way to simply live without paying for abortions through my taxes, and have urged others to do likewise.

It is now my pleasure to point to a very creative approach to this very thing. A young American family is currently engaged in founding a lay monastic community under the patronage of St. Joseph which will be called "St. Joseph's Lay Catholic Community". In response to unjust taxes, these folks will simply live outside of conventional dependence upon monetary income. Their mission statement is:

Dedicated to building a community of simple, self sufficient family life under the patronage of St Joseph, to work and pray for a renewal of traditional Catholic family values and to bring an end to the unjust use of public funds for abortion.

Repaso

2011-07-08T14:51:00.001-06:00

Repaso is the Spanish past tense of repasar, and is generally translated into English as review, both in the sense of inspecting something (as in a book review), or in passing by or looking for a second time. So now that a full year has passed, it may be time for another pass, a review.

As my last post anticipated, I fled to Central America in June 2010. After some time in Costa Rica, I bought a house in a barrio near Jinotega (Hee-no-TAY-ga) in the central mountains of Nicaragua, and have been living here since October 2010.

Nicaragua is a relatively young country. The Sandinista revolution of the 80's was fairly successful, and has resulted in a remarkably peaceful and quiet political atmosphere, from what I can tell. Most Nicaraguans are quite patriotic and are proud of their nation and its government. Most English-speaking expats may not agree, but what do they know?

It is young in a demographic sense as well. I don't know the statistics, but the population of Nicaragua must be toward the low end of the global bell curve when it comes to median age. Lots of children and young people, and lots of the young girls have big bellies.

But if I expected to find the same innocent culture that I encountered in Guatemala in 1975, in that I have been disappointed. Along with money and technology, most American and Europeans have brought with them the corrupt morals and worldviews that threaten to completely undermine their own native cultures. And with few exceptions, Nicaraguans look up to their wealthier neighbors and want to be more like them. So the same kinds of trashy TV, political ideologies and immorality are flooding in, and folks here seem generally to be eager to emulate Americans and Europeans, even if in lemming fashion it ends with their own demise.

Thankfully, there is a significant lag, both as to the technology and to the cultural erosion. The majority of Nicaraguans are religiously inclined, and still possess a certain simplicity of life and of piety. Nicaraguans have not yet learned to be afraid of innocent human life, nor to loathe their own fertility, nor to esteem sexual deviance a virtue. Perhaps the American-European culture will finally implode as it is wont to do, and places like Nicaragua may yet awaken, change course, and escape relatively unscathed. Time will tell.

For the time being, I have indeed found "a place to live without having to fund murder and genocide with my taxes." How long it will remain thus is known to God. Time will tell.

Exit

2010-05-13T12:27:00.000-06:00

Over 3 years ago, I began this blog with a post entitled "What makes Jerry run?", an explanation of my desire to emigrate to another part of the world. As opined therein, "I may not be able to escape the evil in our world, but i think i might still find a place to live without having to fund murder and genocide with my taxes."

The blog articles posted since then range far and wide topically, but a consistent and major theme has been this very point: That evil has always existed in our world, and I am no exception, a sinner through and through, but there is something absolutely intolerable in tax-funded abortion, in being forced by the government to cooperate materially in the murder of innocent and helpless human beings.

It was for this that I went "on strike" as a tax resister in the 1990's, and eventually began to urge others to do the same, writing blog articles on this theme, and launching the "Pro-Life Strike" website in January 2009.

From the outset, the Pro-Life Strike "Manifesto" has recognized many legitimate ways to respond to the travesty of the tax-funded holocaust. Until now, I have engaged in the "Reduced income" strategy, but am now preparing to transition to the "Flee" strategy. That is, I have recently signed a contract to sell my little homestead in northern Wisconsin and plan to emigrate to Central America in June of 2010.

At this point, it is unclear just what my internet involvement will be from a new location. After a hiatus, I may or may not resume writing blog articles here or in a new site; that remains to be seen. The "Pro-Life Strike" website is paid for until January 2011. Whether further updates are forthcoming or not, all visitors are welcome to continue to browse both sites. This has always been an "ideas" blog; if you find any worthy thoughts or ideas herein, feel free to make them your own.

Jeremiah times

2010-03-22T09:29:00.000-06:00

Reading the prophet Jeremiah from front to back has been a good lenten exercise. Jeremiah was a very penitential man who saw and spoke to conditions as they were, not as people wished them to be.

Jeremiah was not a happy man. There were many happy people in Israel at the time, many upbeat, optimistic and pleasant folks, including a number of other "prophets". As a rule, these people did not like Jeremiah, because they did not like his unpleasant message.

The pleasant prophets spoke encouraging words to the people. They affirmed the people. They assured the people that the Lord was with them, and that they would soon see the mighty hand of God working things out for the best. I guess you could say that these pleasant religious leaders were kindly and pastoral.

Jeremiah, on the other hand, told the people and the leaders that they would soon become slaves to the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, he told them that this was God's will, that the decision had been made, and there was no longer any other way. There had been a day when repentance and prayer would have turned things around, but that time was in the past. They might as well get used to the idea of serving the pagan king, because that was to be their lot for the next 70 years.

The pleasant prophets said, "Not so!", that there was always hope, that if the people would just put their trust in the Lord, the Lord would surely deliver them. With few exceptions, the people heeded the pleasant prophets, because they were attracted to the optimistic, affirming message of hope.

It would seem that we live in Jeremiah times.

The bishops on health care

2010-03-08T08:55:00.000-06:00

So far, no one has answered my question about federal health care legislation. Thus, my puzzlement and confusion continues and deepens.

The U.S. Catholic bishops have issued more statements on the issue since I last wrote about it, and their message remains pretty much the same. In their most recent statement, for example, which coincided with Obama's "bipartisan" summit, the bishops pled, "It is time to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform. We encourage the administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner...". Calling it a "moral imperative and urgent national priority", the bishops "...hope and pray that the Congress and the country will come together around genuine health care reform..."

There is the requisite insistence that "...genuine health care reform must protect human life and dignity from conception to natural death...", and that "...health care legislation must respect the consciences of providers, taxpayers, purchasers of insurance and others...". But the intensity and frequency of these public statements is obviously driven by the fact that pro-abortion Obama and pro-abortion Democrats on Capital Hill have made this legislation a priority. The bishops have apparently adopted this urgency and are clearly scolding those recalcitrant Republicans for being such partisan obstructionists. Such, at least, is the evident tone of their messages.

Meanwhile, here's Jerry, wondering what gives. I am no great fan of the Republican party, but I thank God for their "obstructionist" stance, and also for the bickering and infighting within the ranks of the Democrats that has delayed passage of this outrage and may, please God, derail it altogether. I'm sorry, your Excellencies, but I cannot view the prospect of federal health care mandates, especially from the current office-holders, as anything but evil and tyrannical.

Prior to any religious dogma to which I may assent, prior to any fraternal loyalty I may feel toward the Catholic Church or any other ecclesial body, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wholesale slaughter of innocent and helpless human beings is a wicked crime. The stakes are enormous, perhaps apocryphal. I had thought this sentiment to be in solid conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Moreover, I have not undergone a frontal lobotomy, and so entertain no tender delusions that "progressives" such as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. can ever be trusted to do what is right in this regard.

As stated in a previous post, it was through the wisdom of better Catholics than myself that I learned to mistrust the promises of Socialism, that godlessness is inherent to the positive law tenets thereof. I remember 16 or 17 years ago: the U.S. bishops boldly proclaimed with one voice that, were "Hillary Care" enacted, they would close the doors of every Catholic hospital in the nation. The clear, prophetic vigor of that action moved me profoundly, and was instrumental in making me appreciate the Catholic Faith in its unswerving and uncompromising strength. While other denominations were wilting and caving to various cultural pressures, the Catholic Church stood like a rock, a testament to its divine ordination.

That's what is so disturbing about the current situation. I have heard nothing about closing Catholic hospitals if this current thing passes. Quite the opposite: the bishops sound like they would heartily welcome the current proposals, albeit with some mild reservations. What has changed in 16 years? How has Socialism now come to be so favored by the U.S. clergy, and abortion mandates merely a "defective" detail? After centuries of teaching Christians to care for the sick and the weak, today's bishops plead for government-run health care. Jerry continues to pray for the opposite. Are the bishops apostate? Have they ceased to teach, sanctify and govern, preferring instead to unify, pacify, and affirm? Or has Jerry suddenly lost his Catholic identity? At least, there seems to be no common ground here.

Virtual March for Life

2010-01-22T12:14:00.000-06:00

Just came from the Virtual March for Life website, where i signed up for the virtual march, and sent a message to my Senators. Upwards of 67,000 at the time. If you cannot be part of the actual march in Washington, do it this way. Let's have a strong showing!

Gentle apostasy

2009-12-27T12:57:00.001-06:00

Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God
- James 4:4b

I believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus, her Sacraments and her very life flowing from His pierced side. I also believe that the Church in this part of the world and at this point in time is floundering pitifully, having wandered far from her Lord's heart and will.

The wandering away has been a slow regress over the decades, a gradual erosion of fervor, exemplified in a thousand ways. The previous post's question is one example. The Democratic party was at one time nearly synonymous with Catholicism. So now most Catholics and most Catholic clergy want to remain loyal, and find ways to be reconciled with the Democrat's current brand of ungodly socialism. At best, it may timidly be suggested that, perhaps, some principles are important, and maybe we should, you know, study certain matters more carefully. Above all, one must not appear to be rigid or harsh, and one must never alienate anyone, no matter how serious the error.

The typical dumbing down of today's feast (Holy Family) is another example. Permission is granted to use an alternative to the (gasp!) patriarchal Scripture reading about husbands and wives. Of course, the more palatable alternative is nearly always adopted by the local parish.

Besides being a limp-wristed concession to the world, and to our culture's socialist and feminist and egalitarian errors, this meek approach leads away from God. The error that is tolerated out of human respect and a fear of alienation is eventually embraced as one's own belief. You avoid speaking against popular sins and after awhile find nothing sinful except what your culture condemns. This is not the highway to holiness or faithfulness.

Is socialized health care good?

2009-12-19T21:48:00.000-06:00

Here is a question that has been haunting me of late. And I mean this sincerely, not rhetorically nor as a sarcastic swipe. If anyone can give me an honest reply (for which I may have more questions), I would be grateful. Here it is:

As a young man I was a socialist, believing that government programs were the answer to most of society's problems. It took a personal conversion to Jesus, and, as noted elsewhere, some serious soul searching before I was able to rethink my ideological loyalties. Other, wiser souls were able to help me to see that socialism is inevitably atheistic. I came to see for myself that it also seemed bound up with legalized and tax-funded abortion, and with a host of other moral depravities.

Before long, I had adopted as my own the quote so favored by Dorothy Day,

He who at 20 is not a socialist has no heart.
He who at 30 is a socialist has no head.

I began to appreciate the Church's consistent stand against atheistic socialism. I cheered to see Pope John-Paul's role in the dismantling of the Soviet regime. I understood now that it was the Church and individual Christians, not the government, who could address the maladies of society. Through the centuries, the followers of Jesus have been the ones to build hospitals for the sick, orphanages for the abandoned, who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and treated the ill and the dying.

But lately the consistent message from U.S. Catholic bishops is that we do well to expect health care from our government, only it just needs to be monitored so as not to violate Christian values. Bishop William F. Murphy, for example, is quoted as saying, "Genuine health care reform that protects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and a vital national obligation". This is no isolated quote, but seems to be the consensus among all the clergy.

After all the hard work and sacrifices that have been offered by Christians for the relief and healing of the sick, after building and staffing all those hospitals in Christian charity, after all the religious orders founded upon the apostolate of healing, now we should turn the reins over to government? And - - this government?????

I truly don't understand.

Abortion is Genocide - 2

2009-12-07T20:09:00.003-06:00

In response to my May 2007 blog post entitled "Abortion is Genocide", an admiring reader recently left this anonymous note:

You are a lover of words, hmmm?

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of genocide: "The deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group." There are no alternate definitions.

Abortion is not an act that targets a specific ethnicity or nationality. You reduce your own credibility when you make simple mistakes.

More importantly - you are dogmatic to the point of lunacy. You will never successfully influence government legislation. You are the most toxic kind of intolerant pseudo-intellectual.

The first premise here appears to be that a particular edition of the Oxford English Dictionary must be taken as an absolute and final authority on the true meaning of words. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not this constitutes a dogmatic assertion, I would remind my reader that the word "genocide" is a fairly modern one. It seems reasonable to grant significant authority to the word's originator and to the various contexts of its usage in recent times.

In the aforementioned post I did not labor extensively over why the word "genocide" is applicable to the widespread crime of abortion, nor will I do so now. Instead, repeating what I wrote 2+ years ago, I again recommend the "Abortion is Genocide" article by Mick Eugene Hunt and this CBR page as providing good insights into why "Abortion is Genocide" is a fair and accurate statement. It is unclear but doubtful whether my admirer bothered to read either article.

And then there is this sentence:

You will never successfully influence government legislation.

This sentence I will not refute at all. Frequent readers of this blog (if there be any) will know that I have tried for some time to agitate for a tax resistance movement because of the tax funding of abortion - what I call a "Pro-life strike". So much so that early this year I launched the ProLifeStrike.org website. The emphasis here, however, is not to influence government. That intent is perhaps a tertiary goal, but certainly not a primary or even a secondary one.

The primary goal of the Pro-life strike is to purify our pro-life prayers, fasts, and efforts. It is simply futile and foolish to continue our other efforts so long as we are willingly cooperating and financially supporting Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion juggernaut via our tax dollars. We pray for life, and then we willingly pay for death!

The secondary goal, if it please the Lord, is to begin to change our culture. We do that by prayer and evangelizing, and also by changing our own lives to reflect our convictions. (For an expansion of this thought, see the "Cultural tsunami" post.) Again, it is of no use to think we can change this culture of death to a culture of life unless we are ready to sacrifice and change our own lives.

Only when we are willing to make sacrificial changes will we be able to change our culture. Only when the underlying culture changes will our representatives in government get the message. Influencing public policy for the better is a noble aspiration, but I believe it is a serious error to place our primary emphasis upon directly influencing government.

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child - 3

2009-11-26T19:02:00.001-06:00

Last year, Austin Ruse of C-Fam launched the U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child. The purpose of this online petition is to reaffirm that human rights begin with the right to life and the integrity of the family unit, as stated in the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The petition attracted some 437,000 signatures by the time it was submitted to the UN in December 2008. Ruse has kept the petition up, hoping to resubmit it this year with a million signatures. Last I saw, it had some 626,000 signatures, up from a year ago, but far from the goal of 1,000,000.

This kind of action is quite effective in promoting the pro-life and pro-family message at the UN, a critical front in the battle. So, if you haven't already done so, please read the petition (it's brief) here. If you agree with it, fill out the form and click the 'Submit' button to sign it.

If you want, you may also review what this blog said about the petition last year here and here.

Love, hate, and indifference

2009-11-24T21:06:00.001-06:00

Speaking of hate crimes and the homosexual, the real hate criminals are those who hate or fear homosexuals so much that they consign them to hopeless stasis, deny them the possibility of repentance and forgiveness.

As Pope Benedict has pointed out in Caritas In Veritate, love and truth are inseparable.

Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. (¶ 3)

Jesus, who is Love incarnate and Truth incarnate, speaks the truth to the sinner and so offers moral freedom to the sinner. (John 8:31-36)

Real love, then, upholds the truth and makes freedom possible. Denial of truth and freedom is a form of hatred. The only question is which is worse, which is the opposite of love: active hatred, or passive indifference. The following from The Manhattan Declaration is a noble aspiration, worthy of pursuit:

And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise?

Hate crimes

2009-10-11T17:39:00.000-06:00

Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
- Rom.1:32

The notion of exacting more severe punishment for a 'hate' crime requires the deification of government bureaucracy. That is to say, it requires one to ascribe to government authorities the divine attribute of knowing the inner workings of the human mind, of judging not only the criminal's behavior but the feelings which inspired that behavior.

But, as a god, our government is woefully incompetent. So, rather than really discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart, it can only assume that crimes committed against certain individuals must be necessarily inspired by hatred, and therefore more heinous. Such assumptions are bound to be wrong most of the time.

Being a worshipper of the living God, I despise false gods. So I feel compelled to deliberately defy this latest arrogance. Does our lordly government now call it a crime to hate homosexuals? To hate homosexuality? To hate sodomy? Well, then, I have a few statements to make very openly and defiantly:

- Homosexual acts are sins against nature.

- Sodomy is one of the few sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. (Gen.18:20-21)

- Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and no government authority can legitimize it.

- Homosexuality, like most addictions, is difficult but not impossible to cure.

The point is, I fear the true God, and earnestly seek to agree with Him. If the government now considers that a crime, bring on the handcuffs. Truth is truth. Those who oppose God's truth are fools, and deserve no respect, regardless of their political power.

Faith and Reason

2009-10-01T07:57:00.002-06:00

Pope Benedict's theme has been the interdependence of faith and reason. To cherish faith but scorn reason is to wreak havoc on one's faith. To dismiss faith in favor of rationalism is to become irrational. Faith and reason are not only compatible; they are interdependent. We need both, or we will lose both.

Here's an example. Rotary International has recently been airing radio spots to promote its goal of teaching peace throughout the world. They're even offering scholarships to that end. To teach peace. But - - - but - - - how do you teach peace?

You see the problem. This phrase - "teach peace" - can only make sense if you ignore the truth of the human condition. Only if you are clueless about Original Sin and the fallen state of man will you imagine that Man can be educated into goodness. That is, only if you scuttle the principles of faith and its revealed truth will you grasp at this useless straw. Loss of faith leads to loss of reason.

O, by the way, Rotary International is also one of those "charities" that have no problem promoting abortion. (See "When charity goes bad" a couple posts ago.) That's rational, isn't it? Secure peace while killing the innocent. I think Mother Teresa got it right ^[1].

Note 1: "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion."

