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.

Blogger's Block

Despite (or perhaps because of) my recent blog-fade, the last post attracted 3 quite different and interesting comments, albeit over the course of nearly 9 months of silence from me, which represents an exception to the general lack of interest shown most other posts.

While acknowledging that criticisms of my writings are usually well deserved, allow me to offer the following defense:

• Re-read the top line of the aforesaid post. I have never claimed any prophetic charism for myself, but was mostly just repeating a thought from a brother in Christ that struck me, as it still does, as being insightful and prophetic. And a bit scary.
• The immediate and precise details not being realized, it yet remains to be seen whether the main point will come to pass - namely, will Obama break diplomatic ties with Israel, and will this finally call down God's righteous judgment upon America?
• I can't explain why I felt compelled to attempt a 'prophetic' blog post. It was my first and, most likely, last such attempt. Neither can I explain my subsequent writer's block and inabilility to offer further thoughts. Perhaps the two inexplicable phenomena are related.

The final point is currently forefront in my mind. Not that I have been completely silent (see my Books page and my other blog.) I have not yet learned to just humbly shut up (Job 40:4,5). But perhaps my blogging days are coming to an end. "Dogpatch, Ergo sum" was always an Idea blog; perhaps I simply have no further ideas or new thoughts to offer.

No, that's not exactly true. I do have at least one additional thought rattling around inside my skull for some time now. Not sure if I will ever get around to articulating it here. But here's a hint: if I write an article about this thought, I would like it to happen sometime before Father's Day. That gives me - what? - 2 or 3 months to write the article. Or not.

Prophecy

The following is not my invention, but an observation made by a fellow believer three years ago, which struck me then as it still does, as prophetic.

Why hasn't God judged America?

If this seems a strange question to you; if you do not see how sorely America deserves God's judgment, then read no further; you are clueless. But if you have asked this question yourself, consider the following:

God has not yet judged America because of the promise made in Gen.12:3. When the Almighty called Abram to become the father of faith, he said, "I will bless those who bless thee, and I will curse those who curse thee." This promise was transmitted to Abraham and also to his offspring - but only to the offspring of the promise, to Isaac, Jacob, and to the chosen race, the Jewish people. As Jesus said in Jn.4:22, "...salvation is from the Jews", and as Pope Pius XI affirmed, "We are all spiritual semites."

It is a fact of history that those nations, kingdoms, and empires that have been a blessing to the Jewish people have prospered, while those that have persecuted God's chosen race have not done so well. America has generally been good to the Jews and has furthermore been a strong ally of the nation of Israel. So America has enjoyed God's blessing of prosperity, despite the great travesties and moral corruption of which she is guilty. The first clause of the promise applies to America: "I will bless those who bless thee." But should America turn her back on the chosen race, the second clause will take effect: "I will curse those who curse thee."

The prophecy is this: Barak Obama will lose the 2012 election. The Republicans will regain the White House, and quite possibly regain several seats in Congress as well. Conservatives in general and Pro-Lifers in particular will be dancing in the streets and will proclaim with characteristic optimism that the tide has turned, and that America is headed for true reform.

But there are 75 days between Election Day and Inauguration Day. With nothing to lose politically, Obama will use those 75 days to deliberately pick a fight with Israel over some pretended grievance. He will then break diplomatic ties with Israel, and in so doing will finally call down God's righteous curse.

Remember as well - - Inauguration Day 2013 falls within a couple days of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. 40 years is the Scriptural limit of God's patience (e.g. Ps.95:10).

Fortnight for Freedom Protest

I guess the good news is that 'Catholics' for Equality, which bills itself as "the country's largest national political organization of pro-LGBT equality Catholics", could only muster a handful of protesters. Click on the photo to see their site. Can you find more than a dozen or so individuals protesting?

It remains to be seen whether or not this event means that our bishops are finally getting a set. One can always hope.

Hickies, a novella

As long as I'm writing reviews on unrecommended reading here's a newly released title by a little-known author (but whose name you may recognize).

Hickies is a novella-length story set in the near future. It doesn't try to be futuristic in a sci-fi manner, but rather uses a futuristic theme - the dispersion of human clones within our society - as the context for grappling with some questions of a psychological, sociological, and moral nature. The questions themselves are not futuristic nor theoretical, but impinge strongly upon the human condition, and upon the current state of our world, and so are well worth the grappling. Whether Hickies does an adequate job of such grappling is yet another question worth asking. I personally think it does so in a clumsy and amateurish way, but in this case I may be incapable of honest and objective judgment.

In the same volume are four additional short stories. They are all works of fiction, and all by the same amateur author, but otherwise are not connected in ant logical or literary manner.

My best advice is to give the book a try. What the heck, it's only 13 bucks, and you might find it worth reading. Of course, all comments, both favorable and otherwise, are welcome through the comment link below.

If you are inclined to risk a little money on such an unknown work, may I suggest that you do so through its CreateSpace page. A royalty of $7.50 will be paid to a well-known (but anonymous, in this case) pro-life organization for each book ordered directly through this CreateSpace page. It is, or will soon be, also available through amazon.com and other venues, but with a much smaller royalty payment to the pro-life organization.

Note: As of Sept. 5, 2012, I now offer a price cut for direct CreateSpace purchases coming from this blog article. Go to the CreateSpace page, and enter discount code XD6K2ZBP for a $3.00 discount off each copy of Hickies that you order there. (This will result in a proportionately reduced royalty paid to the pro-life organization.)

Rediscover Catholicism?

It is very rare to find a relatively young person who has acquired the wisdom of old age. Matthew Kelly is no exception. He is undoubtably a gifted and charismatic writer and speaker, travelling the world since his teen years, spreading his vision of a dynamic Catholic faith.

Judging from Rediscover Catholicism, however, what he has been promoting is more like a Norman Vincent Peale approach, a self-help program designed to inspire people to become the best-versions-of-themselves. This is a fine and noble pursuit (with or without the hyphens), but it is not what Kelly claims it to be. It is not what the Catholic Faith is essentially about.

You will be hard pressed to find any mention of the cross in the pages of Rediscover Catholicism. Pretty much everything else is covered - the Sacraments, the Rosary, fasting & prayer, Scripture, the Saints, etc, - but rather than seeing these as flowing from Calvary, Kelly presents all things Catholic, including the Mass itself, as opportunities to become a better-version-of-yourself. No kidding. And all along we thought the cross was the crux of the matter. How silly of us.

It must be admitted that Kelly's advice to bring a notebook to Mass in which to record insights about becoming a better-version is a quantitative improvement over, say, listening with earphones to your favorite music while thinking about last night's date. But is it qualitatively better? Were you privileged to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? Can you imagine yourself witnessing that awful and awesome Calvary event (and that is what every Mass is) and devoting that time to making an entry in a better-version-of-yourself journal?

I will not add Rediscover Catholicism to my list of Recommended reading.

100th Pro-lifer

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.