Friday, July 8, 2011

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.

           

Thursday, May 13, 2010

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.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Jeremiah times

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.

Monday, March 8, 2010

The bishops on health care

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.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Virtual March for Life

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!

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Gentle apostasy

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.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

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.