Good and faithful servants

2009-08-31T20:55:00.004-06:00

Convinced as I am that the pre-born are "the least of our brethren" (Mt.25:40), my favorite charities are of the pro-life flavor. The following are, in my opinion, the most worthy that I have come across:

Jesus taught "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.". This shows us that the key to any pro-life progress is in how much it costs us. "Follow the money" is good advice, and not just in a worldly sense. Specifically, pro-life people ought not be paying for abortions. How can we pray for life and then pay for death? For this reason, I rate Life Decisions International (LDI) near the top for their pro-life efforts. Briefly, these folks are leading the boycott of abortion-friendly corporations, and have succeeded in 'converting' over 100 corporations to an abortion-neutral corporate policy. This is a significant blow to the abortion juggernaut, and an essential part of the battle. More importantly, it is a way to purify our other pro-life prayers and labors. (It is this idea which eventually inspired the next step, that of resisting the tax-funding of abortion. Same principle: why pray for life and pay for death? See the Pro-Life Strike site for more on this.)

The most crucial pro-life battles are in other parts of the world. For this reason, I nominate two groups that focus on the international scene. Human Life International (HLI) is the only pro-life presence in many countries, and are single-handedly, with God's grace, challenging and holding back the forces of death in these locations.

In the same vein is The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), who do yeoman's work in pro-life advocacy at the United Nations. Two posts below [1] [2] tell just a little of their vital efforts in defending human life around the world, and the real impact they are having.

Rounding out my list of personally vetted charities are two Chicago-based organizations with whom I have had personal involvement. They are Miles Jesu, a lay religious order, and The Women's Centers, with its series of free clinics. And my friend in Canada, David Little, whose unique mission has been the subject of earlier posts. See this article for the most recent development.

When charity goes bad

2009-08-17T10:27:00.000-06:00

Among the many cultural and political travesties of our time, one of the most painful to behold is the decline of charitable causes. Used to be, charitable and religious organizations could be counted on to be forthright and transparent in their goals and practices. Deception was rare, and, when discovered, was cause for much shame, publicity and scandal. Sadly, those days seem to be past.

Life Decisions International (LDI) has identified over 80 non-profits who are linked to Planned Parenthood and/or its agenda. In most cases, (e.g. American Cancer Society, Girl Scouts, Rotary Club) the organization's support for PP and the abortion agenda bears no apparent relationship to its stated purpose. In some cases (e.g. Save the Children, March of Dimes, UNICEF), the connection seems grossly antithetical. This web page contains some more examples and an interesting conversation, and my "Pink deception" post of a couple years ago tells of an especially galling case.

So, when Catholic Charities and others recently gave public support to Obamacare, I was saddened but not terribly shocked. It seems that money talks, and having a prominent place at the the political power table is more important than the Gospel.

What to do? I suggest signing up for LDI's CFP list, which keeps an up-to-date tally of corporate and non-profit PP sponsors for our awareness. We should, sadly, jettison our naive trust, and form a habit of carefully vetting each charity before donating.

I hope to write soon of a couple organizations that I believe have proven themselves clean and worthy of our wholehearted support.

Counterstrike?

2009-07-26T17:52:00.002-06:00

Toward the top of my internet priority list is my Pro-life Strike website. Prefaced right here at "Dogpatch, Ergo Sum" and officially launched in January 2009, it hasn't yet generated the interest for which I was hoping. But the concept seems so basic and relevant to me: that we recognize how our tax dollars are fueling the abortion holocaust, and simply begin to withdraw that tax support. So I keep trying, recently adding a blog to the site to try to attract some traffic via search engines, blog links, etc.

Near the bottom of my web interests are anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers, who appear mostly irrelevant.

These two extremes came together earlier today when one of these irrelevant bloggers left a comment on my aforementioned blog. The no-name commenter recently launched a blog entitled "Operation Counterstrike", which advocates violence against pro-life activists.

I don't know if this is meant as a counter to my site, and it still isn't the type of interest for which I've been looking. But I'll take encouragement nonetheless. If my site can attract the attention of a pro-abort, albeit a bit player, perhaps it is hitting a nerve after all.

Love in Truth

2009-07-17T12:55:00.001-06:00

The alignment of political and ideological camps is weird and illogical. For example, I have never been able to understand why most political conservatives, at least the most vocal ones, seem so opposed to earth-friendly, "green" principles, and to despise what they call "enviromentalist wackos". Is the uninhibited use of fossil fuels, for instance, really a traditional value? Is unfettered capitalistic development truly "conservative"?

Likewise, I can't figure out why tax-funded abortion, embryonic stem cell exploitation, and euthanasia should be enshrined as liberal or progressive values. What's so "liberal" about such a despairing, inhuman, and cruel cheapening of human life?

Or again, those who champion "gay" rights seem inevitably to posit their ideology as one of "love", while fearing or deriding those who hold to the unique sanctions of traditional marriage. The cornerstone of civilization and of human love is portrayed as "hate", and its perverse dismantling as "love". Go figure.

Yet the need to align with one's camp is so strong that the values and slogans are embraced, logic be damned.

The above is one reason why I am a Catholic. The Church founded by Christ is one camp whose values remain logically consistent through the whole spectrum of issues. Not that all Catholics are perfectly faithful to the principles, but the principles themselves are solid and consistent. To a logician, this is vitally important.

Pope Benedict's latest encyclical is a wonderful example of this. Its title, Caritas In Veritate ("Love in Truth"), sets the tone. Love and truth are not opposed, but complementary.

Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. (¶ 3)

Likewise, love and logic are complementary.

Intelligence and love are not in separate compartments: love is rich in intelligence and intelligence is full of love. (¶ 30)

Within this fusion of love and truth, faith and reason, Pope Benedict straightens out all kinds of tangled and confused ideas. As a result, there is something in this encyclical for everyone, regardless of their ideological camp. And there is something in Caritas In Veritate to disturb every ideologue, too. The principles of economic development, environmental care, the sanctity of human life, and the central importance of stable traditional families and other topics are all brought together in a way that makes perfect sense, though no single political ideology is wholly embraced. The reason for this is simple: The alignment of political and ideological camps is weird and illogical, while Caritas In Veritate is the logician's answer, a breath of fresh air to one who loves truth and esteems love.

Slow that I am, I have only begun to appreciate the depths of this important encyclical. Please read it for yourself.

Truth

2009-06-27T08:58:00.000-06:00

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth.
- Jacques Maritain

Beneath all controversial issues, at the very root of things, lies the question about truth. Does truth exist? Can the human mind know truth? This is the pivot; upon it hinge all moral and cultural consequences.

If truth does not exist, or if it can never be known, all other moral and ideological debates are pointless. All I have in that case are my own subjective conjectures, the accumulated observations of my limited 58 years. All we have collectively are opinion polls - the aggregate pool of multiple subjective conjectures. The most heinous crime is acceptable and the most natural affections are shunned if only a majority will say that it must be so. Tomorrow, a new cultural wind may blow, and different values ascend. Nothing may be relied upon except the current poll.

But if truth exists, and ours minds can know it, the story is completely different. The truth becomes objective, solid, and reliable. The truth remains true, even if few or none follow it.

The Catholic faith assumes this to be the case. The word Catholic simply means universal; it signifies that the principles and dogmas of the Faith apply to all people in all parts of the world of all ages, races, backgrounds, and aptitudes, throughout all of human history. The tenets are absolutely reliable and trustworthy.

We get this from Jesus Himself, who said

". . . For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."
- John 18:37b [RSV]

Moreover, Jesus is Truth Incarnate. ". . . I am the way, the truth, and the life. . ." (John 14:6)

Ideas have consequences. This idea has foundational consequences.

Consequences

2009-06-24T13:15:00.000-06:00

If God does not judge America soon, he'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
- Mrs. Ruth Graham

Oddly enough, Barack Obama and the current Congress may indeed be a long-sought answer to prayer. More than a prayer: a spiritual hunger issuing from the depths of our souls for decades now. The quote from Mrs. Graham reflects that heartfelt prayer. A plea for justice in the face of escalating injustice and wicked ungodliness. A plaintive cry, along with the Psalmist, "How long, O Lord?"

Romans 9:22 portrays God as patiently crafting "vessels of wrath" with which to mete out righteous judgment. What is meant by "vessels of wrath"? Well, take a look at Obama and the socialists in Congress; don't they fit the bill quite nicely? Their reckless programs, undertaken at breakneck speed, appear destined to finally bring down the whole damned house of cards. (I use the 'd' word deliberately here, and not as a mere expletive.) And that will be just. It will not be pleasant, but it will be good.

Another way of saying this is to assert that sin carries within itself its own punishment. If you defy the laws of God, you will be punished - by your own defiance. Thus, if you defy the law of gravity by stepping out of a 15th floor window, your actions will result in your death or paralysis. Did God punish you? Well, yes, in the sense that He invented gravity and the other laws of physics, and then He allowed those laws to have their effect upon your physical being. The consequent punishment is both God's doing and your own fault.

This applies to moral laws as well. Defy those laws, and face the consequences. Moreover, this seems to be as true collectively as it is for individuals. Notice, for example, that Mt. 25:32 says the Son of man will judge between the nations, not between individuals. So, when the disastrous policies of this administration bring about the apocalyptic end of America as a world power, it will simply be the fruit of our own moral choices as a society. America now has the government she deserves. We had best brace ourselves for the consequences.

Fatherhood

2009-06-21T16:16:00.002-06:00

And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.
- Mal.4:6

Again this Father's Day, let me simply reassert: Fatherhood is one of the core elements in the triumvirate that provides the foundation for stable civilization. Marriage, Family, Fatherhood. Specifically, monogamous marriage, the nuclear family composed of father, mother and their offspring, and the structure ordained by God: mother as heart, father as head. Like it or not, it's a patriarchal arrangement by God's design. Other arrangements may sound more progressive, but this is the core. We abandon or neglect it at our own peril.

Idea blog

2009-06-10T09:44:00.000-06:00

As indicated in its descriptive heading "Random rantings on faith, culture, life... ", Dogpatch, Ergo Sum is an ideas blog. As opposed to a journal type of web log, in which news and events are reported at regular, timely intervals, the articles in this blog are mostly about ideas, concepts, principles, truths. With few exceptions, they are not tied to current events; they can be read and commented upon at any time or season.

But (speaking of time) over time, one idea has come to dominate: that of a pro-life strike. So much so that in January 2009, after about two years of Dogpatch, Ergo Sum blogging, I launched ProLifeStrike.org. Now I've recently attached a new blog to that site, based upon that single idea: that pro-life folks ought not be paying for abortion, and therefore ought to seriously consider not paying their taxes.

Please check out this new blog and the whole site associated with it. I'll leave a link to it in the left side bar here. If my level of posting various ideas to Dogpatch, Ergo Sum begins to subside, it may be because I am focusing upon that one idea, and its associated blog and website.

Notre Dame

2009-05-14T11:26:00.002-06:00

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Mt.6:21 RSV)

I hope you are as encouraged as I am over the controversy at Notre Dame. First kudos go to Mary Ann Glendon for selflessly declining the Laetare Medal. Her letter to Fr. Jenkins is a fine example of grace, courage, clarity, and solid morals.

Many of the students have also demonstrated remarkable vision in simply declining to participate in their own commencement ceremony. They prefer to remain true to their core principles, and that is very edifying and encouraging. Likewise, the local ordinary, Bishop D'Arcy, has exercised his proper role of teacher of the Faith in his openly published statements on the matter.

All these have responded admirably and at personal sacrificial cost, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. But, in my opinion, the most effective response has come from the alumni. More effective because more concrete. As stated in their website,

Although we love Notre Dame, our conscience requires that we withhold all financial support from our University until such time as Father Jenkins is replaced as Notre Dame's President with someone who will be more loyal to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

which is to say, these men and women have put their money where their mouth is. And, let's face it, money talks.

Notice that this is not crass materialism. The primary intent is not to use wealth to leverage or coerce Notre Dame into doing the right thing. The first motive is that of conscience. The way we invest our money is necessarily a reflection of what we hold most dear. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The desire to prod Notre Dame is important as well, but secondary.

As to this secondary reason, the actions of the Notre Dame alumni are also more likely to be effective. The Notre Dame Trustees appear to be ideologically and politically in bed with Obama (see this report), and so are unlikely to be swayed by any of the above acts of conscience. But when they see their funds dwindle, they may be moved to see the light. It's the human condition. Money talks.

Do you suppose the above ideas could be applied beyond the situation at Notre Dame? Is Notre Dame a sort of microcosm of a larger picture?

It occurs to me that we have a very similar scenario in the public sanctioning of abortion on demand. As with the Notre Dame scandal, there are many people responding faithfully, sacrificially, heroically. Yet the slaughter of the innocents continues unabated. Even as we work to turn things around and pray for the conversion of hearts, the killing and the money flow continues.

Hey, I have an idea! Let's take the example of the Notre Dame alumni to heart. In addition to all the other fine pro-life work that is being done, let's stop funding the abortion industry with our tax dollars. Our primary motive will be that of conscience - that we can in good faith no longer pay for death while we pray for life. But, think of the secondary effect, too: If the flow of money is disrupted, the powers that be may actually begin to get it, though they laugh at our other prayers and protests.

Let's see - we could call this effort a Pro-life tax strike, or an abortion boycott. What do you think? Let's do it!

Now... why didn't somebody think of this before?

Victory in New Brunswick

2009-05-10T12:05:00.000-06:00

Five months ago, I reported on an important legal case in Canada, but have now been dilatory in relaying the latest development. On April 29, David Little appeared before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (roughly equivalent to a State Supreme Court in the U.S.) for the latest chapter in his legal case to establish that tax-funded abortion violates one's right of conscience and therefore one's freedom of religion. This is an important case, with potential to set legal precedent in Canada and elsewhere.

The three-judge panel decided, against the Crown's objections, to grant Little's leave to appeal, and to reserve judgment until all pertinent information has been reviewed. Regardless of their final verdict, it will likely be appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, probably this fall. This is good news, an answer to ardent prayer, but it's not final. Please keep this intention in your prayers.

For more details, read David's own summary account here, or click on the photo.

Prayerful sin

2009-04-28T14:19:00.002-06:00

Did you know that prayer can be sinful? It's true. The great moral teachers say that some things are intrinsically evil, i.e., they are always sinful, under all circumstances. But no human act is always and without exception virtuous. Even something like prayer which is ordinarily good can, under certain circumstances, be sinful. Here's an illustration:

Scenario #1:

Suppose you're walking all alone on a quiet, empty beach. Suddenly you hear a cry for help, and, looking out to the water, briefly see a child's head, with arms flailing about uselessly. Then the child goes under again. That child is drowning! Though an adequate swimmer, you're not sure you can swim well enough to reach and save the child, so instead you kneel on the sand and pray for God to save him. Such prayer is a sin, a sin of omission. It is a sinful prayer, or, if you prefer, a prayerful sin.

Scenario #2:

Now suppose that the beach is not empty, but crowded with thousands of people. And, out in the water, not one but hundreds of children are drowning. Some of the people on the beach seem not to notice the children. Others notice, but are deliberately ignoring them. Still others are watching with interest, some even laying bets as to which child will last the longest. Finally, you find a large group of people who are kneeling together on the beach, praying for the children. Two individuals are in the water, actually attempting to rescue some of them, but many will surely perish for lack of assistance.

Scenario #3:

Finally, suppose that the children are deliberately being drowned by an armed detachment of government agents. Any attempt to rescue the children or even to interfere is immediately quashed. Moreover, everyone on the beach is being compelled to assist in the drowning operation. Some people are praying for the children, for a miraculous rescue, even as they willingly comply. Some are also fasting. Some are mailing red envelopes in protest.

From a moral standpoint, the biggest difference between scenario 3 and scenarios 1 & 2 is that the sin has become one of commission, not omission. To actively cooperate in evil is of greater moral magnitude than to passively omit doing good.

Please consider how your taxes pay for the slaughter of the innocents, and what your willing cooperation in that slaughter really means.

Moral freedom

2009-04-24T12:09:00.001-06:00

Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.
- Joel 3:14 [RSV]

... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.
- Deut. 30:19b [RSV]

Continuing from previous posts... The importance of conscience is intimately connected with the notion of moral freedom. Moral freedom simply means an unhindered ability to exercise one's conscience, to make moral choices.

As was observed with fasting, this is a uniquely human attribute. As amoral beings, animals can only behave as their appetites, instincts and conditioned behavior dictate. They lack the ability to deliberately choose right vs. wrong, whereas we humans are constantly making moral choices, choosing whether to go this way or that, right or left, good or evil.

Reason teaches us that freedom is not absolute. In any sane society, one's freedom to do this or that is contingent upon whether another person's basic human rights would be infringed upon. One person can not be "free" to deliberately harm another. Such would not be true freedom, but a crime.

Sound religion goes further, teaching us that true freedom consists in seeking and choosing that which is good. Moral slavery involves being bound by one's appetites, instincts, and conditioned behavior, just as an animal. If you are constantly doing whatever you have an itch to do, you are not really free, but a slave to your own desires, no better than a dumb animal. To become fully human involves deliberately rising above merely animal appetites, and exercising volition in willing and doing good.

God is "pro-choice" in the truest sense of the term. He has endowed us humans with a moral nature. He gives us the faculty of volition, of free will, and he sets before us two paths, allowing us to choose which we will follow. He pleads with us to choose life, which leads to true freedom, as opposed to death and enslavement. But God will not force us to take the right path; we must each freely choose life over death, good over evil.

If you are constantly doing whatever you have an itch to do, you are not really free, but a slave to your own desires.

In this light, the politics of "choice" is seen to be a misnomer and a lie. The "right" to commit abortion is not a movement towards freedom, but a crime - the crime of murder. Moreover, it is an act of enslavement. Thus, advocates for abortion are true to their agenda when they seek to coerce doctors and nurses to violate their consciences in committing abortion. The so-called "pro-choice" ideology was never about moral freedom, but about trying to justify murder, and about contradicting the voice of conscience.

It is not legitimate for government to force health care workers to violate their consciences. And it is not right for these workers to abdicate their moral freedom in this matter. If a human authority seeks to strangle the voice of conscience, that human authority must be ignored or disobeyed.

Likewise - to issue my drum beat theme - it is not legitimate for government to force taxpayers against their consciences to pay for abortions, embryonic stem cell research, or other forms of murder. And taxpayers must not abdicate their consciences. We must not cooperate with the tax-funded slaughter of the innocents.

Conscience clause

2009-04-12T14:22:00.000-06:00

Much has been made, and for good reason, about Obama's announced plan to rescind the "conscience clause" for health care workers. The conscience clause was put in place to allow doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical personnel to opt out of performing or assisting at abortions or other procedures to which they have moral objections. Rescinding this option is tantamount to fascist coercion and a repudiation of religious freedom for health care professionals.

