Goodreads review: Healing the Culture

Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom, and the Life Issues by Robert J. Spitzer

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


The faculty of reason should be seen as the common denominator uniting people of various beliefs and persuasions. As rational beings, we have the privilege and obligation to use the discipline of logic and reason in addressing human difficulties and controversies.

Healing the Culture, by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., qualifies as a work of reason. Spitzer employs a step-by-step common sense approach to construct a framework of timeless and universal principles, and applies those principles to current cultural crises, especially abortion and euthanasia.

Spitzer begins by defining four levels of happiness. The first level is characterized by immediate gratification, of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The second level is typified by the comparison mentality, of achieving competitive advantage and bolstering one's ego. The third level goes beyond self, toward seeking the good of others. The fourth and highest level of happiness is derived from giving and receiving ultimate or transcendant goodness -- Truth, Love, Justice, Beauty. These four levels move from the immediate to the enduring, from the shallow to the profound.

Next, Spitzer draws connections between one's view of happiness and one's view of other principles: success, self-worth, love, suffering, ethics, freedom, personhood, rights, and the common good. He treats each of these in depth, but perhaps personhood, when looking at abortion and euthanasia, is the critical point.

All too often, the debate over life issues such as abortion and euthanasia are typified on both sides by political posturing, anecdotal arguments, and emotional pleas. Spitzer's reasoned and methodical approach is both refreshing and extremely important. It is an example of good philosophy that is practical, rational, and engaging.

Using rigorous logic, Spitzer examines various criteria for defining who is and is not a person. Reason dictates that such a definition not be tied to accidental, temporary, or non-essential traits, but that it must depend upon inherent powers and essential attributes, regardless of whether those attributes are currently manifest, dormant, or undeveloped. Spitzer concludes, quite reasonably, that every being of human origin should be considered a person. It is important to note that Spitzer does all this in a way that even an unbeliever would find compelling, providing that said unbeliever is honest, willing to think, and is a person of basic good will. It is also important to note the legal and cultural ramifications of these simple but profound ideas.

Pope John-Paul II repeatedly called upon Christians to build a 'culture of life'. Benedict XVI emphasized the importance of using reason in our dealings with the culture. In my opinion, Healing the Culture fulfills both of these mandates, and is well worth reading, digesting, and sharing.



View all my goodreads reviews

God, Husband and Father

In the previous post, I offered my radical (root cause) analysis of the current moral crisis in the world. Now for an even more radical analysis, of a deeper root cause, a systemic ill at foundational levels...

Until recent times, the patriarchal structure of families and of society was not seriously questioned. And for good reason: from a Scriptural point of view, the most basic human authority is that established by God before the Fall of Man - the authority of Man over the rest of God's creation, and the real authority which God bestowed upon Adam over Eve, and, by extension, of all husbands over their wives. This domestic line of authority is, from a divine point of view, the source of all other human authority, the beginning of all human organization and governance.

    As an important aside, it must be pointed out that patriarchal authority does not automatically infer actual superiority. Jehovah's Witnesses (not the brightest bulbs in the pack) make the intellectual blunder of deciding that, since Jesus obeys the Father he must be inferior to the Father and therefore not divine. Feminists make the identical error in proclaiming that Patriarchy degrades women by making wives obey their husbands.
    Notice that in all four biblical passages¹ where wives are enjoined to be subject to their husbands, they are told to obey their own husbands. Which is to say, they have no business obeying other men. This debunks the feminist myth, does it not? For the feminist complaint to be credible, Patriarchy would have to demand that all women obey all men because of their innate inferiority to them.
    As it is, true Patriarchy is about a divinely established order, and has nothing to do with an organic superiority. In this context, the word 'superior' may denote an order of authority, but it does not necessarily mean a higher level of worth or goodness. Consider: The Catholic Faith teaches that in the Holy Family there was one sinner, one sinless human, and one sinless divine-human. Yet the sinful Joseph had patriarchal authority over Mary and the child Jesus, both of whom were really superior to him.

---

1.  Eph.5:22, Col.3:18, Tit.2:5, I Pet.3:1

Moreover, this patriarchal pattern is reflected in - nay, is the essence of - true monotheism, the relationship between Man and the Almighty. God as Father and God as divine Lover are two parts of one ancient theme. The pages of Scripture, both old and new testaments, are full of references to a nuptial relationship between God and his people. That most grevious sin of idolatry is always portrayed as the sin of adultery, analogous to the traitorous deceit of an espoused bride leaving her true husband and embracing false lovers.

As St. Augustine pointed out, the human soul is always feminine before God. But notice that for
Augustine's insight to make any sense, we must assume a patriarchal structure to our own human society. We must first understand that it is right and necessary for every young lady to save her virginity for one man, and then devote herself to that one man. And the man must then be willing to shoulder his responsibility as leader and provider and father. Only when we accept this as our norm can we see our proper posture before God our Father. There is a necessary link between the patriarchal roots of civilization and the patriarchal essence of true religion.

