Petty outrage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.