This past Thursday, April 9, was the Administration's deadline for expressing opposition to the proposed rescission. I weighed in, and hope you did, too. I haven't yet heard whether the thousands of protests will be heeded or not. I think the sites to keep an eye on in this regard are freedom2care.org and lifenews.com.

There's another deadline approaching, which millions are racing to meet. By April 15, wage-earning Americans must sign their names to their 1040s and turn over a large percentage of their wages to the government, or risk the wrath of the IRS.

The signing of your name at the bottom is especially galling, isn't it? It means you are OK with everything, and that you are doing this of your own free will. You are willing that the government should use your tax dollars to fund abortions, Planned Parenthood, foreign population control programs, and the like. You are willing to underwrite the slaughter.

Where is the concience clause for taxpayers? Where is it written that we must hang our moral sensibilities up on a hook while we fill out and sign our tax returns? Why do we not protest against this fascist control of our very consciences?

Pro-life strike

2009-04-06T18:39:00.000-06:00

As the last few posts have hinted, Jerry eventually repented of his cooperation in the crime of abortion. This multi-year Lenten revival, this movement of prayer has gradually evolved into what I call the "Pro-life strike", a deliberate decision to withdraw my material support of the abortion dragon.

If others can see this truth as clearly, and join the effort, so much the better. And if we can thus nudge our culture and our government to stop the slaughter of the innocents, that would be the greatest blessing.

But whether or not the culture or the government respond is beyond my control. At the Last Judgment, I will have to answer for myself. So I must no longer join in the murderous orgy. I can no longer in good conscience pray for life, and then, as a docile citizen, pay for death. It is not my intent to be at odds with the civil authorities, but if they force me to choose between human law and God's Law, then I fear God, not man.

Who, me?

2009-03-17T18:11:00.001-06:00

For your hands are defiled with blood
and your fingers with iniquity
- Isaiah 59:3

It is much, much worse than I have yet admitted. The prophet's words are for my ears, his accusing fingers are pointed at me, and I am condemned. Not only have I been less than steadfast in defending human life, but I have been one of those who shed the innocent blood. For all my pro-life talk, I myself am guilty of the crime of abortion.

O, but that was years ago, and, until the prophet pointed at me, I didn't know I was guilty; I really didn't. I knew abortion was wrong. That the deliberate killing of a wholly innocent little one was evil. I also knew that God forgives a repentant sinner, that great though the sin is, His mercy and forgiveness are greater. What I didn't know was that I was in need of repentance myself.

From the time that I saw those little ones as the the least of my brethren, I sought to come to their aid. Along with other pro-life folks, I prayed. I wrote letters and signed petitions. I prayed some more. I fasted. As the years passed, I lamented greatly that our prayers seem to go unheard. I cried out

Why have we fasted,
and thou seest it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and thou takest no knowledge of it? ^[1]

This cry was heard, and God answered. But I did not like the answer.

Yes, I prayed, and the prayer was heartfelt. I fasted, and the fast was in earnest. In the meantime, I worked my job, collected my pay, and willingly surrendered a goodly portion of that pay to the government. And I learned how that money was used to fund Planned Parenthood, Title X abortions, and contraception, abortion and population control programs around the world. And I slowly came to admit that I was feeding the dragon. The prophet's finger was pointed at me, and I stood condemned.

This was God's answer to my cry?? That my prayers are hollow and my fasting cheap as long as I keep willingly contributing to the crime?

But... but... but, I don't want to pay for the killing of those helpless babies! Er... uhmmm... I mean, this isn't my idea! But.. well... but... O, dear me!

Well, yes, it is my money, I suppose. I put forth the effort, the time, and the skills to obtain it. And some of it is used to slaughter the innocents. I can no longer deny the truth. OK... (sigh)... I admit it. I am guilty.

This, too, by the grace of God, is a matter for repentance. ^[2]

Note 1: Isaiah 58:3a [RSV]
Note 2: See: ProLifeStrike.org

The least of these

2009-03-13T12:44:00.000-06:00

The threefold Lenten discipline of prayer, fasting, and giving can and should have a purifying and clarifying effect. Prayer and fasting lead the soul to generous giving. Fasting and giving lead the soul to reflective prayer. The following is a personal story, covering the past 36 years or so.

I was a young man in 1973 when Roe v. Wade shocked the American culture. From the very beginning, I knew that was wrong, and must be reversed. But within a fairly short span, I let myself be cowed by more liberal thinkers into a broader way of viewing things. Restoring legal status to the unborn, while important, was just one of many equally important issues. We must not become too narrow-minded; we must not be single-issue voters and thinkers. That much was axiomatic.

I believe it was through prayer and fasting that I eventually came to consider more thoughtfully the essence of giving to the poor. The Gospel passage that grabbed me at some point was Mt.25:31-46. This well-known story tells of the return of the King at the end, how he separates the sheep from the goats, judges them on the basis of how they gave to the poor and needy, and issues this divine judgement: "...as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Mt.25:40b RSV)

And who, I pondered, are the very least of my brethren? Who are the poorest of the poor? To whom should I be especially generous, so as to be found giving to the Lord Himself?

There are poor people right here, even in my home town. I must give to them, and so I shall. But - are they the very least? Well, those in third-world countries are certainly poorer. Are they the least? What about those who actually die in war or in natural disasters? Loss of life is certainly more serious than mere poverty. Are these the least?

You already know where this leads. I was eventually forced to see that there was no greater poverty than that suffered by those who were wholly innocent and also wholly defenseless. These little ones could not even raise their voices in a plaintive cry for help. These were the very least. Giving to these would be giving to Jesus.

With renewed clarity of vision, I was cowed no longer. Although often unfaithful, and frequently forgetful, I have since endeavored to make this a major focus of my life, liberal goats notwithstanding.

Give

2009-03-11T09:53:00.001-06:00

The third and final Lenten basic is alsmgiving, sometimes called mercy. I'll just use the generic word Give. If the prayer and fasting are genuine, they will naturally produce in the person who is praying and fasting a spirit of generosity toward the poor. Conversely, giving propels the generous soul to prayer and fasting, and leads to spiritual progress. The giving is itself a concrete action; it means giving in a material way to meet material needs.

Again, this is pretty straightforward; not much I can say to elaborate. But I would like to share a personal testimony on how these three Lenten disciplines have moved me, in Lents past and into the present. Coming soon.

Pray

2009-03-06T11:00:00.000-06:00

Another of the three Lenten basics is prayer. Writing a blog post about prayer is a bit like writing about love. Either overwhelm all internet servers with terabytes upon terabytes of words, and still not do the subject justice, or be brief. This shall be brief.

The final 76 pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is devoted to Christian Prayer. Reviewing this, I was struck anew by this insight: That, though a thoroughly spiritual exercise, a movement of the heart, prayer is necessarily related to our physicality as well. "...it is the whole man who prays." {2562}

For one thing, the practice of fasting and other ascetics is essential to cultivating a healthy prayer life. A very common cause of sloth in prayer [2733], the spiritual masters say, is related to a failure to discipline the body through ascetical practices.

Secondly, true prayer is connected to living one's faith [2745] in concrete ways, else the prayer is hollow and meaningless.

Thus: Prayer, fasting, giving.

Fast

2009-02-23T11:40:00.000-06:00

The season of Lent teaches us to return to basics; namely, the three basics of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving (or mercy). This year, Pope Benedict has focused especially upon fasting.

Fasting from food is unique to us humans. Other animals may go without eating for any number of natural reasons. A domesticated animal may even be trained to refuse food as a conditioned behavior. But an animal has no spiritual nature; it does not have the faculty of volition, of free will, and so cannot deliberately choose to abstain from what its instincts, appetites, or conditioning demand. It cannot fast. Neither can angels fast; having no physical bodies, they have no need of food in the first place. To engage in fasting, one must be both physical and spiritual at the same time. We humans are the only creatures that fit the bill. It's a privilege, when you think of it; we can offer to our Creator something which no other creature can offer.

And so, the kind of fast that the discipline of Lent prescribes is the kind that engages both our physical and our spiritual natures. A non-religious person may fast solely for reasons of health or weight control. A hedonist may fast to heighten his pleasure in eating afterward. Such fasts could not be considered true Lenten practices, because they are merely physical; they do not connect with the spiritual partner of fasting which is prayer.

Likewise, a fast that does not connect with its other partner, almsgiving or mercy, is not a true Lenten fast. The religious person may fast severely and pray earnestly, but if he fails to give in concrete ways, his fast is incomplete, and his spiritual discipline is pointless. Chapter 58 of Isaiah rails against this kind of false fast, and Jesus condemned those who prayed and fasted rigorously, but whose hearts were far from both God and their neighbor in need. (e.g. Lk.18:9-14, Lk.5:29-35)

Fasting, then, as both a spiritual and physical reality is a sort of bridge uniting prayer and mercy. The essential harmony of these elements is perhaps best summarized by St. Peter Chrysologus:

Fasting is the soul of prayer, mercy is the lifeblood of fasting. So if you pray, fast; if you fast, show mercy; if you want your petition to be heard, hear the petition of others. If you do not close your ear to others, you open God's ear to yourself
- Sermo 43: PL 52, 320. 322.

So, hold the mayo. And hold the burger, too. Hold the pickle, bun, tomato... lettuce... pray.

Day of reckoning

2009-02-19T10:40:00.001-06:00

May you live in interesting times.
- Ancient Chinese curse

Don't make me come down there!
- God

Many in my parents' generation were convinced that Hitler was the Antichrist and WW II was Armageddon. My generation read and believed Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth and Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. Apocalyptic portents seem to be part of every age, and many folks find such prospects oddly fascinating, and even attractive.

Others are repulsed by prophets of doom; they debunk and ridicule them, proclaiming with reciprocal certainty that no such evil will befall us. God is good, and will certainly protect his people from all harm, not to fear.

It is my opinion that the truth lies, not somewhere between these two extremes, but simultaneously in both. How so? Glad you asked.

We undoubtedly live in interesting times. While 'Global Warming' is a foregone conclusion in many circles, some scientists are actually warning of a possible Ice Age. Many cling stubbornly to a fear of overpopulation even as more developed nations face demographic implosion. Terrorism and turmoil continue unabated. Our newly elected leaders seem intent upon destroying our Constitution, and the new spending bills appear likely to result in economic chaos.

Some (including myself) see apocalyptic potential, not so much in these natural and political disasters, but in our culture's spiritual and moral disarray. Indeed, the former are merely the consequences and manifestations of the latter. A culture like ours that slaughters its innocent preborn and forsakes its foundation in the monogamous family is an empty shell, devoid of strength because devoid of virtue. It is certain to fall. Moral rottenness is the primary cause; one or more natural or man-made disasters are merely the proximate causes which will finally topple the emaciated phantasm.

Surely our doom is near.

Surely God will deliver us.

The two expectations are identical. History bears this out. God's cleansing, purgative work is usually not very pleasant. True love can cause awful pain.

There is, I believe, an alternative. A way to stay the hand of God and avoid his judgment. It's a pretty simple concept, too. It's called repentance. Lent is almost here; maybe we should give it a shot.

Isaiah 3:4,9-12

2009-02-10T17:04:00.000-06:00

And I will make boys their princes,
and babes shall rule over them.
.
.
Their partiality witnesses against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom,
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil upon themselves.
Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them,
For they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.
Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him,
For what his hands have done shall be done to him.
My people - children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths.

Small in number, big in commitment

2009-01-30T17:40:00.001-06:00

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
- Ps. 82:3,4

Continuing the "Pro-life strike" theme: A recent Google search directed me to an online debate on the question of paying taxes that fund abortion. Delighted to find others who are asking this important question, I joined the debate. The initial delight was tempered upon finding the majority of debaters on the side of obediently paying the murder tax. It was further squelched when my opening comment was censored for pointing to the new Pro-life strike website. But let not my words be misconstrued: these folks are at least debating the idea, and that is a good thing. One can hope that at least some of them will pick up the mantle of righteous pro-life tax resistance. One can hope; but there obviously exists a great reluctance to cross certain social lines. The very thought of legal or financial turmoil sends many hurrying for plausible excuses.

Earlier today, I happened across a blog post that simply reproduced Dr. King's famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" of 1963. Some of King's words jumped out at me.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany...
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
...In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed... Small in number, they were big in commitment.

Better thinkers than myself have called abortion the new civil rights issue of our time. As before, it may be a small but committed few who recognize this, and who are willing to sacrifice, to stir things up for the sake of justice.

Pro-life strike website

2009-01-20T15:05:00.000-06:00

"Dogpatch_Ergo_Sum" has recently featured and praised a number of pro-life leaders who are not household names, but who personally sacrifice much for the sanctity of human life. I especially esteem those who resist the taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. We pray for life; we must stop paying for death.

This recurrent "Pro-life strike" theme has now led to a new website. ProLifeStrike.org is premised on the idea that most of us can become active pro-life heroes in resisting the tax tyranny, and that we should try to do so in a coordinated way. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who quipped, "Let us hang together, or we shall surely hang separately." Like John the Baptist, we may raise our voice, and be crushed by worldly powers. Or we may work more quietly and unobtrusively, yet heroically. In either case, we must materially resist evil laws.

Are you ready to take the gloves off? Might you be willing to join with others in actively resisting the abortion tax tyranny? Maybe you or someone you know is already so engaged. I'd love to learn more. Let us work and pray together, not separately. Anyway, feel free to visit ProLifeStrike.org, and let me know what you think.

Lawrence Rosano

2009-01-15T23:09:00.000-06:00

Returning to a recurrent theme for this blog: of showing respect for life in the way we spend our money, of refusing to fund the abortion industry. We must not pray for life, and then pay for death.

I've met many fine pro-life individuals recently, both in person and on the web. Most recently, I've run across another fellow pro-life blogger, one who shares the above conviction. In fact, he seems to have coined the term 'Pro-life strike' before I did. His name is Lawrence Rosano, and he has, among others, a blog entitled "ProLifeTaxStrike". No kidding.

Like David Little, Mr. Rosano is involved in a legal battle involving his refusal to fund the slaughter of the innocents. In his case, he has refused to cooperate with an employee-provided group health insurance plan which pays for procured abortions. I'm no lawyer, and will not claim to know more than a little about this case. Rather, I invite anyone interested to read Lawrence's own words at his blog, with links to others in a similar vein.

From table to chair

2009-01-10T21:50:00.005-06:00

This post, long overdue, follows up on two previous posts. Here's the synopsis:

Our Superior, WI diocesan paper, The Catholic Herald, was regularly publishing a number of softly heretical items, the most inane being Fr. Richard McBrien's weekly column. In April 2007, we wrote a letter of complaint on this which was published, but when several liberal readers responded with complaints about our complaint, we were not allowed to reply further. (This is quite puzzling, since the opposition's mantra was that of allowing a free exchange of diverse ideas.) The May 2007 blog post entitled "Roundtable" was an attempt to provide a forum in which folks on both sides of this issue could debate openly. The debate question: Should Catholic publications embrace diversity of thought, or teach Catholic truth clearly?

Well, a few loyal Catholics joined the discussion, but no one on the staff of the Herald, nor anyone in sympathy with the McBrien agenda bothered to come and defend their viewpoints, so it was a fairly one-sided table, and the "debate" soon petered out. (Ref. "Folding table".)

Speaking of Peter: that summer, a new bishop, Peter Christenson, was consecrated and appointed to the Superior diocese. This past summer, after one year of getting to know the diocese, this successor to the Apostles acted, and the McBrien column was quietly dropped, thanks be to God.

You Catholics already know that the bishop's cathedra is not a chair of repose, but of Apostolic authority, traceable to the authority of Jesus himself. This is an essential Catholic strength. As a Catholic son, I must say that tables may be OK, round or otherwise, but a solid chair is so much better.

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child - 2

2008-12-31T23:20:00.000-06:00

Have you heard about C-Fam's U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child? I promoted it in an earlier post ("U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child"), and many others have weighed in, too.

This is an interesting story, dating back to mid-2007, when Marie Stopes International, one of the largest and richest abortionists in the world, was running an online petition calling for the U.N. to read a right to abortion into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After well over a year, their petition still has only a few hundred signatures.

In response, Austin Ruse of C-Fam launched a counter petition on Sept 29, 2008. By Nov. 10, when I wrote my blog post, the C-Fam petition had garnered over 100,000 signatures, including 67,000+ just from English-speaking respondents. By Dec. 10, when Ruse presented the petition to the UN, the total number of signatures had grown to 437,000 from 168 countries. To the many nations who are not marching to the abortionsts beat, such a show of solidarity can be very powerful.

C-Fam, and Austin Ruse continue to impress me. They are a strong, faithful, and prophetic witness in the United Nations, a crucial arena today. And besides that, Mr. Ruse himself visited my little blog and left a comment, thanking me for the post. (See the comments section of the aforementioned post.) That's class.

So, thank you, Austin, for what you are doing. Thanks, too, to all of you who signed the petition. And for those of you who haven't signed, you still may. They are keeping the petition up for a few more months, now aiming at a million signatures.

You may read more at this C-Fam page. You may also read the petition itself (it's brief) here. If you agree with the petition, fill out the form and click the 'Submit' button to sign it. You may receive email updates from C-Fam, or you may opt out of those updates.

STMS website

2008-12-18T17:53:00.000-06:00

The previous post suggests that the public funding of abortion has been a key factor in the demise of our culture, and may be key in turning it around again. Yes, I know that post was written nearly three weeks ago, but I've not been idle. Apart from shovelling snow and keeping the house stocked with firewood, I've been busy with another website close to my heart and in keeping with this idea.

Under the patronage of St. Thomas More, this website and the St. Thomas More Society (STMS) is dedicated to prayer and acts of conscience to end tax funded abortion in Canada. The founder, David Little, has refused to file tax returns until the law is changed to ensure that no tax money will pay for the slaughter of the innocents. David is in legal hot water over this, but is currently preparing an appeal to the highest court in New Brunswick. I have written of David in two other posts below: "David Little" and "Law-abiding criminals".

So feel free to visit the STMS website to read more. See the "Recent news" page to keep up with this legal case. And - please pray, expecting a miracle. This has the potential to be quite significant.

Well, you might say, that's good for Canada, but what about the USA and the rest of the world? Good point. I hope to write more about this soon.

Cognitive dissonance

2008-11-29T21:54:00.003-06:00

O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways, and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not?
- Is. 63:17

Why is Jerry so hung up on tax-funded abortion? Why can't he and other pro-lifers just get over it, and 'get a life', as they say?