Interestingly, it starts with the Woman, and it starts with raw biology. The beginning of the patriarchal order is when the woman binds herself to one man and one man only. She in effect decides to belong to that one man, most likely to the man to whom she gives her virginity. If the man finds her devotion credible, he can for the first time know what the woman always knows via her biological role: he can know his own children. He can be a father in the true sense, and can shoulder the responsibility for both his devoted wife and for their children. From a biological point of view, the woman's devotion and submission is what enables the man to abandon the haphazard biological strategy of spreading his seed as widely and generously as possible, and to adopt instead the better approach, of caring for his own children and for their mother. It is the woman's feminine devotion that makes patriarchy - fatherhood - possible, and which is therefore the beginning and foundation of civilization as we know it.

Likewise, the soul that would be saved must abandon all false lovers and give herself wholly to her God. Like the devoted virgin giving herself to one man only, the Church and each of her members must be devoted wholly to God our Father and divine Lover. This means we must categorically reject the surrounding culture and its values. We can no longer pretend to be friends of this current culture nor of those holding worldly power (Jas.4:4). Having devoted ourselves to God alone, we must reject the adulterous advances of all others, especially the usurpations of feminists and egalitarians.

Consider how our present world scorns fatherhood. The feminist / egalitarian / homosexual campaign to redefine marriage and the family amounts to a rejection of the patriarchal institutions of marriage and family. Portraying abortion as solely a woman's 'right' deliberately ignores the rights of the baby and also denies the holistic patriarchal structure of the family and the responsibility of the father. The breadwinner status in the home is supplanted by government entitlements which foster dependency upon the bureaucracy and render genuine fatherhood practically superfluous. The net effect of the world's agenda is to foster a post-civilized savagery in which both men and women flit from mate to mate like bees flitting from flower to flower. Can someone tell me how a child of God can be on friendly terms with such? No, the Christian politician - or even the Christian who is a friend of politics - is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoronic impossibility. The Christian who cavorts with worldly powers is more prostitute than bride. Every soul that would be devoted to God must heed St. Peter's Pentecost call to "save yourselves from this wicked generation." (Acts 2:40)

Unless we reject the soft tyranny of feminism and return as a people to the disciplined virtues of patriarchy, we will lose all vestiges of fatherhood. Which is to say, we will be lost and uncivilized, no better than wild animals. And unless we return as a Church to a wholehearted devotion to God and a rejection of our surrounding culture, we will lose our connection to God our Father, and will be damned.

The Abdication of Conscience

The political and cultural battle continues to rage over whether the government can rightfully usurp people's consciences by, for example, forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, or forcing adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples. The struggle is over whether the government can be allowed to trump faith and conscience.

I believe this battle is much older than most folks realize. The conscience clause ought to have been raised several decades ago when the government began to use public money to fund abortions, sterilizations, and the like. If it is wrong to commit an abortion, then it is also wrong to pay for one. If the government must not force a Christian physician to do abortions, it must likewise not force the taxpayer to fund them. It is this simple but radical conviction that led me to launch ProLifeStrike.org over 4 years ago.

But is this really the root (radicus) of the problem? Perhaps the issue goes back even further. Like maybe the 1940's, back to FDR and the New Deal. And then greatly intensified in the 70's and beyond with LBJ's Great Society and the War On Poverty.

Raised in a liberal Democrat home, it was difficult for me to make this radical (root cause) connection. For a long time I was strongly in favor of the various social programs of the liberal Democrats. It initially made no sense to me that the same politicians who wanted to 'help' the poor also wanted to abandon the poorest among us, those who cannot raise even a tiny voice in protest. Only gradually has it occurred to me that government entitlement programs and tax-funded abortions are woven of the same fabric. And only recently have I begun to understand the reason why. It has to do with the question above: Ought religious people surrender their faith and conscience to government authority?

The corporal and spiritual works of mercy - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, instruct the ignorant, give aid to the homeless, the sick, and the dying - have always been an integral part of an authentic life of faith. But nowhere in Scripture or in sound Catholic teaching are we commanded to turn these duties over to a secular government. In fact, the desire to do so could be seen as an abdication of one's personal responsibilities. The faithful Christian must feed the hungry and clothe the naked. To ask Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to do this for me is to surrender my moral conscience to them. If you want Barack Obama to be your conscience with regard to the hungry and poor, then he will also be your conscience with regard to the pre-born and sexual deviation. The problem with ObamaCare is not an inadequate conscience clause. The problem with ObamaCare is ObamaCare. The problem with ObamaCare is the New Deal and the Great Society. The problem began when the government usurped the Church's responsibility to the poor and needy, when the government began to commandeer people's consciences, and when Christians willingly abdicated.

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]

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.

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes

Thieves, beggars, and dogs

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

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

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 Americans 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

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.

Is socialized health care good?

??

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

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

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.

Faith and Reason

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."

---

Counterstrike?

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

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.

Idea blog

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

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?

---

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes

Victory in New Brunswick

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

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.

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes

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]

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.

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes

Conscience clause

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?

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes