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.

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).

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.

Consequences

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.

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

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

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

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

"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..."

---

(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

Grassroots nudges

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.

Is this what you mean?

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

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.

Sermon on the Mount

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.