This question has a flip side. Why, or how, have other Christians apparently gotten over legalized abortion? As evidenced in our democratic process, a sizable percentage of Christians seem largely untroubled by it. Why?

There may be a clue in the phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance. From Wikipedia:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs , and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

The part about "awareness of one's behavior" is germane. It would appear that the enemy of our souls scored a major coup here. I do not refer to the infamous shock of Roe v. Wade, but to the quiet and mundane coup of congressional budget allocations, i.e., the public funding of abortion and of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

When ordinary taxpayers found themselves paying the abortion invoice, many may have succumbed, through cognitive dissonance, to a belief that it was not such a big deal after all. Just get over it.

If this helps to explain our cultural ambivalence, then it may also tell us how to begin to effectively turn the tide back again.

Abortion and Your Taxes

2008-11-13T16:33:00.005-06:00

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.
- Ps. 144:1

There may be a silver lining in the dark political cloud. Committed Christians seem to be waking to the realization that the situation demands a serious, even drastic response. We are the Church Militant, of which Jesus says, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt.16:18b KJV) This is not a picture of desperate saints defending their citadel from intruders, but of Christian warriors on the offensive, boldly attacking the enemy's stronghold.

And just what is that stronghold? We know that we battle against spiritual forces (Eph.6:12), and our best and ultimate weapons are the spiritual: prayer, fasting, trust in God, and the pursuit of holiness. Yet we must also be "wise as serpents" (Mt.10:16), which is to say, we must be aware of practical reality, and act accordingly, aiming for concrete, tangible results. Where should this practical focus be? Precisely where the political and cultural battle lines have been drawn: the personhood and legal protection of all human life, and marriage as the firm foundation of our civilization.

One fellow blogger has amply shown that he is awake for the battle, recognizing and revealing the unsettling signs of our times, especially regarding the recent political fiasco [1][2]. There are both spiritual and practical ramifications. In a recent post, he lays out the Church's clear teaching that, when human law violates Divine Law (e.g. laws legitimizing abortion and euthanasia), the Christian must disregard or disobey that human law. This might strike some folks as drastic, but these times demand such a response. We need to face it: loyalty to Christ means we must obey God rather than men, though we be martyred in the process.

Allow me to suggest a further sharpening of the practical focus. In concrete, practical terms, the core matter is: money. Take that away, and, for all practical purposes, the abortion industry collapses, as does human embryonic research, etc, etc. If we really want to end abortion, let's stop buying it! If this sounds like a broken record, so be it. (See related "Pro-life strike" posts at the left side bar.)

Presentation Ministries offers a brief brochure entitled Abortion And Your Taxes which succinctly explores the moral problem of tax-funded abortion, and offers simple guidelines to follow in considering a response of tax resistance.

The thing is, this is not just a concrete and practical matter, but reflects back upon our spiritual actions, the real heart of our faith. We refuse to fund abortion so as to purify our prayers and other pro-life efforts. We must stop paying for death so we may sincerely pray and work for life!

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child

2008-11-10T11:44:00.000-06:00

As just noted, we have much cultural evangelization and political work to do. Let's begin with something easy. C-Fam, the pro-life presence at the United Nations, has prepared an online petition to be presented to the U.N. early next month. Many lobbyists and unelected panelists at the U.N have been illogically claiming that the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights must now be interpreted as mandating legalized abortion and same-sex 'marriage', and so have been pressuring member states to enact these legal changes. The purpose of this C-Fam petition is to reaffirm that human rights begin with the right to life and the integrity of the family unit.

Please read the entire petition (it's brief) by clicking on this C-Fam page. If you agree with the petition, fill out the form and click the 'Submit' button to sign it. You may receive email updates from C-Fam, or you may opt out of those updates.

I have been greatly impressed with the work of C-Fam, and can personally testify that they are the real deal. The last I saw, the pro-abortion campaign had only garnered 600+ signatures in over a year, while this pro-life one has secured over 67,000 in a relatively short time just from English-speaking respondents. By getting lots of signatures on this petition, we can show our support for those nations that still uphold the integrity of human life and of the family in their legal systems.

Back to normal

2008-11-07T11:12:00.000-06:00

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you.
- 1 Peter 4:12

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake
- Phil. 1:29

Let's be honest - this election cycle was a bust, pretty much an unmitigated travesty. Well - (sigh) - what's done is done, and at least now we can return to our normal lives. But -- just what is normal?

The New Testament norm for the followers of Jesus is to be outside the mainstream. Historically, this has often meant hardship and persecution. Jesus repeatedly told his disciples to expect hatred from the world in which they lived. (e.g. Mt.10:22, Jn.15:19)

We must continue to evangelize our culture, but at the same time recognize the signs of the times. As demonstrated in the popular vote, the evil and immoral policies of the Democratic Party are acceptable to most people. Chiefly, the raw injustice of legalized and tax-funded abortion, the ghastly practice of human embryonic experimentation, and the growing acceptance of homosexual "rights" all indicate the continuing decline of our collective conscience. The political landscape, now swung far left, will likely result in further erosion -- an even more intense assault upon goodness and a greater intolerance for truth.

Who can tell where it might lead? We may hope - and pray - for a swing back to the right. But we ought also to be realistic, and know that may not happen. We must be prepared for even greater evil. Perhaps the Church - the true believers, that is - will soon be driven underground. Perhaps the whole damned system (and I do not use the 'd' word in a flippant or crass manner here) will finally collapse, as all godless systems eventually do. In either case, we seem to be facing an adventure, and ought to steel ourselves for a bumpy ride.

When pro-lifers choose death

2008-11-04T08:20:00.001-06:00

"Father forgive them; for they know not what they do."
- Lk. 23:34

The sober and troubling reality is that, even as I write this, millions of U.S. citizens are casting their votes for Barack Obama. Many of these voters are Christian, and many identify themselves as pro-life Catholics.

How can this be? Is it because they have an uncritical loyalty to the Democratic Party, an unthinking herd instinct reaching back to early childhood? Are they disgusted with the Republicans' pathetic failures, and suppose there is only one other option? Is it a matter of "white guilt", of feeling obliged to support the African-American candidate? Do they not recognize the intrinsic evil of abortion? Are they therefore intimidated into seeking a "balance" between this and lesser evils? Have they been duped by media bias, and actually believe the euphemism that it's about "choice"? Do they believe the over-population myth, and secretly fear human propagation?

The plain truth is that Barack Hussein Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion candidate to ever seek the U.S. Presidency. Whether or not he wins it today is not the main issue. Folks who say they are pro-life Christians are voting for him. Followers of Jesus are choosing death. I wish I could find a reasonable explanation for this.

"I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller..."

2008-10-26T11:04:00.003-06:00

(The original of this brochure by Randall A. Terry can be found, in pdf form, at http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/StopObama.pdf. Since the Google text format of this appears scrambled, I offer the following full text of the pdf brochure, adding only the 2 images for visual reference.)

A debate has emerged among Catholics and Evangelicals as to whether or not a Christian may in good conscience vote for Obama for President.

Certain Evangelicals who declare themselves "born again," believe the Bible is the Word of God and are traditionally pro-life, have publicly embraced Obama's campaign for the Presidency. Certain Roman Catholics who say they are pro-life are likewise working for Obama, and claiming to do so in clear conscience.

Most Christians (from any Trinitarian Communion) will agree that our vote is a political expression of our faith and ethics; a part of how we integrate the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the teachings of Christianity into public life. Hence, it is valid to question voting for Senator Obama in this election cycle; the principle of moral vs. immoral voting is germane in every election. For example; we can agree that no devout Christian could in clear conscience vote for an avowed racist who wanted to reinstitute slavery, even if we agreed with him on other issues that were important to us.

The core question in this debate is this: can a Christian vote with a clear conscience for a candidate who supports legalized abortion?

I will answer this question with three simple illustrations. You be the judge if the morals and logic stand true.

Case #1:

I am in my car at a red light, and a man comes up to my window and says: "Hi. Could you please give me a ride to the bank? I have some banking to do and my car just broke down."

I say, "Sure. Hop in..." and take him to the bank. As I am leaving, to my horror I see him pull a mask over his face, draw a gun from his pocket, and enter the bank.

Gunshots and screams fill the air, and the man I drove to the bank comes running out - after he murdered the banker, and stole all the money he could carry. He flees successfully.

The question is: did I sin by giving this murderer and robber a ride to the bank?

The answer is: no. I did not sin, because I did not know his intent.

Case #2:

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "Excuse me; I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller so that he won't be able to testify against me at trial if I get caught. Would you please give me a ride to the bank?"

I say, "Sure, hop in..." and give him a ride to the bank, and he fulfills his promise.

Given those facts, have I participated in the sin of theft and murder?

The answer is: yes. In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of any court of law, I would be guilty of participating in the sin (and crime) of murder and robbery, because I knew his intent.

Some say, "But Obama is not actually killing children. He is only supporting laws permitting abortion; he is not the abortionist killing the child." Good point. Let me give the third illustration.

Case #3:

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "I have a friend who intends to rob the bank and shoot the bank teller. I want to keep him out of trouble, so I promised to watch out for him while he commits the crime. If a policeman comes, I will distract him so that my friend won't get caught. Will you please take me to the bank?"

I say, "Sure. Hop in..." and take him to the bank. (On the way over, we discuss how neither of us could ever rob a bank or murder a bank teller.) We arrive and see the thief/murderer drive up, exit his car, cover his face, draw his weapon, and enter the bank.We hear screams and gunshots.Within seconds, a policeman emerges on foot from around the corner with his gun drawn, looking anxiously for assailants or victims.

The man I gave a ride to plays his role perfectly. He jumps out of my car, yelling and pointing; "I just saw a man running down that alley with a gun in his hand and a bag he brought out of the bank!" The policeman takes the bait, and runs down the alleyway, vainly chasing a villain who is not there.

The murderer emerges from the bank, glances over at his friend (my passenger), nods appreciatively, gets into his car, and escapes.

Given these facts, have I participated in the sin of robbery and murder?

The answer is: yes. Because I knew the intent of the accomplice and I helped him and his friend accomplish the crime, I became an accomplice; I participated in the sin (and crime) of robbery and murder.

Which brings us to voting for Obama...

First of all, abortion is murder, a violation of God's commandment, "You Shall not Murder."

At the very least, Obama is an aggressive accomplice of child-killers. He has declared his intention to keep child-killing (abortion) legal; to help child-killers murder the innocent with impunity. He has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) if elected, and to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will uphold Roe vs. Wade.

Obama boasts a 100% pro-abortion voting record; he is in FAVOR of partial birth abortion, and he opposed a bill in Illinois that would require medical care for a late term baby that survives an abortion.

Let the full weight of that sink in: if a late term baby girl is aborted, and survives the attempt on her life, Senator Obama OPPOSES that doctors be required to give that resilient new-born fighter the medical care that would save her life.

Such devotion to the Angel of Death defies all decency.

The fact that Obama doesn't suck the bodies and blood of innocent human beings out of their mother's wombs, or carve out their mutilated corpses with his own hands is irrelevant. By working to continue this holocaust, he is an accomplice to the murder of innocent pre-born children - like the accomplice to theft and murder in the illustrations above.

And if we vote for Obama knowing his intent to help murder millions of children, we too are accomplices in the sin of child-killing.

The accusations of this logic being "extreme," or "single issue driven" or "insensitive to the common good" are chaff in the wind. Let the proponents of voting for Obama for "the common good" make their shameful argument before a mountain of dead children. Or better yet: let them use their perversion of "the common good" to justify voting for a proponent of slavery. Such reasoning would appear as cruel and idiotic concerning slavery as it is for child-killing.

Don't be deceived. You know that abortion is murder. If you vote for Obama, you will betray innocent blood. And future generations who escaped Obama and his accomplices to murder will curse your memory for your part in slaying their sisters, brothers, cousins, classmates, neighbors, friends, spouses, bishops, pastors, teachers, doctors, priests, babysitters, policemen, firemen, engineers, and more. Do you really want their blood on your hands?

He who declares that it is immoral for a Christian to vote for Obama is not mistaken; rather, he is mistaken who declares it is not.

Randall A. Terry
Founder, Operation Rescue
Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul 2008

"When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that It is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a 'tyrannical' decision with regard to the weakest and most defenseless of human beings?... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it... The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize we are dealing with murder."
- John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

Law-abiding criminals

2008-10-22T08:07:00.003-06:00

"...you will be dragged before governors and kings..." - Mt. 10:18a RSV

The two posts below entitled "Pro-life strike: It's the law" and "Pro-life strike: It is the law" made the point that a pro-life strike or tax resistance movement is not unlawful. Indeed, we must obey God's Law, and if that means running afoul of human government, so be it.

Pro-life warrior Mick Hunt has, without intending to, become the target of an unjust kangaroo court for his pro-life activities. Mick's "offence" was in manning large, provocative visual displays of abortion through the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). The First Amendment legality of such public displays has been well established, but, in one instance, a human judge has opined that Hunt et. al. are guilty of illegal trespassing. Read more here. I have not yet heard whether an appeal is planned. (Later Note: An appeal is planned, as clarified by Mick in the first reader comment for this post.)

Mick's blog details many such GAP displays, and the impact they are having upon consciences. (Most are without legal incident.) Mick has also written about conscience and unjust laws in an article entitled "Resistance v. Collaboration.

David Little, by contrast, has deliberately challenged the Canadian laws regarding abortion and taxes. You can read more about his pro-life work in the "David Little" post below, or at his website. The legal story is found at this web page. He is currently preparing for a decisive appeal scheduled for Oct. 24, 2008. Please pray for a favorable outcome.

What's my point? Well, first of all, pray for these two pro-life men and their respective battles against an ungodly system. Secondly, acknowledge that such as these are to be respected for their courage and principled stand. And then, recognizing the state of our culture and our legal system, consider that their examples are to be emulated.

Voting matters - 2

2008-10-17T14:06:00.001-06:00

When I wrote the "Grassroots nudges" post a few weeks ago, its main theme was supposed to be on moving our culture's center of gravity by small personal nudges. The parenthetical reference to election year personalities spurred a rather lively political debate that continued on to the next two posts. The two main viewpoints offered were
1) Vote for the Constitution Party, as it is the most truly pro-life and Christian platform.
2) Such a vote is useless, since the Constitution Party will never win.

Unfortunately, the proponents of the first view stayed on the comments page of the "Grassroots nudges" post, while the latter group moved on to the next post, so they weren't hearing each other. I think both sides had something important to say, and there seemed to be more salient points to add for both viewpoints, but when I tried to get them on the same page (literally), the debate petered out. (sigh)

So, here is a post specifically dedicated to this year's election, coming down to the wire. The "Baldwin 2008" icon & link at upper left gives you a good idea of my opinion. Moreover, the Jan. 23 post entitled "Voting matters" still reflects my general approach to voting. But I remain open to other viewpoints. Present a logical refutation either against the principles outlined in the original "Voting matters" post, or, using those principles, tell me of a better way to vote. But hurry, time is short!

Pro-life boycott

2008-10-10T10:50:00.001-06:00

I just received a mass-mailed email urging a boycott of the new U.S. one dollar coin, because this coin omits the long-standing motto "In God We Trust".

I am a big fan of boycotts. My current (somewhat radical) stance started out several years ago with a boycott of corporate sponsors of Planned Parenthood, as proposed by the people at Life Decisions International (LDI). These folks, as their work and ministry, investigate and report in a fair and balanced manner those corporations which donate to or support Planned Parenthood (PP). Subscribers to this LDI boycott list can then respond accordingly. For example, since Johnson & Johnson is on the LDI list, you would buy Curad bandages and Oral-B dental floss rather than the Johnson & Johnson products, writing to the CEO of Johnson & Johnson to politely indicate this. Ditto for Microsoft, eBay, Time Warner, Walt Disney, and a slew of other corporate PP sponsors. (Some non-profits also support PP. See, for example, the "Pink deception" post below). As a result, many corporations have dropped their support for PP, and that becomes a significant blow to the abortion juggernaut in both financial and public image terms.

As noted elsewhere, this evolved for me into a way to purify other pro-life efforts and prayers. The corporate boycott became a way to avoid even indirect material participation in the crime of abortion. In simple language: Why pray for life, and then pay for death? By the same logic, why voluntarily surrender tax dollars that will fund PP, abortions, or embryonic stem cell research? Thus, the idea of a pro-life strike or pro-life tax resistance. Search this blog for "Pro-life strike", and read about David Little's tax resistance efforts in the previous post.

Here's my point: It is indeed laudable to want to retain the "In God We Trust" motto on U.S. currency. But even more importantly, let's take that motto to heart, and take to heart not only "Render to Caesar..." but also the companion command "Render to God...". That is, let us begin to pay attention to how our dollars are spent, and make a serious effort to defund the ways in which our money kills innocent human lives and blasphemes the motto that we revere.

If you are not yet ready to engage in full-fledged strike or tax resistance efforts, at least you might prayerfully consider entering into a boycott that is already engaged, has yielded some concrete results, and may yield more, with your cooperation. Call the LDI people at (540) 631-0380. Get their PP boycott list, and start making a real difference.

O, by the way, it is reported that the new coin does indeed contain the revered motto, but this time on the coin's edge.

David Little

2008-10-01T20:36:00.002-06:00

Two posts ago, ("Pro-life strike: nudge"), I lamented that the idea of a pro-life strike or pro-life tax resistance movement seemed to be "a microscopic nudge at present, practiced by very few". Then I offered a prayer that, if the idea were pleasing to God, "may the nudge continue, and by Your grace and Spirit, grow". I also mentioned in that post a certain David Little in Canada as the only other active pro-life tax resister that I knew of.

Shortly thereafter, to my joy and surprise, that same David Little saw my humble blog post and contacted me. This led to some long conversations and reading in which I have learned much about the man. I am happy to now report that, not only is Mr. Little a fellow pro-life tax resister, he may be the very epitome of that term. Even more importantly, his prayerful efforts may represent the makings of what I had prayed for: the dawning of a real movement (maybe even an eventual "tsunami"!). All in God's will and pleasure.

Mr. Little's approach has been more aggressive than mine, refusing to pay taxes, and letting the Canadian government officials know exactly why. As a result, he is currently facing trial, but is starting to attract some individuals to stand with him in the fight. Among other public statements is this one:

I have made it clear publicly for more than 20 years that I would rather suffer imprisonment than voluntarily surrender money to any person or institution who would use even the smallest portion of my money to perpetrate murder on any human being.

In 2004, David founded the St. Thomas More Society of Canada (STMS) "to raise resources of both persons and funds to take pro-active measures against the government of Canada, legally and politically; to end tax funded abortion in the short term, and to reverse the legality of all abortion in the long term."

Do I hear an "Amen!"? Or a "Yes!"?

Can we dare to pray and work for this in the U.S. as well as in Canada?

The above are just a couple highlights. Chances are I'll be writing more about David Little and STMS. Meanwhile, you can learn more at the STMS website. See especially David's remarkable story and his legal case.

Danny Gospel: A book review

2008-09-28T11:57:00.004-06:00

Was Francis of Assisi insane? Were he alive today, would he be on medication? Would John the Baptist be subjected to compulsory counseling? One wonders if Prozac or Haldol have deprived our times of a prophet or saint or two.

These questions occur to me right after meeting a lovable lunatic who just might be a saint or prophet. I met Danny Gospel (and you can meet him, too) in a novel by the same name, written by David Athey. Danny is an Iowa farm boy, troupe singer, mailman, and misfit who addresses the reader in the first person, in a sort of fictional autobiography. But, no -- more like a stream-of-consciousness narrative, Danny telling his story as he is living it (as if recording every step for a reality show), and snatches of past stories as he remembers them.

Danny Gospel is not a gut-wrenching thriller or romance or any other typical genre. I'm not sure which bookshelf it fits. My first impression was that it was trite and corny, but a fun ride, and I wanted to keep turning the pages to see what nutty turn Danny would take next. The story line is quick-paced and ludicrous, like a Marx Brothers farce or Daffy Duck cartoon. But - quirky and unpredictable in a real life way, too. You've met guys like Danny: a Don Quixote / Frodo / Forrest Gump character, a wise idiot, a bumbling hero. Maybe you've been blessed to meet him in the mirror once or twice.

As I kept reading, I started to recognize something else, something deeper beneath the implausible surface. Where else had I encountered this mystical mayhem, this zany but profound allegory? Field of Dreams? The Chronicles of Narnia? Then I put the book down, and slept. And dreamed.

Of course, I can't tell you where Danny's quest leads him. Better let Danny tell you in his own words. If you like fun fiction and thoughtful fiction, I think you'll like Danny Gospel.

Pro-life strike: nudge

2008-09-18T13:28:00.002-06:00

Speaking of cultural nudges, I must now return to a former theme, that of a Pro-life strike or tax resistance movement. It's a simple idea, reflecting human life principles in economic matters. More than that, it's a way to purify our other pro-life efforts, recognizing that we ought not materially cooperate, even indirectly, with abortion and similar practices. If a corporation sponsors Planned Parenthood, then God-fearing folks ought to eschew patronizing that corporation. And if our government makes us cooperate in the crime of abortion through our taxes, then we ought not pay those taxes.

The pitiful reality is that the idea is a microscopic nudge at present, practiced by very few. There's David Little of New Brunswick, Canada, who went to jail for this principle. And one other pro-life tax resister up in Wisconsin who has been trying to nudge and make a little noise. If there are others, they're pretty good at keeping it secret.

Heavenly Father, if this idea pleases You, then may the nudge continue, and by Your grace and Spirit, grow. Above all, may You be pleased and glorified. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

**Related posts**
Post title	Synopsis	Post date
Strike Three!	Background and rationale for a pro-life strike.	02/10/07
Pro-life strike	Resumes the theme. Answers the "Render to Caesar" objection.	03/18/08
Pro-life strike: Why not?	Develops the theme. Looks at some other pro-life efforts, presenting tax resistance as complementary to them.	04/06/08
Pro-life strike: Why	Presents 4 specific reasons for a pro-life strike or tax resistance effort.	04/07/08
Pro-life strike: How	Strategies, and my guess as to how such a movement might begin and progress. Some practical considerations.	04/09/08
Pro-life strike: End	The tangible end goals.	04/11/08
Pro-life strike: Begin	Enough talk. Let's begin!	04/20/08
Pro-life strike: its part	Purifying our other pro-life efforts. Who should be a pro-life striker. Who should not.	04/27/08
Pro-life strike: Appeal	Appeal to pro-life leaders to take up this effort, and lead it.	05/11/08
Pro-life strike: It's the law	Examines a pro-life strike in the light of Divine Law, and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When civil authority should be obeyed, and when not.	05/16/08
Pro-life strike: It is the law	Emphasizes the same idea. Breaking civil law out of obedience to true Law.	05/29/08

From nudge to tsunami

2008-09-14T13:50:00.001-06:00

More idea refinement... The distinction between "grassroots nudges" and "cultural tsunami" is not a quantum leap, but a continuum. A single individual's beliefs and behavior can serve as a miniscule nudge to the culture as a whole. But individual joins with individual until the collective weight of several individuals in concert packs a much bigger punch. And, sometimes what begins as a tiny individual effort can gather momentum as others are moved, until the effect on the culture is quite significant.

I have recently become acquainted with a fine example of this very thing. In 2002, Grand Rapids pharmacist Mike Koelzer realized that dispensing artificial contraceptives was contrary to his Catholic faith, and started informing his customers that he would no longer be filling prescriptions for contraceptives. Though he received many angry responses, Koelzer stuck to principle, saying, "...I was and am willing to lose the business in order to not be a part of something I don't agree with."

That was six years ago. Whether inspired by Koelzer or impelled by their own individual convictions, more pro-life pharmacists have since followed Koelzer's example, and have stopped selling prescription or OTC contraceptives. So much so that the folks at Planned Parenthood are now 'very, very concerned' over this nationwide trend, and legislatures in at least three states have passed unjust laws intended to force such pharmacists to violate their consciences in this matter. The battle is engaged; a possible tsunami in the making.

ABC featured the above in a recent story, which you may view here (video) or here (printable text version). Koelzer is now a national speaker on these issues, and in 2007 founded ProLifePharmacy.com, where you may read more, and find links to other related sites.

In hindsight, I wonder: What was it like when nobody much was watching, when it was just Koelzer's tiny, insignificant, personal decision? I wonder whether Mr. Koelzer was tempted to cave in to his customers' ire, and return to business as usual. He might have reasoned that he was only injuring his business and his family by being so 'stubborn', and that little or no good was likely to come of it.

Or, what if Koelzer had been faithful, but nothing much did come of it? What if he had lost his business, seriously disrupted his family life, and no one ever acknowledged his principled stand? Would his principled 'nudge' still count? Would it count with God?

In this case, of course, the nudge has grown into a meaningful force. Nudges can grow into tsunamis. But maybe some nudges remain tiny, to all except God.

Cultural tsunami

2008-09-10T09:17:00.002-06:00

Hats off to Michelle, who read my last post, took a few shots at its logic, and, I must admit, scored a point or two. (See the dialogue in the comments section thereof.) In the spirit of Prov. 27:17, that's one of the purposes of blogging: to be a marketplace of ideas, fostering the ongoing testing and purifying of ideas. So, this post is an attempt to clarify and possibly build a more thorough argument. Please feel free to offer further criticism.

A theme in that post (which may not have been clearly presented) was that politics is a reflection of the culture, that political trends are neither the root problem nor the solution, but that the underlying culture is the real issue. Defining culture as the aggregate of all the people within it and their respective values, I conjectured that culture-wide values shift minutely at every shift of every individual's values. If my soul moves up or down or right or left, the culture's center of gravity moves slightly as well. I called this "grassroots nudging".

This is not to say that political actions are unimportant, and I was compelled to defend my political support for The Constitution Party in my response to Michelle. As noted above, I welcome criticism and dialogue on political positions, too. Some of my reasons for supporting a third party are offered in the post entitled "Voting matters" (with possible future clarification or correction as deemed appropriate). But, anyway, I wrote the following in defending my current position:

...At some point, somebody has to have the courage to leave the big tent. The Democrats of the early 1800's accepted the practice of slavery. The Whigs opposed it, but did nothing. It took a third party, the Republican Party, to abolish slavery. It may take another to restore legal protection to the pre-born, and/or head off the legal redefinition of marriage.
The point of the post was that, first, there must be a cultural shift of values.

Now, almost as soon as I had written that, I realized another hole in my original conjecture. Namely, that sometimes cultural shifts occur, not just by minute degrees, but by sudden and massive tidal waves of change.

For decades, the abolitionists had been praying and working against the cultural and political horror of slavery in America, slowly but patiently pecking away and "nudging" the culture in the right direction. Then Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom's cabin, and almost single-handedly raised the conscience and consciousness of the nation, finally making the political abolition of slavery a possibility. When President Lincoln was personally introduced to Stowe, it is claimed that he remarked, "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!"

All right then (Jerry cracks his knuckles), here's my new and improved conjecture: There exist multiple ways in which our world may be moved, all of which deserve our attention:

Political action: Voting, petitions, boycotts, citizen lobby groups, etc.

Cultural tsunami: Maybe Stephen Spielberg will produce a movie exposing the abortion industry. One can dream.

Grassroots nudging: Raise your own conscience bar, and, whether deliberately or not, influence others, one person at a time.

Above all, of course, pray.

(By the way, did you know that Abraham Lincoln started out in The Whig Party?)

Grassroots nudges

2008-09-07T17:21:00.004-06:00

As expressed in the previous post, I see hopeful signs in the Church, which is always reforming and always in need of reform (ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda). Our political system and secular culture are also in dire need of reform, but, lacking divine guarantees, it remains to be seen whether reform will come to these spheres.

Reform in the Church may come from either of two directions. Our shepherds, ignited by the Spirit, may lead and teach and live with such righteousness that the flame spreads, and the whole Body of Christ is revived and sanctified. Reform may also come via the anawim (the "little ones"), the rank-and-file saints who, bit by bit, make the whole lump better by their holy lives.

The reader is invited to offer arguments, but I believe reform in the secular, cultural sphere will come, if it comes at all, only in this latter, grassroots way. Having severely criticized our political and secular leaders, I don't honestly think they are the problem, nor will any real solutions come from the top down. The horror is not that Barack Obama believes abortion and infanticide to be OK; the real horror is that such a man is a serious candidate for President. That leaders like Obama and Pelosi and Clinton are acceptable to voters reveals our culture to be a very troubled one - in the mainstream, not just on the fringes.

I'm old enough to remember when a divorced man would have had trouble gaining political favor. Today John McCain is seen as an example of moral rectitude, and, relatively, this is probably an accurate perception. The bar is much lower; in fact, it has dropped so low that one may wonder whether the bar even exists any more. Many and loud are the voices who applaud this development as "open-minded" and "tolerant". If someone like Obama is acceptable today, perhaps a future round of political candidates will feature a cross-dressing, pedophiliac, ax-murderer whose significant other is her horse.

The point is: our culture has drifted far leftward and far wayward in recent decades. I have serious doubts whether it will reform before it collapses. But if our culture is to reform, it will do so, I believe, in a grassroots manner. At the heart of this conviction is the following understanding of what culture is, and how it moves:

Cultural values and expectations are quite democratic, based merely upon what is considered normal by the mass of its members. Human culture is, in simple terms, the amalgam or accumulated weight of all the people within it and their respective values and personal character. Like water in an aquarium, culture is the medium within which we all live and move. If one fish gets sick, the water in the entire aquarium is adversely affected. Then, if more fish get sick from the polluted water, the condition worsens. Like a sick aquarium, goodness and decency become much more difficult in a polluted culture like our own. But unlike the aquarium water, human culture can be purified as well as polluted by its individual participants. If I raise my personal bar, that affects others around me, and the cultural bar is nudged a tiny bit upward. When I fail, the bar drops a bit.

I would find this cultural tug-of-war quite hopeless and distressing except for one thing: God helps us to cheat. That's what grace is, a way to tilt the scales in an undeserved way. Grace, so that, even when we sin, we may nudge the bar upwards by seeking His forgiveness. Grace, through the Word and Sacraments and prayer, to gain strength that we would not otherwise possess.

There's nothing wrong with employing God's undeserved grace in the effort to nudge the cultural balance, as well as in each person's quest for spiritual growth. If my guess is right, there's really no distinction, anyway: Become holier and better and closer to God, and the culture automatically improves a little. And, in this contest, it's OK to cheat.

Loud and clear

2008-08-27T18:09:00.006-06:00

You've heard, of course, about Nancy Pelosi's misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. Ho hum, no news here. Just another pro-abort "Catholic" Democrat pretending to be in good standing with the Church.

But - thanks and glory be to God - this time was different. This time, the pro-abort "Catholic" didn't get away with it. Not only did a reliable shepherd like Archbishop Charles J. Chaput respond swiftly and clearly, but so did a number of other bishops, most notably Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl. In fact, several Catholic House Republicans joined in, actually writing an open letter to Pelosi and demanding a correction. (As far as I know, she has yet to admit any error.)

Folks, do you realize what a watershed answer to prayer this may represent? A well-known figure publicly proclaims that Catholics may be pro-abortion, and Catholic leaders publicly refute the lie. Loud and clear.

I like loud and clear.

Let's have more loud and clear.

I hope it's not unrealistic for us to pray thus: May this be the beginning of a stronger Church, Lord. Rouse the sleeping giant, and purify Your Bride, our Church. Rouse all Your people, especially those whom You have appointed to be our shepherds, to speak the truth loudly, clearly, and with manly courage. For Your greater glory and honor, and for our salvation. Amen.

Credo ut intelligam

2008-08-15T07:35:00.005-06:00

A fellow blogger has recently written at least two posts on the dangers of intellectual pride [1] [2] which has prompted a little introspection. But publishing one's thoughts is not a proof of pride, and so I blog on, hopeful that my love of truth is stronger than my ego, and herewith add my own two cents on the subject.

An example is worth many words. In this case, two examples, with a common theme, to illustrate both intellectual pride and intellectual humility.

After 40 years, it continues to become more painfully clear that Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae was indeed prophetic. The widespread acceptance of artificial contraception has led to legalized abortion, the breakdown of marriage, sexual license, and a host of other ills that currently plague our society, all of which were warned against by Paul VI. Moreover, both John-Paul II and Benedict XVI have reaffirmed the validity of this papal encyclical, and much harm has come from ignoring it.

In his July 21, 2008 column entitled "Humanae vitae: After Forty Years", Fr. Richard McBrien was pleased to quote Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop John Quinn, and Jesuit Richard McCormick. Much more extensively, McBrien quoted some of his own previous columns to emphasize that he himself was one of the first and most consistent questioners of Humanae Vitae. He is apparently pleased with his own "foresight" in countering the Church's teaching on contraception. Within one of these self-quotes, McBrien quotes Pope Paul VI as welcoming "the lively debate aroused by our encyclical". He did not quote John-Paul II or Benedict XVI. ^[3]

As a catechumen coming into the Catholic Church in the 1920's, a young Dietrich von Hildebrand likewise asked why birth control should be considered immoral. When told that he must accept the Church's teaching authority, he immediately replied, "Credo ut intelligam" - "I believe in order to understand." Such remarkable humility reflects a childlike faith, not in one's own insight, but in the Church. That, though composed of sinners and always in need of reform, she is God's holy ark of salvation, and can be trusted to teach the truth.

This young philosopher eventually became a modern doctor of the Church, noted especially for his brilliant contributions to doctrines on marriage and sexuality, and was among the first to defend Humanae Vitae in 1968. His widow Alice continues to speak and write on these themes today. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote of von Hildebrand:

I am personally convinced that, when, at some time in the future, the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.

This illustrates, I believe, the wonderful irony that intellectual humility is the door leading to true intellectual prowess, being unimpeded by the shackles and distortions of ego and error.

Note 3: Fr. McBrien's website does not permit me to link directly to the "Humanae vitae: After Forty Years" article, but you may go to richardmcbrien.com and navigate to it.

Is this what you mean?

2008-07-25T20:19:00.003-06:00

Priests for Life has launched a special project called "Is This What You Mean?" It aims to:

1) Reveal the nature of the abortion procedure to the public, and

2) Challenge public officials and candidates who support the legality of abortion to admit what abortion is.

The idea is simple. It's not a partisan trick or threat, nor a complex argument, but a call for honesty. Just confronting the abortion supporter, especially the public candidate or office holder with the reasonable appeal: Let's be sure we understand each other here. When you say "abortion", is this what you mean? We just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Go to this page to learn more, to watch YouTube videos and read quotes from abortionists, and learn what an abortion procedure is like.

Then spread the word. Announce this on your own website or blog. Email friends. Use the information in town hall meetings, editorials, etc. Ask your liberal (er - 'progressive') friends: Is this what your candidate supports? Is this what you support? Is this what you mean?

A repentant hippy

2008-07-22T14:41:00.000-06:00

I have a confession to make: Jerry DePyper has not always espoused the views reflected in these blog posts. You might even say that they represent the zeal of a convert (or, revert).

I grew up as an American, Catholic, Democrat. This was my patrimony, my identity, and it was a seamless garment; as unthinkable to become a Republican as to become a non-American. Then, coming of age in the 1960's and early 70's, I was swept along in the heady spirit of that era. Though not part of the drug scene, I was definitely into the "flower child" mentality - questioning authority, questioning tradition, questioning the status quo. The patrimonial identity remained intact, but became infused with new ideologies. The 'flower child' mentality became a part of the patrimony, an integral part of my identity. As a self-identified Democrat, I applauded the Democrat's 'flower child' promise to end racism, poverty, and war. As a Catholic, I eagerly embraced the hippy, ecumenical ideal of "We are one in the Spirit". This meant rejecting 'rigid dogmatism' and following many heterodox ideas. But the patrimonial identity remained; I still considered myself a good Catholic. I was a Catholic, Democrat hippy.

Come on, people now, smile on your brother
Everybody get together, try to love one another
right now.

The hippy image faded, but not the ideological identity. I voted for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Somehow, I managed to convince myself that their horrible values and policies were outweighed by their good promises. In reality, it was my life-long identity as a Democrat which made want me see positive values in these candidates. Had I continued in this vein, I suppose I would now be supporting Barack Obama.

I was no longer a hippie - in fact, I was no longer a young man when a very close friend, a man just a year older, stated frankly that our generation had created a horrible mess. This shook my world, and I resented my friend's attack upon our generational and ideological identity. But I had to admit he was right; our ideology was not working as advertised. This was a terribly gut-wrenching moment, a threat to my identity. Perhaps it's when I finally took the 60's attitude to the hilt, and began to question the questions.

Painfully weaning myself of life-long ideological habits, the long path back home was guided mainly by two emerging convictions: First, there has to be such a thing as truth, and there has to be but one version of it. Relative truth is an oxymoron. Second, the wholly vulnerable and wholly innocent babies must be defended; this was certain. Those who were so defending must be right; those who were not must be wrong. (By their fruits you shall know them.)

You can read in this blog the result: 'right-wing extremist', 'conservative', 'orthodox Catholic' - employ whichever label you like. (Here's a hint: I will not be voting for Obama.)

Why do I tell this story now? Maybe just in case someone else of the baby boomer generation happens to read it. Let me break for you the gut-wrenching news: our generation has made an awful mess, and you do not have to carry this around any longer as your inherited patrimony. You can make a clean break, embrace truth, and join in making amends.

Forty years

2008-07-13T20:21:00.001-06:00

Forty years I endured that generation.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray
  and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger,
  "They shall not enter into my rest."
     - Ps. 95:10,11

As the Invitatory Psalm warns us every morning, God's patience is not limitless. O, we may find some temporary comfort in soft and flacid churchspeak. We may allow ourselves to be lulled by the gentle assurances of God's tender mercy, no matter what we do. But deep down, we kinda know it ain't so soft. We know that presumption is a huge error, and that there comes a time when God says "Enough!". God gives us time to repent. That, in fact, is precisely what time is for - that we may repent. But time ain't forever. How much time does God give us? That is the question.

July 25, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Now, I won't insist upon a literal understanding of the term "forty years", but somehow, sooner or later, something's got to give. Through the prophetic charism given him, Pope Paul VI warned us in 1968 of what would follow if we accepted the practice of artificial contraception. He warned of widespread abortion, of the coarsening of society, of the breakdown of marriage, of rampant sexual licentiousness, of the victimizing of women as objects. And for forty years, Humanae Vitae has been ignored and even openly opposed - not just by atheists nor even by Protestants, but by Catholics, by priests and bishops and good Catholic couples. And so, because we have chosen to ignore the warnings, they have tragically come to pass. And still we do not heed.

How long, O Lord?

O, by the way, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is just 4½ years away.

Roots of abortion
Contraception connection
Contraception connection - 2
War Against Population
Population control (or - David's sin)
Thanatos antidote - 2

Petty outrage

2008-06-15T18:41:00.004-06:00

You've probably heard the quote, attributed in essence, if imprecisely, to G. K. Chesterton,

"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

The recognition here is that Man is by nature a religious being. We have no choice in the matter; we must believe in something, venerate and serve something or someone. Man's religious nature must express itself in some manner; if not toward God, then in some other way, perhaps even in a self-constructed system of beliefs and values.

Intimately connected with our religious nature is our moral sensibility. Man must have moral values; he must recognize and love that which is good, and recognize and hate that which is evil. A man may be immoral; only dumb animals can be amoral. Similar to the Chestertonian observation, if I spurn sound moral values I won't be completely void of moral values, but will have disordered, possibly nonsensical ones.

This may explain many curious current trends. According to sound moral principles, elective abortion is an unmitigated travesty. Most other moral issues pale in comparison to the wholesale slaughter of millions of completely innocent and wholly vulnerable human beings. No mother is helped by the murder of her child, and abortion is never a valid 'solution', far from it. The vile trafficking in human embryonic body parts, and the ghoulish practice of human embryonic stem cell research are further examples of moral values run amuck. Yet our culture pressures us to ignore or, at least, to minimize the travesty of abortion. We must likewise minimize or ignore the practice of sodomy, and pretend that homosexual liaisons are legitimate, and equivalent to marriage. That is to say, our culture demands that we relinquish or downplay sound moral principles.

This is precisely where the nonsense starts. Having spurned a sense of outrage over such basic moral evils, many folks must then scratch to fill that void, and find themselves being outraged over lesser moral evils like second-hand tobacco smoke or cruelty to crabs ^[1]. Some will weave moral indignation from non-moral events like a bridge collapse or a devastating hurricane. Nary a day goes by without news of some group expressing outrage over some non-moral or comparatively petty matter.

The operative term in all this is sound moral principles, according to which the deliberate taking of an innocent human's life is categorically abhorrent. A corollary to the opening quote might run as follows:

"When a man stops being outraged by abortion, he will be outraged by almost anything."

Note 1: Whole Foods Market, while avoiding all real or imagined cruelty to crabs, is a corporate sponsor of Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life strike: It is the law

2008-05-29T15:06:00.000-06:00

The point needs to be emphasized. Pro-life tax resistance is not unlawful. Au contraire, the term "legalized abortion" is an oxymoron. Civil statutes and court opinions notwithstanding, abortion is always unlawful in the truest sense, because the Eternal Law is never subject to amendment, repeal, or review. The legislators and judges who brook this Law become criminals in the process, and the 'laws' they enact contrary to true Law are null and void; they are not real laws. So, the decision to resist paying taxes that subsidize the criminal abortion industry is prompted, not by an outlaw attitude, but by a love of Law, and by an earnest effort to obey true Law.

Here's the tough question: Does our docile compliance with unjust authority spring from a good conscience, or from fear of reprisal? 232 years ago, certain Loyalists felt conscience bound to obey King George. Perhaps some were simply afraid to disobey. In either case, there would never have been an American Revolution had their voices prevailed. Likewise, had the Apostles felt obliged to obey the authorities, they would not have proclaimed the Gospel (Acts 4:18). True obedience can sometimes look like rebellion.

It isn't nearly as complicated as we might pretend. Difficult, yes. Unpleasant, to be sure. But not complicated. To subsidize a crime is to partake in the crime. Abortion is a crime. To willingly pay for it is to share the guilt. If you agree that abortion is the taking of an innocent person's life and the maiming of another's, then you really need to stop supporting it. It's the Law.

Pro-life strike: It's the law

2008-05-16T09:44:00.001-06:00

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) contains an interesting tension of ideas. It affirms our duty to obey civil government according to Scriptural, Christian principles:

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.⁴⁵

45 Rom 13:7.

but just two paragraphs later, it adds this, also based upon Scriptural principles:

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."⁴⁸ "We must obey God rather than men":⁴⁹

48 Mt 22:21.
49 Acts 5:29.

In another section, it more exactly delineates the proper understanding of human authority, as follows:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":²¹
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.²²
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."²³

21 GS 74 § 2.
22 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,93 3, ad 2.
23 John XXIII PT 51.

No one is above the law; the Christian must obey legitimate authority. The question is: When our government forces us to subsidize the abortion holocaust via our tax dollars, is this an example of legitimate authority, or of an authority that has broken down completely? When our courts and legislators usurp divine authority, when they redefine marriage, strip the innocent of their rights, and compel our material participation in these crimes, are we obliged to obey them, or are we obliged to obey God's Law instead?

Pro-life strike: Appeal

2008-05-11T09:24:00.000-06:00

As noted in the previous post, there exist a multitude of pro-life campaigns and strategies, most of them noble and worthy of support. You may well relate to my tale of receiving many appeal letters from these and other charitable and political organizations. So, now that I'm making a little noise about this pro-life strike idea, I have started to reply to a few of these appeals with an appeal of my own, as follows:

Dear Pro-life friends,

I am sending this in response to your pro-life appeal letter to me. I applaud your pro-life initiative as well as the multitudinous others that come my way. Legislative and educational drives, petitions, protest letters, legal actions, prayer campaigns, and other creative efforts all aim to restore legal protection to our most vulnerable and innocent brothers and sisters, and to build a culture of life. These are all good and worthy pursuits, but after 35 years, the travesty continues largely unabated - obviously, something essential has been lacking.
This time, allow me to make an appeal to you. Not for money or anything of that sort, but to consider an idea that is way overdue, that has been employed for many other causes, but has yet to be attempted by us: a pro-life strike, or tax-resistance movement. The idea is simple. If our government insists upon using tax dollars to fund abortions, then let us deny them the tax money. This can entail many specific strategies, most of which are legal, but it has as its first intended effect the purification of our own motives: Let us refuse to participate materially in the holocaust, so that our other efforts are not tainted. I believe our efforts have heretofore failed primarily because of this lack of purity and failure to take costly personal risks. We must stop pulling punches.
Not pretending to be exemplary in any way, nor discounting my profound personal failures, I have for the past 9 or 10 years taken my own counsel - that is, I have consciously tried to avoid material participation in the abortion holocaust via corporate and tax subsidies. It has not involved much activity per se, but a deliberate pulling aside from pursuits that directly or indirectly underwrite the slaughter of the innocents. That is to say, I've been on strike. A one-man strike is, of course, a pretty ineffective and pitiful endeavor.
Lately, it occurs to me to make a bit more noise about it, to at least see if there might be some like-minded individuals with whom to connect and make a more serious impact collectively. I would encourage a pro-life leader or organization with more name recognition to take this idea and run with it. At any rate, this letter is to set before you the notion, as presented in my little blog. (Scandalously, I know of no other internet site with a "pro-life strike" theme.) Feel free to check it out, and respond with any type of comment or criticism. The primary link is
http://dogpatchofthenorth.blogspot.com
Look for "pro-life strike".
pax et bonum,

Gerald DePyper
5492 E Wilkinson Rd
South Range, WI 54874-8445
715-399-0145

Pro-life strike: its part

2008-04-27T18:41:00.001-06:00

It should be noted that to advocate a pro-life strike is not to disparage the many other pro-life efforts currently being advanced. Legislative alerts, educational programs, aid for problem pregnancies, letter writing, marches, prayer campaigns, and a multitude of other creative endeavors are all worthy of praise and of pursuit. In fact, one important aspect of a strike would be to purify all these other efforts. By taking concrete steps to distance ourselves from material participation in the holocaust, our prayers and other efforts become purged of taint, more holy, more pleasing to God, and perhaps more effective.

Of special note, the most important pro-life work in the world is already being done by those Moms and Dads who are bringing new life into the world and devoting their efforts to their children's spiritual and material welfare. It is my opinion that, in light of their unique contribution and irreplaceable responsibilities, these Moms and Dads ought not to assume any part in the early stages of a resistance movement that might jeopardize their primary duty as parents of young children. The initial risky groundwork ought to be done by singles, celibates, and parents of grown children.

Pro-life strike: Begin

2008-04-20T19:42:00.000-06:00

It's pointless, of course, to talk of the proper end of a pro-life strike unless we are willing to begin. Sadly, shamefully, there seems to be no movement to do so, at least none that I can find on the Internet except for this little, seldom visited blog of mine. If there is to be a pro-life strike, then, perhaps this is the place to start. I'm willing for this to be the starting point, but pray that someone with a wider audience and stronger credentials steps forward. I would willingly defer to such a one.

What exactly to do? I'm quite open to suggestions. Interested parties may review the previous posts below, especially "Pro-life strike: How". Leave comments at any of the "Pro-life strike" posts. If you prefer to leave a private comment to be read only by me, click here or on the 'Private note' link on the left side bar.

Of course, you may be an anonymous striker or tax resister, too, with no particular obligation to make a connection with me or anyone else. Just have at it, and may God bless you for it. (But I still believe communication between us would be beneficial.)

Pro-life strike: End

2008-04-11T18:48:00.002-06:00

It bears repeating that the pro-life strike would involve specific ends. Namely, we would be refusing to pay any taxes or to take part in the economy of the mainstream culture until these demands are met:

1. Legal protection restored to all human beings, from the moment of conception until natural death. This need not be a Constitutional amendment, but might be a simple federal law or Supreme Court decision recognizing all humans as 'persons', thus effectively reversing Roe v. Wade.
2. Repeal all entitlement and funding programs using tax dollars for abortion, fetal tissue research, etc.
3. Stop public funding of Planned Parenthood, and other 'non-profits' advocating or performing abortion, euthanasia, etc.

We could also add

4. A non-revocable nation-wide declaration recognizing that marriage is by its nature monogamous and heterosexual, and only such can ever be accorded the rights and duties proper to marriage.

even though this is not strictly a pro-life issue.

The point is: the strike must be aimed at tangible, visible, verifiable results, lest our thinking be confused. I have, of course, insisted that the conversion of hearts and minds and the ongoing effort to attain moral integrity and faithfulness are paramount. But these spiritual, inner needs must be pursued with or without a strike. While the strikers must be impelled by inner spiritual motives, the strike itself must have clearly defined concrete ends. When these tangible ends are met, the strike has succeeded, though the moral struggle continues.

Pro-life strike: How

2008-04-09T12:11:00.002-06:00

My vision for a pro-life strike is still rather abstract and nebulous. I could even call it (somewhat punningly) an embryonic concept, probably fleshing out into a specific shape only as it develops in the concrete. Subject also to any specific visions contributed by its various participants, especially the early participants. With that caveat, here is what I foresee:

1. A quiet beginning

I'm guessing that early strikers will concentrate on the 4th goal as listed in the previous post: namely, individual and family decisions to withhold corporate and tax support for the abortion industry. As noted, this step requires no critical mass of participants, and no centralized or coordinated organization. It would, I believe, be beneficial to begin a sort of communications network both for spiritual and moral support, and to prepare for the coordination that may be needed in the more advanced stages (as these may or may not unfold). But this stage would be characterized mostly by folks coming on board in one's and two's, some anonymously, as they see fit. It would proceed almost unnoticed by the world.

There are many specific strategies early strikers could employ in withholding corporate and tax funds. The best way to withhold corporate funds is, in my opinion, to join the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) coordinated by Life Decisions International, as noted in earlier posts. Tax resistance strategies can range from limiting one's tax liability through simplified living and legitimately lower income (fully legal), to earning money through under-the-radar means (cash, barter, direct marketing, etc.), which is quasi-illegal but invisible and safe, to an all-out in-your-face refusal to pay IRS what it says you owe (Yikes!). An excellent source for reviewing these and other approaches is a site called "The Picket Line". This site is peopled mainly by "left-wing war tax resisters" (their own words), and contains many interesting articles and essays about the art and science of tax resistance, from which we pro-lifers can profit.

2. Underground economy

If our numbers ever grew enough, accompanied by a more-or-less coordinated communication, some strikers might be in a position to gradually begin the next stage: a more deliberate but mostly stealth underground economy. These folks would be business owners, tradesmen, professionals, etc. who could take their business or practice off the public market, offering their services and/or products directly to other strikers. This would entail the above-mentioned strategy of cash and direct-market transactions, with the added intention of serving the nascent strike community.

A prime example of this might be a doctor who joins the strike, then quietly closes his public practice, and begins to treat fellow strikers (who probably cannot afford health insurance), for cash or barter. A drastic pay cut? You bet.

Or, try this: A business owner goes on strike together with all his employees, in one fell swoop. The employees no longer pay taxes, because the owner no longer deducts them from their paychecks. Moreover, the business now offers its products with no sales tax. This would be, of course, a departure from stealth. Risky? No kidding.

These steps would obviously require, not only communication, but a fairly tight spiritual bond between fellow strikers. Maybe even a sort of vetting process in some cases, to discern who the true strikers are. The strikers who initiate this stage would be risking much, exercising the courage and conviction of martyrs, almost.

3. Alternative economy

As the numbers continue to grow, so would our confidence. Abandoning stealth, we become a viable alternative to the mainstream economy. The world can no longer ignore us, and that is precisely what we intend. With safety in numbers, our strike finally has the clout to achieve more than spiritual results. We are finally in a position to press for real policy changes, even as we continue to pray and work for changes of hearts as well.

The danger here, as I see it, is that we may be tempted to slack off spiritually. Let us brace ourselves beforehand for this temptation, and help each other to stay true.

4. Revolution

If acceptable policy changes are still not forthcoming, we may be called to mount an all-out revolution, overthrow the rotten system, and embark on a whole new course.

Folks, this is not an un-Christian sentiment. Think about the American Revolution, which most of us view positively, proudly, patriotically. Who would honestly argue that today's systematic injustice is less serious than it was 232 years ago? You know it is more serious.

Summary

This is admittedly ambitious, even grandiose. But let us be mindful of two things. First, it all depends upon God. If He is pleased by this idea, it cannot fail, no matter how small or great it actually becomes. If not, it must fail, nor even get started. We can never know until we begin.

Secondly, we must always keep the goal in mind, which is threefold: To obey and honor God, even if it costs us dearly, to do what we can to change hearts and to save lives and souls, and lastly, to effect real policy changes that reflect God's laws and the sanctity of human life. The specific carrying out of this or another plan must always be subject to these goals, in that order.

Pro-life strike: Why

2008-04-07T11:57:00.003-06:00

Here are four distinct reasons for a pro-life strike. As discussed in the previous post, there are many valid ways in which pro-life people may respond to the injustice of legalized and tax-funded abortion, but a strike or tax resistance movement addresses these four particular goals particularly well:

1. Raise awareness & consciousness

Prayer and inner conversion are the absolutely necessary foundation of all that we try to accomplish. But we also want to make an impact on those outside of the pro-life camp. To do that, we must first get their attention. And when I say get their attention, I mean we must whack them over their figurative heads with a figurative two-by-four; subtleties and niceties won't cut it. What's the literal translation? What will grab most people's attention? Money. Anyone care to argue? Action that has economic ramifications will create a buzz, will stir things up. A pro-life strike could thus command a good deal of public attention, much more than any of the standard approaches, and prompt more people to consider the issues involved.

2. Real leverage

Besides raising awareness, economic actions tend to achieve concrete results. Life Decisions International (LDI), mentioned in the previous post, acknowledges this principle in its Corporate Funding Project. When targetted for a boycott by the CFP, many corporations have dropped their corporate support for Planned Parenthood, and that becomes a concrete blow to the anti-life juggernaut.

A full-blown pro-life strike expands upon this principle. The goal here is to use economic leverage to effect real corporate and public policy changes, even if the decision makers are initially neutral or mildly antagonistic.

So, to be honest, we're talking here about inducing corporation executives, public officials, etc. to do the right thing for impure motives. Obviously, it would be much better for them to come to true faith and conversion and to do the right thing for the right reasons. But it's better than nothing, and it's a start. And many times it happens that those who begin by doing a good deed for selfish reasons end by loving the good deed for its own sake, and thence may come to love the source of goodness, God Himself.

3. Raise the stakes

After 35 years, the weakness of the pro-life movement seems to be in our comfort level. With few exceptions, pro-life warriors live a fairly comfortable life. But comfortable warriors don't fight very effectively. Embarking upon a strike or tax resistance movement would dramatically elevate the risks and lower the comfort level. It would require those involved to put their lives and their livelihoods on the line. It would help us to embrace the term 'Church Militant', and truly view ourselves as soldiers in Christ's army of love.

The strength of our pro-life witness is an important part of what's at stake. If we fight from a position of comfort, few will care. If we risk our lives and livelihoods, people will notice, and many hearts may be touched. Our words will be more convincing and our prayers more powerful if the cost is dear.

The aforementioned Life Decisions International has as its motto: The pro-life movement will succeed only to the extent that pro-life people are willing to be inconvenienced. I think that's true, but too mild. I think the pro-life movement will succeed only to the extent that pro-life people are willing to be crucified.

4. Just say 'No'

The above three goals have to do with influencing the world, with affecting policy changes and, eventually, changes of heart. They only work if enough people sign up to form a critical mass, even if a small critical mass, and depend upon a certain amount of coordinated effort and cooperation. The fourth reason for a pro-life strike or tax resistance is different. This principle can be carried out by one lone pro-life warrior or by a few scattered warriors with little or no common interaction. (I speak here of concrete or physical interaction. We must never neglect the all-important communion of saints, interaction at a spiritual level.)

What I'm referring to is simply a personal or family decision to avoid material participation in the abortion holocaust for purposes of moral purity, holiness, and obedience to God. If Corporation X is funding the abortion industry, then I will not patronize Corporation X, not so much to force Corporation X's hand, nor to make a strong public statement, but to simply avoid the material cooperation in evil. If taxes are being used to fund abortions, then I will not pay taxes, for the same non-public moral reasons. Recognizing that moral guilt is shared by those who materially cooperate with the evil act, I will earnestly try to eliminate such material cooperation.

Sound moral theology acknowledges that I am not absolutely required to eschew all material cooperation with evil, so long as I do not actively will the evil itself. It may not even be possible to avoid all indirect material participation in evil. But the principle I wish to advance here is just to go a bit beyond the minimum requirements, and to earnestly try to avoid as much as I can any material cooperation with the abortion holocaust, to consciously and deliberately and earnestly withhold my support for the slaughter, even if that costs me.

This becomes a critical principle, for two reasons. First, because it can be pursued immediately by those who are prompted by the Holy Spirit to do so, with no need to coordinate and organize with others. Secondly, this step is the prerequisite for the other three. The goal of avoiding even indirect and unintended cooperation with abortion reflects a heartfelt horror and aversion that rejects all convenient compromise. That is to say, it involves a sentiment similar to God's own hatred for the evil. Such an attitude is probably the key to achieving any kind of success. It is certainly the key to pleasing God, which eclipses all other motives.

Next: Some possible strategies to employ.

Pro-life strike: Why not?

2008-04-06T14:04:00.004-06:00

There are a number of ways in which God's people can respond to systematic injustice. The first response, the final response, and the response that must permeate and instruct all others is prayer, an earnest crying out to God to correct the wrong that is being done. And so it is with the criminal injustice of legalized and government sanctioned abortion. We must never cease pleading with God to change hearts, and put an end to the slaughter of the innocents. Lord, please speak to the mother facing a troublesome pregnancy; give her a tender heart of compassion to give life to her child. Change the heart of the abortionist to repent of his evil ways. Change the hearts of legislators and judges to restore legal protection and government's rightful responsibility to secure the basic human right to life. Change the hearts of our fellow citizens to support life matters. Enlighten and embolden our bishops, priests, deacons, rabbis and ministers to teach clearly on the inviolate sanctity of human life.

The first heart that is changed by earnest prayer is, of course, the heart of the one praying. So, pro-life people pray, then get up off their knees and take specific action. They offer help to the unwed mother. They write letters to their representatives. They vote pro-life. They make their prayers public by praying in front of abortion clinics and government buildings. They may go further. They may take actions which could be considered extraordinary, or even radical.

One such radical action is the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), which jolts people's consciences through large, provocative visual displays of abortion. (The graphic image at right is from their site.) You can see more at this blog.

Another is Life Decisions International, whose focus is the defunding of Planned Parenthood by publishing corporations known to be contributing to PP, and facilitating the boycott of these corporations.

I could go on and on. But the list of extraordinary things pro-life people are doing would not include one very obvious action: To my knowledge, no one but myself is advocating or practicing an actual economic strike or tax resistance movement to end abortion. People do this kind of thing for crassly economic motives. They do it for other, lesser moral and ideological reasons. Why not do it to end legalized and tax-funded abortion? The idea is simple enough. The goals are surely worthy. So why not?

The next post will be my attempt to answer the inverse: Why we should organize a pro-life strike.

Pro-life strike

2008-03-18T10:42:00.006-06:00

Lent is a time for repentance, for conversion, for fresh insight and clarity. This can mean a whole new direction, or rediscovering and revitalizing a neglected or faded vision.

Over 15 years ago, the notion of a pro-life strike began to grow within me. The accepted approach of praying, protesting, writing letters, and employing gentle and patient persuasion is much too mild. Millions of innocent lives are being destroyed, millions of mothers irreparably mutilated, and pro-lifers are being polite about it.

Nor does the Scriptural argument to "render to Caesar..." and to "pay taxes to whom taxes are due" hold much water in this case. Remember that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) is also a Scriptural principle.

If you really need a literal interpretation, consider that Jesus added, "...and [render] to God the things that are God's" (Mt 22:21). Does not our money still say "In God we trust"? How can we justify surrendering God's money for tax-funded abortions?

And is not our government supposed to be a government of the people? Then who is 'Caesar' in this case, if not we ourselves?

No, the timid approach is not only ineffective, it is unscriptural and ungodly as well.

The American Revolution was fought over unjust taxes. Loyalists argued that fealty to the king was the more righteous course. Do you agree? There is much more at stake this time. We know well that unless America repents, she must earn God's judgment. And judgment begins with the household of God (I Peter 4:19).

So, this blog post is one last appeal to anyone out there, whether you are a pro-life leader or one of the rank and file. Let us take a big risk, let us put our lives and our livelihoods on the line for this cause that we profess. Let us engage the unrighteous juggernaut in language that it can understand - in economic terms. Specifically, in terms of tax dollars. Let us go on strike. At the very least, let us organize a tax resistance movement. Let us, perhaps, pull out of the mainstream altogether, maybe forge our own underground economy. The two-edged point is to push hard for legal protection for the innocent pre-born, and to withhold all material cooperation with the holocaust. Let us finally win this war, or ruin ourselves in the trying.

Please read my similar blog post of over a year ago entitled "Strike Three!". There appears to be at least one like-minded individual, in Canada (see this article), but we seem to be few in number, or very well hidden. This should not be so. So, if this idea finds a place in your conscience, let me hear from you. If you know of others who may be interested, or who are already pursuing such a course, point them out to me, or me to them. Being on strike alone is also quite ineffective, and Jerry grows old and weary.

(Note added 3/31/8):

It has been suggested that some folks might be reticent about publicly debating this issue. Maybe an underground movement is already afoot, or something. I do believe some kind of coordination is needed. At any rate, if you prefer to leave a private comment to be read only by Jerry, click here or on the 'Private note' link on the left side bar.

I may add more posts providing details on principles and specific strategies, as I see them. I welcome any comments or suggestions.

What is truth?

2008-03-12T04:07:00.002-06:00

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth.
- Jacques Maritain

Before Pilate, Jesus said

". . . For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."
Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"
- John 18:37b,38 [RSV]

Pilate's question seems unmistakably cynical, a clear implication that, to Pilate, there is no such thing as truth, or that it cannot be attained.

It strikes me that this same disparity of viewpoints toward truth exists today, and explains much of the widening polarity in our culture. Both in politics and in the Church, the liberal or progressive thinker doesn't believe that the truth can be known with any degree of certitude. Thus, abortion may be lamentable, but not an absolute evil. Our definition for marriage or for family can be fluid, and can change as our understanding enters into broader horizons. Religions are all basically the same; none should be disparaged, and none should be especially esteemed above others. The conservative insistence upon unchanging values appears rigid and stubborn, probably rooted in fear, bigotry, and ignorance. The conservative's claim to know the truth seems arrogant and elitist. After all, no one can really know anything with any absolute certainty, so there can be no such thing as unchanging truth or immutable values.

At the other end, conservative thinkers often try to reason with their liberal friends, using the rigorous rules of logic, dialectic, deduction, induction, Scriptural exegesis, etc. But the arguments fall onto deaf ears, or onto ears that don't recognize such language. It's frustrating, like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

And so, we have an impasse, an ever-widening breach. Now, I don't know how one would go about bridging this gap, or if that is even possible, or desirable. But it occurs to me that the exchange between Jesus and Pilate may mirror the confrontation in our own culture, and so may shed some light upon what's really at stake here.

In many passages besides the one already cited, Jesus speaks of truth and seems to put great emphasis upon it. He says, for example, that ". . . you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32) In the early Church, the apostles likewise take up this mantle and speak quite forcefully for truth and against erroneous doctrines.

In perhaps the most telling passage, Jesus identifies Himself as Truth personified when He says, ". . . I am the way, the truth, and the life. . ." (John 14:6) Taking this utterance at face value, one would have to conclude that to seek and embrace the truth is to seek and embrace Jesus; to deny or avoid the truth is to deny or avoid Jesus. (Of course, someone who denies truth would probably not take this or any other Scripture at face value anyway [sigh]).

Well, maybe it all just comes down to whom you believe is the more laudable role model: the open-minded Pilate, or the narrow and rigid Jesus.

Sermon on the Mount

2008-03-06T22:30:00.006-06:00

Senator Barack Obama recently expressed confusion over what the Bible teaches on homosexual unions, and suggested the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.5:1-7:29) for clarification. This struck me as sage advice, so as a Lenten exercise, I have prayerfully reviewed that passage, with an eye especially for anything regarding homosexuality.

The Sermon on the Mount is, of course, a deep and multi-layered discourse, saying much about the path to God and the life of faith, containing way too many profundities to even mention in one blog post. Here are just a few little thoughts:

Early in His discourse (Mt.5:17-20), Jesus declares that He has come, not to abolish or diminish Old Testament teachings, but to fulfill them, to enlarge upon them. Now, it is well known that homosexual activity is categorically condemned in the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament. In Leviticus 20:10-16, for example, homosexuality is listed along with adultery, incest, and bestiality as the capital sexual sins, i.e., deserving the death penalty. So, as to the special focus here, Jesus would seem to be confirming and even strengthening the Mosaic prohibition against homosexual acts. This becomes even clearer in the remainder of chapter 5 (Mt.5:21-48), where Jesus gives six instances of His fulfilling or strengthening of O.T. precepts. In each example - murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, justice, and love - the commands of Jesus go beyond what the O.T. required; His commands are stricter and more comprehensive than the Mosaic statutes. Note that adultery, one of the capital sexual sins, is explicitly included. Not only is adultery condemned by Jesus, but even the lustful thoughts leading up to the actual adulterous act. One would have to conclude that the same principle applies to the other capital sexual sins as well: that we must be vigilant against the very thoughts and intentions leading up to the actual sins of incest, bestiality, and homosexuality.

As noted in a recent post, many have interpreted Mt.7:1 ("Judge not, lest ye be judged") as somehow providing license for all kinds of moral mischief. But the context (Mt.7:1-5) clearly talks about judging rightly, with clear vision. It condemns the condemning of certain behavior in others while excusing the same behavior in ourselves. It may also prohibit judging the inner secrets of another's heart which we cannot know. But in context it cannot reasonably mean that we must approve or condone sinful behavior, either in ourselves or in others. The apostles, the prophets, and Jesus Himself constantly exposed and judged sinful behavior.

The principle is profound but simple: love the sinner, hate the sin, both in ourselves and in others. To excuse sin is to belittle God's law and His holiness. To truly love the sinner (including myself), I must hate the sin which encumbers the sinner and keeps him from God. To excuse sin is to ignore the sinner's moral danger, and so to despise the sinner himself.

This principle applies to the special focus. Currently, many who profess the Christian faith have singled out homosexual behavior as something to be lauded or affirmed, rather than repented of as sin. This turns out, ironically, to be the ultimate homophobia. By their unwillingness to call this particular sin a sin, such Christians place a huge stumbling block in the path of their brothers who are so tempted. They single out homosexuals from other sinners, excusing them from the need for repentance, thus depriving them of the saving grace of repentance and forgiveness, and thus consigning them to eternal perdition. This is serious hatred! In contrast, Jesus loves the homosexual, and so calls him to repent. As with all sin, this is the only path to salvation and sanctity.

In Mt.7:13,14, Jesus warns us to avoid the easy way leading to destruction, then warns of false prophets (Mt.7:15-20), which also seems germane to the special focus. In the closing paragraph (Mt.7:24-27), Jesus gives another solemn warning: heeding His teachings leads to life and strength, ignoring them leads to collapse.

For once, the senator from Illinois got it right: the Sermon on the Mount has much to say on this and on many, many other issues. It is highly recommended reading.

Metanoia

2008-02-22T22:27:00.000-06:00

In contemplating the transfiguration of Jesus, we might well ask what it means for us. Dare we ask for or expect a similar experience? May we be transfigured like Jesus?

Well, this side of resurrected life, the obvious answer is - No. But if not transfigured, we might be transformed. In fact, by all scriptural accounts, those who come to faith in Jesus must be transformed, or converted. The Greek word is μετανοια, or metanoia, etymologically related to μεταμορφοω, or metamorphoo. Metamorphosis is, of course, the radical transformation that occurs when a caterpillar forms a chrysalis and then emerges later as a butterfly. The change is striking, to say the least.

In Romans 12:2, Paul commands us "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed...", and then in 2 Cor.5:17 he says "if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come." This obviously means a radical and total change, not just a little reforming job.

The question is: is this transformation something we do, or a miracle of grace? It is, of course, the latter, since none of us has the power to change his own nature. Yet, it is presented as a command as well. If we claim to belong to Jesus, we must avail ourselves of that grace, do what we can to submit to the changes the Holy Spirit wants to accomplish in us. That's a big part of what Lent is to be about.

OK - anybody out there have some hints to help me get started on my cocoon?

Transfiguration

2008-02-15T19:30:00.000-06:00

We are accustomed to hear the account of Christ's transfiguration without the surrounding context. The full story can be found in Mt.16:21-17:21, Mk.8:31-9:29, and Lk.9:22-43, with all three synoptic Gospels giving the same contextual details:

Jesus tells his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to die and then to rise again. Then he tells them that every disciple of his must also deny himself, take up his cross and lose his life. Then he says that some of them would not die until the Kingdom of God had come. Then he takes Peter, James, and John with him up Mount Tabor, and appears in great glory with Moses and Elijah. The three disciples are dazzled, Peter wants to erect booths (tents? tabernacles?) for the three glorious figures, a cloud overshadows them, and they hear God say "This is my beloved Son; listen to him.". After that, Jesus alone is to be seen, back to his normal state. On the way back down, Jesus orders the three disciples not to talk about this event until he has died and risen. Once down from the mountain, Jesus casts out a demon which the other disciples had tried to expel but couldn't.

It seems significant that the surrounding details are consistent in all three accounts. It would seem that the transfiguration, that foretaste of resurrected and heavenly glory, is inextricably tied to self-denial and to the cross. This is true not only for Jesus, but for us as well. The flip side is that, in the midst of our crosses and of our desert times, we can take heart and derive strength from the promise of victorious resurrection life. The cross and the resurrection are two sides of a single redemption coin. Our battle against sin and against Satan will be futile outside of this reality.

Knowing good and evil

2008-02-08T22:32:00.001-06:00

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just what did that mean? At face value, it seems to simply say that Man became a moral being, capable of knowing right from wrong, and capable of freely choosing either. We cannot be amoral like the animals; we can only be moral or immoral.

No less than John Paul II has suggested a deeper meaning as well. Namely, that the original sin of Man involved deciding what is good and what is evil, in direct rebellion of God's authority. Note the serpent's words: "You will be like God, knowing good and evil". Rather than agree with God's judgment of sin, we want to make up our own rules.

Sound familiar? Of course it does - we hear this all the time, even perhaps from our pulpits. "Each person must find his or her own truth" or: "Only you can decide what is right and wrong for you" or: "Sin is whatever you feel it to be" If this relativism is questioned, the inevitable out-of-context comeback is "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Whether you call it a serpent's hiss, or "Values clarification", it's still a deception. Repentance starts with agreeing with God, and recognizing that what He says is good is good, and what He says is evil is evil.

Repentance, a sweet deal

2008-02-06T00:10:00.000-06:00

Here it is, Ash Wednesday, and the Church is calling me to repent of my sins again. What a bummer! I mean, I thought I'd done that repentance thing already - what's the deal, anyway? . . . Well - - OK - I've been sinning again, that's the deal. Truth is, I never really stopped. Maybe slowed down a couple times, that's all.

Speaking of deals, repentance is a pretty sweet offer, when you think of it. Sin, even the major ones, need not keep us from God nor from eternal life. Just agree with God that sin is evil, ask forgiveness, and purpose to do better, with God's grace. That's repentance.

Jesus died so we could have such a deal. That is to say, the cross is the remedy for sin. Taking on our sins was Jesus' part; belief and repentance is our part of the deal. But there is no remedy for making excuses, for rationalizing and justifying our sinful ways. Just repent - agree with God that sin is wrong. To refuse to do so is to refuse the sweet deal, and to remain trapped in the deadly pit our sins have dug us into.

Faithful, not successful

2008-02-03T20:28:00.000-06:00

Inadvertantly, the last two posts have a common thread: the true measure of our actions is whether or not they are the right actions to take, not how well they turn out.

Vote for the best candidate, whether deemed electable or not; you can't answer for other voters.

Act with true charity towards the other person, whether appreciated or not; you can't answer for his response.

Mother Teresa understood this principle, and could say without hesitation that we are called to be faithful, not successful. And she was faithful, even when all seemed dark.

The tarnished rule

2008-01-30T18:09:00.000-06:00

We all know the words of Jesus:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Pretty clear and straightforward command. But there seems to be a movement to amend Jesus' words thus:

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

This is a nifty, subtle morph,isn't it? It means that, before I can act toward another, I must consider, not what is the right thing to do, but what does the other person want and expect. It means that anyone can cry that they are hurt or offended or insulted by something, and the guilty party must apologize abjectly, even if there was no real wrongdoing. In other words, it raises the taking of offense to the level of an inalienable right.

Voting matters

2008-01-23T21:04:00.000-06:00

The stench of politics grows daily stronger, and I have yet to decide for sure who will get my vote. But two decisions are firmly in place, and have been for some time.

First, I will vote solely on the basis of three issues:

1) Restoring legal protection for all human lives.

2) Preserving the unique legal standing of permanent, heterosexual monogamy, in recognition of the institution of marriage as the basis of civilization.

3) Reversing the trend towards judicial tyranny, and restoring constitutional checks and balances. This is an issue because of items 1 & 2. Namely, the legalization of abortion and of same-sex 'marriage' was thrust upon us mostly by judicial fiat, and not via the democratic process. This simply must be rectified; judicial oligarchy must not be allowed to take over completely.

These things are fundamental. When/if they ever become resolved satisfactorily, I may consider other, lesser political issues, but not until then.

Second, I will not cast my vote based upon which candidates are doing well in the polls or in other states. I ignore polls. Here's why:

1) Consider two hypothetical candidates A and B, with roughly equivalent policy positions, but with one difference: Candidate A is known to vacillate according to popular opinion polls, while candidate B is more solid in his positions, even when they become unpopular. In such a hypothetical case, I would prefer candidate B, as more principled and reliable. I think most voters would concur. We voters ought also to do likewise, voting on principle without watching poll numbers.

2) Watching the polls, and voting only for an electable candidate is circular reasoning.

3) Don't tell me I'm wasting my vote. Besides being circular reasoning, voting based upon how others vote is to be, by definition, a trend follower; it is to allow other voters to dictate your vote. I'd rather be a trend setter.

4) God is watching.

WI legislative alert

2008-01-17T19:40:00.000-06:00

This post pertains only to Pro-Life Wisconsin residents. It has to do with two issues that our state legislators are dealing with in the next few days. (Note to residents of NW WI: Assemblyman Frank Boyle and Senator Bob Jauch are both listed as co-sponsors of both death-promoting measures.)

A.B. 377

Euphemistically called the "Compassionate Care for Rape Victims" (CCRV), AB 377 mandates that all providers of emergency care must dispense the chemically abortifacient 'morning after' pill to any woman who presents herself as a victim of rape. Tyrannically, no provision is made for Catholic or other hospitals to refrain for reasons of morality or conscience, and severe penalties are assessed against non-compliant providers.

This bill has already passed both houses. Due to amendments, both houses must vote on the reworded version. The assembly has scheduled their vote for Wed. Jan 23, 2008, after which (if passed) it will move to the Senate.

The full text can be read here (text) or here (pdf).

S.B. 151

SB 151 is an attempt to make Wisconsin the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide. In similar tyrannical fashion, doctors who do not want to kill their suicidal patient are required, under severe penalties, to refer the patient to someone else who will perform the murder. What kind of 'conscience clause' is that?

This bill is just now being reintroduced, and is in committee hearings. A public hearing will be held at 10:00 am on Wed. Jan 23, in Room 411 South in the Wisconsin State Capitol. The following are the committee members:

Senator	Phone	Email
Tim Carpenter (D) Chair	800-249-8173	Sen.Carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov
Spencer Coggs (D) Co-chair	877-474-2000	Sen.Coggs@legis.wisconsin.gov
Pat Kreitlow (D)	888-437-9436	Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov
Dale Schultz (R)	800-978-8008	Sen.Schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov
Robert Cowles (R)	800-334-1465	Sen.Cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov

The full text can be read here (text) or here (pdf).

Notes

More about this and other current events can be learned at the Crosstalk site, or on the VCY Crosstalk radio program.

The two local (Superior area) legislators are:

Legislator	Phone	Email
Senator Bob Jauch (D)	800-469-6562	Sen.Jauch@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Frank Boyle (D)	888-534-0073	Rep.Boyle@legis.wisconsin.gov

Other legislators may be contacted by calling the state legislative switchboard at 800-362-9472. Even if you do not know your legislators' names, they should be able to tell you and give you contact information.

You may also navigate the Wisconsin State Legislature site to find out contact information. To find out who represents you in the Wisconsin state legislature, go to this "Who Are My Legislators?" page. If you know your legislators' names, go to the Senators' Home Page and Representatives' Home Page and click on the person's name to find out their phone, email, etc.

Let's make some noise!

John's unwelcome light

2008-01-11T11:36:00.000-06:00

In response to my complaints against the moral corruption of our culture and my own abysmal failures, someone recently remarked (not via a blog comment) that my 'dark mood' reminded her of John the Baptist crying out in the wilderness.

Leaving aside the nonsense of comparing my yelpings with the Baptist's prophetic fierceness, I was puzzled by the adjective 'dark'. Surely John was the opposite - a strong beacon of light in the midst of murky darkness. Of course, sometimes light is an unwelcome thing. The window that, at night, appears clean shows its hidden dirt when the morning sun hits it. I may prefer the illusion of darkness, and regret the light, which seems to make the window dirty. Likewise, John's light was unwelcome, exposing men's hidden, secret sins.

We like John pointing us toward Jesus, but we don't like him pointing out our sins; that seems 'dark'. The question is: can we have it both ways? Can John point us to Jesus without also pointing out our sins and our absolute need of a Savior? The present generation seems to demand this very thing... Tell me about the Good Shepherd, but don't tell me I'm a lost sheep. Tell me about God's infinite love, but not of his hatred for sin. Talk to me softly of pardon, healing, and comfort, but don't mention my need for repentance.

John, true beacon of light, doesn't offer such slick illusions. He offers light, which exposes our sins and points us toward Jesus the Savior.

Divine racism

2008-01-04T19:01:00.000-06:00

Immersed from childhood in American egalitarian ways of thinking, we tend to view everything through the lens of equality and non-discrimination, including our religious beliefs. But a serious and honest student of the Bible knows that God is racist. God chose Abraham, and then his grandson Jacob (Israel) for his special plan, setting them and their descendants apart from other peoples. These people are God's chosen race, the apple of His eye. The Old Testament is almost exclusively devoted to the people of Israel. Other races are ignored, or even despised.

Yes, the prophets did foresee (e.g. Is. 49:6, Ps. 72:11) a day when other nations would be given light and would come to adore the God of the Hebrews, the one true God. But this is never presented in egalitarian terms. Rather, as St. Paul says in Romans 11, we Gentiles have been grafted in to God's chosen people, as a wild olive branch is grafted onto a cultivated vine.

When the magi saw the star and came to adore the Christ child, this was the first fulfillment of the aforementioned OT prophecies. The magi were the first Gentiles to recognize and worship the Jewish Messiah, and from that point on the floodgates were opened. Soon, with the preaching of the Apostles, all nations were invited to be a part of God's holy people. This wasn't an egalitarian dumbing-down, but a call to come and be part of God's chosen race. As Pope Pius XI pointed out, we Christians are all spiritual Semites. Grafted in or not, I for one am happy just to be allowed in, to be one of God's favorites, the apple of His eye.

4-year locusts

2008-01-01T20:27:00.000-06:00

My brother Jim, who lives in central Iowa, has told me about the cicadas that appear there like clockwork every 17 years. I guess it's quite a spectacle when the cicadas come. People make an effort to go out to where they congregate, bringing their children, grandchildren, and cameras. Maybe they bring tape recorders, too, because the most notable feature of a cicada is its noise. If you've ever heard a lone cicada whirring loudly up in a tree, you might imagine the din that must emanate from thousands (millions?) of them all at one time. I suppose, then, it's sort of a relief when the cicadas disperse, and there is relative peace again for another 17 years.

Likewise, Iowans may soon breathe a sigh of relief when their caucuses are finally over, and those other cyclical noisemakers go away. Once again, Iowa will become a relatively quiet flyover state, a place to be ignored for the next 4 years.

Although popularly called locusts, cicadas belong to the order Hemiptera, which also includes aphids, bedbugs, and lice.

Milksop Christianity

2007-12-31T13:28:00.000-06:00

I would like to commend those few Catholic parishes in which yesterday's 2nd reading was proclaimed in its long form (Col. 3:12-21) rather than in its short form (Col. 3:12-17). The short option omits the part about wives being subject to their husbands. Rather than appear (gasp!) old-fashioned, or (double gasp!) patriarchal, or risk (triple gasp!) offending someone, most parishes simply skip the risky portion. A few priests may feebly attempt a clever it-isn't-what-it-looks-like dismantling of the text. Most just ignore it, and hope nobody notices.

Trouble is, Christianity is, and has always been, a patriarchal religion, as is Judaism. Indeed, marriage itself is a patriarchal institution, and civilization, founded upon marriage, is founded upon patriarchal principles.

A few prophetic voices have begun to descry and decry the effeminate, wan softness of our degenerate culture, a culture that is embarrassed by patriarchal authority. I would say 'Amen' to these prophetic cries, and point to Jesus as a manly man who likewise expects counter-cultural strength in his followers.

It's high time for Christians to realize that the cultural rejection of patriarchy is ultimately a rejection of the family, of traditional moral values, and of Christianity itself. And it's high time to stop our milksop acquiescence towards this prevailing attitude, and unflinchingly proclaim the timeless truth.

Slaughter of the Innocents

2007-12-28T00:01:00.000-06:00

...Rachel weeping for her children...(Mt. 2:18, Jer. 31:15 [RSV])

In a sort of inverse of the progression from Good Friday to Easter, just three days after the joy of Christmas we commemorate the very first Christian martyrs, those infants who were slaughtered by Herod out of rage and fear towards the newborn Christ. Pro-life Christians have adopted this feast day of the Holy Innocents (Dec. 28) as a fitting commemoration of the slaughter of the innocents that continues in our abortion clinics today.

The modern Herods are those who wear a doctor's attire as they ply their vile trade, shedding the blood of innocent and helpless babies for monetary gain. These present-day Herods have a large army of soldiers to help and enable them. They have the arrogant judges who have decreed that this murder must be allowed and sanctioned by the state. They have the politicians who enact legislation to grant them public subsidies and punish those who would rescue the innocent. They have voters who continue to elect such, in tacit approval of the slaughter.

I will repeat the last sentence. Herod today has voters who enable his wicked slaughter by their choices in the ballot box.

Here's a helpful link.

Christmas

2007-12-21T11:33:00.000-06:00

...may we come to share the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

Just think - the infinite, eternal God humbled himself to enter the finite space and time of this world, and become one of us! This awesome Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is, of course, central to our celebration of Christmas.

But there's more. Liturgically, Christmas is the first of several 'epiphany', or 'manifestation' celebrations. The appearance of the star, leading the Magi (us Gentiles) to the Messiah, is a second instance of this manifestation. Next, John the Baptist recognizes and proclaims the Christ when Jesus comes for baptism, a third instance of Christ revealing himself. Next, Jesus performs his first miracle, changing water into wine at the Cana wedding feast, thus beginning his public ministry. Christmas, Epiphany, the Baptism in the Jordan, and the wedding at Cana, are celebrated in close proximity because they are all celebrations of the same thing: of the appearance of the Messiah, the Son of God among us.

In a different manner, Christmas is also closely associated with another liturgical celebration, one that is less apparent, more hidden, but perhaps more profound. That liturgical celebration is March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel announces to Mary that she is to become the mother of the Christ, and Mary says 'Yes'. This is the real moment of Incarnation, when 'the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us'. It is at this moment that God becomes one of us and takes on human flesh within the womb of the Virgin. Nine months later, on December 25, Christ is born. He makes his appearance, and the truth that was hidden for nine months becomes manifest.

As noted in an earlier post, belief in the Incarnation has (or should have) some very practical ramifications for the believer. Each of us is also an incarnation of sorts, a union of a physical, animal body with an eternal, spiritual soul. And, like Christ, our personal incarnation began before we were born. The joyous event of birth is but the manifestation of an incarnation that had its hidden beginning nine months before.

Unoriginal sin

2007-12-11T20:00:00.000-06:00

The first sin of man was eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Original sin enters in when man decides to make up his own definition of what is good and what is evil.

What might the final sin look like, the un-original sin? This is pure speculation on my part, but there seems to be some hint in Scripture...

The very first command given by God to man is to "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Gen. 1:28 RSV) With rare exceptions, this command has been obeyed throughout human history, even by pagans and heathens. Indeed, fruitfulness has been considered a blessing, and sterility a shame in virtually every culture - until recent times.

Jesus, carrying his cross, spoke his final prophecy, "For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!'" (Luke 23:29 RSV) Those words must have seemed incredible to his hearers. Yet here we are.

The spurning of the first command, and the fulfillment of the final prophecy. Sounds rather apocalyptic.

Crisis of authority

2007-12-07T15:15:00.000-06:00

A summary of the past 6 posts would go something like this: The shallow selfishness of consumerism and the myth of overpopulation has led to an irrational fear of human propagation, and to a widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. The acceptance of contraception has in turn led to an ideological divorce between sex and procreation. This divorce then leads inevitably to the acceptance and even approval of abortion, fornication, adultery, pornography, and homosexual practice. It's quite logical: If sex is primarily about the father-mother-child thing, the family thing, then traditional mores make lots of sense. But if it's just intimate pleasure between two partners, these various aberrations are no big deal.

There seems to be one more piece to this puzzle, another fundamental cause for the widespread acceptance of contraception and of all that follows. That piece would be a crisis of authority and of obedience to authority. In fact, if our culture manages to survive into the future, I believe future historians will name the crisis of authority as one of the defining elements of our time.

I was a teenager in 1968 when post-Vatican II changes were sweeping through the Catholic Church. Those were the heady days of great social upheaval; of hippies, free love, and the questioning of authority. Some priests of my acquaintance - hip and relevant and groovy - were confident, and assured us lay folks, that the Church would soon get with it and relax most or all of her sexual hangups. When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, and it wasn't what we were expecting, and did not seem relevant (true prophecies are rarely recognized at first), the cold reception it received was to be expected, given the milieu. Yet this was unprecedented, and has proven to be tragic.

Many priests and a few bishops openly repudiated both the new encyclical and the Church's long-standing condemnation of contraception. Other priests and bishops were simply silent, neither openly rejecting nor openly applauding the Pope's teaching. Only a few were vocal in their support. I have no credentials as an historian to say this was absolutely unprecedented, but can report that, even as a progressive-minded young man, I was surprised at this change of posture. For a reigning Pontiff to be thus ignored and even rebuffed was something I had never heard of.

This crisis extends beyond the Catholic Church. Lines of authority within the family are now typically pooh-poohed as well. Patriarchy is summarily dismissed as outmoded and irrelevant, and the father's authority in the home is questioned along with the bishop's and Pope's in the Church. I suppose this revolution took many decades, but the late 1960's have seemed to be the watershed moment.

But notice where authority is still esteemed - in the military, and in our places of business. Occasional exceptions aside, the chain of command in these settings is still clearly defined and adhered to. The corporate equivalent of a Fr. Richard McBrien would be quickly shown to the door. Perhaps the difference is: We need our businesses and our military to succeed; failure is unacceptable. But the health and success of the Church, or the family? (yawn) Who cares?

In 20-20 hindsight, it should now be obvious that Pope Paul VI was right. The dissidents were wrong then, and are wrong still. Even more fundamentally, rebellion against legitimate authority is both immature and arrogant. Rebellion against divinely ordained authority within the Church and the family is sinful, and is tantamount to rebellion against God. The 60's mentality - question traditional morality, question the status quo, question authority - seemed cool and relevant at the time, but has turned out to be merely stupid and selfish and short-sighted. Question one more thing, all you old hippies - question the questions!

Dogpatch, Ergo Sum

100th Pro-lifer

100th monkey

2 Chronicles 7:14

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. - 2 Chron.7:14 [KJV]

Thieves, beggars, and dogs

St. Joseph's Lay Catholic Community

Repaso

Exit

Jeremiah times

The bishops on health care

Virtual March for Life

Gentle apostasy

Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God - James 4:4b

Is socialized health care good?

Abortion is Genocide - 2

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child - 3

Love, hate, and indifference

Hate crimes

Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. - Rom.1:32

Faith and Reason

Good and faithful servants

When charity goes bad

Counterstrike?

Love in Truth

Truth

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth. - Jacques Maritain

Consequences

If God does not judge America soon, he'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. - Mrs. Ruth Graham

Fatherhood

And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse. - Mal.4:6

Idea blog

Notre Dame

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Mt.6:21 RSV)

Victory in New Brunswick

Prayerful sin

Scenario #1:

Scenario #2:

Scenario #3:

Moral freedom

Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision!For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. - Joel 3:14 [RSV]

... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live. - Deut. 30:19b [RSV]

Conscience clause

Pro-life strike

Who, me?

For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity - Isaiah 59:3

The least of these

Give

Pray

Fast

Day of reckoning

May you live in interesting times. - Ancient Chinese curse

Don't make me come down there! - God

Isaiah 3:4,9-12

Small in number, big in commitment

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. - Ps. 82:3,4

Pro-life strike website

Lawrence Rosano

From table to chair

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child - 2

STMS website

Cognitive dissonance

O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways, and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not? - Is. 63:17

Abortion and Your Taxes

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle. - Ps. 144:1

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child

Back to normal

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. - 1 Peter 4:12

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake - Phil. 1:29

When pro-lifers choose death

"Father forgive them; for they know not what they do." - Lk. 23:34

"I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller..."

Case #1:

Case #2:

Case #3:

Which brings us to voting for Obama...

Law-abiding criminals

"...you will be dragged before governors and kings..." - Mt. 10:18a RSV

Voting matters - 2

Pro-life boycott

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
- 2 Chron.7:14 [KJV]

Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God
- James 4:4b

Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
- Rom.1:32

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth.
- Jacques Maritain

If God does not judge America soon, he'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
- Mrs. Ruth Graham

And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.
- Mal.4:6

Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.
- Joel 3:14 [RSV]

... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.
- Deut. 30:19b [RSV]

For your hands are defiled with blood
and your fingers with iniquity
- Isaiah 59:3

May you live in interesting times.
- Ancient Chinese curse

Don't make me come down there!
- God

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
- Ps. 82:3,4

O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways, and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not?
- Is. 63:17

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.
- Ps. 144:1

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you.
- 1 Peter 4:12

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake
- Phil. 1:29

"Father forgive them; for they know not what they do."
- Lk. 23:34

Forty years I endured that generation.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray
and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger,
"They shall not enter into my rest."
- Ps. 95:10,11

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth.
- Jacques Maritain